752:
using a deceptive edit summary and not discussing it on the talk page; I'm sure if he had participated in the decision-making process properly someone would have noticed and this discussion would have taken place much more amicably several months ago. At the current time, our guideline on this issue does not reflect the opinions of
Wikipedians on the issue - mainly since we are fragmented on how to handle this. If you are of the opinion that it should say what the last existing consensus was in the meantime - feel free to re-insert the old wording, from pre-April 2005.
323:
bobblewick make any edits that seem to break the spirit of the "widespread norm", my interpretation of this being that it states "date links are appropriate when linking to relevant content". I have no problem with this policy but so often the linked date is irrelevant. Supporters of linked dates are not discussing this issue and to block other users who are trying to address the issue is just destructive if they are not prepared to explain themselves.
42:
1269:(where information about the period may be highly relevant to his music). Date links about organisations may prove useful, too - say, for a political party, showing the context of the times in which it was formed. It really is a matter of making a judgement call. You can cite really obvious examples to the cows come home, but that doesn't make the generalisation any less wrong.
633:
going around reverting valid edits according to some made up consensus that is entirely not reflected in the actual policies or guidelines. Ambi, if you think all dates should be linked, then go ahead and try to change the guidelines. In the meanwhile though it is entirely unacceptable to be mass-reverting edits that do conform to the guidelines. --
1752:
IMHO, that leaves us where we have been: Some editors link isolated years, and other editors unlink them, and that includes some editors who think every year should be linked and others (like me) don't see why any (isolated) year should be linked. So, in effect, there are no guidelines. Maybe we just
1729:
I'll support this. Of course, I have yet to see a situation where I think a linked year is relevant, but I can live with some links. I do worry about how this will be put into practice. Will I have to start a discussion on the talk page before I can remove a year link? Can I revert someone for adding
1842:
could do de-linking-wise. Don't make it sound as if I said anything about the other editors. I had no idea you wanted that question answered too: most people only speak for themselves, and are sometimes perceived uncivil if not. Because you asked so nicely, I'll try to give an answer to your implied
1260:
And once again, he cites a bunch of really freaking obvious examples and tries to make a general statement based on those. Did you read what I said above? Date links in articles about historical events give important context to those events by giving broader information about the period. Date links
1017:
So we can't even agree on that. Wow. I'm now beginning to face the brutal reality that consensus on this can never be achieved, not even in the smallest instance. (Incidentally, the "dates in tables" link was irrelevant, however the "Ambi's reverts" link was not.) Thanks for your reply, Francis,
906:
that says not to repeat an internal link within the same article (except where an important link is distant from the previous occurance) apply to solitary year and solitary month links as well? (In other words, is it acceptable to link "1995" when another "1995" was linked in the last sentence, or
632:
That's ridiculous. There's no consensus to link all dates. If there were, our policies and guidelines would reflect that. Instead, they reflect something entirely different. They say that only date links that add meaningful context or work with date formatting preferences are required. Ambi is
1365:
You seem to be saying: only articles you consider important, should have all dates linked, so that you can click on the links that you want to; but unimportant articles can have any or all dates linked/unlinked, you "couldnt care either way". But that is irrational and non-helpful, so i'm assuming
1189:
Bah. Giving a list of instances where links are obviously fairly useless and then trying to claim on tht basis that all links are useless is hardly very convincing. There are plenty of occasions, particularly in historical and biographical articles (mostly concerning older people) where date links
1307:
We're discussing a general guideline. I suggest you use common sense and let me use common sense. Problem solved. Although personally, I'd say that both 1960s and 1980s should be linked for Dylan (1960s definitely, because the period had a lot of influence on his work, and linking one but not the
481:
Interesting. If this is the consensus (ALL dates linked) then I disagree with it and I believe many other users do too. To date there has been an implication from James F. and Ambi that not all dates have to be linked. Yet no one has been explicit about what this means. i want to hear more about
355:
If it is such a widespread norm, then why do we need two people with an automated program and an obsession to run around changing what everyone else has implemented across the rest of the encyclopedia? It is not in common use, and this was, as revealed above, covertly slipped in by
Bobblewik some
1869:
Thank you for your answers. We don't appear to agree where the line on linking years should be, but I don't think further pursuit of this question will be particularly fruitful for now. In any case I tend to be more cautious in my actual editing than I am in these discussions. I'll go back to my
1822:
link years without a discussion, but I can't revert those links without a discussion? That strikes me as a bias for linking years without justification, and I don't think there is consensus for that. How is trying to make articles look cleaner a violation of WP:POINT? And as Ambi said above, the
1770:
Which brings us back to the most common way that similar issues have been resolved on
Knowledge (XXG). Leave them as the original author set, and don't go out of your way to either delink or link. It's done a fine job of stopping edit warring over BC-BCE (or at least, led to those who absolutely
751:
Cyde, the only consensus we had on this page was in fact to link all dates, back in the mists of time. When
Bobblewik inserted his contentious wording that was the beginning of this disagreement, and it snowballed into the problems it has caused recently. The problem was exacerbated by Bobblewik
389:
If it is such a widespread norm, then maybe you could explain which dates can be delinked. At present your editing patterns suggest no dates can be delinked. James F. refers to some consensus that dates back to three years ago. As yet, no one has said what this consensus is: All dates can be
530:
I think there's clearly not a consensus, because you folks have issues with this, but established practice has been to link all dates. This is not to say this necessarily should be the case - while there are plenty of times when date links provide useful context for particular events, there are
322:
Isn't this ironic given she is the one going around making all the reverts? A serious question though, James F and others keep talking about this "widespread norm" that was agreed upon three years ago. I'd like to read that discussion does anyone have a link to it? At present i have not seen
1613:
Maybe, for this guideline, let it rest some time, and see whether it becomes a problem again. I suppose the discussion will move towards the interpretation of "relevant to context" applied to dates. This MoS page would recommend to discuss that on individual articles' pages; if an over-all
1335:
Your arguments above were (analyti/logi-cally) appeals to contextual importance and aesthetics, and above that to article's subject's relative-importance. But every article and link is contextually important if the article is important to the reader. We live within time and so it is always
1378:
No, I'm saying that a judgement call needs to be made as to whether a date link is helpful. I was asked for examples of where a date link may be helpful, so I gave examples. Where links don't really serve a useful purpose, as in the random examples above, I don't object to their removal.
356:
time ago. I'm up for compromising on this, and SlimVirgin's (although I disagree with it to an extent) would go a long way towards this. Or otherwise, you could do as Cyde suggests, stop discussing, "fuck consensus" and do your own thing, in which case I will revert you. Simple.
1177:
Your last example though, raises the very thorny issue of when to obscure links with piping. eg. Someone could read your example as a rationale for adding '1995 in music|1995' for every year in a long discography. I don't know what the solution/guidelines to this issue is.
1095:
I'm trying to figure out when it is 'contextually relevant' to link a year. I'll give a couple of examples, and there can be some discussion (and maybe put it on the project page). I understand that even more context is needed in some situations, but maybe it'll be useful.
580:
Ambi said: "The solution, I think, is to make a judgement call. - and not to go killing the entire lot on sight." Yes, absolutely! I think we are getting somewhere. There just might be an emerging consensus (whoops, perhaps I'd better not get carried away!).
1348:
No, as would be perfectly obvious if you had read what I said. I'm not disputing that date links are rather useless in the random examples cited by you two (although I don't really care either way), but that there are plenty of other examples where date links
241:
It's been several months now since the first person said "can you stop for now and let us discuss rationally". The rational discussions aren't working; people are too hard-headed. At what point do you just say, "Okay, you can adhere to the guidelines"?
1701:
applies to year links as well as to any other type of link. In fact, the first bullet point of P8c seems to agree that the context of the link is important, and thus contradict the rubric. It seems to me that the actual disagreement comes over what
1859:
develops (which fellow-wikipedians might reproach them about later in the process), they might however consider using the talk pages of such articles to sort out overlinking/underlinking issues, instead of arbitrarily starting to link years.
845:? I mean, even if the P8 formulation were put there as a "temporary solution", I wouldn't need an express "permission" for it I suppose: as far as I can see it evenly describes the points we agree upon, and the points we don't agree upon. --
1843:
question nonetheless (although this all appears self-evident to me): if people start linking years randomly that were not previously linked without providing any rationale, they do so ...at their own risk. "Risks" include being perceived
1603:
link dates.." to the first line). Does this mean we'll be continuing to discuss the issue here and/or somewhere else? or are we putting this in, and trying to ignore the issue for afew months (or till it becomes a problem again)?
1437:
The article contains many more dates (separate years, as well as full dates), none of which I thought useful to link. Anyone having a problem with my "common sense" judgement for this instance? (If so, please discuss at
222:
en masse editors would take the hint and stop delinking for a while, in order to stop provoking emotional arguments, like this whole "ambi's reverts" section, and get back to discussing it rationally. isnt irony great!
1487:
A seperate issue, that we should address later, is when, and how often, to advise using piped links? eg ((1990 in music|1990)), or ((1990 in
Australia|1990)) etc, which i can see having a lot more potential benefit.
1615:
1730:
a year link without seeking consensus on the talk page? Can I challenge an editor to justify the relevance of a year link? In other words, what will constitute good manners in dealing with year links? --
430:
The old consensus was that all dates should be linked. And the reason that it needs hard work to get to our current MoS is that many people (including myself) linked every date in sight at that time.
1809:
develops (which fellow-wikipedians might reproach you about later in the process), you might however consider using the talk page of such article to sort out such issues, instead of blind reverts. --
917:
Simple question, no simple answer: reading half of the over 100 kb of text above will show you that there's no ready answer to that question. We're working on it. Feel invited to join the efforts. --
108:
100:
95:
83:
78:
70:
1643:
1551:
1001:
823:
1161:
wants to read this unfocused information during her/his reading of a particular article, why not just type the four digits into the search box at the side, press return, and hey presto. But why?
1706:
means in practice. Some people (like me) feel that year links are almost never useful to understand the context. Other people feel that year links are often useful to understand the context.
1057:
This is besides the point — I just wanted to see if there was agreement on even this level. I've been involved in this debate before, I know there's constant argument on the larger scale.
1452:
For my part, I don't see the relevance of linking even those two years. I am still willing to concede that some years may deserve linking, but I have yet to see any that I would link. --
1480:
When the date-pref bug is fixed, I will be among those proposing a mass delinking of almost all date-pref-rationale linked-dates. There is no reason for ANY of these dates to be linked:
1295:
Think long term. Bush will be just as relevant to world history as Khan in 200 years (for better or worse). Knowledge (XXG) might be around that long; We're trying to create guidelines.
811:
Regarding "judgement call", which is an idea I like very much, I know that my latest proposal didn't exactly use that wording, but I suppose it is sort of included in it (in the "on a
1332:. But in the meantime, many of us feel that having all those years linked looks slightly ridiculous, even once you get used to wikipedia, and especially to some potential newcomers.
854:
I think that the wording of the second point is too positive, or might be carelessly read that way (starting with: "it is good practice to link separate months, days and years ..."
930:
links. I was trying to ask a question independant of but related to the above debate, in the hope there might have been agreement on at least something. Another way to put it is:
1743:
Just edit. There's no need to be particularly militant about it either way, and it's bad manners to get into revert wars - particularly in areas you wouldn't normally edit.
1565:
21:
1614:
description of "relevant to context" for dates would be required (I don't know if that would be possible or soon agreed upon...), I'd have the discussion not here but at
1780:
I guess that means that I can revert when someone links years that were not previously linked without providing any rationale (which I see happening fairly often). --
1674:
842:
1366:
that I'm misunderstanding you, and I'm asking you to clarify what you mean in some sort of abstractable but concise summary, that will help solve all this debate.
1298:
What should be linked? Stop arguing with individuals and address the topic; or point to where you/anyone expressed your view most clearly and with examples... --
197:
Thanks for the clarification. However, the discussion does not change the current wording of the guideline. Actions need only be consistent with that. Making
531:
indeed plenty of times when date links can be superfluous. The solution, I think, is to make a judgement call. - and not to go killing the entire lot on sight.
1654:
1513:
1278:
And i'm suggesting that you get specific. What exactly was obvious about the links in the 5 above - are they obviously all wrong? obviously correctly linked?
976:
1530:– contains several "full" dates, as I indicated above: Donald made clear he wouldn't link any of these either (and for these full dates I agree with him).
1709:
I think there is hope for a compromise proposal along these lines, but I think it would say something like "Treat year links according the guidelines in
1324:
My hypothesis is that you would like, as would I, more uses for all the metadata that is incorporated into this wonderful site; such as autogenerating
1926:
1914:
140:
128:
120:: This extended discussion on the linking of dates, during March and April 2006, is 171 kilobytes long. It therefore occupies archives 42 through 46.
1823:
precedent of the AD/CE, BC/BCE controversy would be to make any change in year linking without consensus objectionable, and subject to reversion. --
798:
1693:
I'm really sorry to say this, but I don't think P8c represents the majority view, let alone the consensus view. I say this because I think there
1008:
as any other of the "linking of dates" issues discussed on this talk page. Again, feel free to join in working towards a consensus solution. --
1066:
I would say yes to your original question. In fact I would say bare year links should be treated like other links, in almost every respect.
1004:
apply for dates. " - Avoidance of repetitive linking of the same expression on the same page is as much part of the "general principles" of
482:
what they believe can and cannot be done with regard to delinking. It is not enough to say that the consensus is obvious becuase it is not.
295:
Don't you find it a problem that you're trying to change - in your own words - a widespread norm by enforcing your own views on people?
435:
1164:
The only useful date links, IMV, are piped ones that lead to focused articles such as '1995 US electoral scandal|1995' for the last.
58:
27:
17:
1321:. I'm wondering what specifically about my examples made them useless; but the links in the articles you used as examples useful.
1481:
1241:
1878:
1864:
1831:
1813:
1788:
1775:
1765:
1747:
1738:
1724:
1684:
1637:
1626:
1608:
1590:
1492:
1460:
1446:
1383:
1373:
1357:
1343:
1312:
1302:
1273:
1255:
1194:
1182:
1168:
1108:
1061:
1052:
1022:
1012:
948:
921:
911:
889:
868:
858:
849:
805:
769:
700:
639:
585:
535:
489:
397:
360:
330:
248:
205:
188:
178:
765:
390:
linked; all dates should be linked; don't overlink dates but mulitple dates links are fine; something else. Which is it?
1203:
It would be marvelously useful for your own case, to provide a list (even just 3) of instances/examples of where a date
997:
878:
201:
is essentially what this discussion is about. But surely manual changes to an article that one is editing are fine.
1040:
And i see no valid reason to link individual months at all, except in the context of the origin of the name (ie link
49:
926:
Really? I was under the impression that the argument was links vs. no links, and that no-one had ever considered
1071:
761:
1900:
The second-level header section "Examples of when to link and not link solitary links" continues into archive46.
1720:
1325:
1037:
of the "1995"s linked? Was it contextually helpful? An example would help us give even more specific responses.
1100:
1500:
Anyway, "link all dates that respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences" does not seem to work:
168:
PLEASE stop removing date links (especially en masse) UNTIL we have a clear decision from this discussion.
1861:
1810:
1681:
1623:
1587:
1443:
1009:
918:
886:
846:
835:
it is good practice that editors look for consensus on over/underlinking issues on a "by article" basis.
802:
1680:...but I don't know if that would be a kind of formulation on which agreement is soon to be found... --
1662:
1506:
1285:
have the "1960s" and "1980s" linked? or links that are piped to eg."1960s in music"? or left unlinked?
944:
year links are permitted/encouraged (and is hence primarily directed towards those who believe that.)
1068:
432:
1710:
1703:
1698:
1005:
1716:
1673:(i.e. dates composed of day, month and year) are preferably linked according to the description in
1510:– not a single of the over 100 full dates are on that page linked according to proposed convention;
1223:
1713:; link a year if it's relevant to the context, don't link it if it's not relevant to the context".
1105:
1097:
968:
section above discusses that the "old" consensus (still applicable according to some) was to link
1848:
1844:
1794:
1658:
1329:
903:
829:
it is good practice to link all dates that respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences;
1772:
1744:
1634:
1380:
1354:
1309:
1270:
1191:
865:
532:
357:
757:
1650:
170:(I speak as someone who fully supports the delinking). We don't need this added distraction.
1798:
1644:
Knowledge (XXG):Only make links that are relevant to the context#Rules of thumb for linking
1755:
P9: There is no consensus on whether or not to link years that are not part of a full date
1439:
1058:
1019:
945:
908:
486:
394:
327:
864:
This would be a good solution, and I'm fine with Tony's suggested modifications as well.
799:
Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough
1675:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Usage of links for date preferences
1289:
1251:(please don't fix any of these yet, so other people in this thread can see). discuss. -
1210:
Here are the first 5 articles I got for "random page". (some suprisingly good examples)
993:
such transformations were w.r.t. existing guidelines can be seen as a matter of debate.
218:
I was trying to use formal "lawyerly" language, primarily in the hopes that the 2 main
1605:
1571:
it is good practice that editors look for consensus on over/underlinking issues on a
1489:
1370:
1340:
1299:
1262:
1252:
1190:
may be entirely useful for giving context. None of these, however, make your "list".
1179:
1049:
832:
it is good practice to link separate months, days and years when relevant to context;
224:
175:
696:. She goes on to say: "This is not to say this necessarily should be the case..."
1872:
1825:
1782:
1759:
1732:
1454:
753:
938:
to the guideline that says not to repeat an internal link within the same article?
688:
Hey, Ambi didn't say that the consensus was to link all dates. She said that it
1353:
serve a useful purpose, as in the examples I noted - for which I explained why.
1217:
697:
582:
202:
185:
57:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1646:
and not in the date & numbers MoS), I suppose one could say something like:
1477:), and should be linked at editor's discretion (but not autolinked by default).
819:
P8 - Francis' new proposal (trying to take account of some of
Talrias' remarks)
1666:
1527:
1406:
1165:
855:
483:
391:
324:
1564:
it is good practice not to link auxiliary dates on disambiguation pages, per
1319:"Bah. Giving a list of instances where links are obviously fairly useless..."
1308:
other looks silly), and the three also for Bush, for the reasons you state.
1282:
1266:
634:
243:
1633:
Tentatively support, though the preferences issue remains with full dates.
1547:
P8c - Francis' new proposal (no consensus on linking all full dates either)
843:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates
996:
My current preferred version of what should go in the guideline (P8b, see
152:
The second-level header section "Ambi's reverts" continues from archive44.
1566:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries
1045:
440:
1151:
Turks issue a decree to protect the
Acropolis after they conquer Athens.
1000:) starts with: "There is no consensus whether the general principles of
163:
Request to stop delinking dates in order to avoid additional distraction
1665:) or other pages where linking every date may become encumbering (e.g.
1235:
1076:
1362:
If it were perfectly clear I wouldnt keep asking for clarification ;-)
979:
has undergone some transformations in this sense over the last months
1616:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context
1229:
1041:
1339:
So, summarizing, Is your stance that every year should be linked? --
1261:
in quite a number biographical articles can prove useful too - say,
28:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 45
1474:
1552:
Knowledge (XXG):Only make links that are relevant to the context
1470:
1430:
1422:
1079:
1002:
Knowledge (XXG):Only make links that are relevant to the context
824:
Knowledge (XXG):Only make links that are relevant to the context
443:
1905:
The third-level header section "P8c" continued into archive46.
1369:
This (text) is a hard medium to gather insinuation through! --
36:
841:
Would that be a good replacement for the present content of
1292:
should the 3 unlinked years in the 2nd paragraph be linked?
1522:
links removed while considered "overlinking" by
Microtonal
1410:
1265:(again, providing a wider context to his achievements) or
1133:
Nope, none of these is remotely useful. 1458 starts with:
1851:, evading proper "edit summary",... None of these apply
1801:, evading proper "edit summary",... None of these apply
1550:
There is no consensus whether the general principles of
1139:
24 January - Matthias I Corvinus becomes king of
Hungary
822:
There is no consensus whether the general principles of
1622:
principles for linking dates in that guideline then) --
1521:
1517:
983:
980:
297:
1793:...at your own risk. "Risks" include being perceived
1586:
a good rendering of the present lack of consensus? --
1771:
insist upon doing so being sent before the ArbCom).
1469:
I agree. I can see no reason to link years ever (eg
1142:
Foundation of
Magdalen College, University of Oxford
1091:
Examples of when to link and not link solitary links
1033:A less ambiguous response: For what reason was the
1018:very much appreciated (dunno how I missed that).
1473:). however, Decades do provide a good overview (
972:years, even if repetitive in the same article.
8:
1655:List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function
1514:List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function
977:List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function
1145:George of Podebrady becomes king of Bohemia
692:established practice. Clearly it had been
1048:), and similarly obvious circumstances. --
902:Quick question: does the guideline in the
1915:discussion continued from /archive44 <
1919:
1413:) I finally resolved to use these links:
975:Another example (not yet on this page):
133:
1924:
138:
1123:This occurred between 1583 and 1602...
957:above (is the answer to your question
55:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
1599:. (though i would like to add "..to
954:
898:Sidenote: repeated year/month links?
184:No one is "removing dates en masse"
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
1244:- lots. half linked, half unlinked.
965:
157:
1557:it is good practice to link dates
942:in the hypothetical situation that
270:Ambi's last edit on this page was:
35:
1126:She visited this place in 2004...
40:
1129:Person donated money in 1995...
298:Ambi 06:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
1482:The Rolling Stones discography
1242:Leamington Spa railway station
1120:In 1999, they toured Europe...
129:previous page: /archive44 <
1:
1909:
797:Please see, in this context,
123:
1220:- lots. all linked except 1.
1114:Born in 1458, he did this...
961:when talking about tables?)
1951:
1697:widespread agreement that
1642:Well (but I'd put that in
1591:20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1554:apply for dates. However,
1493:19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1461:13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1447:07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1384:22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1374:22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1358:21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1344:08:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1317:your thread reply started
1313:06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1303:06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1274:06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1256:05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1195:04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1183:03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1169:02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1109:23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1062:09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1053:23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1023:09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1013:11:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
949:11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
922:10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
912:10:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
890:08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
869:01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
859:13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
850:09:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
826:apply for dates. However,
806:10:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
770:06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
701:01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
640:01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
586:01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
536:22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
490:20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
398:13:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
361:02:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
331:00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
249:00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
206:20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
189:20:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
179:19:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
158:Ambi's reverts (continued)
1912:
1879:18:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1865:16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1832:15:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1814:15:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1789:14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1776:13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1766:13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1748:12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1739:12:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1725:08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1685:08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1638:05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1627:08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1609:04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1518:full dates linked by Rich
1148:Pope Pius II becomes pope
1117:Foo was formed in 1998...
126:
1582:Anyone thinking this is
1559:when relevant to context
1429:prior to publication in
1409:(an example I mentioned
1328:that were as useful as
1679:
1534:So, proposing version
1435:
907:the last paragraph?)
1647:
1421:were composed around
1415:
940:The question applies
142:next page: /archive46
53:of past discussions.
1855:of course. Before a
1838:You only asked what
1805:of course. Before a
1753:need something like
1281:Should the intro to
1232:- 1 superfluous date
1226:- 1 superfluous date
1238:- 2 un-linked dates
1224:Samegawa, Fukushima
1174:I completely agree.
1663:Köchel-Verzeichnis
1507:Köchel-Verzeichnis
934:Are year links an
1938:
1937:
1920:(long discussion)
1818:So an editor can
1433:is not unlikely,
1419:Three Gnossiennes
148:
147:
134:(long discussion)
114:
113:
65:
64:
59:current talk page
26:(Redirected from
22:Dates and numbers
1942:
1910:
1875:
1862:Francis Schonken
1828:
1811:Francis Schonken
1785:
1762:
1735:
1682:Francis Schonken
1624:Francis Schonken
1588:Francis Schonken
1457:
1444:Francis Schonken
1103:
1044:when discussing
1010:Francis Schonken
955:#Dates in tables
919:Francis Schonken
887:Francis Schonken
847:Francis Schonken
815:basis" I mean):
803:Francis Schonken
199:en masse changes
124:
92:
67:
66:
44:
43:
37:
31:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1873:
1826:
1783:
1760:
1733:
1618:(that would be
1544:
1455:
1440:talk:gnossienne
1101:
1093:
966:#Ambi's reverts
900:
694:for some people
165:
160:
88:
41:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1948:
1946:
1936:
1935:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1908:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1717:Stephen Turner
1714:
1707:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1569:
1562:
1548:
1543:
1540:
1532:
1531:
1525:
1511:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1485:
1478:
1464:
1463:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1367:
1363:
1337:
1333:
1322:
1296:
1293:
1290:George W. Bush
1286:
1279:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1233:
1227:
1221:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1198:
1197:
1186:
1185:
1175:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1038:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
994:
973:
962:
931:
899:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
872:
871:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
830:
820:
809:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
211:
210:
209:
208:
192:
191:
164:
161:
159:
156:
155:
149:
146:
145:
137:
135:
132:
112:
111:
106:
103:
98:
93:
86:
81:
76:
73:
63:
62:
45:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1947:
1934:
1933:
1932:in /archive46
1931:
1917:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1902:
1901:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1874:Donald Albury
1868:
1867:
1866:
1863:
1858:
1854:
1853:automatically
1850:
1846:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1830:
1829:
1827:Donald Albury
1821:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1803:automatically
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1784:Donald Albury
1779:
1778:
1777:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1761:Donald Albury
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1734:Donald Albury
1728:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1683:
1678:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1589:
1585:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1541:
1539:
1537:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1494:
1491:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1458:
1456:Donald Albury
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:Ghenghis Khan
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1099:
1090:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
991:objectionable
988:
984:
981:
978:
974:
971:
967:
963:
960:
956:
952:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
937:
932:
929:
925:
924:
923:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
905:
904:MoS for links
897:
891:
888:
884:
881:for proposal
880:
876:
875:
874:
873:
870:
867:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
852:
851:
848:
844:
834:
831:
828:
827:
825:
821:
818:
817:
816:
814:
808:
807:
804:
800:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
702:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
641:
638:
637:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
587:
584:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
537:
534:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
491:
488:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
445:
442:
438:
437:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
399:
396:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
362:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
332:
329:
326:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
299:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
250:
247:
246:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
226:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
207:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
169:
162:
154:
153:
144:
143:
131:
130:
125:
122:
121:
119:
110:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
91:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
60:
56:
52:
51:
46:
39:
38:
29:
23:
19:
1929:
1925:
1913:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1898:
1871:
1870:editing. --
1856:
1852:
1839:
1824:
1819:
1806:
1802:
1781:
1758:
1754:
1731:
1694:
1670:
1648:
1619:
1600:
1596:
1583:
1581:
1572:
1558:
1535:
1533:
1505:
1499:
1453:
1436:
1426:
1418:
1416:
1404:
1350:
1318:
1204:
1163:
1158:
1157:If a reader
1156:
1132:
1094:
1067:
1034:
990:
986:
969:
958:
941:
935:
933:
927:
901:
882:
853:
840:
812:
810:
796:
693:
689:
635:
431:
294:
244:
219:
198:
171:
167:
166:
151:
150:
139:
127:
117:
116:
115:
89:
54:
48:
1928:discussion
1649:Unless for
1218:Jeff Burton
953:See, e.g.,
47:This is an
1711:WP:CONTEXT
1704:WP:CONTEXT
1699:WP:CONTEXT
1671:full dates
1667:gnossienne
1573:by article
1528:Gnossienne
1407:Gnossienne
1330:these look
1207:be linked.
1072:Farmbrough
1059:Neonumbers
1020:Neonumbers
1006:WP:CONTEXT
946:Neonumbers
909:Neonumbers
813:by article
436:Farmbrough
109:Archive 50
101:Archive 47
96:Archive 46
90:Archive 45
84:Archive 44
79:Archive 43
71:Archive 40
1930:continues
1922:archive45
1504:Table at
1336:relevant!
1326:timelines
1283:Bob Dylan
1267:Bob Dylan
987:justified
964:Also the
959:different
936:exception
636:Cyde Weys
441:26 March
245:Cyde Weys
172:Thanks :)
136:archive45
1849:WP:CIVIL
1845:WP:POINT
1795:WP:POINT
1620:specific
1606:Quiddity
1490:Quiddity
1427:revision
1371:Quiddity
1341:Quiddity
1300:Quiddity
1253:Quiddity
1180:Quiddity
1077:8 April
1050:Quiddity
1046:Augustus
928:repeated
690:had been
484:David D.
392:David D.
325:David D.
225:Quiddity
220:culprits
176:Quiddity
20: |
1857:pattern
1820:blindly
1807:pattern
1597:support
1236:Shorten
754:Talrias
50:archive
1799:WP:OWN
1661:(e.g.
1659:tables
1653:(e.g.
1575:basis.
1417:These
1205:should
1159:really
1082:(UTC).
1075:18:29
1042:August
985:. How
698:Sunray
583:Sunray
487:(Talk)
446:(UTC).
439:20:30
395:(Talk)
328:(Talk)
203:Sunray
186:Sunray
1927:: -->
1847:, UN-
1757:. --
1651:lists
1475:1490s
1411:above
1230:Lip's
1098:Gflor
1069:Rich
1035:First
998:above
879:above
433:Rich
141:: -->
16:<
1773:Ambi
1745:Ambi
1721:Talk
1635:Ambi
1601:only
1471:1493
1442:) --
1431:1893
1425:. A
1423:1890
1405:For
1381:Ambi
1355:Ambi
1310:Ambi
1271:Ambi
1192:Ambi
1166:Tony
1080:2006
877:See
866:Ambi
856:Tony
533:Ambi
444:2006
358:Ambi
118:Note
1840:you
1657:),
1584:not
1542:P8c
1536:P8c
1288:In
989:or
970:all
883:P8b
1860:--
1797:,
1723:)
1695:is
1677:;
1669:)
1538::
1520:;
1516::
1488:--
1351:do
1178:--
982:;
885:--
801:--
768:)
764:|
760:|
242:--
223:--
174:--
105:→
75:←
1719:(
1604:-
1568:.
1561:;
1524:.
1484:.
1106:s
1102:e
766:c
762:e
758:t
756:(
293:"
251:]
61:.
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.