Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 92

message: I've put together a script that can assist in the transition to unlinked but consistently formatted dates. Try adding the following to your monobook.js:
importScript('User:Remember the dot/Date format unifier.js')
When editing a page, this script adds two new items to the toolbox, "Format dates American style" and "Format dates British style". It will then scan the page for wikilinked dates of either style, and reformat them in the target style without the confusing wikilinking. It does not yet handle ISO-format dates.
If needed, the tool could be modified fairly easily to reformat unlinked dates. However, I do not want the tool doing this by default due to dates in quotes etc.
What do you think? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't do this while editing the page; do it after the page has been rendered, for display only.  Identify dates in plain text and reformat them.  Use an unambiguous format for all dates if it's too difficult to make it recognize general cases. — Omegatron 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your script didn't seem to work for me. Tested on Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and it didn't change any format, only delinked one repeated date. Ultimately this problem should be addressed the same as how  and  work. (I thought ISO did the same thing, but apparently not?) Gimmetrow 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. It doesn't handle December 25 2007. It's expecting dates in the format December 25, 2007 (note the comma separator). I can fix this if you'd like. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You probably should, because date prefs insert the comma and many editors type dates without them. (Yes, it's not ideal for non-logged-in editors...) Gimmetrow 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . Please let me know if you find any other problems with the script. I should have an ISO-only (wikilinked or not) script available shortly. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transitional script now available

message: I know just enough about how templates work on WP to be dangerous in the sense that I'm trying to think that if we can figure this out to make a template  and  to produce unlinked but user-pref formatted dates and linked, user-pref formatted dates, respectively (those don't have to be the template names of course).  Given that I'm sure someone's looked at this before via templates, I figure I may be reasking an earlier question but it can't hurt.  Looking at the Mediawiki help, the extensions seem to be there: we can assign a value to a variable, we can use string manipulation to strip out parts of that text, and we can format a date per user-specifications.  It would seem to be that it should be possible to create the standard wiki-linked date from #date and then process it to remove the wikilinks if these aren't desired.  
Again, I know the issue has been brought up before at WP:Date Debate though I haven't seen anything that outlines technically why it cannot be done by templates, so I'm sure more experienced eyes have tried to work this possibility out. Is it because some of those MediaWiki extensions are not enabled in WP or something I'm missing in the template mechanics?  --
:I think it's possible (I can see a way to do it), but I don't think it's worth the hassle. Once we eliminate the confusing date formats there shouldn't be much of a need to reformat dates at all. As soon as we start talking about a more complicated solution then it's headaches all over again. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I played with this yesterday, and yes, there's no way to do it using templates as WP is currently configured (per Special:Version).  The various MediaWiki extensions that allow for string manipulation are not installed, and there's no equivalent aspect from any of the other included extensions.  #time gets us to the point of 2007 December 14 (in user-pref date format) but I can't remove the square brackets without additional functions.  --MASEM 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately (for what I was trying to do) #time doesn't adjust for user date prefs; however if you give the format code, say d F Y then it gives wikilinked code, when then the auto date formmatting steps in and adjusts it. --MASEM 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the thought to make a template which formats dates according to prefs? If it were possible to have a user-defined string available as a Magic Word, you could do something like . But this seems like a roundabout way to deal with this problem. And, #time only works for 1970 to 2038. Gimmetrow 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yet another piece of javascript code could probably remove the links for those who want less blue text. Gimmetrow 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly stupid question (template mechanics)

message: Before someone bites my head off for adding text to this guideline, I'd like to explain myself. I added text to state that date formatting should be consistent throughout an article's prose, and should generally follow the nationality of the subject. This is what we do already, the only difference is that now it's explicitly stated in the guideline. I did not remove the autolinking requirement or say that ISO dates are forbidden. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added text

message: :The discussion below was moved here from WP:VPP.
There is also a discussion going on at the the talk page of the numbers manual of style () where it's been proposed that editors stop using ISO-format dates (such as 2007-12-16) in citation templates like . When an ISO format date is placed in the date field and wikilinked, (like 2007-12-16), it will be shown according to a user's date preferences. Some editors are saying we should stop doing this. Input from the community would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine how allowing the end-user to display the date in a fashion of their own choosing can be considered a bad thing... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't see the problem with using ISO dates in citations. With autoformating, so long as the dates are wikilinked, there shouldn't be a problem. And even without autoformating, the ISO dates are far more compact. This isn't a case where readability is huge concern, such as it would be in-text. --Farix (Talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep ISO dates in the template parameters. — Omegatron 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO format dates in citation templates 

message: WP:UNITS is the shortcut to the MOSNUM section on units.  I have noticed recently that wp:units does not link to MOSNUM, but to an archived discussion entitled Measurements Debate.  Assuming this is not deliberate, does anyone know how to fix it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to work now.  Thanks for fixing it, whoever you are :) Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank Crissov. Jɪmp 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to observe that there is no consensus in favor of "wp:something" shortcuts to begin with, and they tend to get MfD'd.  I guess it is nice that the two are consistent now, but wp:units should probably just be deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[wp:units]] cf [[WP:UNITS]] 

message: I've lost track of which script does what now. Could Remember please list them here in one spot? Also, does one of them take linked dates, format them consistently to US or UK, and leave them linked? Gimmetrow 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date format fixer scripts

message: The phrase relating to autoformatting:
*"It works only for users who are registered,"
is somewhat misleading. I propose that it says something like:
*"It works only for users who are registered and have set a preference,"
Comments? Lightmouse (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: This is true and I'm sure that there are a good number of us who haven't set preferences (the likes of whom probably don't have much time to make noise on policy talk pages). Jɪmp 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support: What you say is true.  I recently opened :bugzilla:12318 requesting that a default date format be set for the English Wikipedia, which would render both variations moot, but until and unless it is acted on, the change is right.  RossPatterson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested change to make text more accurate