Archives
Sept 2003 – Dec 2005 Jan 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – March 2007 April 2007 – October 2007 November 2007 – February 2008 March 2008 – August 2008

Comments, updates, corrections, and additions on this spirituality-relatd topic would be gratefully accepted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beverley Sisters LP cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Max Bygraves.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Penguin Cafe Orchestra.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Plastic Penny.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Thenjericho bigarea.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Stanley Holloway CD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that after I delinked the birth and death dates in articles, you restored them, citing MOS. I see we have differences on opinion over what should be linked and what shouldn't. You had precedence over me in the date linking, so I won't revert you. However, I wanted to say that as of right now, there is nothing in the MOS that says to link birth and death dates, and that there is no consensus in the discussion over whether that should be done or not. Thanks for your understanding, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo on Wikipedia, until now, is to link significant dates only. These have been generally understood to be birth , death and dates of historical significance. Until a consensus is reached on a guideline you have no mandate to remove date links and are seriously damaging Wikipedia's usefulness. Lumos3 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use correct reasoning in your edit summaries: "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant" There is no such "policy" to link significant dates. Another thing: linking dates in Featured Articles (Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare and Featured Lists is definitely against consensus; see the featured article criteria and the featured list criteria, which specifically say to follow all style guidelines. Additionally, there is a clear consensus on both FAC and FLC to not link dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For another reason why not to link dates, see your edit to Alexander I of Russia. Before you—against MOS—linked the dates, there were inconsistent date formats in the lead. The least you could have done was fix them to be the same format. Instead, you linked those dates. If I had not unlinked and corrected the formats, who knows how long our IP readers (who make up the vast majority of our readership and cannot use autoformatting) would have seen those inconsistent date formats, which would have gone unnoticed by many registered users because of autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my post @ "Date linking" below, which makes much the same point. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Framley Parsonage Penguin cover.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Framley Parsonage serialized.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks.Chick Bowen 03:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work.Lumos3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK#Dates, as is the old [[1 January]] [[2000]] style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread this . Only auto formatting of dates has been deprecated. The linking of significant ( not all) dates in an article has always been part of Wikipedia's style and provides a useful chronological orientation to the reader. It allows the cultural placement of one event with what else was happening around the same time in other fields. There is an active group on Wikipedia trying to ban date linking but not consensus has been reached. Lumos3 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's a quote:

"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. However, links to articles on a topic in a specific chronological period, such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history can add significantly to readers' understanding of the current topic." (my emphasis)

How exactly am I misreading this? Given that you agree autolinking dates has been depreciated, how do you explain this edit? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only link dates that "deepen a readers understanding of a subject". So pivotal dates in a person's life or the dates of major events in a topic's history. This has long been, and remains, standard practice thought Wikipedia. I disagree with tentative proposals to ban all date linking starting with birth and death dates in biographies. See the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#RfC:_Linking_of_dates_of_birth_and_death Lumos3 (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal clearly appears to be to link such dates rather than ban such links. You have written "Support" beside you post. The proposal to link these dates kind of under-lines the fact that linking isolated years has been depreciated for much longer that the autoformatting debate, as per the quote above. In any case "a useful chronological orientation to the reader" would only be achieved if Wikipedia had pages on specific dates (1 January 2000) and not just dates of the year (1 January). Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical orientation is best given by reviewing other events of that year. Events coincidental on the same day have little meaning. Lumos3 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was saying. This is was the current linking method on Wikipedia (23 May 1960) makes no sense. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of years gives historical orientation. Linking of calendar dates gives human interest - Witness the widespread use of "On this day" columns in the media including Wikipedia main page. Lumos3 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what this adds to the article please? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of significant dates ( note I don't say all dates ) in an article allows the reader to quickly orientate to events in the world at the time giving context and deeper understanding. In a biographical article the vital dates are significant , they show the world into which the individual entered at birth and how it was when they left in death. Linking the calender date (day + month) of significant events as well as looking better, satisfies a wider human interest demonstrated by the widespread "On this day" columns in the media, including Wikipedia's main page. There is no Wikipedia policy saying dates must never be linked although I see you have personally taken this to be the case. Perhaps you can explain how this benefits Wikipedia? Lumos3 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Wikipedia by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just stated clearly my reasons. These apply equally to the birth and death dates of Richard Hawkins as they do to any significant date in any Wikipedia article. Are you accusing me of editing in bad faith? WP:AGF. I repeat significant dates in an article enhance the reader's understanding by giving historical context. Anniversary dates are interesting , we might well see Richard Hawkins on next April 17 in the "On this day" feature. People are widely interested in anniversaries even if some see them as trivia. Lumos3 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume the assumption of good faith. Please provide evidence for these two statements you made above:

1) "significant dates in an article enhance the reader's understanding by giving historical context"

2) "People are widely interested in anniversaries..."

If you are able to provide evidence that these statements are true I will certainly take your argument a bit more seriously. Failing that it remains just your opinion, and of course the onus is on you to demonstrate the necessity of these links. Failing that, I am free to remove them again. This is how we work here.

I see this practice as needlessly duplicating the "On this day" feature, which I agree is a worthwhile thing, at the cost of adding many low- or zero-value links. In closing, have you even read these articles you are insisting on linking to here? --John (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold both 1 and 2 above to be self evident to anyone. I should not need to justify retention , it is you who are promoting change. The linking of dates argument (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#RfC:_Linking_of_dates_of_birth_and_death) is still in progress and you have no mandate to begin wholesale de-linking.Lumos3 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. I see now that this preference is merely your own opinion and thus has neither consensus nor any other justification behind it. Per WP:CONTEXT, the onus is on you to demonstrate evidence that these links benefit our readers. As you are unable to do so I shall assume that any further edits like this are merely point-making. I note also that you did not answer my question about whether you read these articles which you consider so vital to link to. --John (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant". That is not what WP's policy says at all. It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself. Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently. This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument. Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only add that you are wasting your time by re-inserting the date links. Those that are not removed by editors will all be removed by bots anyway. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lumos3: can you provide examples of how the date links or date-fragment links provide useful information that deepens the readers' understanding of a specific topic? I'm intrigued. Tony (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit at Handel. Please note that the date autoformatting mechanism is now deprecated on WP, and has been so since August. Tony (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree; and I reverted your edit to the Handel page. My problem with it is that the significance of the dates in question is to provide the reader with direct information about Handel's birth and death, but not for whatever else happened to have occurred on those dates. For example, you've linked Handel's birth date as 23 February 1685, but due to the way WP date-linking works, the 23 February part becomes separate to the link on 1685. Now I'm sure you're not suggesting that anyone could possibly be interested in finding out what happened on 23 February throughout the ages, so the only possibility left is that you are offering people the opportunity to find out what else happened in 1685. As I said in my revert comment, the (I believe tiny percentage of people) who might be interested in finding out what else happened in 1685 can easily type 1685 into the provided WP search box on each page. The disadvantages of linked dates are well documented, and I won't bore you with an already over-covered (and concluded) debate. Thanks for taking an interest in the Handel page.  HWV 258  05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for linking birth and death dates dates in biographies is being discuissed at the Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There is no mandate for wholesale amendment of these by bot or script until this is settled. The status quo should remain. Please continue this discussion there.

Briefly the rationale is:

Linking years

• provides a reader with quick route to the historical context of the era in which the person lived.
• Saying a reader should use search does not advertise this as an option for getting this context.
• Draws attention to Wikipedia's extensive historical chronology in its dates pages.

Linking calender dates is, believe it or not, widely popular. Almost every newspaper and news channel has an "on this day" column, including Wikipedia itself. There is a natural interest in what happened on a particular day and we should not sneer at people who wish to take this route to knowledge. Our date pages contain long lists of the births and deaths on those dates.

Lumos3 (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's sneering, Lumos3. But there are a number of people (see above) who are not convinced by your argument, yet you just repeat it ad nauseam, without any attempt to address the counter arguments. Also, nobody is denying the general interest in "On This Day" information. But are you seriously suggesting that a reader might chance upon, say, Stanley Baldwin's article, read that he was born on 3 August, and think to themselves "I wonder who else was born on 3 August or what historical events happened on 3 August. I know, I'll click the link and find out" ? If anyone has an interest in such information, it won't come through reading about Baldwin or Dickens or Lincoln or Margaret Thatcher or anyone else you could name. It will arise quite independently. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's sneering. But your arguments would be taken much more seriously if you could provide evidence that your rationale for wishing to retain these deprecated links was one with any degree of community support behind it. As it is it looks like one person's view, without any properly-thought-out reasoning behind it. I also note you have still not answered my question about the date articles you are so keen on adding links to. The question, in case you have forgotten, is "Have you read the articles you are linking to?" --John (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fully agree with the three rationales Lumos has given above; and so evidently do about half the Wikipedians who have contributed to the RfC Lumos has cited. If so many think that such links can be useful and appreciated, why does it matter so much to you that they should be eradicated? Jheald (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is titled "Linking of dates of birth and death". Could you please explain to us why finding out what else happened on 14 April (the day of Handel's death in 1759) is more significant than finding out what else happened on 13 April (the day of the first performance of Handel's Messiah in 1742)? Either all dates should be linked, or none. Until a better system is designed, I vote for none. HWV 258  22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald; see WP:CONTEXT for an explanation of why we try to use intelligence and discretion in deciding what to link and what not to. Indiscriminately linking dates (especially when one has no idea just how poor the dates articles tend to be) is contrary to this guideline. --John (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:BUILD, that articles should have some links to them; and the snowball keep at WP:AfD/March 1 for an indication as to how much many Wikipedians do value these articles. I'm not suggesting we link all dates, but to link a date is a useful way to let casual readers know that these date pages exist. And I'm sorry, but some people do like to know who shared a particular birthday, or anniversary of death; and what was happening in the world at a particular epoch. Jheald (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed, CONTEXT and BUILD have always existed in dynamic tension with each other. The area of date links was badly fudged because of the stupid autoformatting thing that was applied. Now that this is deprecated, we don't need to indiscriminately link dates any more. People who want to link date articles have seldom in my experience ever actually read any. Have you done so? And the AfD snowball keep is a very poor argument; we would never want to delete the wonderful article we have on the United States, but this is a very far cry from saying it should be linked every single time it is mentioned. So, to clarify, my argument is not about wanting to delete anything, but rather to clearly state that the default should be not to link date articles except in certain clearly defined circumstances. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe that only "significant dates" should be linked, not all.

I would have a stab at defining significant as

• The commencement of things - births , foundations , openings , declarations, creations , patents and first publications.
• The ending of things - deaths , dissolutions, closings, destructions, cease fires, armistices.
• Another definition would by impact on human culture and would include battles, eruptions , disasters etc.

The removal of ALL date linking before a consensus has been achieved on this is excessive and is being carried out with careless speed.

Lumos3 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and you have adequately expressed your opinion. The trouble it is is just your opinion. And apparently Jheald's as well. All the two of you need is to mobilize a large group of people and you will have consensus to add links to articles. Meantime, it is just silly to add them knowing that one of the many editors who abide by consensus will remove them again. --John (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the opinion of a large number of editors and the consensus of which you speak only exits within a small pressure group.Lumos3 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? We shall see. Did you read any of those articles yet? --John (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]