Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 2

Notices posted at:

This is a list of forums at which notification of the poll has been posted:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration
• Wikipedia talk:Linking
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
• Template:Cent
• Three of the four date arbitration case pages: Main, Evidence, and Workshop
• Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style
• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

I think that should be adequate. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to also add a watchlist notice, but maybe we can first wait that the poll is actually opened. --A. di M. (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that was discussed somewhere. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure one has to apply first at the watchlist talk page. Is this going to be done? Tony (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to apply on the talk page. I'll just go ahead and pop it up as soon as it goes live on Monday. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We have had much more important and far-reaching discussions and polls that haven't got a watchlist notice. We had too many complaints, now we should get consensus for a watchllist notice first, no reason to have an exception for that poll. Cenarium (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval polling

I see one result of the edit-war with Locke Cole has been to make this an approval poll. I regard this as most undesirable, since it will make my opinion on datelinking very difficult to express; I oppose adding any language on date-links, but I weakly oppose #3, as being as close as possible to silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - I think it is important to be able to judge the strength of the opposition. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this, approval voting is a terrible idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think approval voting is much better than "vote for one" voting, in this context. (Hmmm. I must be doing something right, if the principal proponents for all proposals think it's bad. I don't consider myself the proponent for positions 2, only the editor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate questions: do voters get to oppose? and do they get to comment on more than one alternative? Both are desirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4

The disputed broad date links question has been removed but now added back as option 4. I would like to see the options removed as well. I think we will get contradictory data. I can see how someone could say "no we don't need special rules" and then say that "yes, we should have links for birthdates". Someone else would say "no we don't need special rules" and say "no, we should not have links for birthdates". The key dispute seems to be that we don't know what consensus is on when dates have appropriate context - the RFC should be focusing on that debate. Otherwise, if we just point people to WP:CONTEXT, we'll have the same edit wars between people who think that date links provide great context and those who don't. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would render it impossible for those of us who disagree with both #1 and #2 to say so. If this is your intent, please say so. If it is not, please stop trying to stifle discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it only makes sense as a separate question (or separate RfC), rather than embedded in the day/date and year questions. For instance, I could accept your option 4, although we'd have to have a separate RfC as to what it means, but would only accept option 2 of the remaining ones. I saw a comment early which suggested that someone could support 1, or possibly 4, but not 2 or 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Big improvement

The overall structure of the poll (this version) is now, disregarding the actual text of the proposals (which I've not looked at again), very much improved in my opinion. Even though there are multiple options, it still "feels" as if I'm only being asked one question rather than four. One suggestion: I wonder if it would be worth losing the "Comments regarding the linking of month-days" and "Comments regarding the linking of years" sections. Do we really want to encourage a whole raft of undirected comments? Isn't it sufficient to just ask people if they have another, specific proposal? Matt 86.152.243.59 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Too much interference from Clerk

• Ryan, I see your Third proposal for each above, which explains what you did and your reasoning for it. But that’s not enough for a clerk. Your role should be to help bring order to proceedings and not take a heavy hand in deciding what is permissible to be discussed. Please explain why you have taken so much initiative to decide on behalf of others whether the two-option structure I had should or should not be given a chance to be discussed? It appeared to me that it was getting a receptive reaction from editors on both sides. Yet, you didn’t allow even one full hour before you started putting it all back to the way it was. As a clerk, did it not seem reasonable to watch over as the parties took a look at it and gave it a whirl?

I ask that everyone involved here examine this version and post here how you feel about it. Note that I consolidated the year proposals and jettisoned a day-month proposal that didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing (given past RfCs). I also deleted the mini-poll within a poll (that Locke editwarred over and got himself blocked in the process). As SteveB67 stated above, this approach avoids that “retarded” structure we had before. Greg L (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment below please.

You were bold in your reorganisation (you did an excellent job with the way the poll will work (having simply support columns for each proposal will force people to make a decision, and that's something we desperatley want)), but as a neutral observor of the content issues it's important that I look at all the options the community might want, rather than just from the parties perspective. It's all good and well people having two proposals to make it simple, but if those proposals don't offer all the options that the community might want then it's a very flawed poll. I want this to run smoothly and have a good end result and I think I see things differently from the parties on both sides. As I said above, I also think the removal of the "mini poll" was a good thing - that overcomplicate things. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I think proposal 4 for month-day linking needs to go - that's overcomplicating the issue in my opinion and is too similar to number 3. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, come up with a consolidation of #3 and #4 which I can support, and we can trim back to three options. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not off-hand, I'm afraid; my preference is #4. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well let me sleep on it - I'll see what I can come up with. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Very well, let’s hear from the others here who have been doing the heavy lifting for a long time on this RfC. How say you, Ckatz, Hex, Tony, Ohconfucius? Please weigh in with your opinion on this streamlined version please. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• • That's Greg's fellow-extremists, and Hex. That's one way to achieve "consensus"; admit only one person who doesn't already agree with you. Bravo!

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too hard to imagine that Greg might appeal vocally to people he knows are agreeing with him; I wouldn't read too much into it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you folks maybe chat it up and settle which side I'm supposedly on - and then let me know? For the longest while, I'd thought I had been typecast as supposedly marching in lock-step with the pro-linking agenda, but according to the above it seems I've now been traded to Greg's clan. (Whatever, as long as I get a nice t-shirt or something...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is a very colorful userbox... ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On the same lines, Greg removed the option with which Locke and I agree, in the interests of "improving" the poll, limiting it to a minor difference of wording in the position with which we, and several others, firmly disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about I solicit some neutral opinions? This is precisely why I want those neutral editors getting involved. There's no way that comments from you (Greg), Tony1, Ohconfucius and Hex (that's a 3-1 split anyway) are going to constitute a fair and neutral assessment of what will be best for the community in this poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That’s the trouble: finding neutral editors who A) give a dump, and B) know what’s going on. How many “outsiders” like SteveB67 are there who bother to come here and leave a note? Not many. That’s why you’ve got your work cut out for you. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg, with respect to your request above, I'll try to look over the text in question. To be honest, I've been rather focused on the DA aspect of the RfC, and haven't really been following the date-linking discussions too much, so I'll have to read through the discussions first. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Background statement - no longer balanced

I've kept quiet regarding the wording of the proposal—until now. I'm no longer comfortable with the direction the wording of the background statement is taking. The current "Proposed options would add formatting for date ranges (e.g. "25–30 March 2009") and slashed dates ("the night of 20/21 December")" is inappropriate for a background statement. As it reads, it comes across as a done deal and/or simple, however we all know that there is debate about exactly how those additions would work (it's something that even UC_Bill didn't get right before he left the project). At best, the wording should be included as part of the "For" case, however if it is to remain, then more doubt should be cast on the ability to deliver it (in a reasonable timeframe) as part of the proposal.
In addition, the included reference to the (undocumented) new coding scheme omits the following important words: "To guarantee article consistency, this coding scheme requires all dates in an article to be coded". The current background scheme is misleading without that information.
Thanks.  HWV258  22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Your position seems reasonable. You know, there is an abundance of contributions to that page but a dearth of editors doing all that editing. You have as valid a voice here as anyone else; more so, if we take the position that editors who routinely flout the rules of conduct forfeit an assumption that they should be in a leadership capacity of any sort. We need more editors doing better edits. You’ve given us better consideration than many editors by voicing your concern in advance of making a suggested edit. Go for it. Help make the statement better. Let’s see what you have in mind. Greg L (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the wording has now been changed to "Additional proposals would seek to extend formatting to date...". Thanks for making a slight change, but the point remains that possible enhancements have no place in a background statement. I propose that the entire text "Additional proposals would seek to extend formatting to date ranges (e.g. "25–30 March 2009") and slashed dates ("the night of 20/21 December")" be deleted. In addition, I propose that the text "To guarantee article consistency, this coding scheme requires all dates in an article to be coded" be added to the Proposed replacements section of the Background statement.
Once again, thanks.  HWV258  01:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. With respect to the latter point, there was already a statement in the second-to-last paragraph that addresses this:

"As with the existing system, all dates in articles would need to be marked up with an autoformatting syntax."

I've moved this to the location you've suggested, and merged the wordings as follows:

" As with the original system, all dates in an article would require markup in order to guarantee consistency."

I think this would be beneficial in that it explains that both old and new systems require markup to operate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the "additional proposals" section, the "date ranges" text is an attempt to incorporate two related points; one, that date ranges are not handled by the existing system(s) (per Tony's text), and two, that serious efforts are being made to address this issue (per the development discussions). I do feel that this is neutral in nature, as it doesn't claim to be a done deal, and as such is better suited here than in the more opinionated "for" and "against" sections. Would you be more comfortable if it were moved to the "if approved" section, and rephrased as "Development would continue on plans to extend formatting to include date ranges (e.g. "25–30 March 2009") and slashed dates ("the night of 20/21 December")"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds better. Anything to maintain the integrity of Background containing material that led up to this point (and not what might happen in the future).  HWV258  02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading comments

I was proofreading the page (I left proposals and statements alone) and seek clarification on the following points:

• "a second poll will be constructed looking at how the results of the first poll will be implemented." This lost me.
• "Clearly indicates which strings refer to dates directly (as opposed to, for example, dates appearing in quotations, which would not be marked up, or coincidences ("In June 19 planes were shot down")." Still has a {clarification needed} tag, this needs to be resolved.

I hope these will be easily addressed. I may not see the responses for 18 hours, please bear with me. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed idle words: "also", "now", "in order (to)", "still", etc.
• I have changed a few instances of "users" to "editors", where the meaning is "logged-on, registered editors".
• I've recast the ungainly parentheses and interrupting dashes here ("(Unregistered users – "IPs" – cannot access the "preferences" settings.)) to use easier and more common punctuation (a semicolon).
• Can we please not use "for example" or "e.g.," to introduce examples that are already placed within parentheses? It is unnecessary and clogs the text. Readers know very well that examples are given immediately, within parentheses.
• "Will" has crept back into explanations of "what if". I have changed it back to "would". Otherwise, it's ungrammatical. In particular, the section headed "Proposed replacements" is full of "will". If it's proposed, it's "would". Otherwise, the title will need to be changed. I would object to that, since this system has been developed on the hop and only just patched in: community acceptance has not been gained to use it. The language here is cleverly aimed to make it seem like a fait accomplis. It is not. There are elaborate procedures to be gone through if it were to progress from a "proposed replacement" to a live function. The blurring of "proposed replacement" with a "function" that "will" do this and that is unacceptable. I believe that if the Background Statement, of all things, is to trumpet on and on with this proposal, it should include the negatives as well, such as the fact that date ranges are still not covered. This is a continuation of the fiction that all is easy, all will be done in good time. This information is not balanced, and most of it should be relocated into the "For" statement. The Background statement needs to be neutral: it is now not neutral. Tony (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, given that I've made many of the edits, I can say with certainty: there is no attempt to "aim" the statement as you've suggested. I don't want this to degenerate into an argument between us, but I do not think it is fair to make asides questioning my intentions here. (Others include your note on Ryan's talk page asserting that the recent changes were "done at the end strategically". A simple check of the linked document will reveal that the new code only became active around the time I wrote the revised text, so there is no way it could have been planned.) Please, let's keep this about the code; I know there have been may "issues" recently, but as far as the DA segment (and my approach to it) I think I've been pretty above-board and honest about what I've been doing. Anyway, I'll respond to your notes in a moment or so. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your clarifications, CKatz. Nonetheless, I do think that the skew is now there, even if it was unintended. I'd also appreciate your collaboration on trying to make the structure simpler: in particular, going back to a single response (plus comment if they wish) by users for the two questions (month-day and year), rather than eight responses. This seems glaringly obvious to me, since the opening text states that only one option would be inserted. Tony (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I also need you to look at the headings I've given to each of the now-four options for month-days. In particular, the title of #3 seems to be essential. I had to think hard about how to make sense of the "also" in the first sentence. Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I'll try to look over the changes as soon as I can. I don't know if you caught my comment to Greg, but I've not really been following the "date linking" portion too closely, so I'll have to try to review the comments related to it in order to make a proper assessment. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed (with Tony1). This is still a continuation of what I was saying above. The advertisement for the new coding system should be part of the "For" case. As Tony1 says, the proposed changes to the new system are not a fait accomplis. For goodness sake, the current ramshackle system is a result of three years of changes and debate, so how is it suddenly going to be fixed into a shiny new solution? People voting "For" must not be under the misapprehension that a technical solution is going to ride out to save things any time soon. Without a neutral background statement, there will always be the opportunity to cast doubt on the results of the RfC—no one wants that.  HWV258  04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, this isn't a "For" versus "Against" issue, the "#formatdate" function is working code that is live on the project right now. (I could understand moving it if it were proposed, or a patch in testing, but this is an active feature that was approved by the developers for distribution as part of Wikimedia's software.) The reality is that anyone can use the code right now (Arbcomm injunction notwithstanding) and it will do what we've described it as doing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are serious question marks over essential issues such as date ranges (Military History articles are full of them, but they're everywhere). I think this has to be mentioned in the background statement, especially if the current large paragraph is retained. However, better than that would be not to mention date ranges explicitly there (it is dealt with in the Statement Against; and to relocate most of the ad from the neutral background to the Statement For. I count 464 words there, and I could easily trim another 15 words in redundancy (without changing the intended meaning). I think this is what needs to be done. Tony (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Some good tweaks, some that I've reworked:

• The idle words are a good call, as far as I can tell. Thanks for improving those sentences.
• The term "users" is actually more accurate, as registered Wikipedians do not have to edit the encyclopedia. (They are welcome to use log-ins just to set preferences.)
• The change from "anyone" to "a registered editor" is incorrect, because the format option actually works for IPs.
• I've restored "displays" regarding the new function because that is accurate; it is live and functional, as demonstrated by the fact it is employed in the text of the statement.
• Thanks for the punctuation tweaks.
• Ditto for the "e.g." removal; I'd actually copied it from someone else's edits, but support removal if you recommend it.

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems; except that "user" is likely to encompass visitors who read the articles—they will not be able to choose a preference, for example. Can we not make it "registered users"? It's no big deal, and I'll back down if you feel strongly, but I think the distinction has to be retained throughout. Have you looked at the expanded titles for the Month-day proposals? I want to do the same thing for Years. Tony (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not going to say anything here because I am opposed in principle to this poll, however, I felt I should let you all know that the link to a demonstration page no longer shows what it once did…--Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem... I wonder if anyone has heard from Bill yet? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I've added the "registered" bit you suggested. Good call. I've also just had an idea re: the other issues, as reflected in my last two edits. What I've done is to remove the "proposed" title. Why? One, the code is live, and the "proposed" text has been trimmed and moved elsewhere already, so the title was (as noted earlier) not valid. Two, the text is really more suited to the "what is autoformatting" description anyway. Three, by removing the title, there's less bold text and the text presents more as information rather than "hey, wow, new". (That's why I've also swapped "the new" for "this" in that area; removing "new" seems to make it less flashy.) I've removed the sentence " Registered Wikipedians would retain the option to see dates formatted according to their preference." from the end of that section, as it is essentially covered by the earlier text "This function displays autoformatted plain-text dates per a registered user's preferences". Finally, I've removed the specific example re: the Cubs article to address HMV258's notes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've made some simplifications to the opening statement, and removed a divert reference to treatment of date ranges etc. In its place is a mention of further consensus to be sought on the specifications, which will be developed should the vote be in favour of adoption. If I have been oversimplistic in this, please forgive and rv. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• in the "background statement" i changed "would" to "will" twice so that both of the "what if" sections have the same degree of "conditionality".
• the "statement against" contains a link to what used to be a demonstration page; it now tells us what UCBill thinks of us. that section of the statement probably wants changing. fixed now, thanks
• the enigmatic "advantage of month-day markup" that still has a "clarification needed" tag is discussed here and in the "Planes shot down" section above. the only possible meaning is that markup makes it easier for bots to recognize dates - which is what the next point says. i propose either deleting the enigmatic one or combining the two into something like: "Simplifies the automated processing of articles (ie the gathering of metadata) by clearly designating which strings are dates." the "rejoinder" about markup not being needed to avoid ambiguity could then be removed from the "disadvantages".
• i agree with Dabomb87 above regarding "Can be highlighted and/or piped by 'gateway' links in the See also section to avoid cluttering the main text." this isn't a disadvantage - it's an alternative to in-text linking - and it's not especially clearly expressed. i suggest combining it with the point about overlinking: "Dilutes high-value links through overlinking. When a link to a month-day page might be of potential interest to readers, it is better displayed in the See also section rather than in the main body of the article." i don't think the meaning of the phrase "gateway link" is obvious, so it needs to be either clarified or avoided; and whether/when/why one might pipe a month-day link is not something that needs to be delved into in this RfC.
• do the proposals really need the "extended titles"? despite efforts not to introduce any bias, they *do* tinge things, and i don't see any particular redeeming value. Sssoul (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I vote for a standard?

The poll reads Two main date formats are used by English-speakers: March 11, 2009 (“MDY”, mainly in North America) and 11 March 2009 (“DMY”, mainly elsewhere). Is there a place I can vote that DMY be the standard for Wikipedia (note, I am in North America)? Instead of voting for or against autoformatting, I'd rather just vote for a standard (we have one for football/soccer, so why not dates?). — Reinyday, 06:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Views on proposals

Can we go back to supporting proposals rather than just giving views? Let's be clear that this is a poll, and the header "views on proposal" will be less encouraging to users than "I support proposal x" - it's simply not as clear. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Ryan. I am very concerned that there will be a fatigue factor if we try to force people to make at least nine responses (minimum), and possibly 11 (separate invitations for "views"). I can see participants here complaining if they don't like the results, pointing to the fact that some respondents made entries in all of the nine basic sections, while some flicked through and answered just a few. I myself would recoil from the full task. This is an ideal way to degrade the quality of the data, and that would be a catastrophe.

If no one raises a half-decent objection, I'd like to return to the arrangement I put in a couple of days ago. It's simple, and changes nothing in terms of the substantive meaning of the RfC questions and responses. It stops no user from expressing their opinion, since many (most?) will write hopefully short comments after expressing their single preference. People are perfectly able to express opinions on more than one of the options after they've expressed that first preference. Tony (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, would you mind showing me the diff of what you want to return to? I thought the current version (that I moved it back to) was the one you were suggesting. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see it here. My concern with this is that it would be extremely difficult to parse the results from it - the version we're currently on will give the same end result, but it will make the page much easier to navigate from the perspective of voting and analysing the votes. My concern was with having support/oppose headers for every single proposal - that would have made it 9 separate questions being asked. What we currently have is 3 which is much better in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, that is so much better than what was there a few hours ago, and considerably better than my previous attempt. Tony (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Generalities of date-autoformatting

Re revert by CKatz: I believe it was 'your side' which proposed to de-emphasise any specific implementation idea, and focus on general principles. That does not, IMHO entitle you to slip in details of this revision at this stage, because it really is quite a specific proposal. It's jumping the gun back into specifics, in fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the sentence in question is too much detail about a particular implementation. that's not what the background statement is for. Sssoul (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, can we all please drop the "side" stuff... especially considering someone apparently switched me to "the other one" last night. Anyway, jokes aside, the text about formatting working for unregistered users is extremely relevant to this matter. It was one of the key complaints registered against the original system, and it is not a proposal - it is very much a functioning, active part of the Mediawiki software. That is not in any way "slipping in details"; if the text needs tweaking, that is one thing, but we cannot ignore changes to Wikipedia's programming just because they happen to occur later in the process. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To better illustrate this point, I ask you this: if Werdna had added code that actively disabled autoformatting on the 25th, and I wrote it up, would you still remove it and describe it as an attempt to "slip in details"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ans 1) "can we all please drop the "side" stuff" yes, that's why it was in quotes. Ans 2) I feel that inserting this particular detail is inappropriate, unlike switching something off. inserting such a specific performance assertions about #formatnumber, being such a recent change, and in the absence of any proper feedback as to its use in reality, would cloudy the issue. Why don't we start talking about its bugs too? Ohconfucius (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think you can have it both ways: the 'recently updated Mediawiki software' is bug-ridden to the extent that any 'improvements' to the presentation to non-registered users are more than mitigated by the faults. Mentioning the new improved feature without mentioning the serious bugs would clearly be economising with the truth. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Month-day: Proposal #3 (#2 plus "first occurrence")

This proposal doesn't seem entirely coherent to me. The first sentence specifically says that the relevance of the two articles to each other does not matter in deciding whether to link; the second sentence says that you make the decision whether to link on a case-by-case basis. But what could you base your decision on, if not mutual relevance? This proposal should either just say 'always link the first occurrence', or be withdrawn as internally inconsistent. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that whilst they can be linked at any time, they can still be discussed on a case by case basis - it's simply the normal way here. There may be arguments against linking on a particular page, and if so those can be taken into account. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to think this through from the point of view of an editor trying to decide whether or not to link a month-day. If it's relevant, no problem, link it. If it's not relevant, this proposal gives no guidance. So if the intention of this proposal is in fact to establish a presumption that these links are to be made unless there's a reason not to, I suggest that a clearer and more compact version of the proposal would be "Regardless of the relevance of the related date article, month-days should always be linked on their first occurrence in an article (and only on their first occurrence), unless there are compelling reasons not to do so". The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me - how and why you might decide not to make such a link, if the presumption is to make it, is a mystery to me, but I think this rewording expresses the intention of the proposal more clearly. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• This one's a bit of a 'wildcard' option, a cat among the pigeons. It looks remarkably similar to what Locke was fighting so hard to keep yesterday before he got blocked. It seems to me like more than a little wriggle room for individuals to link whenever them like. But yes I agree with Chris, the implications should be spelled out more clearly. I'll get my hands dirty on it, if I don;t delete it first. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I know more than most what is going on but I find the proposed RFC too complicated to understand. Please focus on trying to simplify it. The linking debate has always been troubled by differing ideas of 'relevance'. The phrase 'first occurrence' has only ever cropped up in date debates and non-date debates when people have suggested that an item satisfies some other 'relevance' criterion. Then people start talking about repeating links further down the page.

If this RFC should have a 'first occurrence' option (and I think it should not), then it seems to me to be a subset of the other proposals that purport to define 'relevance'. We should not have a proposal that allows links that do not meet a relevance criterion. Thus it would be 'Proposal 1a (conservative approach) and Proposal 1b (conversative approach with links limited to first occurrence), then the same split for Proposal 2a and Proposal 2b. Furthermore, Proposal 4 looks to me like Proposal 1. I find the current RFC text confusing in logic and in wording (e.g. similar proposals have different phrasing). Lightmouse (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 resembles your interpretation of proposal 4, but I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Statements for and against

To all: there will be intolerable editwarring if we have editors trying to neuter the other side’s autoformatting statements by hiding behind the apron strings of “Dude, because you want it isn’t a good enough of a reason for me.” If someone has a problem with a factual inaccuracy in a Statement for/against, bring it up with Ryan. These Statements are supposed to present opposite views of the issue. I don’t expect the opposing side to like ours, just like I don’t like what you guys have in yours. Worry about your own stuff. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that has been the practice thus far. And can we all be ultra-sensitive about politeness right at this stage? (Ohconfucius?). I am just as guilty, but I'm trying. Tony (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One editor / one vote per issue

I suggest that for the year and month-day voting, we have one vote per editor. Otherwise, we could have editors voting for three counter-proposals just to stack the deck against one they don’t like (not that anyone would actually do such a thing). Whereas I can fully buy into the notion that one camp or another here might have a variety of views on a given subject, it doesn’t pass my ‘grin test’ here that some editor really needs to vote like “I can’t make up my mind; all three alternatives impress me soooo very very much over the option I hate.” Greg L (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

fine by me. I was thinking of propsing something like that myself.--Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the determination of "voting" method is up to Ryan, but, as I mentioned early, a vote for position 3 with position 2 as an acceptable option, and position 1 unacceptable; or the other way around, are perfectly rational votes, and should be counted somehow. Wanting position 4 as a primary choice also shouldn't preclude the editor from commenting as to which of positions 1-3 would be acceptable or preferred. Single-voting is biased in favor of narrow positions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All our Wikipedia-strength neuron buckets instantly recognized this. One vote per editor is the lesser of two evils. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, although it's rational to predict that you would agree, as the voting method supports narrow (and I don't mean it in a pejorative sense) positions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert Greg, though. I'll leave that for others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this position unacceptable. Approval polls always permit multiple votes, for positions, again, like mine: my first choice is #4, but if it is impossible, #3 is much less bad than #1 or #2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A few random comments

Autoformatting – Background statement

What happens if autoformatting is rejected? The markup used by the previous system will continue to be removed

If people vote against autoformatting, and in favour of linking (in whatever circumstances), then all the links disappear anyway? Should this say something like "...removed unless it has an accepted linking function, as determined by the results of the poll"?

Addition shortly after I first posted this: If there's no intention, whatever the outcome, of disabling the current autoformatting system, then I think for clarity we should say so, and say that it may have less and less effect as links deemed superfluous are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.46 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting – Statement for

Looking down the road, date markup has also been identified as central to the development of [...] improved efficiency with database dumps

The connection with efficiency of database dumps is not at all clear.

Autoformatting – Statement against

For markup to be useful, an option would be needed to enable editors to see all marked-up dates as though “linked”

I don't understand what this means.

The failure of the original autoformatting was largely due to

The "for" statement talks about autoformatting as if it's a fully functioning feature. Is this "original" autoformatting feature something that predated the current one, or is the question of whether autoformatting succeeded or failed one of the points in dispute? A couple of words here to clarify this point would be helpful I think.

The community is taking a conservative attitude...

Don't understand what this is saying. At present, "the community" apparently has autoformatting. How is that "taking a conservative attitude"? Does it mean the community would be taking a conservative attitude if people vote against?

the very minor benefit that registered editors can view a specific date format (all unambiguous and none confusing)

The fact that any specific date format you choose as your preference is unambiguous and non-confusing does not seem to be a demerit. At worst it seems neutral.

This sentence is trying to say that because all of the available formats are unambiguous and no-one finds any of them confusing - at worst a little unfamilar - any benefit from autoformatting is purely cosmetic and of little significance, and therefore that the effort of marking up every date is vastly out of proportion to such a trivial benefit. Perhaps we could reword this slightly for clarity - it's probably a bit over-compressed in an effort to keep within the word limit. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Advantages of month-day linking

Offers editors direct control over a link's destination, as opposed to the less precise "search" function

I don't really understand this. I wondered if it meant "Offers editors a way of directly linking to relevant content, rather than forcing readers to resort to the less precise "search" function". Even so, I don't get it, because if you "search" for "March 20", say, then you're taken straight to the article. I don't see how this is "less precise" than a link.

These sections are presented as "editorial" rather than opinion (as was the case with autoformatting), so it reads a little oddly that they directly contradict each other; for example, links to birthdates and deathdates being both "useful" and of "little or no relevance".

Can be highlighted and/or piped by "gateway" links in the See also section

This does not read like an actual disadvantage of date linking.

Year linking – Background statement

This seems so similar to the month-day linking background statement that I wonder about the point of having two separate sections.

Matt 86.150.102.46 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservative?

In what context is option 1 "conservative"? I'm not sure I follow that. I suppose it minimizes the number of links, but the old status quo is that everything should be linked, so it maximizes the changes required, making it less conservative in that sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd need to argue that one through, that some "old" status quo said "everything should be linked". "Conservative approach", here, refers to the approach, here and now, to decision-making: whether to link. It means "constrained" (dictionary). Tony (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservative means a lot of things; this is not Burke's meaning, which would imply not taking an axe to existing structures. But I'm sure Tony knows this. Perhaps we can settle on saying. this is, both in the literal and the etymological sense, reactionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking as markup

Sorry, 'bout this folks... I think I should shut up fairly soon. But there's one more thing that occurred to me.

Is it the case that a policy of blanket date-linking (indiscriminate linking of every single date) is not an option on the table?

One of the reasons I ask is that the purpose of the "Month-day linking -- Advantages of month-day markup" section seem to be to alert people to the idea that the markup that date linking entails might have other uses, so perhaps if they don't feel strongly one way or the other about linking per se then they might want to consider these extra benefits as a factor in their vote. However, for the first benefit ("Clearly indicates which strings refer to dates directly") to be realised through date linking, it seems to me that pretty much every "direct" date would have to be linked. If that is definitely not going to happen then this advantage will never materialise. Matt 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.46 (talk)

Linking as markup will have some limitations for identifying dates. If autoformatting goes down to defeat, then even under the most liberal linking policy, it would be unusual to link dates more than once per article. So it would be fairly easy for a bot to discover that July 4, 1776 is a date that is present in the United States article, but it would be more difficult for a bot to identify every text string representing a date that is present in that article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, if in even the most liberal policy it would be unusual to link dates more than once per article, the first claimed advantage that I mention ("Clearly indicates which strings refer to dates directly") is a non-advantage. It would never be any benefit because only a tiny fraction of dates would be marked up. (That is, marked up by linking, which is what this section is about. Advantages of other sorts of markup are irrelevant here.) Matt 86.150.102.46 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC). Sorry, not sure if this make any sense... someone else can decide if the original point was a valid one; I'm too tired to be doing this now. Matt 86.150.102.46 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I would respond to you if you had a proper talk page. Registration takes five minutes, and we are always in need of more good editors. Tony (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Burst of copy-edits

Regarding my recent burst of copy-edits: I started and just couldn't stop. I really tried hard to improve the readability of each section, and (apart from my final edit) had no intention of changing the meaning of any point. If I have, please revert as necessary. Cheers.  HWV258  22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Better later than never; ‘bout time. ;-) Thanks. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Brion Vibber's quote

This was initially brought up a few days ago, but we've yet to properly address the use of Brion Vibber's quote in the "against" section of the autoformatting poll. His original comment as posted at Bugzilla in late 2007 was:

"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia."

There is already consensus that his second sentence is best left out because of its sarcastic nature. However, the use of only part of his first sentence appears to take his statement out of context, a problem that is further compunded by the recent rewrite (which moves it up in the text). The way it is currently used is as follows:

"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting."

Vibber posted his original statement over fifteen months ago, but the quote as presented suggests that he has personally endorsed the current position described in the "against" post, which calls for the removal of DA and support for the Manual of Style's multiple date format standard. This is compounded by the addition of a period after "autoformatting", which did not appear in the original statement. Vibber, however, qualified his position by in fact calling for a rewrite of the MoS to recommend one date format standard (DMY):

"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'" (bold text added here to highlight)

There is no indication that he endorses removing autoformatting if the current mixed-format system remains. Look, I certainly don't object to the use of the statement; Vibber's opinions are as valid as any other Wikipedia contributor. I do, however, take issue with the selective use of his quote to suggest he has personally endorsed the "against" position. At the very least, someone should ask him if the wording and context accurately reflects his current point of view, and (more importantly) if he even wants to be seen as taking sides in this RfC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the full quote should be used.  HWV258  22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. But I was the one who proposed the 500-word limit and our statement is up at the limit. Is it OK if we exceed that by the amount of the extra quoted text?

  P.S. (on second thought, looking at the quote): it seems clear that Brion’s statement isn’t in the least being taken out of context. His sarcastic comment at the end (Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia) doesn’t signal to me that he was joking; only that he recognizes the same reality that I do: the absurd amount of effort to have sanity rule on Wikipedia—like the my three-month-long battle to get us back to using kilobyte (KB) instead of kibibyte (KiB). In the case of quoting Brion’s statement, this is much to do about nothing. Let’s conjecture what would happen if we quoted all of the germane portion and omitted the sarcastic part; you know what would be added(?): …and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. I can’t see how the full quote advances anyone’s cause here. This is what linking is for. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I feel it does not need to be quoted in full. The linking lends transparency, and all those wanting to know more about the context and the exact quote can click on the link. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it, that the part you wish to keep off the page just happens to be at odds with one of your key arguments? Your statement claims that DA is not needed because:

"Editors need to retain local control over their date formatting as they already do so under the simple, well-accepted rules at MOSNUM."

The first half of Brion's statement sure helps that cause, but wait: at the same time, he also said that we should change the Manual of Style, do away with the regional variations, and adopt one format (DMY) across the entire encyclopedia. Seems at odds with what you've suggested he supports. Beyond that, I was of the understanding that, when quoting someone, it is customary to avoid changing the quote, even to the point of not adding extra punctuation. Brion said "Do x and then do y." Here, it has been rewritten so as to suggest that he only said "Do x." It is very easy to say that there is a link for transparency, but everyone knows full well that most readers won't bother to click through to check the link, they'll just take it at face value and assume (from the context) that Vibber is supporting your specific proposal. Nothing here indicates that he was actually speaking as part of an entirely different discussion well over a year ago. Look, if you're so confident that your use of the statement is correct, why not do as I suggested and actually ask Brion? Given the fractious nature of this whole RfC, and the fact that he is one of Wikipedia's senior officials, it would seem the courteous thing to do, rather than just presuming his support. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, you are right to raise these questions, but I do not believe they warrant action beyond my moving the final punctuation into the correct position (after the quote marks, not before); thanks for pointing out that glitch. In the context at Bugzilla—in which simplicity and uniformity had been raised (particularly the fact that all of our signatures are in the one style, international), I believe that the quote from Brion's statement is not at all a distortion. He was, as you point out, expressing several notions there, one of which is that we should get rid of DA. His other entries indicate that he is open to how this might be done. Tony (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I don't see why there is resistance to accurately presenting Vibber's actual statement, instead of selectively picking only the half that appears to support the "against" position. More importantly, why hasn't Vibber been asked if he supports the use of his statement in this way, or if he even wants to be involved in this matter? As stated earlier, I would think that it is the appropriate thing to do, given the circumstances. As it now stands, a fifteen-month-old statement is being used to suggest that Vibber is endorsing the current RfC's "against" campaign, an assertion that as yet has not been verified. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• People don't have to be asked their permission to quote them, when they have written comments freely on the Internet, signed and dated. I do not believe that it misrepresents what Brion said, and we are trying to make the statement, as a whole, as short as possible. However, in view of your complaints, I will nest the quote in terms of "a context of trying to achieve simplicity", or some such. Tony (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have to ask permission? No. Should you ask him if you are accurately representing his position? Yes, definitely. The statement, as edited, framed, and presented, is giving the impression that Vibber, one of Wikipedia's senior officials, has chosen to take a side in this RfC. As such, asking him if this is correct would seem to be the right thing to do. Otherwise, you are making representations about him without his knowledge. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, having just reviewed the text once again, the problem is obvious:

...one user has unlinked and corrected dates in more than 7,000 articles, yet has received only a handful of objections. Notably, WikiMedia's Chief Technical Officer, Brion Vibber, has stated: "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting…".

The statement is positioned and presented in a way that makes it appear as if Vibber was commenting on the recent mass delinking efforts, which is absolutely not true. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

First: I think it is definitely wrong to use only 1/2 a sentence to quote someone - use the whole statement. (the "too simple for Wikipedia" [sic], could obviously be removed.). If you're going to collect quotes from people, why not just have a "Viewpoints" section, and list the quotes in a bulleted format? Seems more NPOV than trying to integrate them into a particular view. Maybe if he's asked, he'd even be willing to post his thoughts here? (although that may be a naive thought on my part). as usual, IMHO. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The end is nigh.....

Many thanks everyone for all your efforts with this - it's truly appreciated. I've been discussing when this should be finished by with Tony and it would be good if things could be finished by 0:00 (UTC) on Sunday morning. It's important the poll is stable for the start. I'll protect the page for 24 hours until the start time at this point. After this, the only edits to be made will be by using the edit protected template (but they should be very minor at that point in time). I've got work tomorrow, but I'll catch up with things tomorrow night. We're currently at a stage where the poll is pretty stable already and we only want minor changes from this point in time please. If everybody could leave all the proposals as they are (obviously, minor clarifications can be made to them, but please don't start removing any of the proposals at this stage) then that would be good. Many thanks, and I hope this is okay with everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

some remaining concerns transplanted from above:

• the enigmatic "advantage of month-day markup" that still has a "clarification needed" tag is discussed here and in the "Planes shot down" section above. the only possible meaning is that markup makes it easier for bots to recognize dates - which is what the next point says. i propose either deleting the enigmatic one or combining the two into something like: "Simplifies the automated processing of articles (ie the gathering of metadata) by clearly designating which strings are dates." the "rejoinder" about markup not being needed to avoid ambiguity could then be removed from the "disadvantages".
• i agree with Dabomb87 above regarding "Can be highlighted and/or piped by 'gateway' links in the See also section to avoid cluttering the main text." this isn't a disadvantage - it's an alternative to in-text linking - and it's not especially clearly expressed. i suggest combining it with the point about overlinking: "Dilutes high-value links through overlinking. When a link to a month-day page might be of potential interest to readers, it is better displayed in the See also section rather than in the main body of the article." i don't think the meaning of the phrase "gateway link" is obvious, so it needs to be either clarified or avoided; and whether/when/why one might pipe a month-day link is not something that needs to be delved into in this RfC.
• do the proposals really need the parenthetic "titles"? despite efforts not to introduce any bias, they *do* tinge things, and i don't see any particular redeeming value. Sssoul (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the format and structure following the above discussion. I have now grouped them topic into 3 sections, DA, month-day, and years, each having their boxes clearly delimiting the 'Question being asked'. The votes section have all been moved to sub-pages, and are transcluded, so there will be no need to unprotect the main article with the statements for and against after voting starts. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Replies to Ryan and Sssoul

Ryan: You may not be aware that information about the poll appears at the very opening and in the lead to "Poll"? If retained in two separate places, they need to be consistent. Also, I feel that we should not be locking the community into yet another poll unless it's deemed necessary. I've had ago at changing inevitability into an "if necessary". Is this OK? I certainly don't want users to raise their eyes and get irritated ... "oh no, not another one after this too? I'm outa here". Some users might well do that. Tony (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul: I really think the brief titles within parentheses will help users. It is a big ask of them to navigate through, and these titles will end up being a long way down from each other. How could one remember? I believe the brief explanatory titles need to be added to the response headers to match ... "I support Option #3 (link on first appearance)", not just the vague "I support Option #3". The poor readers will be scrolling a long way down to each.

I haven't looked properly at your proposal to conflate two of the "Disadvantages". Doesn't look bad at first look.

I propose that the enigmatic "Planes shoot down" point be removed, along with its mirror. We're better off without meaningless points. How 'bout it? The issue was raised days ago at talk, and no explanation of it has been forthcoming. KISS? PS I think Dabomb is not around now until next week. Tony (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support brief titles if neutral titles could be selected. "Conservative" still doesn't make sense to me, in context.

I strongly oppose removing the "Planes shoot down" from Month/Day advantages; it shows that whether a month-day reference occurs in an article cannot be determined by a bot or a cursory glance, even if the preposition used would properly determine it. I'd prefer an example in which both versions are grammatically correct, but it's a legitimate reason in favor of linking. Even if I don't agree with it. I reverted Locke's removal of a reason against autolinking, although I agree with him it's not a valid reason; please give the linkers the same courtesy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, it's not a question of agreeing with it or not; the problem is that the point as it is now phrased is incomprehensible. it's not okay for the RfC to proceed with a point tagged "clarification needed". will you agree to my proposal to conflate the two bot-related points so that it's clear that it's bots, not human readers, that need markup for "disambiguation" purposes? the wording i'd propose is up above; it drops the parenthetical examples because they're lame and confusing. Sssoul (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, Ryan et al: since the suggestion to conflate "disadvantages of month-day linking" number 2 with number 4 seems to be okay with people, let's do it - who is going to make the edit? i've made that change.

and yes, if "titles" are perceived as necessary at all, it makes no (0) sense to have them on the proposals but not to have them in the "voting" sections.

and i agree that "conservative" is not an appropriate "title" for Proposal #1 (in a few ways at once). how about something like "Proposal 1 (link only to relevant date articles)"? or "Proposal 1 (rarely link to date articles)"? Sssoul (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, why not use the correct preposition, then ("On", not "In")? It would not affect your case, would it? And why not say what you mean, WRT automated recognition? The current text sends readers down a rabbit-hole, because they—like I, until a minute ago—thought you were referring to readers, not scripts/bots. Now it becomes a little clearer why "dates appearing in quotations" are relevant, but I think this is an esoteric point that doesn't help your case. Better to explain clearly to start with.

You need to insert something like "Clearly marks out date strings for automatic recognition." Is that the core of it? At the moment, we have:

"Clearly indicates which strings refer to dates directly (as opposed to, for example, dates appearing in quotations, which would not be marked up, or coincidences ("In June 19 planes departed").

Tony (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

er ... "departed" is not an improvement over "were shot down"; that's not the part that's unclear. the point is: this is about making it easier for bots to recognize dates - which is the same thing the "other" point in that section is saying.

tinkering a bit with Tony1's proposed wording, how about: "Clearly marks out date strings for recognition by bots/scripts, which simplifies the automated processing of article text and the gathering of metadata." Sssoul (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul: could you enlarge on your reasons for thinking that "Conservative approach" is not appropriate? A conservative approach means a constrained, cautious approach, in the common sense of the word. It appears to be the perfect word to describe the option. Tony (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

the main point is that the other titles manage without "subjective-assessment-style" adjectives, so this one should as well. a secondary point is that this particular adjective has associations that are not at all apt in this context. Sssoul (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would use 'no-frills' instead, but that would be incorrect - a 'real' no-frills option is no linking at all. 'Conservative' is still the best word; relative to the other options, the term is true, descriptive and factual. 'Pragmatic' is another word I would find acceptable for the same reasons. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) yes, but other people might have the same subjective opinion about other proposals; besides which, i never vote conservative and don't want to start now. (that's levity - but the word is loaded with associations that you don't mean - so why use it.) "Option 1 (link only to relevant date articles)" or "Option 1 (link dates rarely)" would parallel the other "titles". what's wrong with either of those? Sssoul (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment FYI, I might not have been clear enough (sorry) - the change to "departed" was only to avoid the "shot down" idea... it was always intended as a word choice change (i.e. original issues untouched) to avoid the idea of planes being shot down. (Might sound silly, but I thought it would come across better.) Do with it as you see fit... --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

that "clarification needed" moment again

i propose conflating the two points about bots/scripts as follows: "Clearly marks out date strings for recognition by bots/scripts, which simplifies the automated processing of article text and the gathering of metadata." and then the "rejoinder" about markup not being needed to prevent ambiguity can be removed. Sssoul (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this talk page while the poll is active

When this poll (finally) begins on 30 March, what will be the scope of this talk page? Will it be limited to general discussions of the poll's structure and purpose, or will the usual rants and such be permitted? I think we should set a firm limit, as this page tends to grow exponentially—I just archived half this talk page, and it is still quite long. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if limited to the poll's structure and purpose, the talk page could grow exponentially. I stopped following all this in detail some time ago (I thought it got, no offense to all the work done, too comical in the bad way). I do have some idea about the arguments in play, but I doubt I would have been able to cast any well-informed vote on the proposed poll without this idea. As it appears as of time of this signature, the poll is just too long. I predict that nothing will come out of it (many will give up due to length, and probably also think: "gee, all this detail just for the issue of how to present dates?). Polls should be short, clear and to the point with little to no qualifiers in the questions. So those dropping by will probably complain here. --HJensen, talk 10:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and made a similar point above. The proposals mix three issues:

• Addresses connection between a date element and a link (Proposal1, Proposal2)
• Constrains the number of links per page (Proposal 3). This is logically independent of the other 3 proposals.
• Decides whether MOSNUM text should tell editors about date links (Proposal 4). This is logically independent of the other 3 proposals.

That is how it seems to me. I find it complex and confusing with at least eight permutations. Lightmouse (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the page to try and resolve this. Lightmouse (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Does 'case by case' in proposal 3 mean 'apply relevance rules in proposal 1 or proposal 2'?

Does 'case by case' in proposal 3 mean 'apply relevance rules in proposal 1 or proposal 2'? Lightmouse (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• No. If they were part of #3, they would be included explicitly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• It does mean to apply everything that applies to all date links, like avoiding irrelevant links, and not linking too often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Essays

What we're desperate for is some (very?) short essays explaining the following points;

1. Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to quotations of dates.)
2. Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. the gathering of metadata).

Could they please be created at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date strings and User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Processing article text ASAP? I'm not fussed who does it, but they need explaining. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about #2 to create it. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ched, I honestly don't have a clue myself - that's why I'm asking someone else to create it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"1. Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to quotations of dates.)". Could you give an example of what you're after? Which bit is the essay seeking to explain? Is the "essay" going on the polling page?  HWV258  21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is where it was initially brought up. As I personally don't understand what these advantages are supposed to mean, I was hoping somebody could create small essays in my userspace (in the links above) that explain those two advantages in more detail. The essays in my userspace can then be linked from the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the concern about metadata is the distinction between dates that should be considered relevant to an article (e.g. the date something occurred) vs dates related to something about the article (e.g. the date someone wrote something used as a reference for the article or the day a reference was accessed). Going forward, you only want metadata about the first type to be used automatically for timelines, happened on this day, etc. or at least be able to tell the difference dm (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

both points are about markup making it easy for bots/scripts to recognize dates. they are much clearer if you consider them as one point: markup can clearly designate which strings are dates so that bots/scripts can recognize them for purposes such as gathering metadata, autoformatting and other such automated text processing. Sssoul (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, I am not of the view that anything is unclear, particularly about metadata. If this needs clarification, it would need to be incorporated into the 'statement for'. It's pretty irrelevant for any other viewpoint, thus I would apparently allowing extra wordcount for explaining something which may be unclear in the proponents' text. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Having thought about it, it maybe good enough to just give a 'generic' answer by linking to metadata. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): once again: conflating the two points makes them comprehensible, sensible-sounding, etc - can we please have: "Clearly marks out date strings for recognition by bots/scripts, which simplifies the automated processing of article text and the gathering of metadata." and then the "rejoinder" about markup not being needed to prevent ambiguity can be removed. Sssoul (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the user-friendly way to go. I think adding linked essays will be about as attractive to voters as a fart at the wedding table. Can Arthur Rubin please consider Sssoul's suggestion, as a straightforward, direct simplification, rather than adding an essay? Tony (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse above excellent suggestion by Sssoul. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've made the above change that was suggested by Sssoul - looks like essays won't be needed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why me? I didn't edit or comment in this section, except to remove hostile edits from both sides. I consider Sssoul's suggestion acceptable and fair, although it probably qualifies as a hostile edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've gone ahead and protected the page until the poll start time. There's 24 hours left, and this will mean the poll is stable for it starting. I'll be back from work at around 18:00 (UTC), so if there's any edits required that can wait till then I'll happily make them. If any edits are required urgently, then you can use {{edit protected}} (but make sure you have consensus!). All the best everyone, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, Greg removed several "quote" formatting templates earlier today to make it easier for everyone to work on individual sections. Since we are now locked down, would you object to me restoring them? (Others please chime in as well - it was this edit.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you make it ASAP please? I need my sleep :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Ckatz for getting to it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as well. That one is done - if you've no objections, we should probably add the same formatting to the "Autoformatting" section. I can do that if you wish right now, or else you can just add "{{quotation|" after the "Autoformatting" header and "}}" before the transclusion for the responses. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, any chance of adding this formatting before the poll opens? It would help in several ways - uniform appearance, as well as removing the per-section "edit" links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the "month-day" question has sections for "[v]iews on Option #n", whereas the "year-linking" question has sections for "I support Option #n" with the requirement to only post to one of them? Wouldn't using the same format for both make sense? (I like more the former, but de gustibus ...) --A. di M. (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be adjusted. GregL made them "I support" boldly and unilaterally, which makes it very diffilcult to register differences in opposition; Arthur Rubin disagreed, and I (being in a hurry) rewrote only one of them; I wasn't expecting protection today. I agree that "Views" is preferable, and at this point only Greg seems to disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a poll guys - I've changed it back to support. If people have opposition to a particular proposal, they can express it in the comments section for each set of proposals. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Subtitles for options

I object to the claim of "relevance" for the year linking articles; option 1 is something like "link relevant year articles", while option 2 would be "link relevant years". Since we're almost certainly not going reach agreement before the deadline, I think the subtitles need to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

if the poll attracts more than about 10 "voters", those subtitles will be needed as navigational aids. so how about: Option 1 (link only to relevant date/year articles) and Option 2 (link significant dates/years)? Sssoul (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I object to the "relevance" claim, as well. I'd accept "significance", but "relevant" needs to be clarify to "article relevant to topic", rather than "topic relevant to topic" or "topic relevant to article". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

...i'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. my proposal is based on your own statement (just above) that "option 1 is something like 'link relevant year articles'". so what's wrong with "option 1 (link only to relevant date/year articles)"??? Sssoul (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OOPS. Well, the fact that I misread Sssoul's statements the last time I looked suggests that others would, also. That leaves me without a suggested wording, unless we could agree on "link relevant years" for option #2. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) here's one more try - i hope you can agree that they're quite clear, legible, sensible, etc:

• Option #1 (link only to relevant date/year articles)
  
• Option #2 (link dates/years that are significant for the topic)
  

please bear in mind that these subtitles don't alter the substance of the options - they're just supposed to serve as "reminders" of which option is which, to make life easier for readers/voters. Sssoul (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel dumb: I can't for the life of me see the difference in these titles, which is bad, since they need to distinguish the options for voters. What is wrong with the current two titles? Tony (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have predicted that. Proposal #1 seems to be that years should be linked of the current year article is relevant to the current topical article. Proposal #2 seems to be that that years should be linked if the year (not the current state of the year article) is significant to the subject (not necessarily reflected in the current state of the subject article). But I couldn't see the difference between Sssool's first formulations, so it's not suprising that a second try would confuse you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the current subtitles are fine - but it was fun going around in circles with you! 8) good night. Sssoul (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>So, Tony, you're agreeing that option 2 is as sensible as option 1? Thank you for your support. </sarcasm> No, seriously, option 1 needs to be "link to relevant year articles", not just "link to relevant years". That one change, and removal of the vote-for-one restrictions, would lead to a fair RfC for the linking questions, in my opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One vote on month-day too

Ryan,

The transcluded voting page for Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses should have the same “one vote” statement, shown here…

Please indicate your support vote under ONE option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.

…as does Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses, should it not? If so, will you please add this this code:

:''Please indicate your support vote under '''ONE''' option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.''

…immediately under this code:

===Month-day responses===

…here (unless, of course, this was intentional). In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yes, and please also change the four occurrence of Views on with I support in order to harmonize everything. Greg L (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is done, it will render some views on date-linking very difficult or impossible to express. That will render this poll valueless, since there will be no way to tell whether those views are absent because they are rare. or because they are being suppressed.

On the contrary, we should remove this banner from the year-date question as well; we don't run approval polls under that system anywhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-scriptum: Greg alone changed the "Vuews" to "I support"; so far, I, A. di M. and Arthur disagree with him. This has the same problem of making certain opinions harder to express; I am still willing to assume that this is unintentional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’m not the first person to think of voting this way to keep editors from stacking the deck. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Greg's claim is not supported by the record; and the position which supports #2 but will tolerate #1, and that shich supports #2 and will tolerate #3 are, and should be, distinguishable.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• You wanna do a lot of voting, do ya? Greg L (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I rush into anything here, I want some more opinions - please everybody comment on what you think's best. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC) The more I think about this, the more I believe "One vote per section" is a bad idea. It's highly likely that some of the community won't have a preference between a number of the proposals - They may for instance broadly agree with 1 and 4 so wish to support those and I can't see a good reason to exclude them. I'm not seeing a good reason at present for one vote per section. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, it is unconscionable that users should be required to enter nine times to complete the basics. The instructions clearly say (1) that only one text can be implemented, and (2) to write your comments after your preferred option. I will certainly be saying (very briefly) why I don't like one or two of the others at that point. I do not want to have to enter Oppose, Oppose, and Oppose to do so (twice), or even to have to enter separate comments on each. Edit-conflicts will abound, the page will be humungously long to scroll down, and frankly, many people will give up and leave in disgust. That will seriously damage confidence in any results. Three entries are quite enough in this RfC, in which everyone can add comments on the other options as they wish—they can write "Neutral" for any, but let it be in a single entry. Think how hard it would be to interpret the results, if each user's comments are scattered over four sections. Anderson, I can't think of a better way to sabotage the whole process: split, spread, bloat.

Ryan, I think I would have no confidence in results from a loose process in which some voters vote four times and some vote only once. It will fatally skew the results. So, voter A (like most) enters one vote; voter B enters four. How on earth would you weight those votes against each other when considering the results of each option separately. If that were allowed, I'd be very publicly decrying this process as an unscientific mess. If you want to allow people more than one vote (if they wish), I want to know clearly how they'll be numerically weighted. Tony (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• This bullshit (pardon my French) at this eleventh hour is just a waste of everyon'e time. I think we were all in agreed in the principle of three 'great' questions a few days ago, which is why I organised the pages in that fashion. I was not expecting this reversal of position now that the pages are supposedly frozen from further major change. The fact of the matter is that the options are mutually exclusive, but with nuanced gradations, so we we would logically want the community to come down on one option. In other words, we already have four shades of grey. Based on the previous RfCs, the options given are likely to be more than sufficient. Going back to allow everybody a comment/vote on each option would cause an 'explosion' of comments, and may render interpretation nigh impossible.Ohconfucius (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, for example, Ryan, one way is to announce in both leads that more than one "first preference" will be divided in fractional votes (two first prefs give half a vote to each of those options; three give a third of a vote to each). That would dissuade all but those who genuinely DO want to split their first pref from doing so—a good thing, IMO as a veteran of interpreting data. We'd need to get consensus here about this, and it's kinda late. I would agree to this, as long as explained to the voters. But I'd really rather keep it simpler, or the results will be like a big, melted lake of sticky fudge that will be challenged from top to bottom. Please no, after all of this effort by so many people, yourself included. Tony (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

it's deeply dismaying indeed if the organization/voting principles are seriously still up in the air at this point, but if input really is needed: one vote per section, please. Sssoul (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan it's absolutely essential that this poll produce a clear result. Please, do nothing that would endanger that. The proposals are all mutually exclusive, so one vote per section, together with an accompanying comment, should be perfectly adequate for gauging community opinion. The last thing we need is an mess of multiple votes and comments and preferences that will leave this poisonous dispute unresolved and the parties at each other's throats over the interpretation of results for months and years to come. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fist let me say that I admire the hard work and dedication that's gone into this effort. My personal thoughts on the matter are that I find it unlikely that we'll/you'll achieve a clear result when this is done; but, I think that's fine because as it says in the "Poll" section, there will be a second poll in late April. I'm assuming that this pre-poll is an effort to establish the best possible "Poll" available. The hardest part here I think is that we're actually dealing with multiple issues and trying to incorporate them all into one all inclusive pole. 1.) what format should we use for dates? 2.) should we be linking dates in the articles? 3.) Are we going to have some sort of bot, script, or other automated process to run through these articles once we have consensus?

I think that once this poll has closed, we/you will have your work cut out for you in deciding what the community wants. It's not going to be easy, because many of those who will "!vote" will not have read through all the text on the poll page, let alone the discussion that's gone into creating it. You'll have editors who vote on sections 1, 2, and 3 - but not the rest. Some will try to indicate that this means that an editor intended to show a desire in one direction or another for sections 4, 5, and 6. The Brion Vibber quote is a good example of this - one sentence, and half a page of discussion on what the intent was, and how much of the quote to include. In the end, I think it may be likely or desirable to break this into 2 or 3 polls really - but that's just a hunch on my part. Just IMHO thoughts as the poll prepares to open, "Gentlemen, place your bets" ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 10:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The first past the post voting system (i.e. one vote per question) is simple to explain, understand, and analyse. The outcome is the most popular candidate. That doesn't always apply in preferential voting. If the outcome is not going to be the most popular candidate, then all stakeholders must accept that before the RFC starts. Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"The outcome is the most popular candidate" for first past the post voting is clearly false. Even the uninformed realize that strategic voting is appropriate, while they may not realize that it can also be appropriate for approval voting or preferential voting systems. Besides, none of the voting systems seem designed to determine consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One vote only is the only sensible thing. If not, the poll is simply badly constructed. A poll should be designed to make choices mutually exclusive. Questionnaires may allow for multiple "votes" but those are not made to pick a "winner". And I guess this is what we try to attain here. So, allowing multiple votes is a no-no (unless they are required to be associated by weights summing to one, in which case nobody would bother to vote at all).--HJensen, talk 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• HJensen said, in just a few, very sensible words, what I am saying. The previous RfCs, particularly the one I wrote, which was a “do you support” or “do you not support” was a landslide slaughter that makes the community consensus on these issues infinitely clear. And, no, my sneaky, biased, mind-altering RfC wording didn’t brain wash all the participants there into writing vote comments they didn’t really mean. The community doesn’t want what you’re selling.

  You guys keep promising that “cool‑beans technology is just around the corner that will make god-damned gold dust pour out of every user’s USB port” and the community still rejects what you guys are selling. The “other” side here clearly knows what will likely happen if there is one vote per issue per editor: participants in the poll will vote for the best ones (our stuff), and you’ll get your asses kicked. You fear another repeat of “making it easy to get a clear gauge of the community consensus.” So you will do anything and everything to game the system, including try to structure the voting so A) you guys could vote for all three options in opposition to the one you fear, (and do so with absurd “4”-level votes to stack vote counts if you could), and B) make a huge cluster-pooch of voting results so it takes a team of MENSA members to divine what the community consensus is.

  There are already four options each on linking and they each mean something different. To help make an already-complex RfC as unambiguous as possible, voters can simply vote for the one they like best (*sound of audience gasp*). You know; like how people vote for politicians in an election (where there is more “overlap” than you can shake a stick at). It’s pretty unfortunate that all these Well… Duh! concepts are so hard to implement. As much as you want to jump up and down and scream about how one‑editor / one‑vote will revoke the Magna Carta, allow Tony and me to imprison innocent Wikipedians at Guantánamo without charges, and result in forced sterilizations of the poor, your arguments belie what you really want: to desperately seize on any trick in the book to game the system so the true community consensus on this issue is difficult to discern. We’d have to be insane to do as you ask, otherwise, we’d be at this forever. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Greg, thanks for what was a colourful post, to say the least! You make me sound like a boring, staid civil servant, as usual. May I say that editors in both camps have worked hard for this, and should be congratulated, despite the tensions between us and whatever the results. Tony (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• We’re almost there with “I support…” wording on both. Now all we need is the same, explicit proviso on month-day that is on years so that voting isn’t “Chicago-style” (vote early, vote often) on part of the RfC. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First choice, second choice, etc.

I see no problem with allowing multiple votes so long as editors provide a "first choice", "second choice" designation with each vote. Also, I must again strongly disagree with an approval voting system. Editors must be able to oppose options. Also, if you're going to use approval voting, you should use it for auto formatting as well... I very strongly disagree with the mischaracterizations of the prior poll results directly above by Greg and HJensen directly above. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put false words into my mouth. I said nothing about "the prior poll results" in my very brief post, which reflected my personal opinion on polls in general. Please strike. Thank you.--HJensen, talk 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Newsflash: (*“dit dit daat” sound of teletype machines at a news office*) Quoting you: Editors must be able to oppose options. This is accomplished throughout the civilized world by voting for the option you like. Imagine how hard it would be to chose politicians or decide on tax referendums if people could vote “I like this one”, and “Oh… kinda like this one too.” Greg L (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• And yet every other RFC I've ever participated in on Wikipedia has allowed people to oppose... approval voting is evil, worse than voting at all. People who are opposed to all options should have the ability to voice their opinion through dissent. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing yet another voting system: Approve/Neutral/Disaprove. The problem is that none of these systems seem designed to determine consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support/Oppose should suffice. And is certainly better than only providing the option to approve of things and not oppose them... I do agree that neither are helpful for finding consensus, but approval voting is worse IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we want to determine consensus, not plurality. So the first-past-the-post is supposed to be inappropriate: we don't want to consider an outcome such as "45 votes for option A, 56 votes for option B, 51 votes for option C, and 48 votes for option D" to be consensus for option B. (I obtained these numbers by computer simulation of 200 people voting randomly with equal probability for each option.) On the other hand, it is quite unlikely that consensus by dictionary definition will very likely not be reached, and, if we aren't willing to implement a more complicated system such as elimination runoff or the Schulze method, first-past-the-post is a lesser evil than e.g. casting dice. After all, there is no such thing as a perfect voting system. --A. di M. (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree that first-past-the-post is a lesser evil than casting dice in this case. It's been established that the date delinkers have a more focused POV, and have more focused choices in this poll, giving them a significant advantage in first-past-the-post. However, if we would agree that, because of that focus, if option #1 does not get 75% of the !vote, it should be eliminated from future discussion.... (Not exactly sarcasm, unfortunately. If it doesn't get consensus here when it's clearly separated from the other options, it will probably never get consensus without a change in views, so should be eliminated in any followup RfC.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick about St Patrick's Day

The sentence "even though it is occasionally celebrated on a different day due to Lent" should actually be "... due to the Holy Week". It is very common for 17 March to occur during Lent, but St Patrick's day isn't moved unless it occurs during the last week of Lent (the Holy Week), which is something very rare (it happened in 2008 and won't happen again until 2160, unless the rules for the date of Easter are changed meanwhile). --A. di M. (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• You ain’t gonna get your way very often if you aren’t exceedingly explicit about what it is you want changed. It would be a good idea to always provide some exact code for Ryan to copy and show exactly where it needs to go. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to the clarification, but I'm not going to write suggested text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

here you go: the word "Lent" occurs once in the RfC. locate it and replace it with "[[Holy Week]]". that will cover it. Sssoul (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

More explicit than The sentence "even though it is occasionally celebrated on a different day due to Lent" should actually be "... due to the Holy Week"? --A. di M. (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

far as i know, the the is not wanted: "due to Holy Week" is what it should say. Sssoul (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. (I'm not a native English speaker, I guess I got confused by my native tongue which uses an article in that place. A quick glance at "Holy Week" shows that the article is not used in English; I should have taken that glance before posting here.) --A. di M. (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• A. di M.: Well… yes. Like this:

Ryan, at Month-day: Option #2, would you please replace the very last sentence in the paragraph that reads like this(?):

(even though it is occasionally celebrated on a different day due to Lent)

with this:

(even though it is occasionally celebrated on a different day due to Holy Week)

(It just makes admins’ jobs a bit easier.) Greg L (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Although I seriously doubt something like this would affect any votes; it could be fixed later. What is most important to our being able to get through this RfC with clear results so we can bury this issue six feet under is to have the same consistent rule throughout (instead of just in some places): Chose the one option you think best or offer a comment for something you think is better. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As the first word of the title of this section shows, I was aware that this is a very minor point; but I am, er..., "ideologically" (FLOABW) adverse to any change to the questions after the poll actually starts, even to immaterial changes such as this one, and given that it would take an admin about 15 seconds or so to make this change... --A. di M. (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Better to make the change since it will take Ryan less than one minute. Point noted about “Nitpick”. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

When the poll opens....

....I'm planning to archive this whole page. People have already said to me the hostility here is going to put them off participating. It's important we start off with a clean slate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you move uncivil comments from the poll or the talk page to a second talk page. Perhaps this will help reduce the perceived hostility, even if the actual hostility cannot be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Format unacceptable

I am afraid that the format of this poll will not permit me, and those who agree with me (if any) to express their opinion. I therefore intend to dispute it, and present a FoF that it is unacceptable.

I thank Ryan for his efforts, and regret that they have been derailed by a successful effort to distort the results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I am disappointed that you dispute it, I thank you for your efforts with helping to create the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I concur with PManderson, I'm not going to comment (much) further until the polls close, to avoid generating more confusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:::While I haven't looked over this page's archives, I am somewhat confused. What about this poll do you feel is unacceptable? This poll is quite fair in identifying various viewpoints, I believe. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• That it does not permit opposition to the four choices, which makes my position (which ranges from strong opposition to #1 to weak opposition #3) hard to express.
• That if it must be an approval poll, it did not permit first choice, second choice and so on, which all other approval polls do.
• Both are widely discussed in the second archive page, and a majority opposes both; on the basis of this, I have ventured to strike the second requirement, which was produced solely by a single editor's editor's edit-warring and Ryan's complaisance.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's the 'I don't agree with this poll and I reserve my right to dispute the outcome' argument. I think ArbCom and Ryan are already wise to that. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply unless an idiotic argument was presented by the date delinkers. Congratulations.

Ryan specifically said, on the archived talk page, that "vote for one" is not acceptable. That he agreed is probably an oversight on his part. It certainly was only inserted by one editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

God bless your kind words, Arthur. I would just point out that this objection and signalling of the dispute appears to be straight out of the Locke Cole playbook. Ryan launched the RfC without making any such amendment to the poll, and that speaks volumes to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I already said this on the main page's comments section - but yeah, this format is broken. It doesn't allow voters to express a spectrum of preferences correctly, and the result of trying to compress things into one "support" vote is going to result in splitting votes that don't represent an accurate picture of people's opinions. It ought to be an up/down vote on each item. Of course, changing it now would mean potentially distorting the votes of early voters. Not well done, guys. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment We all know that this poll is not perfect—far from it. However, it is better, more specific, and was worked on more than previous RfCs combined, and I think we need to appreciate that. Whatever the problems are, we must accept that this is the RfC to end it all. The community nor the editors who have debated and debated over date autoformatting and linking can take another one. All we can do now is wait for phase 1 to end. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, guys above ... the instructions make it amply clear that comments are important in the interpretation of consensus. Everyone is invited to write comments after their choice (and to choose "Neutral" if they wish). There is even a separate comments subsection beneath each response section. There should be no doubt that the RfC provides lattitude for expressing individual feelings. At the same time, let's be practical: the community has to come to some kind of decision, and making it likely that the results will be melted treacle spattered all over the place is not practical. I think Ryan has come to a reasonable solution, and both camps had a lot of prep. time in which they were able to comment on the structure and shape. Tony (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should anyone feel constrained to only vote for one option? If ever there was a place to ignore all rules, then it's in ignoring one line of instructions in multiple pages of text. I'm just not understanding why everyone's suddenly feeling so constrained. AKAF (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, one reason is that it would distort the numbers in what is a poll. Some people vote once; some vote multiple times. How that would be interpreted would need to be agreed beforehand. The process cannot be treated seriously if it allows such looseness in registering choice. The latitude comes from our ability as voters to express our views in writing after we have declared our first preference. This does not seem to be bothering people. I wonder why you are concerned? Tony (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of "people" is, but numerous editors appear to be complaining both here and in the poll itself... this last minute change (the change to "approval voting" was made within the last 72-96 hours before the poll went live) was terrible IMO. I've never participated in an RFC on Wikipedia which used this method of voting (and up until now, I thought I never would). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is important to you, why then, did you not express your order of preferences within your comments, as invited to? It doesn't add up. Tony (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It does add up Tony. Approval voting was the wrong way to go for this RFC. End of story. I support only one of the options and strongly oppose the remaining, but there's no way for me to express that sentiment, so this discussion stifles dissenting views in favor of only hearing what people like. That is not how Wikipedia should work, and these kinds of polls should never be encouraged. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you thought that you couldn't type "Support this one; I strongly oppose the other three options" on the page? Other people have certainly done so. Presumably comments were solicited because there's interest in interpreting the responses in some fashion other than simply totting up the number of !votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can type that, but to what end? The discussions regarding the other proposals have their own sections, which is where such comments (dissenting comments) belong. However I am being silenced by the poor format of this RFC. I suspect others are silenced as well, and the remaining editors are being lead to believe that there is a consensus forming because of the lack of opposition. Approval voting was added in the 72-96 hours prior to this RFC launching (despite it having areas for opposition in the weeks preceding that change). Little opportunity for objection was given, and this RFC was hastily launched with this broken format. It's unfortunate, but there it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So why exactly do you think comments, instead of bare votes, are being solicited? The better to waste editors' time? Could you assume just a little good faith and add your comments, instead of trying to argue that your personal choice to withhold your comments means that someone else is silencing you? I'm prepared to guarantee that non-existent comments will be disregarded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not bothered! I just note that it's pretty silly to get all up in arms about a rule that you can just ignore if you feel like it. You certainly feel that votes can be weighted by some sort of interpretation based on the comments section, and I don't see this as different. ARBCom voting is approached using multiple votes where variant rulings are concerned, and I do not in any way feel that the process is less serious due to multiple votes. I do not see one process as being inherently better than the other, in either direction. AKAF (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only going to make a general comment about this. It's true to say that I've been flip flopping over which method to use for a couple of weeks now - and the honest answer why is because I see it making very little difference. Even from Saturday I've flipped again from approval voting to this method. What we want is for the poll to get one proposal from each section, therefore it does seem right that each user gets one vote from each section. We aren't taking the top two and trying to work something from them, we're taking one only - people need to make up their mind as to what they want. Looking at the comments on the poll page, I see one (possibly two) people who aren't happy with the polling method used - I might open my eyes a little more if it was 10 or 20, but it isn't. I also doubt very much if any other polling method would give a different result. By all means people can argue this to the death, and if they feel it's disputed then so be it. However, I suspect myself and other administrators will be willing to enforce the end result when the poll comes to a conclusion. The comments on the poll show that many people are sick of this dispute and want to put an end to it as soon as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the editors who have discussed second choices support #4; #1 is expressly opposed by most of those who support something else. A voting method which permitted either opposition or multiple supports would make this clearer, but I hope it will be taken into consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's at least one new person (Gavia) and 3 established editors who helped participate in construction of the poll who object. But, we'll see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, once again, this is exactly the type of game played throughout the last RfCs, and I'm glad Ryan has seen through this ploy. It was not a further invitation for wikilawyering, or for all and sundry who may disagree with the likely outcome of the poll to seize this argument in an attempt to discredit the result. As has also been said, this is a poll - in other words a straight vote. It's not your party anymore, and nobody will let you piss on the cake. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that this discussion began when there was one vote registered. I claim no prescience in anticipating the result of this rigging; but we did anticipate it, not react to it.
  • As for the rest of this urinological abuse, I can only conclude that Ohconfucius knows little about polling on or off Wikipedia; he should start with Single transferable vote, the system which most Wikipedia approval polls approximate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I will merely address the issues, and ignore the attack on my person: one of the advantages of this poll is that, based on the previous RfCs, close approximations to the answer were already known. It is now increasingly likely that one option in each will gain an overall majority, so the STV is really quite moot. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend a quick trip to Wikipedia:NAM. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

• Check. Guilty. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Ryan: However, I suspect myself and other administrators will be willing to enforce the end result when the poll comes to a conclusion. The comments on the poll show that many people are sick of this dispute and want to put an end to it as soon as possible. (*sound of quiet, gasping weeping due to giddy joy*) Greg L (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Early start

Unfortunately, I started the poll an hour early - yup, BST started on Sunday and I've been caught out. I'm going to leave it open, because I've already made all the notifications and I would hope that 1 hour will make little difference. Apologies to all parties. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

You may want to consider putting your "comment" box from the top of the page into an editnotice, so people are more likely to see it. Anomie⚔ 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Options missing

There seem to be a series of choices missing, such as the one we used to have .. -- User:Docu

wut?? Soberknight (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Target audience

I think the main question that needs to be resolved is: who the target audience of autoformatting? If all remains as it is then we can foresee some very basic and obvious problems:

1. If autoformatting is to be the preserve of registered users with the activated user preferences (who, let's face it, are primarily editors and form a very small minority of the readership as a whole) then we have the undesirable state of affairs where much work is carried out for a minor preference of a small number of readers.
2. Furthermore, on the main space articles, these registered users will be unable to see and correct mixed dates, which unregistered (i.e. the majority of users) would see.

It is clear that we must move away from this current state of affairs, it does not benefit the majority. The two most appropriate solutions are the "magic word/set dates for all users" solution and the conflicting "remove all autoformatting" solution.

Which brings me to my main point: I don't see anyone supporting the use of autoformatting through linking.

It appears that options #1 and #4 of month/year linking are gaining consensus and there is much overlap between those two choices, in that #4 is in some ways the non-instruction creep version of #1. Yet, despite this growing consensus, wikilinking still seems to be a major aspect of people's reasoning to oppose autoformatting.

We need to disentangle these two issues and first of all have a vote on the deprecation of autoformatting through wikilinks. I think we will find consensus on that issue and it will mean people's responses to further polls on autoformatting will not be diluted with reference to "overlinking" etc. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto formatting can be fixed to work for unregistered readers/editors. Deprecating it will have the effect of making this type of system difficult to implement in the future (because the markup will be gone and people will be hesitant to re add it later). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I thought that the magic word system did not demand the use of wikilinked dates? Note that I did not ask for autoformatting deprecation but only that the method of autoformatting by the use of wikilinks be rejected. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that reading through WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 2: A return to date autoformatting and WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Deprecating the current date autoformatting shows that autoformatting by wikilinking is already clearly rejected. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is so clear then why is wikilinking mentioned in oppose !votes numbers: 12, 13, 22, 37, 42, 49, 54? Some of which come from very experienced users. User preferences objections seem to form another large part of people's reasoning. Given that the application of autoformatting would demand extra work on all our articles, surely we are only left with two "nuclear" options of autoformatting for all, or none at all? Is anyone seriously suggesting that we do this work for just logged in and "date preferenced" users? If not, then we should make the question clear: We should be choosing AF for everyone, or for no one. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why it is mentioned. Perhaps these very experienced users might be unaware of the previous RfCs, or perhaps it's not as clear as I think. Why not take a look and see for yourself? I'm certainly in no doubt that the community has rejected using links to implement autoformatting. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint department for discussing how the RfC is structured

Since PMAnderson was advised in my ANI against him to discuss his complaints about the structure here on the talk page, I’ve copied part all of this thread on the RfC to here, which is the proper venue for this. Note also, that he had been instructed in the ANI to come here with his concerns (If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page) 17 hours before his rant on this issue over on the RfC, where he wasn’t supposed to go. Greg L (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Option 1 is an overreaction

• • (To whom it may concern): Please don't remove this subsection. That is uncalled for. I've been in several polls like this, all of which had several subsections of discussion. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) No, admins at an ANI have made it clear that topics like this are to be discussed here in order to not disrupt an ongoing RfC. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like overlinking any more than the next guy, but I really think that option 4 will lead to editors overreacting. We don't want to kill all year links, and if you have a special guideline for year links that says they can only be linked in X, Y, or Z situations, then people will think: "If year links have a special section, then that means they must be judged more strictly than any other links." I don't think that is what most people supporting the first proposal intend to support. I much prefer option one. Year links need to just quietly slide into the same mass of rules all other links abide by. If we overreact, then we will, I guarantee you, be back in a few months, after several edit wars, having another poll. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The only issue I see with #4 is that there appears to be a disagreement over when a year is relevant. Some people think birth/death years are relevant; many don't. Some people think a year link is relevant if the article subject is listed at the year article; other's don't. Without some guidance, we're likely to continue to have a lot of edit-warring and talk page disagreements that waste everyone's time. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks to me, then, like we're doomed to see edit warring with any and all of these options, and we're also doomed to have this poll again in the near future. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• The format of this poll, imposed as it was by revert-warring by the most partisan of editors, is under discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Year-linking_responses#Format_unacceptable. A {{disputedtag}} would seem appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson: Could you tell the whole truth if it was necessary to save your life?? I didn’t “impose” anything on this RfC. I made a suggestion via some edits (something you obviously aren’t shy of doing either). The question is whether or not my suggested format was properly endorsed and adopted as the method to use in this RfC. Let’s check out whether the evidence supports this.

  First, I posted a notice of my suggestion here. What was the response by Ryan, the clerk overseeing this RfC? He responded fine by me. I was thinking of propsing something like that myself.

  Then there is this exchange on Ryan’s talk page. He responded to you as follows: As it happens, Greg was right with the formatting - it's a poll and we need to be clear about that. … Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.

  Then it was fully discussed here on the RfC talk page where many editors from all sides of the issue weighed in and the issue received a full and fair hearing.

  Then Ryan, the clerk responsible for fairly overseeing and structuring this RfC, helped to restore the format to my suggested method [1].

  Then, when you complained about the structure of the RfC here on the RfC talk page, Ryan responded to you as follows: Whilst I am disappointed that you dispute it, I thank you for your efforts with helping to create the poll. Ryan has shown spectacular patience and fairness in all of this. That little jewel of a response to your industrial‑strength whining comes about as close as any admin can get to “tough; go pound sand in your damned ear if you don’t like it.”

  Finally, In my ANI against you for slapping {disputed tags} all over an ongoing RfC that had been thoroughly and fairly developed and properly supervised, you were advised there in the ANI as follows: I strongly urge all contributors who have been involved in this dispute to not make any further modification to the RFC page. None! You have had your chance to have a say in how the RFC is conducted. If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page and let someone who is uninvolved make any changes deemed necessary. If you, PMAnderson, haven’t yet learned how to heed advise in the face of not always getting what you want, I suggest you start with that tidbit. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Although this section was not supposed to be for linked comments, as they were to be moved to the talk page, I leave you with Ryan's last comment on the "vote for one" issue:

“ The more I think about this, the more I believe "One vote per section" is a bad idea. It's highly likely that some of the community won't have a preference between a number of the proposals - They may for instance broadly agree with 1 and 4 so wish to support those and I can't see a good reason to exclude them. I'm not seeing a good reason at present for one vote per section. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC) ”

• • The "one vote per section" language was added to the actual poll after that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• PMAnderson had been advised in my ANI against him, (17 hours before the above rant) that the proper venue to discuss his complaints about the structure of this RfC is here on the RfC talk page. If history is any teacher, complaints like this can go on endlessly. I’ll see you all there. Greg L (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• First, I thought all this stuff was going to be moved to the talk page - at least that was my understanding when the poll opened. Second, I think it's a very bad idea to edit the poll other than the votes once it's been opened. You're leave yourself open to all kinds of accusations of attempts to misconstrue the rules, and change the actual desires of the !voters. Huge dis-enfranchisement risk there. Change it on the next go round. I hate to play a game when someone changes the rules in the middle of said game. Maybe I've just seen to much of the American political scene lately ;). — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Indeed, you are correct. I moved the entire thread over here. The RfC page is for discussing alternative proposals, not for disagreeing with how the RfC is structured. The administrators have made it clear at the ANI against PMAnderson that such disputes are to be discussed here. Greg L (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Yeah, well the next day (twenty hours later, at 23:13, 29 March), Ryan essentially told PMAnderson, “Tough; go pound sand in your ear”. Go take it up with Ryan if you think he’s confused himself. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I do think Ryan is confused, and the "vote for one" means it will be very difficult to interpret the results of the poll in a way which indicates whether there is a consensus, unless a single option gets a clear supermajority and there are no overriding arguments opposing it. But I'm willing to wait until after the poll closes to argue that Greg, with Ryan's help, killed another perfectly good poll. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  Greg has also made it impossible to determine whether we should treat dates like other linkables; supporters of all four proposed texts are citing that goal as the reason for their proposal. This is unfortunate, if not ridiculous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The good news is that, at the moment, one option does have a clear majority in both of the linking sections. If that trend continues, it's reasonable to adopt it as provisional guidance, and do an approve/disapprove poll after the selected guideline has been tried out in practice. If we do such a followup poll, though, it ought to be conducted by someone who was not involved in drafting this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the community would accept another separate poll. Also, remember that this is only Phase 1 of the poll. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the community would especially like to go through another poll, either - but I also don't see the community accepting the argument that we somehow have to accept a broken poll forever regardless of the consequences - and remember, guidelines do need the support of the community, not only poll results. Meanwhile, this is currently speculative until the poll gets closed - the community can decide if the result is useful after they have a result in hand. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• And, by the way, PMAnderson. Even if it this RfC been structured the way you wanted (Chicago-style voting: “vote early - vote often”), the linking-related issues would still be a bloody slaughter. So stop your bellyaching. As for autoformatting, at 92 against and 63 for (as of this writing), there is clearly no consensus that the community desires the cockamamie autoformatting schemes you’re selling. So give it up and find something else to do. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • More incivility from the revert-warrior who dares not have this poll ask "should we treat date links like other links?"; many of the supporters of wording 1 support it because it treats all links alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wish every opponent was like you. Let the community respond to the RfC maybe? In case you haven’t been keeping up on current affairs, Ryan had a bit of a hand in making the RfC just the way he wanted during the lockdown when he made his final edits before taking it live. If you think the RfC is poorly structured, take it up with him.

  And cease with this “Greg is a witch who caused our crops to fail and our midwives to weep”-horsecrap. The villagers just might look at each other with that wide-eyed look of epiphany, shrug their shoulders, and decide to burn your hut down so they don’t have to listen to your “waaa-waaa.” Greg L (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)