Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 34

message: I am trying to get permission to run a bot to implement Wikipedia policy on date linking. If you want me to be given permission, please support my request at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F. Thanks. Bobblewik 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to bring date linking in articles into line with the Manual of Style 

message: Note: This is the current standard of Manual of Style (biographies)  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) currently contains no statement about the presence or absence of links -- it explicitly refers the user to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for the formatting of dates.
#User:Docu
#King of All the Franks 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, any year should

message: # Not unless the year is part of a complete date, just as other years not part of compelte dates should not be linked. DES (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: This matter has alredy been settled, IMO, with the more general guideline about not linking years that are not part of complete dates. DES (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that generaly a poll is supposed to have some degree of consensus on its format and length. The terms of this one were set iunilaterally with no discussion at all. I do not nessicarily regard these terms as binding. DES (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments

message: ::Comment moved from User talk:Bobblewik Please do not use your bot to enforce style preferences that do not have broad consensus. Many editors, including me, like to link to year pages to let readers get background on the happenings in a particular year; many others do not. It's essentially a British English/American English issue: you leave it up to individual editors, but you don't overpower them with technology. I'm sure that there are plenty of useful and completely non-controversial applications of your bot. AxelBoldt 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guidance in the style is inadequate, it should be changed. Bobblewik 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, and therefore I have undone Tony1's change which was not discussed here and which I don't agree with. Instead I pointed to the guidelines relevant for date linking.  AxelBoldt 20:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bot is changing birth and death dates from use of a en-dash to a hyphen. Not only is this change gramatically incorrect, it seems like a rather controversial change to assign to a bot. Where did the decision to do this gain consensus?--Alabamaboy 20:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. So that people can investigate, can you give an article of where this was done? Bobblewik 21:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I looked at the edits that I made. There was no change for the reader, all that happened was a change from html ndash to unicode ndash. The three versions of short lines (hyphen, ndash, mdash) all look the same to me and it seems that they do to you. If are unhappy with unicode ndash, feel free to use html for the same thing instead. I would be grateful if you could allow the other unrelated changes to remain. Thanks for bringing this up here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 13:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot assisted changes

message: The Date formatting section needs to be fixed.  It's encouraging linking of solitary months and days, which goes against Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.  For instance, December 25 or 2005 (separately) shouldn't be linked.  Only December 25, 2005 should be linked.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formatting section encouarges unnecessary links