The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
I see the MOS states it should be done, but where's the support to convert the existing ones over? I'd like to see some discussion about this.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 00:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678:Here is the CFD. Not much of a discussion, but the MOS is pretty clear. Here is the RfC that changed the procedure last year. — nihlus kryik (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I went through that RfC.
The community has decided that four year date ranges (i.e. XXXX–XXXX) should be the default style used in Wikipedia.
The keyword here is "should". The closer chose that word correctly since the discussion on preference is mixed. Some wanted it to be a requirement, some wanted it to be the preferred format. New categories are supposed to follow the 4 digit requirement, but can opt not to given good reason. This is how I interpret the RfC, and possibly others will as well. So an argument can be made that the existing categories can be grandfathered in and that having a bot convert these is just pointless work. What I want to see is consensus that a bot should convert these existing categories over.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: With all due respect, I don't really believe it is open to interpretation, nor should it be an argument of semantics.
Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882or1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources.
I'm not sure how you can argue for interpretation on that. Also, I find the "should" argument to be tenuous, as there are explicit examples where it is appropriate, and these categories aren't one of them (except for consecutive years on a couple). In addition, here is how the "closer" updated the page. Other situations with local consensus: Other fields may use the XXXX-XX date range. They may continue to do so if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention in the subject area. In absence of such a reason, XXXX-XXXX is the default. Pinging original requester PBS, as they have moved pages to adhere to this existing policy. — nihlus kryik (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cyberpower678 The reason why paper encyclopaedias such as EB1911 tended to abbreviate things link dates and page numbers, and wrote very large paragraphs, is because they were trying to save some space (every page saved was profit for the company). This is not a constraint that Wikipedia has and there is no reason that Wikipedia needs to be tied so old conventions like this.
The result of the RfC was overwhelming. It obviously does not apply to items in quotes (or things like book title). The exclusions you have mentioned are intended to cover case such as usage in tables were space is limited; the exclusions are not meant to be used as an excuse from following the guidance in general cases (such as this) — as indicated by the emphasis on may placed in italics. In this case I came here from the article Henry Herbert (Master of the Revels) which before I edited it had inconsistent usage with some ccyy–ccyy and some ccyy–yy (see here). I have now altered them all to use ccyy–ccyy in the text (see here), and so the categories now look odd. As more and more articles are harmonised on ccyy–ccyy the categories will look as odd over more and more articles. I do not see that the exceptions paragraph to which you have pointed to in any way prevent this change taking place.-- PBS (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{BotWithdrawn}} After researching further, I am withdrawing this as I believe WP:CFD can handle it. These are also indicative of a larger problem that needs addressed. Thanks. — nihlus kryik (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS and Nihlus Kryik: Thank you for the clarification. Seeing as this is now withdrawn, it would be pointless to approve for a trial. If you want to go ahead with the trial, just re-open this request.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: This is what I get for being hasty. The larger problem is outside the scope of any single actionable item, so I am reopening this to take care of PBS's request. I may expand with similar items in future requests but I will limit this one to English MPs. Thank you. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat new to this process, so I was under the impression you would add the AWB access and bot flags. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bot flag is only granted for approved bots. I can grant your bot AWB access, but again, I think bot portions of the AWB interface will only be granted for approved bots. @Headbomb: Please correct me if I'm wrong here.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 18:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: I believe you are correct. I will need the AWB access though on that account since it's required to use it. I believe the bot tab only opens on accounts with the bot flag, so that can wait until approval. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categories will be moved once each set it done. I was limited to 50 edits so I couldn't complete the English MPs 1529–1536 set, which will happen once this is approved. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: This BRFA was temporarily withdrawn, so that may have thrown the bot off. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and that's why I mentioned it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I misunderstood. — nihlus kryik (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glitch, ignore. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Approved.
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Access granted—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. See here. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
