- Template:Use ymd dates (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Deleted on 2011-12-18 even though there was no consensus (2011-12-07 voting: 2 keep, 1 delete), nominated only a couple of months after a prior XfD was closed by the same admin as a "no consensus" (2011-09-08 voting: 7 keep + 2 strong keep = 9 total keep; 4 delete — doesn't seem like "no consensus" to me); deleted again on 2017-01-01 under WP:CSD § G4.
As for the rationale, whilst it may have been true that ISO 8601 dates may have been uncommon in English in 2011, I think it is very common nowadays in 2019, especially in International English and in open-source software-related articles where English is often used as a lingua franca amongst participants from all around the world.
Recently (in the last couple of weeks), the Template:Use mdy dates and Template:Use dmy dates templates have started being used by the Template:Cite web et al for formatting the dates used in the references; I think this makes it necessary to have the full collection of acceptable date formats that could be specified for use when dmy or mdy don't cut it.
Additionally, just as an example, nowadays, ISO 8601 is the standard way of expressing dates on gc.ca websites by Government Canada, e.g., see travel.gc.ca, weather.gc.ca (Date modified: 2019-04-24), and in news lists like on www.fin.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/nr-nc-eng.asp, agr.gc.ca/eng/news/… etc.
MureninC (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion, the prior discussion was for three templates, including the very commonly used dmy and mdy dates templates, so I don't think you can extrapolate. the follow up discussion on 7 December 2011 had 5 participants, with The Evil IP address/Frietjes !voting to delete, Thumperward saying that the template "is probably actually harmful" which equates to delete in my reading, and Nsaa/76.65.128.198 !voting to keep. so, that would be 3 delete + 2 keep, not the count indicated above. finally, and most importantly, MOS:DATE lists what is acceptable in prose. you should probably have that changed first if we are going to start saying that ymd is generally acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention MOS:DATES is required to be changed first, but it already lists "2007-04-15" as being acceptable. Am I missing something? Also, I don't understand why you equate thumperward comment to a delete vote, when they explicitly didn't vote as such, especially as they wrongly suggest that this format wouldn't be familiar to most readers, which simply isn't the case and conflicts with MOS:DATES today, as ISO 8601 is very common nowadays. Additionally, the original nomination by The Evil IP address mentions that ISO 8601 format is, in fact, acceptable in References, but right now there's no template to enforce this, whereas the other two templates are automatically picked-up to format the citations in references as of a few weeks ago, and I think there must be one for ISO-8601 as well, to allow proper choice and consistency as per MOS:DATES. MureninC (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:DATE says that there is "No equivalent for general use" and that ymd is only to be used in refs, tables, and infoboxes. which means, it is not acceptable in prose. and, Thumperward doesn't bold votes to encourage the closer to read the comments and not simply count votes. saying that a template "is probably actually harmful" means it should be deleted. if you want a template for enforcing ymd in references, and not in prose, then that would be called
{{use ymd dates in references}}. editors may find Template:Use dmy dates#Usage informative where it states the "dmy and mdy templates have almost always been used to indicate date styles in the body of the articles". since ymd is not acceptable for the body of articles, having a non-reference-specific ymd template would be harmful. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I didn't "explicitly vote" because this isn't a vote, but generally if someone describes something as "probably actually harmful", they probably don't want it to be kept around? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: the new support in cs1|2 does allow for ymd publication and access-/archive-dates (
{{use xxx dates|cs1-dates=yy}}) but this directive is problematic for the general case where dates in a citation are ranges of any type or have month / season precision (commonly used by journals and magazines). This is why that 'feature' is not documented. cs1|2 does not convert those dates to numeric form because MOS:DATES does not support YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD. In cs1|2, access-/archive-dates are never ranges and are required to have day-precision; publication dates can be any of the accepted date types. Still, because MOS:DATES allows YYYY-MM-DD in citations, cs1|2 will attempt to comply with the |cs1-dates=yy directive. You can also explicitly set |df=ymd-all to do the same thing on an individual cs1|2 template basis (with the same conversion limitations). — Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trappist the monk: Thank you for clarification. I personally don't like the way that this has been done behind the back of editors of the articles, especially as there has been absolutely no usage of these templates for actual date formatting by any prior macros until this very recent change. I envision that in the future tables could possibly pick up the format as well, and then do they pick up the format from
|cs-dates=yy, or would a new parameter be introduced, breaking everyone again? I think it should be possible to specify the |df=ymd option on the Template:Reflist level; I don't see it making any sense to have |df within Template:Cite web instead, as that seems like too-narrow of a context. I also really don't like the idea that this change is being introduced for references which causes ISO8601 references to be mangled into non-readable prose against the desires of the editors; please advise for a better venue to discuss this, if applicable; but I would like you to move the change from being applied automatically to be on an opt-in basis (at least in-so-far as a short compatible format is used in the references — I don't have an objection against automatically interchanging and correcting dmy/mdy otherwise). MureninC (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment here was an attempt to explain what is available, not to be a distraction from the purpose of this deletion review. If you wish to rise in opposition to cs1|2 auto date formatting, this should not be the venue. Perhaps Help talk:Citation Style 1 or WT:Citing sources are better venues. —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion, per Frietjes. User scripts for semi-automatic maintenance of dates do indeed call and write {{Use XXX dates}}} templates. Although there is a general tolerance for yymmdddd dates within the reference sections (and their use is independent of the existence or otherwise of those templates), en.wp is not big-endian, and MOSNUM does not approve of the use of yymmdddd dates in the body of articles. There is therefore no reason to use this template anywhere. -- Ohc ¡digame! 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it shouldn't have been deleted in 2011 - should have been a no consensus. I haven't familiarised myself much with whether there's a need for this, but I have absolutely no problem with recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist the deletion history shows there was never actually consistent consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, are you still here? And still pretending to misunderstand what consensus is as part of some weird game to stop things getting deleted? The original argument to delete was that nobody writes dates in ISO 8601 format in the general body of articles, that enforcing this is therefore pointless, and that a template which is designed to enforce it is therefore completely counterproductive. Other than a couple of gainsayers (such as the author of this review request), nobody has actually argued against those points, so the close was correct. If MureninC (talk · contribs) can provide evidence that in general article prose, real-world editors are finding a problem whereby they are writing dates in ISO 8601 format and this is being ignored (instead of coming up with theoretical use cases), then that would be something, but as that hasn't happened there's no case to be made here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Templates are a bit of a specialized technology, and I'd hate to see a close call be made at DRV, where most people are not template experts. My reading of the XfD discussion is that it should have been closed as NC, but as I said, tossing it back to the folks who work with templates all the time makes more sense than relying on my judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closure was the best reading of the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I support relisting because MureninC, the DRV nominator, has raised new arguments that were not discussed in the previous TfDs that took place over seven years ago. The new arguments should be evaluated by the template experts at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion instead of at DRV.
Another reason to relist is that the two "keep" arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 7#Template:Use ymd dates were not particularly strong. The first "keep" participant pointed to the previous "no consensus" 8 September 2011 TfD that nominated three different templates and had a different deletion rationale from the 7 December 2011 TfD. The second "keep" participant said why not have this template because "presumably some bots can autocorrect some errors in tables/list". MureninC's rationale for restoration is far more detailed and persuasive than those "keep" arguments and they deserve to be discussed in a new TfD. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
