Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)/Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a 21 question poll / survey to judge public opinion. The word event name refers to an event name such as the "U.S. presidential elections"; Examples will be given with each question. Since our signature dates are based on International format of DAY MONTHNAME YEAR, the poll questions will be based off that. This is not an indication of preference by the author, just for simplicity sake. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Old poll here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)/Poll2

Contents 1 Q1: Should we use a standard format across the board? 1.1 Yes 1.2 No 2 Q2: Should we use a separate format for ranged dates and single dates? 2.1 Yes 2.2 No 3 Q3: Should we adopt the usage of en dashes as a standard for ranged dates? 3.1 Yes 3.2 No 4 Q4: Should we adopt the usage of hyphens as a standard for ranged dates? 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 5 Q5: Should ranged dates have a space before and after the hyphen/en dash? 5.1 Yes 5.2 No 6 Q6: Should we always use the full dates in ranged dates? 6.1 Yes 6.2 No 7 Q7: Should we adopt the international date format or the U.S. date format? 7.1 International 7.2 US 7.3 Depending on the situation 8 Q8: Should we adopt years with the format of YYYY EVENT NAME? 8.1 Yes 8.2 No 9 Q9: Should we adopt dates with the format of DD MONTHNAME YYY EVENT NAME? 9.1 Yes 9.2 No 10 Q10: Should we adopt dates with the format of EVENT NAME (DATE)? 10.1 Yes 10.2 No 11 Q11: Should we standardize full dates separately from years? 11.1 Yes 11.2 No 12 Q12: Should we standardize dates with only month and year different from full dates? 12.1 Yes 12.2 No 13 Q13: Should we standardize dates with only month and day different from full dates? 13.1 Yes 13.2 No 14 Q14: Should we standardize dates depending on its combination of month, day, year? 14.1 Yes 14.2 No 15 Q15: Should we adopt the word 'to' when referring to date ranges? 15.1 Yes 15.2 No 16 Q16: Should we adopt a different convention between titles and category names? 16.1 Yes 16.2 No 17 Q17: Should we adopt a comma as the separator between the event and date / date range? 17.1 Yes 17.2 No 18 Q18: Should we adopt the word of as the separator between the event and date / date range? 18.1 Yes 18.2 No 19 Q19: Should we adopt the word in as the separator between the event and date / date range? 19.1 Yes 19.2 No 20 Q20: Should we adopt the word from as the separator between the event and date / date range? 20.1 Yes 20.2 No 21 Q21: Should we adopt the grammarically correct word (as the situation calls for it) as separator between the event and date / date range? 21.1 Yes 21.2 No

[edit] Q1: Should we use a standard format across the board?

• The format we select will be universal in every situation, irregularless of whether it is a date range or not.

[edit] Yes

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Generally. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes. ddlamb 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. Some conventions are generally used by some subjects, other conventions by other subjects. It is a needless guideline which will result in a lot of extra work which is really not required. Sam Vimes 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q2: Should we use a separate format for ranged dates and single dates?

• We will develop a naming convention for ranged dates, and a naming convention for non-ranged dates.

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. If we're going to have a convention, let it be a _single_ convention. ddlamb 05:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q3: Should we adopt the usage of en dashes as a standard for ranged dates?

[edit] Yes

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. However, given the presence of the hyphen on a standard keyboard, this may be unworkable. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. No need to create a massive amount of redirects - which will have to be done, since no one types "–" into a search box. Sam Vimes 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q4: Should we adopt the usage of hyphens as a standard for ranged dates?

[edit] Yes

1. Assuming 1 goes through, preferably. Sam Vimes 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q5: Should ranged dates have a space before and after the hyphen/en dash?

Example: Some event in history (1888 - 1920)

[edit] Yes

1. Yes. It looks cleaner. ddlamb 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q6: Should we always use the full dates in ranged dates?

Example: Some event in history (1993 - 1995) instead of Some event in history (1993 - 5) or instead of Some event in history (1993 - 95)

[edit] Yes

1. The full date gives the most complete information. It may be a pain to type, but it looks best in an encyclopedia. ddlamb 04:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

If no, please tell us which one would be more preferable.

1. No Use ranges based on lowest common denominators — e.g., 1992–6, 1984–92, but 1867–1931. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. On second thought, EPA's proposal is better. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)~
3. Depends on the convention most widely used in the subject concerned. Sam Vimes 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q7: Should we adopt the international date format or the U.S. date format?

• International: 20 January 2005
• US: January 20, 2005

[edit] International

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Of course. Americans, et al. may disagree. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. As an American, I think if we can learn to edit and write articles, we can learn to adopt a standard date format for Wikipedia. :-) ddlamb 04:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Of course use international, not country-specific format. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US

[edit] Depending on the situation

Explaination: Treat this problem like the British-U.S. spelling issue.

[edit] Q8: Should we adopt years with the format of YYYY EVENT NAME?

Example: 2005 European floods

[edit] Yes

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. Only for exceptions (where a date is integral to an event or its name); see Q10. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ddlamb 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q9: Should we adopt dates with the format of DD MONTHNAME YYY EVENT NAME?

Example: 11 September 2001 Attacks / September 11, 2001 Attacks; 1 May 2005 Cricket match

[edit] Yes

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. We should expand dates only when they enhance understanding of an event or if absolutely necessary — e.g., Challenger disaster (1986) is sufficient: it is a distinct enough event that does not require the precise date in the heading. Besides, the related article should already contain this information; there's generally no need to rehash this information. 08:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q10: Should we adopt dates with the format of EVENT NAME (DATE)?

(Should we adopt dates using parenthesis as the separator?)
Example: Some event in history (20 January 2000)

[edit] Yes

1. While a date is integral to an event, a general user would more likely be aware of the actual event or details, not when it occurred — e.g., Challenger disaster (1986). There are exceptions (e.g., 11 September 2001 Attacks, 9-11), in which case redirects would be needed. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Q11: Should we standardize full dates separately from years?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. What good is a standard if it cannot apply to everything? E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Another second thought... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q12: Should we standardize dates with only month and year different from full dates?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. What good is a standard if it cannot apply to everything? E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q13: Should we standardize dates with only month and day different from full dates?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. What good is a standard if it cannot apply to everything? E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q14: Should we standardize dates depending on its combination of month, day, year?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. What good is a standard if it cannot apply to everything? E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q15: Should we adopt the word 'to' when referring to date ranges?

Example: Historical event (1808 to 1906)

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This format should only be used in-text and in conjunction with from — e.g., from 1808 to 1906. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 04:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q16: Should we adopt a different convention between titles and category names?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Not sure how it could be different. ddlamb 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q17: Should we adopt a comma as the separator between the event and date / date range?

Example: U.S. presidential election, 2000

[edit] Yes

1. Yes. It is what is done in thousands of articles and in tens of thousands of links. It would be chaotic at this stage to try to change what was the agreed format across a vast numbers of articles — all elections from all over the world, sports events and indeed all events on WP that use a separator. It is also the standard format in many academic publications so ties in to the 'real' world outside WP. Trying to change at this stage would be a ridiculous waste of time and energy and would simply cause confusion as everyone has for two years been using it and will do doubt continue to use it. It would probably require thousands of redirects to be created. It would be a pointless change. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I prefer parentheses (see Q10), but could live with commas. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q18: Should we adopt the word of as the separator between the event and date / date range?

Example: U.S. presidential election of 2000

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Unworkable. Tried previously and led to confusion. Some people used of. Others in. Was decided was best to leave words out. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q19: Should we adopt the word in as the separator between the event and date / date range?

Example: U.S. presidential election in 2000

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q20: Should we adopt the word from as the separator between the event and date / date range?

Example: U.S. presidential election from 2000

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I'd go for 'of' but not 'from' - but I don't really like either. ddlamb 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q21: Should we adopt the grammarically correct word (as the situation calls for it) as separator between the event and date / date range?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

1. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. ddlamb 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)