| Revision as of 16:46, 11 January 2009 editDabomb87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,457 edits →PLEASE REVERSE THE MERGER: summary of RFCs and agreeing with Locke Cole← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 11 January 2009 edit undoTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,760 edits →PLEASE REVERSE THE MERGERNext edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| :*Please stop referring to my reading of the results as "spin". I'm open to discussing this, but if you continue to ] discussion rather than being flexible there's not a lot of choice for me, is there? I certainly don't want to degenerate this discussion down to "what the consensus of the consensus is" as you seem to want to do... —] • ] • ] 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | :*Please stop referring to my reading of the results as "spin". I'm open to discussing this, but if you continue to ] discussion rather than being flexible there's not a lot of choice for me, is there? I certainly don't want to degenerate this discussion down to "what the consensus of the consensus is" as you seem to want to do... —] • ] • ] 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::*For all interested parties, I am writing up a detailed summary of consensus of the two RFCs ]. In this case, I agree(!) with Locke Cole. It seems counter-productive to revert for such a little thing. We can always change the wording later. ] (]) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | ::*For all interested parties, I am writing up a detailed summary of consensus of the two RFCs ]. In this case, I agree(!) with Locke Cole. It seems counter-productive to revert for such a little thing. We can always change the wording later. ] (]) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::When I'm faced with what I see as large-scale distortions of the truth in your statement at the ArbCom thing, "spin" also comes to mind. It's a pattern in your contributions to the debate over the past few months, except that it has become more extreme and less compromising in the past six weeks. This has been difficult for other editors to live with, I believe. Perhaps you don't realise how you come over. | |||
| :::Dabpmb, I now see MOSLINK as illegitimate, and will advise editors to disregard it at FAC and other forums. ] ] 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:49, 11 January 2009
Shortcut | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
Proposed merged wording
Please discuss the proposal below.--Kotniski (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
nice work, Kotniski - thanks! one suggestion for the date link section: it's rather contradictory to say multiple year-in-X links are unnecessary and then to suggest aliasing those links "in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily". a revision of this was discussed briefly on some talk page or other - i'll see if i can find it, but meanwhile it would make more sense to leave it at "However, piped links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important, such as tables, infoboxes and lists." thanks again for this work. Sssoul (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- ps: here's that discussion - i don't know if it adds much, but ... there it is. Sssoul (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link - I see I was part of that discussion, but have only vague recollections of it... Anyway, yes, you're right, it does seem contradictory. I'll change it as you suggest.--Kotniski (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I question whether the wording on dates reflects current consensus. It certainly does not reflect the middle ground in any of the recent debates on the matter that I have seen and it seems to me that the current opinion on the issue needs to be properly tested before that section can be part of the merge.Dejvid (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dejvid, that was the wording inserted by an uninvolved admin into WP:MOSNUM, you can take it up there. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not so. The wording on WP:MOSNUM is "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." But in any case the controversy of the debate does suggest we need to check exactly what the community opinion is.Dejvid (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we've already done that at extremely great length, in various RFCs and so on. In any case, this merger proposal doesn't aim to change the status quo as regards date linking guidance, so let's not discuss that here unless you think I inadvertently have changed something.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The wording that you have taken up is a result of this edit ]. As the edit description was " Practicality to avoid multiple "hidden" sibling links; re-organised bullets more logically" I think there is reason to be extremely skeptical that it reflected a change of consensus. The addition of "demonstrably" is a very significant change.
- You are right there has been a very diffuse and confusing debate. What is needed is however a clear vote now we are bringing everything to the same place. Without that, I doubt anyone who claims to know what the current consensus really is.Dejvid (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The edit you refer to was four months ago; we've been through reams and reams of discussion and at least two very well advertised RfCs since then, which confirmed the status quo, so I don't see what good will come from any more voting or discussion on that issue. In any case it isn't relevant to this merger, unless you're saying that the proposed post-merge version differs in substance from the pre-merge version.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The can of worms is very much open and the RfCs have not produced any kind of conclusions. What is needed is not a RfC but proper voting on propositions.Dejvid (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I question whether the wording on dates reflects current consensus. It certainly does not reflect the middle ground in any of the recent debates on the matter that I have seen and it seems to me that the current opinion on the issue needs to be properly tested before that section can be part of the merge.Dejvid (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link - I see I was part of that discussion, but have only vague recollections of it... Anyway, yes, you're right, it does seem contradictory. I'll change it as you suggest.--Kotniski (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kotniski, we all owe you! This has been a bug-bear for so long, and I believe you've done a superb job. Tony (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. Great job Kotsiski, this was much-needed! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Deepen" --> "expand"?_"expand"?-2009-01-11T03:14:00.000Z">
While I won't immediately object to Locke Cole's change here, I find his/her continual framing of his/her views on such matters as "consensus" a little hard to take. Temporarily accepting the change is not equivalent to accepting the claim in the edit summary. I'd like discussion here as to how "expand" is different from "deepen", and why the editor is so keen to subsitute the word, which has been in the style guides for some time.
However, the claim that "demonstrably" is against consensus is harder to stomach. I don't know what is so hard about demonstrating that a year-link deepens (or expands) a reader's knowledge of a topic. Unless Locke Cole is concerned that it can't be done ....? Tony (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)_"expand"?"> _"expand"?">
- Really Tony, there's only consensus to stop linking dates purely for auto formatting. There is no consensus to stop linking dates entirely or place unnecessary burdens on editors. I chose expand over deepen as a mostly semantic issue: the linked date/year may only contain links and information of events/issues/subjects with a minor relation, but a relation nonetheless, to the source subject. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really Locke, that appears to be spin. Tony (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you see it that way Tony, but that's my opinion. It's at best a semantic change at any rate, but I think expand is a little more open ended. Again, I believe this reflects what was discussed at the second RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- So in the exceptional cases where such relation exists (I'm not sure I've ever seen one, but let's assume there are some), that ought to be demonstrable, right? So can we compromise and say "demonstrably...expand"?--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm waiting to hear from Locke as to why there's a need to change "deepen" to "expand". What exactly is the problem with "deepen"? Tony (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again the issue here is about presenting an unnecessary burden on editors. There's nothing wrong with simplifying it by removing "demonstrably" IMHO, and this more accurately reflects consensus from the RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- We need evidence of this "consensus", a word that is being bandied about quite a lot over the past day or two. I don't accept it on the basis of what I've seen. Tony (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way Tony, but I don't see consensus for this burden you're placing on editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- We need evidence of this "consensus", a word that is being bandied about quite a lot over the past day or two. I don't accept it on the basis of what I've seen. Tony (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really Locke, that appears to be spin. Tony (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks !
Thanks for the merge Kotniski ! I mostly like it, and it is definitely better than having 3 separate pages. About not linking "Plain English words", I must admit I sometimes do it when it is ambiguous. For instance, after reading "the monk was shot in the temple" I am not sure whether the author meant temple or temple (example inspired from here). This is a stereotypical example that could be fixed with rewording of the article itself, but any non-trivial article contains a number of ambiguous words, which may be misinterpreted by a newcomer. Anyway, I am happy with the current wording since it includes the word "generally". There is some junk draft wikicode at the bottom of the page, I guess someone is working on it ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The meaning will almost always be clear from the context; but it it's not, it's a sure sign that the wording is ambiguous. We should not force readers to divert to another page to disambiguate a word (nor for its basic definition). Tony (talk)
"familiar to most readers of the article"
The 3rd most accessed page of Misplaced Pages is Special:Random and the 4th is Special:Randompage. That is 59 times more than Barack Obama (Source:) When you write an article, you can bet that most readers know nothing about the context. Those users will be helpless without wikilinks. Since we can not presume who reads an article, how about rewording to "familiar to most readers" ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've made that minor change. (I don't believe that most readers of an article come to it from Randompage though - there's a one in several million chance that anyone accessing that will come to my article, and even if they do there's no reason to suppose that they'll actually read it.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Misleading footnoted statement?
"Academic research has shown that red links drive Misplaced Pages growth"—Footnote 4. This is not causally logical from the remainder of the footnote. I'm concerned about including this. Has anyone read the article? Tony (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
rumour/allegation
Kotniski, your edits substantially improved mine; thank you. On the example—it's better, but if you can think of an example that doesn't involve plain English words, all the better. Let me rack my brains (I'm thinking of a political example). Tony (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Most dates
Locke, why do you keep changing the statement that "most dates "? This is surely not in dispute (particularly after all the RfCs), and we should be wording the guideline to make such things clear to new editors, not muddy the waters.--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's funny because my read of the results indicates a lack of consensus for delinking dates. I'm confused why we're discouraging editors to link dates when the community consensus supports their linkage under certain circumstances (and that's being charitable; realistically it's a "no consensus" which brings us back to the status quo; link all dates). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- On some pages linking of dates is not appropriate. On pages with a historical theme, however, year links are very important. For many with an interest in history, dates are important to fit individual events into a wider whole. The blanket opposition to date links seems to me to be based on the principle that "if I would never want to click on that link, no one else should be allowed to". I trust people to ignore links that do not interest them. You seem to be convinced that the RfCs have produced a clear verdict. All I have seen of the debate on this issue convinces me that "most" is extremely controversial and can't be remotely considered to be backed by consensus.Dejvid (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- We've been through this debate surely, and the consensus is very clear: we don't link run-of-the-mill dates in articles. There may be certain circumstances where dates can be linked (such as in chronological articles), but whatever those circumstances are, they constitute a small minority of cases, so "most" is perfectly legitimate. (I don't know where Locke gets the idea that the status quo is link all dates - that wasn't the case even before the decision to deprecate autoformatting.) If a new editor comes to this page wondering whether or not he should link dates in his articles, the best answer we can give is a clear "no" (with an equally visible link to a section which explains what exceptions there might possible be).--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- No—this "consensus" that is being spun out of all proportion needs to to be evidenced and discussed in each case. Trying to force your own views by spinning your RfC results is going to result in the failure of this merger: we'll just have to keep the existing mess. Tony (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As the ones insisting all date linking is bad have failed to present evidence of a consensus on this, I would say the onus is on you to provide evidence of a clear consensus Tony to add that language. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The best answer is a clear "no, not for auto formatting". The other issues (year links and month-day links) are much less clear. I sincerely wish people would stop misrepresenting the results of the RFC for their own purposes. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- No—this "consensus" that is being spun out of all proportion needs to to be evidenced and discussed in each case. Trying to force your own views by spinning your RfC results is going to result in the failure of this merger: we'll just have to keep the existing mess. Tony (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- We've been through this debate surely, and the consensus is very clear: we don't link run-of-the-mill dates in articles. There may be certain circumstances where dates can be linked (such as in chronological articles), but whatever those circumstances are, they constitute a small minority of cases, so "most" is perfectly legitimate. (I don't know where Locke gets the idea that the status quo is link all dates - that wasn't the case even before the decision to deprecate autoformatting.) If a new editor comes to this page wondering whether or not he should link dates in his articles, the best answer we can give is a clear "no" (with an equally visible link to a section which explains what exceptions there might possible be).--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- On some pages linking of dates is not appropriate. On pages with a historical theme, however, year links are very important. For many with an interest in history, dates are important to fit individual events into a wider whole. The blanket opposition to date links seems to me to be based on the principle that "if I would never want to click on that link, no one else should be allowed to". I trust people to ignore links that do not interest them. You seem to be convinced that the RfCs have produced a clear verdict. All I have seen of the debate on this issue convinces me that "most" is extremely controversial and can't be remotely considered to be backed by consensus.Dejvid (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tony, a merger is a good idea, but not at the expense of agreement. Lightmouse (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm afraid that Cole will go down as having wrecked this excellent move by Kotniski. It's not enough that you're dragging everyone to ArbCom, pushing your particular, personalised notion of what consensus is: you feel you need to launch the changes that you want, unilaterally, to the guidelines about to be merged. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept them. Why strike right now, just when the merger is being prepared? Tony (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because the longer this disputed language remains the harder it is to fight it. The RFCs concluded three weeks ago and for whatever reason you seem disinterested in accepting the results. I accept that dates linked purely for auto formatting must go, why can't you accept that not all date links are evil? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see that the merge has been done. I'm afraid that if Cole is going to engage in edit-wars to force his changes, the merge will need to be undone an we'll have to go back to the previous, messy, separate pages. Tony (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge done
As you will have seen, I've made the merge, with the above couple of wording issues still to be resolved. I suggest that further discussion continue on the MOSLINK talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Merged
Introducing the new merged version (incorporating material that was previously at Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Misplaced Pages:Build the web).--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wording about dates
This still needs to be resolved (see previous discussion at /merged). Any suggestions (in line with the consensus established in recent RfCs) welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Rename
How about renaming this WP:Linking now? It seems to go beyond the scope of a mere style manual.--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As most of the content is from the Manual of Style I think it should remain a MoS page. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- What content is from the Manual of Style? Doesn't seem to be very much to me, though I may be mistaken.--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it everything is from WP:CONTEXT (a MoS page), WP:MOSLINK (a MoS page) and WP:BTW (the only page not part of the MoS, but so small that anything merged in is likely irrelevant). My concern is that if it's not part of the MoS then it needs to be vetted to gain consensus before being labeled as a {{guideline}}. If you keep it as a style guideline then of course it must be within the MoS. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't understand all your arguments, but if there's no enthusiasm for this change, I'll hold off for now.--Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kotniski: I'm unsure what the purpose of a rename right now would be. Tony (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it everything is from WP:CONTEXT (a MoS page), WP:MOSLINK (a MoS page) and WP:BTW (the only page not part of the MoS, but so small that anything merged in is likely irrelevant). My concern is that if it's not part of the MoS then it needs to be vetted to gain consensus before being labeled as a {{guideline}}. If you keep it as a style guideline then of course it must be within the MoS. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- What content is from the Manual of Style? Doesn't seem to be very much to me, though I may be mistaken.--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE REVERSE THE MERGER
OK, sorry Kotniski, I'm going to have to ask you to reverse the entire thing. Cole has started to edit-war, and I, for one, will not accept his unilateral demands.
Can you do this now, please? Tony (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Tony but the changes are backed by the results of the recently concluded RFC I believe. Perhaps instead of constantly reverting me you should try discussing other options? Also, it would be silly to revert the merge when the only thing disputed is one sentence and two words... —Locke Cole • t • c 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the wording dispute will remain regardless of whether we reverse the merge or not, so I don't see a need to undo what was a very popular move. But Locke, please can you say where you're coming from with this claim that the RfC supported date linking?--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Cole, I disagree with your spin, and if you'll look at MOSNUM talk, a lot of other people disagree with your spin. You're succeeding in wrecking the merger. Fine. Have it your way on that count. You will not be forcing your spin on this style guide.
- Kotniski, can you bring back Context, please? Tony (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop with the WP:OWN behavior Tony. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:MOSNUM/RFC#When_to_link_to_Month-Day_articles.3F and WP:MOSNUM/RFC#When_to_link_Year_articles, which I believe show support for some date linking (generally where it's relevant was the impression I got). At worst it's no consensus, which returns us to the prior status quo (link all dates) until consensus can be reached on a change. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the wording dispute will remain regardless of whether we reverse the merge or not, so I don't see a need to undo what was a very popular move. But Locke, please can you say where you're coming from with this claim that the RfC supported date linking?--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski: I will take you to ANI then. You have made a major move with the disagreement of at least two people here. I request again that you undo it, and return CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't understand how that would help. Everyone (including you) was full of praise for the merger. We can easily restore the original wording about dates without reversing the merger (which I've just spent an hour doing).--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony please stop threatening people. And who is this second person that's disagreeing? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was full of praise for the draft, before Cole walked in and changed key wordings. You have acted prematurely. Both Lightmouse and I have objected. Tony (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I was also full of praise for the draft. But the recent changes to meaning are worse than having split pages. Lightmouse (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Those changes reflect the recently established consensus from WP:MOSNUM/RFC. Where is the problem with that? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK everyone, calm down. Let's not touch anything on the page as from now, so we at least know what version we're talking about. Now, what (of importance) does it fail to say now that any of the pages said before the merge?--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Locke Cole, the prior status quo was not link all dates. The RFCs showed us that the consensus was to link dates on a very limited basis, especially in the case of month-day articles. Please cite more specific "consensus" than just the RFCs; something along the lines of this would be good. Keep in mind that there have been other places where consensus was demonstrated (FAs, FLs, User:Tony1/Survey of attitudes to DA removal, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cole has made it quite clear that he's going to try to force his way. He will continue to use this merger as a chance to promote his spin on the RfCs at MOSNUM. Others will simply not accept this spin. It is and will continue to be an impasse. Kotniski, I'm sorry that your work (and mine) is being capsized, but you have way-too-prematurely implemented the merge, knowing that there were disagreements. This was an error of judgement (I make them too—we all do) and reverse it. Please bring back CONTEXT; you had no right to remove it without consensus. Tony (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony even if this is unmerged the issue will not go away. It'll just be spread between three pages instead of this one. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dabomb87, the RFC is all the needs to be linked to. You can see either by sheer number of !votes or by actual opinions expressed that there's consensus for month-day and year links to be made "sometimes". There's definitely no consensus there for "generally never link" as is being proscribed here. And yes, the prior status quo was "link all dates" because there was never a community consensus for the initial change in the first place. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As long as I can remember (2 years-ish?), the status quo (whether actually documented or just observed in practice) was that dates are not generally linked except for autoformatting. It was recently agreed that we lose the autoformatting. So as I see it, dates are not generally linked. That is not incompatible with the RfC result that dates should be linked "sometimes", since the "current" version of the guideline also implies that dates are linked sometimes. So what is it we actually disagree about?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The disagreement is about dates being listed under "generally not linked" (or whatever the section title is). For auto formatting, I would agree (I'd even go with stronger language, "never linked for auto formatting"), but for just general linking I believe it gives our editors the wrong impression (especially given the results at the RFC). Clearly there's support for "sometimes" linking, so we need to be specific that it's just dates linked for auto formatting that aren't okay. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, "consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees, as far as I can see it is only you and Lightmouse who currently disagrees about the merging of these pages. That there is a disagreement about some of the wording of areas of this page is a separate matter. I would also suggest that Locke Cole is right about one thing, you do seem to be owning this page a bit. Can we all calm down and actually discuss the disputed area? Regards, Woody (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. A third person has arrived to object (Dabomb); is this an error of fact? There was and still is no consensus for the merger as yet; only disagreement about important wording. I want to know where CONTEXT is, its talk page and its archives. Tony (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony it's pretty clear that you and the MOSNUM regulars aren't interested in accepting the results of WP:MOSNUM/RFC, but I really wish you'd calm down and talk about this rationally. CONTEXT is still available via article history here: link. Click on "Talk" which hasn't been redirected yet if you'd like to see the discussion archives. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. A third person has arrived to object (Dabomb); is this an error of fact? There was and still is no consensus for the merger as yet; only disagreement about important wording. I want to know where CONTEXT is, its talk page and its archives. Tony (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, "consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees, as far as I can see it is only you and Lightmouse who currently disagrees about the merging of these pages. That there is a disagreement about some of the wording of areas of this page is a separate matter. I would also suggest that Locke Cole is right about one thing, you do seem to be owning this page a bit. Can we all calm down and actually discuss the disputed area? Regards, Woody (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- The disagreement is about dates being listed under "generally not linked" (or whatever the section title is). For auto formatting, I would agree (I'd even go with stronger language, "never linked for auto formatting"), but for just general linking I believe it gives our editors the wrong impression (especially given the results at the RFC). Clearly there's support for "sometimes" linking, so we need to be specific that it's just dates linked for auto formatting that aren't okay. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- As long as I can remember (2 years-ish?), the status quo (whether actually documented or just observed in practice) was that dates are not generally linked except for autoformatting. It was recently agreed that we lose the autoformatting. So as I see it, dates are not generally linked. That is not incompatible with the RfC result that dates should be linked "sometimes", since the "current" version of the guideline also implies that dates are linked sometimes. So what is it we actually disagree about?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cole has made it quite clear that he's going to try to force his way. He will continue to use this merger as a chance to promote his spin on the RfCs at MOSNUM. Others will simply not accept this spin. It is and will continue to be an impasse. Kotniski, I'm sorry that your work (and mine) is being capsized, but you have way-too-prematurely implemented the merge, knowing that there were disagreements. This was an error of judgement (I make them too—we all do) and reverse it. Please bring back CONTEXT; you had no right to remove it without consensus. Tony (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Locke Cole, the prior status quo was not link all dates. The RFCs showed us that the consensus was to link dates on a very limited basis, especially in the case of month-day articles. Please cite more specific "consensus" than just the RFCs; something along the lines of this would be good. Keep in mind that there have been other places where consensus was demonstrated (FAs, FLs, User:Tony1/Survey of attitudes to DA removal, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK everyone, calm down. Let's not touch anything on the page as from now, so we at least know what version we're talking about. Now, what (of importance) does it fail to say now that any of the pages said before the merge?--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't accept your spun interpretation of them, which you were always going to do whatever the results. There is no consensus on what they really mean. Tony (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop referring to my reading of the results as "spin". I'm open to discussing this, but if you continue to stonewall discussion rather than being flexible there's not a lot of choice for me, is there? I certainly don't want to degenerate this discussion down to "what the consensus of the consensus is" as you seem to want to do... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- For all interested parties, I am writing up a detailed summary of consensus of the two RFCs here. In this case, I agree(!) with Locke Cole. It seems counter-productive to revert for such a little thing. We can always change the wording later. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- When I'm faced with what I see as large-scale distortions of the truth in your statement at the ArbCom thing, "spin" also comes to mind. It's a pattern in your contributions to the debate over the past few months, except that it has become more extreme and less compromising in the past six weeks. This has been difficult for other editors to live with, I believe. Perhaps you don't realise how you come over.
- Dabpmb, I now see MOSLINK as illegitimate, and will advise editors to disregard it at FAC and other forums. Tony (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)