User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs

Work in Progress – Starting from basically the RFC data set as analyzed by User:Dabomb87 here, this is an attempt to develop a more "pro-almanac" linking proposal below.

Summary

(The summary below was originally copied from User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs and may have been tweaked slightly based on our own understanding of the consensus reached)

While the intentions of the Date Linking RFCs were in good faith, and provided for a much-needed survey of community consensus, the RFCs' creators forgot an essential step: the collation and analysis of the raw data.

Margin of error in raw counts where total number of votes exceeds 100 is ±3.

RfC 1: The three proposals

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 1: A return to the linking of dates and date fragments – Overwhelming consensus that date fragments should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so; and at that, very rarely. Linking all dates is pointless; they should be linked only when they are relevant. There will be very few cases when a date link is relevant to the context. (7 support / 190 oppose)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 2: A return to date autoformatting – While some are opposed to the autoformatting mechanism itself, some are only against the current autoformatting method of wikilinking full dates. Supporters of autoformatting believe that it is necessary to prevent date format wars, to suit user preferences and for consistency. Opposers believe that autoformatting is unnecessary because the differences are trivial, the current method of autoformatting is harmful, and that it is too complex for little gain. (25 support / 127 oppose)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 3: Automated/semi-automated compliance with any particular guideline requires consensus – The use of automatic or semi-automatic processes to bring articles in line with the style guide does not require special consensus. The majority believes that the existing bot-approval process is enough. Supporters do not believe that bots are capable of making edits in an area where human discretion may be needed. There is little distinction from all commentators over the use of semi-automated (human oversighted) edits; those who mention it believe that these type of edits are within policy. (24 support / 96 oppose)

RfC 2: The detailed questions

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Deprecating the current date autoformatting – Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting. Those who espouse the majority view also believe that date links are generally irrelevant. Opposers believe that while (for the most part) the links themselves are not helpful, deprecating autoformatting (even the current link-dependent method) would be a step back. Those who are neutral are unsure of which issue takes precedence—that of linking or of autoformatting. (247 Support [81.8%] / 48 Oppose [15.9%] / 7 Neutral [2.3%])
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Is some method of date autoformatting desirable? – There is definite support for some method of autoformatting. Supporters cite consistency, the importance of user customization and the ability to extract metadata as the most important reasons. Opposers believe that autoformatting is trivial and that WP:ENGVAR would work in maintaining format consistency within articles. There are several suggestions on how to implement a linkless mechanism, but none have emerged as the primary option. (80 Support [51.3%] / 69 Oppose [44.2%] / 7 Neutral [4.5%])
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to link to Month-Day articles? Month-day links should be linked on a limited basis and only when relevant. The instances when they should be linked are articles about chronological items and annual events. If there are other cases, they are very limited and should be decided on by a case-by-case basis. Articles about full dates (such as July 31, 2005) exist, but there is no consensus if they should be linked to or how they should be used. Some supporters of linking month-day articles suggest linking birth and death dates. (5 Always [4.2%] / 63 Sometimes [52.5%] / 52 Never [43.3%])
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to link Year articles – Year links can be made sometimes, especially in the case historical articles, although consensus leans toward less of these rather than more. When possible, use Year-in-field links. (7 Always [6.7%] / 57 Sometimes [54.3%] / 41 Never [39.0%])
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to use "Year in Field" links – Although year in field links can/should be made when relevant, there is no definite consensus of how to use them yet. The method of putting a limited number of these links in a "See also" section seems to have the most traction; there was also an alternative suggestion of using {{seealso}} at the top of the article or section where a year-in-field link might be appropriate. Per WP:EGG, "hidden" links can be used in tables and infoboxes, and it is helpful if they are explicitly explained (see List of Washington Wizards head coaches for an example) (Hidden: 17 Support / 45 Oppose) (Inline: 18 Support / 28 Oppose / 2 Neutral) (Context: 3 Support / 44 Oppose / 1 Neutral) (See also: 37 Support / 15 Oppose)

Linking chronological items

Feel free to offers suggestions on language or other points on the talk page.

Full dates (e.g. 1 January 2009) should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting.
Otherwise, almanac pages may be linked to in articles, but usually only once, in accordance with our guidelines preventing overlinking. The determination of whether a particular year is worth linking to from an article is an issue of editorial judgment, as with all other article links. If necessary, the utility of a year link should be debated on an article's talk page. What follows are only general guidelines.
Recent almanac page should generally not be linked because readers are unlikely to need or want to review the larger historical context to further their understanding of the topic; see also WP:Recentism. By contrast, almanac pages for times in the distant past which are notably related to the topic of the article should generally be linked at least once because readers are unlikely to have a temporal frame of reference and more likely to be curious about the historical context of the subject of the article.

When to link

Month-day links

Days of commemoration for or celebration of the subject of the article (e.g. 25 December in Christmas, 4 October in Francis of Assisi, 4 July in Independence Day (United States), 1 April in April Fools' Day, 15 January in Martin Luther King, Jr. Day)

Year links

In almanac articles, and almanac-like articles (e.g. 2009, 1320s, Fourth century, Category:Timelines)
Where the notability of the subject of an article is specific to a certain field and had little historic impact beyond that field, links should be piped to the almanac page for that year in that field when such a page exists (e.g. 1973 in baseball in Willie Howard Mays, Jr.)
Birth and death years of notable persons in their own articles. Exclude non-notable relatives, spouses, children
Years of reign or office, or period rank or employment for persons notable in relation to holding such a position
Year in which subject of the article is particularly noted by history (e.g. 1879 in Thomas Edison and light bulb, 1881 in Charles J. Guiteau)
Years which begin or end a notable event which is the subject of the article (e.g. 1812 and 1815 in the War of 1812) or when an article catalogues a notable event which does not have its own article (e.g 1654 BC for red linked Dudimose I in List of pharaohs, 1853 for a small civil war near Huwara)
Years of creation, discovery, or rediscovery (e.g. 1492 in Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 1170 in Cheddar cheese, 1900 in Gregor Mendel)

Decades, centuries, and other eras and time period links

When a year link would otherwise be linked, but an exact year is not known (e.g. 2nd century in Almagest, 1320s in Black Death, Cenozoic in Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event)
When the timeline of an article encompasses a whole era (e.g. 10th century in Timeline of 10th century Muslim history, 20th century in Modern architecture)
When the subject of an article is related to the start or the end of an era (e.g. Greek Dark Ages in Bronze Age collapse)

Months and days of the week should be treated like other units of measurement.

Year in field articles

Certain fields of study and interest have almanacs and periodicals devoted to them by which a given year in the field becomes notable by itself. Non-notable year in field articles should not be created for their own sake or for the sake of piping links.