Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/2013 in British music

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2013 in British music

[edit]
2013 in British music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by ChrisGualtieri.

12 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Deb insists that linking individual dates for the deaths of individuals and dates that occurred on a specific date is intrinsic and acceptable for an article. I maintain that they are not, citing that the links do not even mention the event let alone discuss it. Secondly, I am citing that the date of death should not be linked because it is unacceptable for the original biographical article; for the same reason as above. Using the definitions from MOS, the requirement is that such links must be intrinsic (i.e essential) per WP:YEARLINK and WP:DATELINK.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide clarification to resolve dispute.

Opening comments by Deb
[edit]

I've been here many times before. It seems to me self-evident that Year in Topic articles are "intrinsically chronological" in nature. They are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years, within which the use of links in sections such as "Events" and "Deaths" is well documented as the norm. Chris Gualtieri's argument for removing the date links from one such article is that he doesn't believe they are useful. I happen to disagree. Year articles are specifically excluded from the no-date-linking guideline; it was precisely through this exclusion that the "great date-linking debate" of [whatever year it was - I'm sure someone can enlighten me] was finally resolved. Please let's not have another such rift. Deb (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in British music discussion
[edit]

Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority, but I can try and help you reach an agreement. I'm still reading up on the various discussions that have taken place about this subject, but it looks to me as though the issue is whether or not a 'Year in Topic' article is intrinsically chronological. Is that right? CarrieVS (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Year in topic" is (to itself) intrinsically chronological, meaning that preceding and successive years should be linked in some manner. So links to 2012 in British music is perfectly acceptable; as I guess 2012 would be by extension. The primary issue is the linking of every individual date for which no relevant information exists. Take this line, "9 March - George Benjamin conducts the UK première of his opera Written on Skin at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden." Does 9 March have any relevance other then the date just happened to fall on that particular day? No. Is it a key date in the history of March 9? No. Is it even mentioned on March 9? No. Even within the article's table for "Platinum records" the excessive date linking is absent, but included on every single date of death in the following section. None of these individual dates are relevant at all to the material and should be de-linked. These date links are not even allowed on the biographies themselves because consensus advances the "not germane" aspect as I am doing so here! It is a big stretch to say that these articles are "intrinsically chronological" because the definition (synonym swapped) means "essentially chronological". There is nothing "essential" or "essentially" chronological about those dates. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Is it even mentioned on March 9? No." The reason for that is pretty obvious: there is no article entitled "March 9 in music". If there were, it would be. It's not at all unlikely that such an article will be created at some future date. Deb (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a "March 9 in music" will be made because its a big stretch on the "this day in history" type. In this case, and as it stands, the de-linking is entirely appropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if 'month-day in topic' articles were made, since events in music on March 9 of different years are unlikely to be related to each other in the way that events in the same year are. My personal feeling is that month-day links aren't helpful unless there's some particular reason why they're relevant in an individual case. However, there has been a lot of discussion about date-linking and we should try to follow consensus.
The MOS guideline says that in most circumstances there should be a particular reason for linking to a date. But it provides an exception for 'intrinsically chronological' articles. So the question is, was that exception meant to include Year-in-topic articles, or not? I note that the examples of what is considered intrinsically chronological are a year, a month, and a decade: all strictly chronological, and I would consider year-in-topic to be primarily about the topic. If I had been writing that guideline and had meant it to include articles that aren't strictly chronological I would have included an example of that to make it clear. But while a year-in-topic example would be conclusive in one direction, I don't know that the lack of one is conclusive in the other direction.
Am I right in thinking that this is a broader dispute than simply the content of this one article? If so I think it might be best to involve Wikiproject Years and/or start a discussion on the MOS/linking talk page. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about when to link to month-day articles, but I can't find anything that comes to a conclusion about linking from year-in-topic articles or clarifies the expression 'intrinsically chronological'. CarrieVS (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked YEARS and they have remained all but silent on the issue. The definition of "intrinsic" is "essential" - by mere definition of the word the links have to be relevant and appropriate given a "chronological" progression. This idea is already used in navigation templates, meaning relationship and other "Year in XXXX" is chronologically related, but individual dates themselves just coincidentally fell on that date. The burden falls to existing consensus on biography articles. If you don't link birth date and death date to the individual articles on "March 7" and "1980" you should not do so in an unrelated "Year in XXXX" topic. The question of germane or not germane, for relevancy and usage to the reader, is a simple one. To say it is "chronological", thus allowed, is to be deceiving of the preceding "intrinsic" requirement. So we arrive at the definition which exists in the templates, what is assumed to be allowed is: Other chronologically linked "Year in XXXX", the source "Year", other useful navigation links to "XXXX in music" or other related field. Leaving links like March 7, which does not have relevant information related to the topic, as best suited for de-linking. Chronological terms are not to be linked in general, they have to present an essential or relevant material for readers to understand context better. And last I checked, no one needs to be directed to March 7 to find out about "March 7" - it is just being used as a list of other (not related to the topic) events that occurred on that day. Most of which (if not all) are not even to be found on that page - if they are it is no different then the original article. As a result, it certainly does not meet either criteria required for linking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I honestly feel that you are misunderstanding the word "intrinsic". It is only the same as "essential" in one sense - ie. the sense of "constituting or being part of the essence of", NOT the sense of being "basic or indispensable". There are a number of users who agree with you that these dates shouldn't be linked; unfortunately none of them are regular contributors to year articles. It seems to me that this is an exercise in trying to enforce what are, after all, only guidelines, just for the sake of it, when you have no real interest in the quality of these articles. To me, following the same convention in the "year in topic" articles as in the basic year articles makes perfect sense.
I also want to point out that the article March 7 is not actually about March 7. It does have a short introductory section, just in case there is anyone reading it who doesn't know the literal meaning of the words "March 7", but it is in fact a list of things that happened on March 7, all of them in different years. Thus linking to it has the same effect as linking to any other list, and it is hard to understand why you have such a strong objection to it. Deb (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the specific use of "germane" then? It seems the definition is obvious and @Ohconfucius: has voiced his opinion on the matter before. I am active in Years topics; but that is an ad hom attack and misdirection. I have every right to work in any area I choose to. The link has to be relevant or essential for the context of the readers, if linking the dates doesn't work for biographies or other lists why should "YYYY in X" be any different? The only "relevancy" is that the event occurred on that day, most of the time the event in question doesn't even merit inclusion on said list. Why is it important to list to another set of unrelated events in seemingly apparent defiance of WP:LINK? Given the examples of WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK both aspects provide a rationale for when it is acceptable and when it is not. You cannot give me a reason why it should be linked when I can give you many reasons it should not, using existing policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your analysis of this argument. Citing the opinions of a user who has been blocked no less than eight times in the past five years is hardly likely to change my mind. Deb (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a difference between most lists and month-day articles. Most lists are of related things so that the other list items would be relevant. With some exceptions, events occurring on the same day in different years are not related. In most cases of an event on that date, other events that occurred on the same day in different years are coincidental and so are mere trivia.
However, the question we need to answer right now isn't how relevant the date articles are for these events. It's whether the month-day articles need to be "relevant and appropriate to the subject" for specific events in year-in-topic articles. Stay on track please. Please also comment on content, not contributors; what matters is the strength of the arguments, not how often the person making them has edited year articles or whether they've been blocked in the past.
It seems that you disagree very strongly on the interpretation of the "inrinsically chronological" part of the MOS guideline, and I personally think it is unclear. So why don't we try a different tack? Let's use common sense and the general principle of when to link: that it should help the reader's understanding of the article. Deb, I'll ask you to go first. Can you explain why it's helpful to the reader, in understanding the year-in-topic article, to link to month-day articles? CarrieVS (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of subjectivity in your analysis. Whether they "need" to be linked or are "relevant" is always going to be a matter of opinion. "Common sense" doesn't exist, as far as I'm concerned, because everyone I know has a different idea of what constitutes common sense. Once you ask "why it's helpful to the reader", you have already strayed from your first question of whether the links need to be relevant. Why not ask the same question about the date links in year articles? Why is it only relevant to the year-in-topic articles? Are the date articles lists in some sense that the year articles are not?
To answer your question, I personally (as a contributor) use the date links for navigation - which is what links are for - so that I can check, for example, whether an entry is being consistently used, eg. if it has been included in a date article when the person listed was not considered notable enough to be listed in the Year in topic article. (I see this as part of the ongoing issue of US and UK bias in these articles.) I do not think it is at all unlikely that, as wikipedia expands, there will one day be an article entitled "March 9 in music" - when I first began contributing, in 2002, we could not envisage this encyclopedia with the entries we have today. As a reader, I also use the date links for navigation, but in this case to see what other things happened on the same date, which is after all what the date articles are there for. For example, when I am compiling a quiz, I can make use of the year in topic articles, the year articles, the date articles, and the month articles (eg. January 1974) we are currently building up. You can call this trivia if you like, but there is no rule against including trivia in wikipedia as long as it is in the appropriate place. I've explained all this before, but all I get in response is "well, I don't find them useful", or "well, most people don't find them useful". This will never be resolved by a vote or "consensus" discussion between contributors because the readers whom we are trying to help and who make use of these links are very likely not to be contributors and not to be consulted. However, it seems obvious to me that, since other wikipedias, including the French and German ones, still include date-linking in biographical articles, someone must be finding them useful.
I agree that the views of other contributors should not quoted here to support the argument one way or the other, regardless of how "strong" their arguments are, which once again is going to be purely subjective. It should be enough to note that the guidelines specifically excluded Year in topic articles from the general de-linking. Deb (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actions should be made on the strength of the arguments, and you dismiss that rationale. It is a misdirection to use other language Wikipedias as reason for inclusion, because their policies are very different than our own. What rational you provide is "compiling a quiz" suggests a personal need that goes against the rational put forth by WP:LINK. The only reason you provide for these links is that it helps you find "other events which occurred on this date/year in history"? Is that not what List of historical anniversaries does? I do not see how this extremely niche usage, which is filled by other pages, is suitable explanation for linking every date and year to find other unrelated events which just happened to occur on that date. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am Amadscientist. I am a regular volunteer here at DR/N. I don't understand why this case was opened as it appears there is very little discussion. I recommend that the case be kicked back to the article talk page and ask editors to continue to find common ground based on the guidelines and policies. Since it is open and there is a volunteer handling the case I will not object if left open and continued and will attempt to assist where I can. If this case is to be left open I do need clarification on the original use of the specific wording of "they are not intrinsic to the article ", "They are not intrinsic and should be removed" and "Because it is not relevant - specifically intrinsic - it should not be included". You see, it is not a matter of intrinsic value, but encyclopedic contextual significance. Intrinsic value is "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing "[1]. I think this argument may be overstating our guidelines and policies. I have not reviewed the entire discussion at length but I do think we have to ask ourselves what the specific reason for exclusion is from a policy standpoint. Anything less simply arguing opinion and we don't edit in or out content based on what we like or dislike.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want it back at the talk page because Deb does not want to compromise and asserts something not backed by WP:LINK. No offense, but the definition of "intrinsic" and "germane" is the root of the problem. For dates to be linked the MOS states that it should be relevant (germane) to the topic or essential for the chronology (intrinsic). I see no reason that Deb's desire to interlink "British music" for trivia or quiz-making purposes is justifiable for linking every date on the article. The content is not expanded or even included on the links. I want DRN to help resolve this issue because Deb seems to have had problems in the past in this area and will not engage in consensus building. So I brought it here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to kick this back to the talk page rests with CarrieVS as they are the volunteer that opened the case however, I should mention that your reasoning for it not going back is simply not a good argument. If you do not even want to try to handle thison the talk page and wish to rely on others to decide for you, you may not be happy with the outcome. If you both attempt to work together towards common ground and demonstrate a willingness to try, there should be no reason the case cannot return to DR/N when extensive discussion has taken place. I will look further at the MOS, however please be aware that as I see it so far, theuse of specific wording seems overly strong. Remember that MOS is only a guideline and content still requires a consensus. If two editors cannot come to a consensus, an informal RFC can be created to attract larger community input. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IF the issue, as you say, is: [T]he definition of "intrinsic" and "germane" is the root of the problem." then it should be easy enough to understand that the two words do not mean the same thing. Intrinsic is not used in the MOS but "relevant" is. Germane:


1. obsolete : closely akin


2. : being at once relevant and appropriate"[2]


The MOS does not state that the use of year date links must be essential to the nature of the article. It need only be relevant and appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK:
  • "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Both opening pieces for the two sections are:
  • "Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject."
  • "Year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year."
I am using these statements as the basis for my argument. Both are expansions of WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDERLINK. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is this: only articles about dates are and can be considered "intrinsically chronological". '2013 in British music' is a subset of 2013 and British music. That intersection virtually strips it of its intrinsicness [sic] to chronology. Linking dates in these is as nonsensical as linking all elements of a timeline, where at least some common thread usually exists. In terms of "navigation", the flow of clicks is illogical. People will visit '2013 in British music' only if they want to, duh, know what happened in British music in year 2013. They wouldn't go there to find out what happened on a given date; if they already knew the specific date of a certain event, they would go to the relevant event or date article instead. OTOH, it's quite logical for the reader, looking through '1980 in British music', to click over to the John Lennon or Death of John Lennon articles. Having a sea of blue dates in this case distracts the reader from such important information. Assuming the coverage is exhaustive (ie all dates in a year have entries and links), navigation is utterly destroyed just like the haystack obscures the proverbial needle.

    Without even dwelling on the rather inconsistent linking of dates therein, the linking of death dates in the article is rather quixotic and is purely a result of relics of history and the deliberate continual actions of one or two editors and maybe the unwitting actions of a few more. Dates are not linked in any biography per overwhelming consensus. In fact death dates are generally regarded as incidental or coincidental because people generally don't choose auspicious dates to die on. If they did, there wouldn't be any modern birth or death entries on April 20 or April 30 (hint:birth and death date of a certain mass murderer). The date itself has no relevance beyond this. Forget germane. The fact that other language Wikipedias indiscriminately link their dates isn't a valid concern. What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, as the saying goes. I like to see it as "enlightenment" on our part.

    Now looking at some events in the article:

    9 March - George Benjamin conducts the UK première of his opera Written on Skin at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden; 18 May - Bonnie Tyler represents the United Kingdom in the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest, singing "Believe in Me", amassing a total of 28 points to finish in 19th place; 16-23 June - BBC Cardiff Singer of the World 30th anniversary competition takes place in St David's Hall, Cardiff.

    In the articles linked to, I'd say the dates are rather pedestrian and their notability is low and not exactly key dates for the topic at hand (ie British music) – truly pivotal dates are few and far between, and these are all dates (eg. 8 December 1980, 24 November 1991), not days.

    I quite understand the statement "I do not think it is at all unlikely that, as wikipedia expands, there will one day be an article entitled 'March 9 in music" although I believe it's a trashy concept that could potentially fill the 'pedia with increasing volumes of mindless trivia as the drill down gets more specific. It seems that Deb is the author of many such articles, and almost all are linked as defined in WP:WALL. That way, the reader can happily go around like a butterfly, floating from one random sweet-smelling flower to another without having to go elsewhere to find non-coincidental or non-random nectar. I'm just hoping that Deb doesn't go extending the bankrupt practice ofis more transparent in her edit summaries when expanding any more of these articles – Of course, there's usually some expansion to these articles. I find misleading edit summaries labelling simply "expand" when the primary change seems to be inserting links for all day-month month-day dates. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding input, however if this is little more than a criticism of Deb, I will be shutting this down and moving back to the talk page as no longer a content dispute but a behavioral conflict. I feel much of the above should be collapsed as personal attacks and will be doing so after I notify the editor and give them the chance to respond.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madscientist, this forum is to politely find solutions to content–behavioural disputes; it's not possible to draw a line between them, and that is why we're here. There was an edit-conflict, so here is what I was trying to post:
Tony, this noticeboard is to resolve disputes and find compromise and common ground. It is not for finding solutions to every issue or problem and I remind editors once again that dipute resolution is not for discussing editors. It seems this was a premature opening and this case should never have been brought here. This is likely to be better for a formal RFC and continued discussion on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird definition of dispute resolution. You wonder how it could ever do anything useful. "to politely find solutions to content–behavioural disputes" ≠ "to resolve disputes and find compromise and common ground". OK, I'll remember that. Tony (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a definition of dispute resolution, it is simply what the goals of this noticeboard are. We have consensus for such if you wish to review them.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few remarks:
Deb performs a lot of valuable gnoming work. In addition, she is a devotee of chronological articles and the so-called intersecting year in X articles, almost all of which have had their month–day and their year links removed, except in cases of special significance. But she is determined to put a military moat around certain sets of year in X articles she has selected. Maybe there's a bit of ownership going on here, probably arising from her (laudable) editing investments in past years.

While this might be in good faith as self-defined, the resistance to seeing the bigger picture—in particular the community's overwhelming endorsement in 2009 not to blanket-link chronological fragments—is stretching the definition of collegiality. There are block reversions of entire edits that include the unlinking of these fragments in the selected categories, and an unwillingness to go along with the community's decision; when discourse is entered into, it is framed by an argument that year in X hybrids are defined as "intrinsically" chronological. Ohconfucius has presented a compelling argument against this, above, and other editors have done so on talk pages over the past few years.

The walled castle includes year in anglophone country, year in literature, year in music, and year in art. Everyone has learned that if you want to avoid a fight, you have to stay away from them; the more accepted/normalised the consensus has become over the past four years, the more frustrating the resistance has appeared to numerous editors. Paradoxically, and regrettably, the acceptance seems to underpin Deb's feeling that there's a moral imperative to "holding out".

Yet it's obvious from the examples cited above—the carefully worded and agreed text on which the consensus decision was based—that year in X articles were not intended for exception. To top it off, there are nav-boxes displayed prominently at the top of these articles; they present clear, convenient, systematic links to both related articles on the same theme, and related themes (year in art from year in music). IMO, it's time to harmonise practice in these remaining citadels.

I'll conclude by saying that Deb's ultimate plan to fractionate the empire of year in X into twelfths brings into question yet more sharply the matter of thematic utility—call it the opposite side of the triviality coin: why do we care what happened in music in March 1956? Because it was my birth-month? Minimising triviality does matter on the English WP—not nearly as much as the German WP, but all the same trivia sections have been removed from articles, and wikilinking is now done more selectively to maximise thematic utility for readers. The fact that no other WP has raised the skill with which wikilinks are applied is neither here nor there. They're generally a mish-mash of scattergun linking, without much guidance for editors. Take a look at other WPs to see the result. We live in hope. Tony (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris. I believe you have the best intentions. What I think all editors are failing to see here is that the MOS is not an absolute and is simply not appropriate to argue such. What I see missing is your reasoning why this must be excluded and an argument why it should. I am sorry to tell editors, but this is not cut and dry, but I do appreciate the good faith post to clarify.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, MOS compliance is not the be-all end-all of Wikipedia, but some of the WP:LAMEest edit wars have been over less. If anything certain standards exist because the community has spent its time and effort to resolve the problems in the past; if any consensus can be rejected by saying "I disagree" than it makes such discussions worthless and done in vain. I like consistency, and many fixes are fine. Things like punctuation before ref, bulleting external lists, bolding the first instance of the article title in the lede; they are all minor but bigger battles have been fought over a endash or a hyphen. The point of this was to try an build consensus with some third parties. And I do not think Tony or OC are "third parties" in this case; while their input is enlightening, I see that at least OC has had issues with Deb in the past. With that being said, if Deb does not want to engage in the consensus building matter this DRN has no obligation to do so. I won't be filing a RFC or anything because this is not a huge deal to me. I wanted clarification and perhaps some uniformity on the related articles; walled garden or not, I'm not out to make war over someone else's pages. - I've already got my own problems with an editor out to delete my pages enmasse so I know that this is not a pleasant situation for Deb. I think the option to continue rests with Deb, and at this point, I'm leaning towards closing this myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have hit a few nails on the head there. Just remember (it is not always something we keep in the forefront of our minds as editors) that each article has a local consensus that determines how to handle a situation. Where our guidelines give us wiggle room is where most disputes seem to occur. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gives us many options yet still allows DR/N as a first step. This is not always the right venue, but we will always suggest how best to proceed. In this case I feel that further discussion is important, but that this venue is certainly not the best route at the moment. I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion as the dispute is between only two editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These clauses were added to MOSNUM by a supervising ArbCom clerk after a massive RFC in 2009. They are not normal MOS guidance; they arise from fully tested overwhelming community consensus. One of MOS(NUM)'s key functions is to forestall talk-page arguments and edit-wars over style and formatting. Even if this notion were tenable that it's up to local editors whether to say "stuff you" to such resounding community consensus, it seems that it's Deb and her instant block reverts, against everyone else. Is that local consensus? Tony (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of the consensus doesn't have any relevance. One would assume any community decision that is appropriate has strength in having been decided by the community and having ArbCom add it doesn't seem to clarify how that is a stronger consensus nor how that makes this a "special MOS guideline". What such a consensus does protect, is anyone coming along and simply trying to make a bold edit to change it. A simple local consensus would also not be able to override it. But it doesn't mean it is special in any other manner. The very wording is clear. There is not requirement to subject editors to. This is the Manual of Style not a policy or brightline rule.
No consensus has been formed from this discussion. It is the opinion of this volunteer that the dispute may have come here prematurely and that the best option still remains a calm and concise discussion on the article talk page. There, editors may begin an informal RFC or a formal RFC. Third opinion is available for disputes between only two editors and we also have the noticeboards and projects. If an extensive discussion still produces no consensus, editors are able to re-file here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all. I've read over this thread as it popped up on my list. I disagree that this is a dispute that should have gone back to the talk page - as a dispute with a sole dissenter to the local consensus, further discussion on a talk page is unlikely to bear fruit. Policies and guidelines are important, and in this case, there are two things I see here. One, a consensus at the talk page seems to exist opting for the dates to not be linked. Two, this passage of text, key parts bolded: "Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date." When I look at the article, I do not see how, for example, 7 March is relevant to the death of Kenny Ball, apart from the fact this was the day he died. It seems others see this too, and this is the reason this dispute has started. My recommendation here would be for an RFC to be started, to get wider input on the matter. I can give some guidance on setting this up to ensure it is framed correctly. For now, I will close this DRN thread. Please feel free to approach me directly on my talk page. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/2013_in_British_music&oldid=1144427585"