Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
The two completing MOS provisions are:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to interface with user preferences. (per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%... )
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of the article). (per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_... )
I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't think it's relevant to the context of the article. While I understand the need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17 August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme (User: ExplorerCDT)
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
The two completing MOS provisions are:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to interface with user preferences. (per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%... )
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of the article). (per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_... )
I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't think it's relevant to the context of the article. While I understand the need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17 August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
IMHO, linking the *access dates* for sources is 100% worthless. Adds nothing to the content, and could conceivably confuse a user.
-David
Otoh our overactive date linking has already made what-links-here on the date pages useless. The additional damage caused by links for source access will probably be small by comparison.
We can complete the cycle obstructing machine readability by using some css hack to make the linked date look like unlinked text. I'd almost be surprised if someone hasn't coded it already.
On 1/1/07, David Ashby humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds
that
dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an
article
contributor should be wikilinked.
The two completing MOS provisions are:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to interface with user preferences. (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%...
)
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context
(of
the article). (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_...
)
I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't think it's relevant to the context of the article. While I understand the need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17 August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast
of
the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year
on
January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
IMHO, linking the *access dates* for sources is 100% worthless. Adds nothing to the content, and could conceivably confuse a user.
-David _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to interface with user preferences. (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%... )
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of the article). (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_... )
I'm inclined to agree; so long as the article itself is internally consistent, it doesn't seem like a Big Deal to me.
If it's really that important, why not modify the template to do the linking automatically, anyway?
Just my two cents, -Luna
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
The two completing MOS provisions are:
1.) That dates consisting of a day and month should be wikilinked to interface with user preferences. (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%... )
2.) That things should only be linked if they're relevant to the context (of the article). (per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_... )
I think it's ridiculous to link source-access dates as it's just too much (linking, that is), it adds no understanding to the article, and I don't think it's relevant to the context of the article. While I understand the need to deal with user preferences (which doesn't really add or subtract information or make it easier to convey or comprehend by transforming 17 August to August 17) Do we really expect a user to sit back and say "Let's see what happened on the day so-and-so accessed this source he's citing?"
I would appreciate it greatly if you could help resolve this issue and give your comments on which guideline should win out on the talk pages of the MoS articles I cited above, or here via e-mail.
While I'm at it, I extend my best wishes to all of you for a happy "Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord"...the only reason we celebrate the new year on January 1st, and hoping that 2007 is better than 2006.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme (User: ExplorerCDT) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Linking of full dates isn't done for the sake of readers who want to view the articles on the dates. MediaWiki only displays the date according to the preferences of a user when the dates are linked in the wikitext. Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
On 02/01/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
This sort of pointless querulousness is why I gave up on FAC. I strongly advise you to do what's best for the article first.
Linking "retrieved" dates strikes me as not particularly useful and looks like overlinking. The only plus I can see for it is that it triggers the date-format preference mechanism.
- d.
- d.
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:25:56 -0500, "Christopher Thieme" cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
When you've got that sorted you'll be needing to chop down the tallest tree in the forest... WITH... A HERRING!!!
Guy (JzG)
On 02/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:25:56 -0500, "Christopher Thieme" cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
When you've got that sorted you'll be needing to chop down the tallest tree in the forest... WITH... A HERRING!!!
Someone needs to start marking this sort of FAC idiocy with "This objection is a shrubbery."
- d.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:46:25 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone needs to start marking this sort of FAC idiocy with "This objection is a shrubbery."
Excellent! I'm off to create [[Template:Shrubbery]] :o)
Guy (JzG)
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy y'all
Right now an article I'm working on getting FA-status for is at a point of complying with ambiguous and contradictory MoS provisions. A user who objects to an article undergoing an FA-candidacy does so on the grounds that dates in citations stating when internet sources are accessed by an article contributor should be wikilinked.
People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions.
Jay.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:06:34 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
People who object to FA candidates on trivial grounds like this should be given peremptory 1 month bans from all FA discussions.
{{shrubbery}} :o)
Guy (JzG)
--- Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
The two completing MOS provisions are:
We have two competing MOS provisions because square-bracketing dates achieves two unrelated effects: creating a link to the article on that date, and formatting it according to user preferences. It's really time we separated the syntax for this (assuming we can find a suitable solution and amenable developers). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_num...
Regarding the FAC, perhaps you could link them to make the preferences work (although it matters little and it's hardly worth an objection on FAC).
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com