This temporary page is intended to resolve as informally and cordially as possible the dispute between User:Rebecca and User:Hmains about date linking. While anyone is welcome to contribute, I'd like us to focus on a solution-based approach from these two users' point of view. It is unlikely (though it would please me very much) if any agreement reached here would be adopted across the board. Perhaps it could serve as a step towards a more general agreement though. Once this dispute is resolved I will paste it into Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It is explicitly not intended as a content fork of that page. Posting comments here constitutes acceptance of the premise that we are (in the first instance) mediating here and not writing policy. I therefore reserve the right to delete comments or refactor, if I feel that will help achieve our goal.
I want to emphasise that we are not here to talk about past behaviour, but rather to try to move this on. Any comments about the methodology of what we are trying to do here, may be best addressed at this page's talk space rather than here.
At present we have got:
"Partial dates
If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. ...
... There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination."
(Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)).
While I think I understand why this compromise version was adopted, I also think the ambiguity leads to some unfortunate friction between users who think all year links, or almost all, should be delinked, and those who regard this as a loss of utility in articles.
I tend to side more with the delinkers than with the linkers. I find that the majority, even a vast majority of year links are adding little or nothing. I can see the merit of the other side's opinion too, and I promise to try my best to mediate here without regard to my own POV. For interest, here is a recent copyedit I made which includes date delinking: [1]. Guinnog 04:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
| Never link / Can be delinked on sight | Seldom link / Usually delink | Usually link / Sometimes delink | Always link / Never delink | User | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple repetitions of the same linked year within a page, especially in lists. Links where the article linked to would in my judgement clearly add no context to the subject of the article. | Recent links, say roughly from 1900 - 2006. "Easter egg links" like [[1933 in aviation|1933]]. Rather use: (See also 1933 in aviation) | 1800 - 1899 | dates prior to 1800 | Guinnog (before) | These are just my own interpretations; I stress I always discuss link removal on the odd occasion someone challenges it. I obviously try to judge each case on its merits. |
| Standalone year or year-month links where, in my judgement, they add no context. I rarely see any such value, just confusion as the reader is confronted with a sea of blue years: what is of value to them? What not? | N/A | N/A | Year links in century articles | Hmains | As far as I know, this is the editing I am supposed to be doing as a WP editor. However, I also do not like the loose guidelines and the trouble they cause and said so when they were being discussed; however, in the interest of 'consensus', the guidelines, as written, were accepted. |
| I think this is inherently a judgement call. If someone thinks it is useful, keep it. If someone doesn't, remove it. Just don't get in the habit of spending all ones time doing either one or the other. | Generally, I don't mind if people cut recent links (say, last twenty years). I disagree with Guinnog about setting a cutoff about 1900 - most of the most useful links, I would argue, are those for historical articles during the 20th century, where providing a broader geopolitical context is often really quite relevant. | Again, I think this is inherently a judgement call. There are many cases where links in the time periods both Guinnog and I mention where date links may be relevant, but there also many where they may not. I don't think setting specified dates is particularly helpful, though I do think there's much less likely to be an issue with removing date links in the last couple of decades. | As above. | Rebecca | I think this really is a matter of both having respect for other points of view and using a bit of discretion. Setting hard and fast rules inevitably leaves useless date links in and leads to the removal of perfectly useful ones. |
| Multiple repetitions of the same linked year within a page. | Any year link, except in special circumstances. "Easter egg links" like [[1933 in aviation|1933]]. Rather use: (See also 1933 in aviation) | Century links (most cases) | Year and/or century links that are critical to the understanding of the article | Guinnog (after) | I have learned a lot from this study and thought it would be interesting to summarise that in this table. |
| Multiple repetitions of the same linked year within a page. "Easter egg links". | Years mentioned in an article, where the event is important, but not the year itself. E.g., the year an album was released in an article not about the album. | Any year links important enough to the article that it would be appropriate to use them in the main (summary) section, e.g. the founding year for an empire in that empire's article, or the year a swimmer won the Olympics in an article about the swimmer. | Birth and death years, or years in century articles. | Quadell |
Thank you Hmains and Rebecca, for filling in the table above. As the next step in resolving this, I'd like you both to look now at a test page I've made up. You each have your own copy; it is based on a real article. I have removed all the non-date links and added a few more examples of date linking which I thought might provide interesting discussion points. I'd like you each to copyedit your own copy of the article, with reference to your own ideas of good practice in date linking. As far as I can see, neither of you have ever edited the original article. There is no need to change anything else other than dates.
Take your time, and try to do it just as you would if you were copyediting it in the normal way of things.
Hmains, yours is here. Rebecca, yours is here. If anyone else wants to take part, they may edit this third copy. Best wishes, and thanks again for your good faith in taking part so far. --Guinnog 12:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
(deindent) You're very welcome. It was kind of fun trying to edit as I imagine you would have done, and I'm glad you are broadly in agreement with what I did on your behalf. It'll be 24 hours or so until I can get to analysing the different edits towards a refined version of the table. Best wishes (to both of you) for giving up your time to help solve this. --Guinnog 02:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)