Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
noinclude |
|||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp|small=y}}</noinclude>
===Autoformatting responses===
{{notice|Please remember before adding your opinion that this section deals with the autoformatting of dates, '''not date linking.'''}}
Line 9 ⟶ 10:
#'''Support'''. I set my date preference to display dates in U.S. format, so I expect dates to display as such. Also, autoformatting helps prevent edit warring.[[user:Jeff02|-Jeff]] <sup>[[user talk:Jeff02|(talk)]]</sup> 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per above. I prefer US format at all times. Unlike other cultural differences (such as UK vs US spelling), this is something which can easily be implemented, as that's how it's been done. Last month, I was partially involved in a rather silly feud in whether to use one format or the other. I think it left some people unwilling to contribute anymore. That is totally unnecessary IMO. --♬♩ [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] (<small>[[User_talk:Hurricanehink|talk]]</small>) 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Agree with Anomie, I think much of the issue would be fixed simply by setting a different default (currently the default is to not format it all, resulting in inconsistency) that would be seen by anons and new users. I believe it would be a simple configuration change. <
#'''Support''' Autoformatting could be useful when moving templated citations from one article to another: one could copy or share the citation without having to change its date formats. It seems less useful in main text, but for citations it seems worth having. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 01:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' autoformatting ''without'' autolinking. (This nullifies most of the "Oppose" !votes.) Makes it easier to maintain a consistent date format within an article and may make it easier to collect metadata. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - it doesn't matter to me overmuch, but painful experience says that we will be flooded with complaints if we don't do this. However, any autoformatting solution should not result in automatic linking, should allow linking intentionally, should allow casual readers to set a viewing preference (this doesn't mean [[Special:Preferences]] especially, just a way to set a cookie), and should allow per-page setting of "correct" (per topic/___location) defaults for date display. If we don't do all of these, we'll just come back to the whole ugly fight again. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, per [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] and [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]].-[[User talk:gadfium|<
#'''Support''', not necessarily with auto-linking, although proper handling of metadata is possible without this, it facilitates the process. The move to formatted articles with reusable data is a necessary development generally. Given the number of wikignomes and the ingenuity of bot programmers, there should be no great difficulty in implementing it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', especially given that the developers have ''already'' added the capability for link-free autoformatting to the system. Many of the other concerns expressed against DA can easily be addressed; for example, the "#formatedate" expression can easily be invoked through the use of a template with a much shorter name, such as "<nowiki>{{D}}</nowiki>". It is also a means to present a more professional look, as opposed to the mix of formats we now offer. (The multiple-date-format guideline is at odds with most other professional publications, which choose one or the other; when viewed as a collection, our articles appear inconsistent. When was the last time you saw Britannica or the ''Times'' use a ''mix'' of DMY and MDY?) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
#'''Support''', per Eluchil404. I would also support a spelling regionalisation autoformatting. [[User:AKAF|AKAF]] ([[User talk:AKAF|talk]]) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Before autoformatting was introduced, there were lengthy rows about how to format dates. This seems recently to have come back, just as some started delinking dates. -- User:Docu
Line 27 ⟶ 28:
#'''Support'''. Formatting for dates is minor, but it is very important to have a standard format across the whole project.--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] ([[User talk:Unionhawk|talk]]) 12:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Per DAF. I was one of the user who objected to the "unilateral delinking campaigns by bots and other editors", and was treated quite rudely by the other side, with odd accusations of "elitism" being hurled, among other things. There seems to be some deep-rooted reasons against autoformatting that have nothing to do with autoformatting itself. I'm glad to finally see a project wide poll on this, though I am at a complete loss as to why this was not done ''first''! I also support measures to ensure that dates are displayed consistently to unregistered users. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The general formatting of all dates gives a consistent output for all articles. The improvements proposed in the software to allow/not allow the date to be linked when autoformatted makes it an even more attractive solution so that people do not have to worry about what is actually in the article text they see it the way they want. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - the benefit gained from consistency across articles outweigh the potential problems in my opinion. [[User:Camw|Camw]] ([[User talk:Camw|talk]]) 13:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - At the end of the day it is so much easier to read the dates when they are presented consistently across all articles. It will stop people editing articles to change the date to their personal preference, which I often see. Most importantly, wikipedia is about providing articles for the reader, not about providing a hobby for editors, as such arguments about extra key strokes and technical reasons are a bit mute. [[w:User:Martin451|Martin'''<
#'''Support''', if only to easily enforce consistent date formatting on an page (I don't have date preferences set myself). If the formatting function has shorter syntax like <nowiki>{{#date:...}}</nowiki> it will be easy to use, easy to understand, will make transcluding templates with dates in them easier, and only one person has to worry once about the proper date format on a given article instead of every editor who adds a date. --[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#823824;font-weight:normal">Amalthea</span>]] 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I'm a user of this – ISO dates for me, please – and I'll miss it if it goes. The statement against does nothing to make me think otherwise. — [[User:Sidhekin|the Sidhekin]] ([[User talk:Sidhekin|talk]]) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 40:
#'''Support''' the ''general concept'' but not the way it was implemented. I think autoformatting without wikilinking, and somehow bringing in either user date preferences or region preferences rather than just relying on 0.5% of readers changing their settings and the rest of us assuming they have. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' autoformatting without autolinking, mainly for its use in metadata. However, I will consider removing my date preference so I can see pages as IPs see them, even if the default format is not my favourite. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' autoformatting because there needs to be consistency because it is sometimes confusing if you mix them up, say 03/03/2009 means the third day of the third month of year 2009, and occasionally I do get confused. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;">[[User talk:Alistairjh|<
#'''Support''' - While I recognize that virtually all English speakers recognize a date in any common format, date formatting is an issue that rarely occurs to editors, and it does look sloppy to have various different formats in one article. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I can't help feeling this wouldn't even be an issue had the #formatdate implementation come first, rather than overloading this function onto linking. Frankly, I didn't know #formatdate existed until I saw this poll, but I always thought something like this was the best approach. I have generally delinked dates in the past in the course of doing other edits to articles; now I can reformat instead. This is progress. [[User:Rklear|Rklear]] ([[User talk:Rklear|talk]]) 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Readers may well be familiar with both "3 February 2009" and "February 3 2009" (and I have no strong preference for either format), but auto-formatting can help avoid the abominations that are "3/2/09" and "2/3/09", both by formatting as either "DD MMM YYYY" or "MMM DD YYYY" (i.e. not "DD/MM/YY" or "MM/DD/YY") and by encouraging editors to specify dates using the template. Consistency throughout an article is a big plus, and the option for readers to see date formats based on their browser or OS locale is a bonus. In the future auto-formatting could even be used to wikilink months and years, making dealing with the outcome of the two discussions below relatively trivial. Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I agree with flag's point above. It's much faster for me to see the dates in a way that I see everyday and can recognize. [[User:Grk1011|Grk1011/Stephen]] ([[User talk:Grk1011|talk]]) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as I found it very useful and interesting to be able to click a date and see what other events happened then. Yes, there were (and still are) a lot of articles linked to specific dates (as happens in a world with a long history), but I think that argument is irrelevant. All this worry about articles having too many links to them is pointless worry as we will have more and more articles linked to each other as the encyclopedia grows. Are we going to start limiting the number of links which can be placed into articles when we reach 5 or 10 million articles just so we don't have "too many links" to any given article? That's just absurd. We're going to have to accept that many articles on main topic are going to have hundreds, thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of links to them. In the case of dates, it's likely they will be on the high end of things, but that's what happens when an online encyclopedia grows. And the argument that someone is going to have to go put back the links that someone removed is absurd. Just run the same bots again, only in reverse. It certainly won't be any more difficult than it was to remove them all. I also think the date formatting part is very helpful, and it wouldn't be difficult to set the default for anonymous users (and those who haven't changed it) to something like "3 June 1934". ***[[User:Nihonjoe|<
##Making additional comments as SIllyFolkBoy doesn't seem to think my comments above are focused enough. Autoformatting would be extremely useful (as I pointed out above) in order to create a consistent formatting for dates, and it wouldn't be difficult to set the default format to something which is useful to everyone (such as the example I gave above. As I think the easiest way to implement this is the already existing date linking using square brackets, I included the comments regarding the usefulness of doing that, as well as my opinion on the absurdity of the "but it creates too many incoming links to the article" argument. ***[[User:Nihonjoe|<
#'''Support'''. Providing a consistent date format would be beneficial to the look of articles and wikipedia. Presumably IP tracing could also be used to provide MDY for North American readers and DMY for others even if not registered users. It would also negate the need for date linking as a way to autoformat which dilutes wikilinks and is generally of little use. Please at least implement the code so there is the option of using autoformat which can be determined, as with reference styles, by consensus on individual articles. |→ [[User:Spaully|Spaully]]<sup>₪</sup>[[User talk:Spaully|'''''†''''']] 18:07, 30 March 2009 ([[GMT]])
#'''Support''' I am a US user who reads and edits mostly US articles, but I hate the US standard for date formatting, much preferring the European standard. It's nice that Wikipedia can offer everyone the option to format dates as he prefers. I think the system was working fine until someone got a bee in his bonnet about "unnecessary" links. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 58:
#'''Support'''- Why not let users choose how dates are displayed? --[[User:Jackieboy87|Jackieboy87]] ([[User talk:Jackieboy87|talk]] '''*''' [[Special:Contributions/Jackieboy87|contribs]]) 20:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', tho MediaWiki automatically formatting dates with extra markup would be better, with nowiki for exceptions. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2009-03-30[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]21:23z
#'''Support''' the benefits of automated time lines/this day in history pages could be big. '''[[User:Brandonrush|<
#Maybe I'm OCD, but I put a high emphasis on customizability as an integral part of usability. The new software update provides a great middle ground. –<
#'''Support''' though I don't think it's a big deal. Should be automatable enough not to be a big burden. Offers scope for (e.g.) searching for every article that references a particular date which, despite the handwaving in the Statement Against, doesn't currently appear to be possible. Consistency for readers is good. [[User:Gareth McCaughan|Gareth McCaughan]] ([[User talk:Gareth McCaughan|talk]]) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Wikipedia should be written for the readers, and providing logged in users with a consistent display of dates enhances their experience without detracting from the information provided to a non-logged in user as they would still see consistent formatting within an article. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 65:
#'''Support'''. Consistency and reader customisability are important factors here. [[User:Julianhall|Julianhall]] ([[User talk:Julianhall|talk]]) 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Being a web programmer involved in many [[i18n]] debates myself, any way to provide users (readers moreso than editors) consistency in displayed data is helpful. --[[User:MikeVitale|<span style="color: #ce6300; background: #fff">Mike</span>]][[User_talk:MikeVitale|<span style="color: #fff; background: #ce6300;">Vitale</span>]] 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' With the new parser function and the possibility for a default, the main reasons for opposition are solved. In addition, there is no reason why we should provide anything less than the most convenient viewing experience possible [[User:Alexfusco5|<b><
#'''Support'''. I'd rather have the possibility to choose the date format that I'm most familiar with.--[[User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso|Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux]] ([[User talk:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso|talk]]) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Convenience. Also, it keeps the same style as before...autoformatting is helpful. [[User:Daniel Benfield|Daniel Benfield]] ([[User talk:Daniel Benfield|talk]]) 01:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 76:
# '''Support''' More based on the conformity and uniformity argument than anything else. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#918151;color:#000;">bahamut0013</span>]]'''[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sup><small>words</small></sup></span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#D2B48C;color:#000;"><sub><small>deeds</small></sub></span>]] 07:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Autoformatting is a good thing, especially because most editors refuse to write dates in the format I find easiest to decode. With autoformatting all can be happy at the same time. Seriously, who could object to that? Most of the "oppose" votes here seem to argue against the ''linking'' of dates, which is indeed disturbing, but is not what this poll asks about either. –[[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] ([[User talk:Henning Makholm|talk]]) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
# – <small>''[[User:Iridescent|<
# '''Support'''. Autoformatting is neutral in appearance, while being adaptive to users who do want a preference in date style.[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''suppoet''' [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 94:
#'''Support''' Letting users see dates as they prefer adds to the user-friendliness of Wikipedia. I also note that many of the opposing votes are complaining about links and the "sea of blue", which are irrelevant to the proposed solution, and should therefore be discounted. -- [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel Parry]] [[User_talk:Arwel Parry|(talk)]] 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' User (i.e. reader) preferences should take priority over editorial decisions. I'd rather that date formats (and linking) be specified in preferences, than dictated by a small group at MOSNUM. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No brainer. Don't interrupt the scan of the article w/ speedbumps like oddball (to the reader) formats. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
#'''Support''', surprising myself after some thought. Initially, I was bothered only by the deletion of existing markup, since the "KISS" and "There's no problem to solve" arguments are compelling, and the existing applications (auto-linking to a page about that year, or a page about that date, allowing registered users to choose their date display format) are of dubious merit. But the idea that this metadata might have some future use is tantalising:
#:*There is a difference of both performance and quality between a search using a parsing algorithm (i.e., one trying to recognise data by pattern-matching the data itself) and one using metadata. Something that has been marked by a human editor as a date is more informative, machine-wise, than it's own guesswork as to what might be a date. This is true even if the text so flagged doesn't follow any standard convention beyond being humanly readable as a date. If <tag>Oct 18 45</tag> is allowed, as well as <tag>Eighteenth of October, 1945</tag>, and even <tag>in October of that year</tag>, the existence of the tags does nothing to detract from the presented data, and allows the development of future applications which might well present useful data to the user. Consider, for example, a parser which was able to resolve that last example, from the article context, as being a date concurrent with the first two - that might be a useful research feature, and one whose operation could only be helped by date tagging. Or imagine a historical article in which the author finds it useful to use the early, local calendar in order to relate the sequence of events. If each date is tagged, an application might offer automatic pop-up conversions of each date into other relevant calendars.
Line 113:
#:"''Metadata fallacy...''" All seems to be concerned with the linking ability of the text which used to be the norm. This is not the case here and is completely off topic
#:"''The failure of the original autoformatting was largely due to the ad hoc imposition of a design by programmers acting without agreed specifications (clear objectives) by the community. The so-called fixes suggested are of limited scope and functionality, and have not been agreed to by the community. We should not risk allowing solutions to be tacked on bit by bit over the next few years, requiring increasingly complicated syntax even further remote from the average editor. Among these issues would be non-breaking spaces, AD/BC, slashed, ISO and Gregorian/Julian dates. Date ranges—avoiding the clunkiness and forced repetitions that the original system involved—would be a significant challenge.''" Okay...so what? We already have these problems, but by standardizing dates, we allow such mass changes Wikipedia-wide to be implemented with a single change to a single template instead of millions of changes.
#:<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<
#'''Support''' - I liked the ability to have the date fit your personal preference before it was depreciated, and set up all the content I wrote as such; plus, of course, what's the point in having the preference option to change it if the articles themselves can't be changed by it? [[User:Colds7ream|Colds7ream]] ([[User talk:Colds7ream|talk]]) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This is a no-brainer. Of course readers should generally see dates in their favorite format. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 07:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 126:
#'''Support'''. It's a benefit for readers, and the maintenance can be mostly done by bots. [[User:Chonak|Chonak]] ([[User talk:Chonak|talk]]) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I prefer unified date formats, and the meta data may be useful too. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I find it easier to edit and read articles not worrying about whether the date is in MDY or DMY, and having the option to choose is a good idea in my opinion, and even if the option is there that doesn't necessarily mean it always has to be formatted correctly, wikipedia is about users editing, so if a user comes across a misformatted date they can change it, if the user doesn't care they don't have to, everybody wins.--<span style="border: 1px solid; border-color:#FFE303; background-color:#6B8E23"> [[User:Goldman60|<
#'''Support''' It was a great solution for an edit war that I participated in six years ago, and anything that makes it difficult for some to impose their POV about dates is worth having. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] ([[User talk:Eclecticology|talk]]) 08:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Allowing autoformatting by personal preference will stop the whole linking-delinking edit war, allow user's their own preference without forcing it on anyone else. It solves a whole bunch of problems in one go. If the developers were to simply create autoformatting for dates, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. The limited amounts of date formats mean it could even be done without additional formatting if the developers made the effort. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' What with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, consistency is essential. If a user really objects to having to pay extra attention to the way they input dates, then I'm sure the job could be carried out by a bot, and by supporting users. [[User:-m-i-k-e-y-|<strong>-<
#'''Weak support''' "Weak" because of the problem of inconsistency for unregistered users. <b><i>[[User:Ed Fitzgerald|Ed Fitzgerald]]</i> <sub>[[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]]</sub></b> 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per Jeff (consistent dates, less edit warring).--Esprit15d • <small>[[User_talk:Esprit15d |talk]]</small> • <small>[[Special:Contributions/Esprit15d|contribs]]</small> 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 144:
#'''Support''' - "This is a no-brainer. Of course readers should generally see dates in their favorite format." [[User:Arbus Driver|-Arb.]] ([[User talk:Arbus Driver|talk]]) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Far too many articles are already marked with the globalize maintenance template for the most trivial of reasons, some even more trivial than the formatting of the date. The solution offered to replace autoformatting-- to wit, relying on the "overall format" of an article for date format localisation/localization-- likely will aggravate rather than mitigate this situation. -- [[User:JeffBillman|JeffBillman]] ([[User talk:JeffBillman|talk]]) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – I'm a fan of options, but I'm an even bigger fan of ''consistency'', which is extremely difficult (more like impossible) to acheive on a wiki site. <
#'''Support''' - Was going to vote "No" on the basis of the difficulty of implementing the Autoformatting system - but on thinking it over I feel that Wikipedia is just the platform for these technological systems to be worked out - and having consistency over all articles for users is a very good thing. In response to the "There's no problem" argument - I don't think that change should necessarily be negated on the basis of having a problem or not. The "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument ignores the possibility of new tools that may or may not provide a better experience. You'll never know if you don't try though. [[User:Australian Matt|Australian Matt]] ([[User talk:Australian Matt|talk]]) 02:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strongly Support''' Allowing dates to be autoformatted on a per user is an excellent idea. This embodies Wikipedia's spirit of neutrality. The auto format tag adds the benefit of ensuring dates through out Wikipedia are tagged, so if a better format is later discussed, they will can be rolled over to the new format very easily. That being said, I think an easier syntax might make it more understandable to new users.
#:I understand that certain people have emotional "buy in" to the current format, spending thousands of man-hours manually editing dates to their current format. For their contribution I thank them, but I have the same appreciation for their thousands of hours of work as I do for a coder who completed a task of similar scale in several hours of coding. (provided that coder didn't step on to many toes.) We must not forget that it is the fruit of your labor that are propagated to the community, not your journey.[[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf|talk]]) 04:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' — Dates should be formatted automatically by the server as the page is assembled for the viewer. Editors shouldn't have to do anything to accomplish this—just type the date consistently throughout an article and it's done. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' looking to the future, auto-formatting simple-syntax dates provides future proofing beyond what many users currently comprehend. All (well, mostly) BOT achievable and provides a consistency not being achieved currently due largely to inconsistencies and constant edit and reverts. Default presentation for IP users, and even that can be targeted based on perceived ___location. Preferences can even be provided on individual basis for IP by cookie system such as used by google and countless others. What is the resistance to improvement here? not any work for anyone who doesn't want to do it, BOTs and wikignomes can make it happen far better that current mess. Autoformat also allows instant switchback between linking and unlinking per the annual argument over that - and yes, I am aware linking is not intertwined with formatting.--<small><b><i>Club<
#'''Support'''. To me the advantages of autoformatting are obvious. Updating existing pages will gladly be taken care of by bots. [[User:Dampinograaf|Dampinograaf]] ([[User talk:Dampinograaf|talk]]) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] ([[User talk:IanOsgood|talk]]) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 157:
#'''Support'''; to me this is a common-sense feature that an online encyclopedia ought to support, and the extra complexity required is not that much - if complexity had been a concern since the beginning WP would never have been created. [[User:Time3000|Time3000]] ([[User talk:Time3000|talk]]) 10:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; I prefer the idea of uniformity. [[User:Tsjackso|tsjackso]] ([[User talk:Tsjackso|talk]]) 14:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; If an argument can be found then an argument will occur. You cannot keep everyone happy unless you give them what they prefer. Trivial though it may be arguments have happened over less. If autoformatting can give people their own preferred date format then it's all to the good. The current system works and is only being deprecated by editors looking to find something wrong and then argue about it. Human nature at its very best. So, in my view, autoformatting is the way to go using the current system which is easy to achieve, easy to remember how to do it without any arcane template formatting to remember. Easy is good, easy is less prone to error and best of all easy is a great way of pissing off people who just want to make life difficult just for the sake of it! --[[User:WebHamster|'''<
#'''Support'''; Both globalization and localization are made easier this way. There is genuine ambiguity in DMY or YMD e.g. my birthday 12/04/72. Within articles with much collaboration, especially in the references, dates typically ARE NOT consistent within the article even now. Let the machine do the stupid work. Also, just because the facility is there does not mean it has to be made compulsory, any more than linking or putting something into sections is compulsory. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 19:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' on todays date of 05/02/09 or 02/05/09. Mainly because ''all English-speakers recognize both'' is patently false, if this were the case there wouldn't be half the MOS date issues and date revert wars. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
#'''Support'''. It would be nice to have this facility available. If you don't like it, then just don't use it. --[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 23:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Consistency, especially within an article, would be a big boon to readability and lessen the vexing task of making sure your dates are internally consistent with the remainder of the existing article. The inconsistency of date formatting across multiple articles is a nuisance for sure, though not a show-stopper. Worrying about all of the existing dates within articles is a red-herring -- there's no requirement to go out and fix them all, though I suspect a robot could be written that would do that. -- btphelps <sup>([[User_talk:Btphelps |talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Btphelps |contribs]])</sup> 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 192:
#'''Support''' Definite improvement in general user experience, and this doesn't even need a JS or MediaWiki hack to implement (though they might make it smoother). A template, some CSS classes and the already existing <code>#time</code> parser function would be sufficient to do this. [[User:Carolina wren|Carolina wren]] ([[User talk:Carolina wren|talk]]) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Wikipedia is a rich Web application. Having an option for user defined date formatting in a rich Web application is a no-brainer. [[User:Dissolve|<span style="color: #000; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;">dissolve</span>]][[User talk:Dissolve|<span style="color: #000; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per #149 and #90. (Yes, I did my own thinking, but other people are better at writing arguments than I am.) ~[[user:orngjce223]] <
#'''Support''' - I don't care greatly about this debate, but I don't have any problem with the general concept of autoformatting. The benefits seem pretty obvious, the costs much less so. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Autoformatting is an effective way to localize dates in a format the user is most familiar with, and would prevent inconsistency in date formats across articles. [[User:New traffic pattern|NTP]] ([[User talk:New traffic pattern|talk]]) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. There is too much inconsistency in Wikipedia. I support any measure that increases consistency across articles. <
#'''Support''' I like to see a consistent format of dates, but as different users have different preferences, some form of autoformatting is required. -- [[User:MightyWarrior|MightyWarrior]] ([[User talk:MightyWarrior|talk]]) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' because I think it will be easier to have this feature than to agree a common format for dates; and without an agreed common format, articles begin to look messy and inconsistent. <
#'''Support''' This should solve all reasonable problems. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This, apart from allowing each user to choose date formatting, also gives them the choice of linking dates or not. This should please registered viewers, and the real debate should be over autolinking for unregistered users. (I assume that the date format would be chosen based on the country of origin of the user and thus need not be debated.)
#'''Support'''. Just so I can get non-North American date formats! [[User:Wikipeterproject|Wikipeterproject]] ([[User talk:Wikipeterproject|talk]]) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; although as an editor I don't really care one way or the other, as a reader it's simply easier and more accessible to see dates consistently presented in the format I'm accustomed to. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The very fact that there are people who prefer non-North American date formats (such as Wikipeterproject) '''requires''' me to vote this way. To me anything other than "April 9, 2009" looks weird and ugly. And I am sure that '''many''' Americans see it the same way. Yet I think we have no call for dominating things -- so autoformatting should allow me to see "April 9, 2009" while these others would see "9 April 2009" or "2009-04-09." Why '''anyone''' opposes it escapes me. -- [[User:BRG|BRG]] ([[User talk:BRG|talk]]) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Though I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (having left the place in 2006 for reasons mostly irrelevant to the discussion here before rejoining recently), I think I need to have a say in this. That stated, and having read both the statements for and against, I think the for statements do make more sense. Firstly, I disagree that we are trying to solve a non-existent problem here. Formatting consistency is an important and integral part of every publication, and the use of inconsistent formatting and double standards reflects unprofessionalism. Yes, it's slightly unfair that unregistered users won't be able to choose the date format they want to use, but this is countered by the fact that they will at least be able to see consistent date formatting on every article. Labourious and complex? I thought this was what bots are for! And the Wikipedia-constrained Google search is underused for a good reason - it's [[kludge]]. Why can't we be able to use our own search engine, instead of having to rely on an external search engine? Developmental risks is a real issue, but I believe that, unless we lack the forsight to fix these problems before implementing this solution, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. --[[User:A.K.R.|A.K.R.]] ([[User talk:A.K.R.|talk]]) 16:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Many people have different date formats, so <
#'''Support''' - worthwhile standardisation, while retaining person choice. [[User:Finavon|Finavon]] ([[User talk:Finavon|talk]]) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Streamlined date formatting across the board would be a big improvement.Drunauthorized 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The uniformity of the dates throughout Wikipedia would be a small, but necessary, improvement to the professionalism of the website [[User:Sean118|Sean118]] ([[User talk:Sean118|talk]]) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Autoformatting prevents edit wars between tiny minds. There are users who think the current link-formatted dates are God's own gift and removing all autoformatting will likely annoy them greatly. [[User:Cstaffa|Cstaffa]] ([[User talk:Cstaffa|talk]]) 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The option to choose how dates are displayed is an important one- sure, users of both systems can recognize the other, but why should they have to do so? It makes it easier all 'round and prevents edit wars. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<
#'''Support''' --[[User:Michael93555|Michael]] ([[User talk:Michael93555|talk]]) 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Having dates in different formats is confusing. --[[User:Pot|Pot]] ([[User talk:Pot|talk]]) 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 216:
#'''Support''' - Consistency is valuable. This will (eventually) help. [[User:Ingolfson|Ingolfson]] ([[User talk:Ingolfson|talk]]) 09:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - the most important thing is that the date is easily understood by the reader and that it be consistent across all articles. Formatting to the user's local seems like the right decision here. The linking and delinking of dates has been silly anyway. Many proponents of linked dates were just looking for some consistency in how dates are expressed. Linking to a list of things that happened on that date never provided much value. Effort involved in making this work is not insignificant but this seems like a job ideally suited for a BOT.--[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 12:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Wikipedia should be genuinely international. If any country other than the US had adoped a different date format we wouldn't even be having this debate. Given the preponderance of US editors, however, it's not unreasonable to toss them a bone and let them format dates as they see fit while the rest of the world gets on with it. [[User:AngoraFish|<
#'''Support''' if the syntax is simple; also, consider something (e.g. teensy superscript dot) to reassure reader he's seeing an autoformatted date and not just literal text that might mislead. But my support vanishes if it in any way leads back to that awful overlinking of years, dates, etc.[[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Irrelevant links just distract form those that are truly of value to the reader. --[[User:Droll|<
#'''Support''' The overhead seems minor, and it lets readers see dates in a consistent manner. Also, consider that the day may come when the format "March 11, 2009" looks terribly out of style and we'll all want those individual instances updated. Better to just automate it now, while Wikipedia is still small. [[User:Spiel496|Spiel496]] ([[User talk:Spiel496|talk]]) 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This will improve consistency and display dates per user preferences. But will it eliminate thousands of punctuation errors such as omitting the final comma from
#'''Support''' to make things easier/more consistent for readers. --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 07:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per user Ckatz and the argument about metadata (the most important as I see it). It should also be mandatory using [[ISO 8601]] (proleptic) gregorian dates as input parameter to the #formatdate since this is the International standard nearly every country has adopted (even the US and EU). [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 10:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as date and time are common to all subject areas, and standardization is a logical extension of this. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 10:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Why allow an editor to set a "date and preference" in the their profile, and then ignore it? [[User:MeegsC|MeegsC]] | [[User talk:MeegsC|Talk]] 11:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The day someone decided that date should be delinked is the day someone created a huge headache for
#'''Support''', allows personal choice with minimal issues. (No, "I can't read the wikitext" is not a valid complaint, as it is already unreadable thanks to the pervasiveness of citation templates and parser functions.) [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 18:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As a reader, I like it.--[[User:Fabrictramp|<
#'''Strong Support'''. Per IbLeo (#182)--[[User:EMU CPA|EMU CPA]] ([[User talk:EMU CPA|talk]]) 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as long as it is optional, and we don't have bots going around changing plain text dates to formatted dates. Let true consensus, through normal human editing, decide if this is generally useful or not. [[User:DHowell|DHowell]] ([[User talk:DHowell|talk]]) 04:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' useful feature for improving international usability [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]]) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It could be done gradually and optionally (like { { i p a | } } ), and would help solve the other two problems mentioned.<
#'''Support''' No need for any bot runs, but as said above let this develop naturally. The option is important as a fly-by editor one does not want to worry about formatting dates the ''right'' way (Is this an American or English article?) Autoformat will do nicely[[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] ([[User talk:Agathoclea|talk]]) 14:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Autoformatting certainly has potential, I would like to see more options - such as users logged out being able to set some kind of preference, to further take advantage of Wikipedia's electronic nature. It is good that linking is no longer required for autoformatting, and the potential is still open to allow bots to do most of the labour, though it could just develop slowly over time through human editing. I do believe consistency across article would be helpful, like with other encyclopaedias, and while it perhaps ought to be trivial this clearly matters to more than a few people. [[User:Camaron|Camaron | Chris]] <small>[[User talk:Camaron|(talk)]]</small> 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia is not a [[WP:PAPER]] encyclopaedia, and editors who aren't bothered or don't know how to format dates can leave it to editors who can. Symanticising (if that's a word) articles is only a good thing. -- '''[[User:M2Ys4U|M2Ys4U]]''' <sup>([[User talk:M2Ys4U|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</sup> 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' Makes sense to support the most popular format --[[User:Thelostlibertine|Thelostlibertine]] ([[User talk:Thelostlibertine|talk]]) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I feel that Linked dates would be good as it would help avoid conflicts as when Tropical cyclones transfer basins it causes headaches for WPTC members. Also i feel that if we are meant to link to "relevent articles" then why shouldnt we link to the date articles? [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 23:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Date formatting enables the reader to quickly understand dates, and everyone has their preference (I set mine a while back). For unregistered users, it would be a pipe dream to eventually combine autoformatting with either OS/browser locale settings (if accessable from the web server) or by inferring for the country where the IP address ___domain orginates (using some kind of GeoIP database). <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;"> +[[User:Mwtoews|<span style="color:#008000;">m</span>]][[User talk:Mwtoews|<span style="color:#6B3FA0;">t</span>]]</span> 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as the best solution to the related article inconsistencies, edit wars and the policy deadlocks that result without it (e.g. the above-mentioned [[WP:WPTC]] situation not to mention the historic inability to achieve consensus with date format proposals [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Proposal on international date format|such as this]]). Autoformatting provides a superior ability to adapt and distribute Wikipedia content in a global environment. Date format differences carry systemic bias issues e.g. MDY carries a particularly American systemic bias which if enforced on many articles would reflect poorly on Wikipedia as a global project (and that's [[WP:NPOV]]). Also some date formats used in practice ([[ISO 8601]], YMD) are excluded by policy, but could be retrieved with autoformatting. Most of the capability is already implemented in Wikimedia - it's [[wiktionary:low-hanging fruit|low-hanging fruit]] in terms of [[Internationalization and localization|i18n and L10n]] that should be cleaned up for date ranges and non-registered users, then we should move forward and once again make good use of it. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I definitely like the idea of having the system (finally) format dates to my own preference, rather than whatever format an author likes. Personally, I prefer "YYYY-MM-DD", since that is what I am used to from computer programming. The other way I like to see dates is "DDDD, MMMM D, YYYY". The thought of being able to change dates around like that (something computers can do so easily) is very nice. I've always hated using wiki markup as a kludge to make that work, so I tended not to do so. But once this gets approved and we can start formatting dates automagically, that will be wonderful. It should be as automatic and transparent to the user as possible. Ideally, no special tags required. If a date is in the article and recognizable as a date, the software should adapt it. If there is something that's not a date but is recognized as one, there should be a simple tag (nowiki perhaps, being familiar and similar in purpose?) that would prevent false positives. --[[User:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">'''Will'''</span><span style="color:#D13">scrlt</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">→“¡¿Talk?!”</span>]])</small> 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Readers who care enough to set a preference for date format should be able to see dates consistently displayed that way. Readers who do not care enough to set a preference just do not care, and the anti-formatting editors should not care about them either; at least those readers would see them in a consistent format that adds to a professional appearance. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 14:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This improves the look and feel of the encyclopedia, by providing the option for (registered) users to view their content in the most appropriate format for their needs. Although unregistered users cannot do this through a preferences setting, it might be possible to implement a localization cookie, or some such thing, that offers them the same option. For the casual unregistered user (of which there are many), by autoformatting, we could define a default state for each article, so that the edit wars could be confined to a localization template that sets default date formatting (and maybe other style conventions) for the entire article. With that, there is still a net benefit to all users in terms of formatting consistency, even though only some users would be aware of the additional benefit of setting their own preferred format. I do acknowledge that there could be a performance penalty due to parsing dates, but having implemented date parsing on other platforms, I can't see this as being a disproportionate disadvantage, computationally. Also, although I'm not familiar with the MediaWiki implementation, it seems reasonably simple to cache these computational results in a way that limits the penalty. Basically, unless the backend of MediaWiki is a mess, I doubt that there will be significant performance losses, compared to the regular loading of pages and evaluation of templates. Finally, any good implementation ought to avoid mandatory linking of the date (which appears to be the intent of the poll question)—but by the same token, the syntax chosen should not prevent date-linking, when appropriate. [[User:TheFeds|<span style="font-family:Constantia; font-size:medium; color:#0077bb">'''''TheFeds'''''</span>]] 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I oppose the general concept of autoformatting=====
#'''Oppose''' If [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582#c65 Brion thinks] that Autoformatting should be removed, that's good enough for me. I think the benefits of autoformatting do not outweigh the trouble implementing it will cause, such as tagging millions of dates with a marker to allow autoformatting. <
#'''Oppose''' Per all of the arguments against. We don't need more options. Neither of the accepted date styles are difficult to understand. I think we should continue to move away from the ISO style and we shouldn't be relying on autoformatting for consistency. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
#'''Oppose''': This is complicated software, don't let anyone persuade you it's a piece of cake. If they haven't been able to get it right in SIX YEARS, nothing makes me think they will get it right any time soon. Of course Brion Vibber knows what he's talking about. While people say 'no pain, no gain', this is just sooo much pain for little gain. Applying [[lipstick on a pig|lipstick to a pig]] doesn't change the fact it's a pig. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 23:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weakly oppose'''. If this issue were to arise now, we would solve it by permitting both formats, along the lines of [[WP:ENGVAR]]. Autoformatting was a failed effort at a technical fix to a behavioral problem, and it faces irresoluble grammatical difficulties about whether a comma comes after the date. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 244 ⟶ 252:
#'''Oppose''' There is no "problem" to solve. As it has been noted, [[WP:ENGVAR]] works well for English variants, so why not dates? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': What problem are we trying to solve by this? <small>[[User:Seicer|<
#As a featured contributor, I have found no reason for it. --[[User:David Fuchs|<
#'''Oppose'''. The "pro" arguments are not convincing at all, but the "contra" arguments describe very real problems. All the disadvantages just to give a few people the option to display an article with US spelling in UK date format or vice versa? This is obvious feature bloat. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Most Wikipedia users are ''readers'', not editors, therefore most features should be designed for them. Datelinking devalues useful links. It also necessitates useless extra work for editors. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' autoformatting. I hate that meaningless blue mess of [[WP:OVERLINK|overlinked]] dates. And isn't it rather odd that people from the US and UK are supposed to be befuddled by each other's ''practically'' identical date formats, when the rest of the world with their much more wildly variable date formatting is quite capable of understanding both of them? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
#'''Oppose''', I don't really see this as needed, I'm not convinced there's a problem that needs this as a solution. [[User:Raven1977|<
#'''Oppose''' I would have thought this had been settled the first, second, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/RFC:_Unresolved_date_delinking_and_autoformatting_issues#Date_autoformatting|third time around]]. Now we’re at it a fourth time. No, autformatting is not desirable. Nor is it necessary. Just chose the format most appropriate for the article (based on [[Wikipedia:Mosnum#Full_date_formatting|MOSNUM guidelines]]), write it out in fixed text, and be done with it. Jumping through all these hoops just so a handful of editors can be spared the shock of seeing a date format they disapprove of is something they will survive; I guarantee it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. If Wikipedia readers are smart enough to handle "colour" vs "color" and "aluminium" vs "aluminum", they can handle "30 March" vs "March 30". On that premise, I would apply the [[KISS principle]] and avoid the added complexity. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk:Tcncv|talk]]) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': there is no need for autoformatting. As already mentioned, it enhances the differences between the registered and unregistered uses, masking any potential inconsistencies. Every article should be consistent, using [[WP:MOSNUM]] and [[WP:ENGVAR]].—[[User:Mdcollins1984|MDCollins]] ([[User talk:Mdcollins1984|talk]]) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Per Tcncv. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
#'''Oppose'''. Editors seeing a different output than the readers is a recipe for disaster. I appreciate autoformating, it is nice to have (international format FTW), but when I first became aware of its shortcomings, I stopped using it. Ever since, I've seen a great deal of articles being inconsistent because of this. Articles that have been fixed because I turned the feature off. The only way I would support autoformatting is if '''ALL''' articles would have the '''SAME''' ouput for unregistered users, preferably international dates (DD MM YYYY) as we are addressing an international readership. AKA, no tagging individual pages with magic words specifying in what format dates should be displayed, that's just asking for having endless revert wars until the end of time. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': the pros pointed out benefit only those who are logged in. For those who are not logged or are not registered users, they might see dates of varying formats. Autoformat does not promote consistency; the actual text is still inconsistent (and as pointed, obvious to those not logged in). Without autoformat, editors would readily spot any consistency errors in the date formats for an article. [[User:Jappalang|Jappalang]] ([[User talk:Jappalang|talk]]) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) ''Add-on'': <s>this is added in response to [[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]]'s broadcasting to users who have opposed on the grounds that "autoformatting can be fixed for anonymous users".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJappalang&diff=280978912&oldid=280521237][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sapphic] It still does not solve anything, firstly, no one has come up with a workable solution yet (it is only proposed). Secondly,</s> Editors do not need to jump through more hoops to simply input a date. My oppose stands. [[User:Jappalang|Jappalang]] ([[User talk:Jappalang|talk]]) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 260 ⟶ 268:
#'''Oppose''': Marking up millions of articles for the benefit of few editors is definitely not worth the effort .[[User:SteveB67|SteveB67]] ([[User talk:SteveB67|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# –<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong> | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': there are so many reasons—the costs are horrendous and the benefit little (frankly, nothing, since day-month/month-day order is trivial); the risks are high that things will go mucky or that we'll be left holding a very smelly puppy; it breaks a basic principle that simplicity is best (if at all possible, and it is the reality now). I hope WPians do the cautious thing and throw this one out for good. [[User:Tony1|<
#'''Oppose''': too much monkey business. dates should be entered in a consistent format throughout articles, and logged-in editors should see the same thing unlogged-in readers see. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 04:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. This seems like a lower priority than spelling autoformatting (<nowiki>{{#formatword|color|colour}}</nowiki>), and would make the edit boxes just as hard to read.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 04:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''—<
#'''Oppose''', Pmanderson puts it rather well. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As the previous arguments pointed out this issue is MoS & behavior related not technical. --[[User:KrebMarkt|KrebMarkt]] 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 277 ⟶ 285:
#'''Oppose'''. For all the same reasons as every other time we've been asked the same question. Utterly pointless function that provides extra work and complication for editors and developers, while providing nothing of value for anyone (especially our readers who won't see it anyway). Will also damage Wikipedia, since if editors use this tool then they won't see dates as readers see them, and so will leave certain errors (punctuation, format consistency) uncorrected.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I do understand the difference between autoformatting and linking. I can see many problems resulting from autoformatting. Anyone who has cursed at MS Word (as I do when using someone else's machine) should oppose an extension of nannydom. (I use OpenOffice.) [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. They look silly, often link to completely unrelated pages and devalue important links in "difficult" articles. I have contributed three FAs and I see absolutely no value in having linked dates. When I first discovered Wikipedia, I clicked on those silly linked dates thinking that additional information on the subject in question could be found. I am sure others have done this. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham <
#'''Oppose''' it's a "solution" to a "problem" that is not serious, and implementing it would be just add another never-ending task for Wikipedia. (New users won't necessarily know how to autoformat dates, so we would be constantly having to clean up after them.) <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
#'''Oppose''' given the extra work for minimal benefit. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 13:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' without repeating the reasoning for the gazillionth time in yet another poll (and noting that most of the Support reasoning is faulty). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
#'''Oppose'''. How many more polls on this issue are we going to take? — [[User:EmilJ|Emil]] [[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. What matters the most is internal consistency in articles (as in the language question), and autoformatting is not needed for this purpose. [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] ([[User talk:Punkmorten|talk]]) 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 289 ⟶ 297:
#'''Oppose''' I have opposed before and i will do it again.--[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] ([[User talk:SkyWalker|talk]]) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''weak oppose''' I do not see how the benefits muster up against the expended resources. Had some type of standard been in place before the content of Wikipedia had burgeoned so, perhaps, but trying to retrofit seems silly.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The crux of the question is, for whom is Wikipedia intended – the relatively small number of registered editors or the millions of unregistered readers who use it as an online encyclopedia? All of the arguments in favor of auto-formatting dates are irrelevent to the vast majority who read a Wikipedia article without registration. Unlike options such as bold and italic text or section headers, which appear to registered and unregistered alike, special markup does not "enhance the presentation of articles" for unregistered readers, nor does it help achieve "a consistent format across the entire publication" at all. In fact, auto-formatting only benefits registered editors and its removal actually enhances the presentation of articles to the unregistered viewer by eliminating the distraction of annoying and confusing blue date highlighting. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JGHowes|<
#'''Oppose''' In some fields, e.g. history, the format of a date can be an important element of its information content. To be sure, an opportunity for autoformatting is not the same thing as the automatic use of autoformatting. But an opportunity for the content to be changed by something other than the thoughtful decision of an editor seems intrinsically dangerous to the accuracy and authenticity of encyclopedic information. Maybe it would be different if the autoformatting would work only conditionally, e.g. if a special flag is both entered into ''some'' article's wikitext, and actually turned 'on' -- to reflect a conscious decision by an editor that date-formats are not of intrinsic importance in ''this'' article. [[User:Terry0051|Terry0051]] ([[User talk:Terry0051|talk]]) 15:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The effort isn't worth it, since, as noted, we really have no problem recognizing and understanding these dates regardless of the format. We need this no more than we need special markup so that words end consistently with -or or -our, or so that they end consistently with -ize or -ise (but in words where the usage varies!), or so that serial commas do or don't appear, or so that primary quotations are delimited by single or double quotations marks, according to our preferences. [[User:Largoplazo|—Largo Plazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Who is Wikipedia for, the readers or the editors? The vast majority of our users never edit and are not registered. And from the perspective of an unregistered user, autoformatting makes our articles worse, not better, because it encourages editors to format their dates without regard for the way dates are generally formatted in the article concerned. A simple extension of [[WP:ENGVAR]] solves the problem. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 15:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' any type of autoformatting that requires that dates (or pages) have special syntax. This is a barrier to entry for new/inexperienced editors which does not appear to by justified by the negligible benefit it provides to registered users. I would be surprised if there were many editors who did not understand that 2 March and March 2 are the same date. I also oppose automatic autoformatting of all dates on a page because that would negatively impact quotations, which should have the date in the format that it was used in the source. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not worth the effort. [[User:Alan16|<
#'''Oppose''' <sigh> Congratulations to Ryan P and all others who've tried to keep this going in a civil manner, but this topic is tiresome. Autoformatting brings no benefits and has downsides. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:JBC3|JBC3]] ([[User talk:JBC3|talk]]) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not worth the effort and would reduce the readability of the wiki source. [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] ([[User talk:Plastikspork|talk]]) 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', way too much complexity for most users, and zero benefit for the vast majority of our readers. --[[User:Laser_brain|<
#'''Oppose''' I honestly don't see the point - dates are more than readable as they are. It's just making extra wok for minimal gain. Whilst I can see the interest on forums, I think Wikipedia should just leave its style be. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greggers</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]]
#'''Oppose''' PMAnderson summarises my views exactly. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', this seems to be creating more work and problems with very little benefit. We have some amazing programmers who can help us through any perceived problems. Our readers deserve better articles and we really have spent a ''lot'' of energy on these discussions and project-wide on this issue. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
#'''Oppose:''' Others said it well, namely Pfainuk, Greg L, Largo Plazo, and GRBerry. An extension of WP:ENGVAR is applicable to the issue of date formats, and far preferable to encouraging editors to observe only their local formats. We have no trouble recognising the different variations and might as well autoformat serial commas or whatever other myriad of variations are lurking in the English language. I vote for focusing on perfecting content and having internally consistent articles, instead of creating loads of work to allow an editor-only preference which half would never bother "turning on" anyway. [[User:Maedin|<b><
#'''Oppose''' Violates KISS principle and also, Autoformatting is an excessive approach for such a minor aspect: All our readers perfectly understand both MD and DM. Have you ever seen a child look at MD/DM dates and say "what does that mean"? Too much of the community's time has been taken up with this already. We all have better things to contribute to/improve Wikipedia. [[User:Sillyfolkboy|Sillyfolkboy]] ([[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|talk]]) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As long as dates are consistent within an article there is no problem c.f. other international variations. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|edits]])</small> 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Unnecessary concession to people who get worked up over nothing.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose autoformatting''' It seems unimportant and prone to problems. I also oppose further iterations of this issue-that-refuses-to-die. The "losing" editors should start acting like adults and accept the fact that the community consensus is against them. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Edit Conflicted Oppose''' I'll first point out the [[omniscience|all-knowing]] nature of devs ([[WP:Do NOT bite the developers#Fun Developer Facts|see link]]). This understood, I agree with Brion that it doesn't need to be done and that we tend to make things harder than they need to be on WP. I see benefits, but the cons certainly outweigh the pros. '''<
#'''Oppose''' I think it's difficult to decouple autoformatting from autolinking - currently, you have to make a link or use a parser function. The former is distracting when you view an article, the latter when you edit an article. I don't think the feature is worth the hassle. The resultantly simpler wikitext syntax will benefit new editors and performance, by making the code (slightly) less complex. [[User:RupertMillard|RupertMillard]] <small>([[User talk:RupertMillard|Talk]])</small> 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#:Apparently this was insufficiently clear for [[User:Sapphic]]'s taste. I don't mean it's technically difficult to have one without the other because that would be absurd. I meant it's difficult to debate one in isolation — if the only way WP will have autoformatting is with <nowiki>[[]] syntax (autolinking or not) or {{#formatdate}}</nowiki>, the resultantly ugly/hackish wikitext is IMO too great a price to pay for a very slight benefit. Now if somebody wants to ask me about autoformatting with new syntax such as <<2009-04-01>>, as I think I saw somewhere, I'll be neutral, as long as IP users see something easy on the eye, be it tailored to their ___location or not. [[User:RupertMillard|RupertMillard]] <small>([[User talk:RupertMillard|Talk]])</small> 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per others. '''[[User:American Eagle|<
#'''Oppose'''. Better to embrace the international diversities than use the User prefs to snub them. One should become accustomed to seeing the differences just like you would at your bookshelf. That is part of the learning experience.<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<
#'''Oppose'''. Autoformatting, even if it could be made to work properly, offers very little advantage but has very significant disadvantages, as others have drawn attention to above. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. [[User:Liffey|Liffey]] ([[User talk:Liffey|talk]]) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', solution without a problem.
#'''Oppose''' ... always have and always will [[User:21stCenturyGreenstuff|<
#'''Oppose'''. Lots of extra work for everyone for a trivial benefit for a tiny minority. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia. —[[User:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]] <sup>([[User talk:Remember the dot|talk]])</sup> 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Alohasoy|Alohasoy]] ([[User talk:Alohasoy|talk]]) 20:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 330 ⟶ 338:
#'''Oppose''' - ugh, another RFC? How many times are we going to go through this? --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. There is no ambiguity in understanding the two formats allowed. A lot of effort for a purely cosmetic issue. Same issue as regional spelling differences and should be treated exactly the same way. --[[User talk:NrDg|NrDg]] 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - There's no reason why general readers should see something different than a few logged-in users who have preferences set. '''[[User:Giants2008|<
#'''Oppose''', serves no purpose link wise as the links do not go anywhere useful, adding excessive blue links everywhere (by default, automatically "overlinks" article as dates are usually repeated multiple times. Also negates the purpose of even formatting dates in articles, and can be confusing to IP and new users who see one thing in the article, decide to edit, and see something totally different. Write them as text, and leave it at that. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Auto-formatting is a "solution" looking for a problem. It's not even a good solution as it cannot address every date format currently used on WP; and there is no indication that a technical solution can even be found for all the issues raised during the debate. ''If'' a technical solution is implemented, its syntax promises to be complex enough to place it beyond the reach of the average editor. A real solution to the date-consistency "problem" is to simply enter dates in a consistent manner—using plain text. All other significant issues simply disappear with the "plain text" strategy. [[User:HWV258|<b><
#'''Oppose.''' Computer software should be as simple as possible. Once you begin complicating it you always get into trouble. [[User:VikSol|VikSol]] 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Auto-formatting. No good reason to have to bother with this. [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] ([[User talk:Hmains|talk]]) 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' autoformatting. This is a technical solution that lacks a problem to solve. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] ([[User talk:Tempshill|talk]]) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': It looks like a solution in search of a problem. There is a significant penalty in terms of making the markup more complicated and intimidating to new users. Keep it simple. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' I don't care if my date is formatted one way or the other. It's like color vs colour. I can read and comprehend both. [[User:RainbowOfLight|<
#"Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that ''anyone'' can edit." What I have always liked about Wikipedia is that the biggest thing you need to learn to contribute is how to make a wikilink. Basic information like dates shouldn't require formatting more complex than that. Wikipedia has developed a culture that does [http://media.www.commonwealthtimes.com/media/storage/paper634/news/2007/11/08/News/Vcu-Student.Triggers.Wikipedia.Showdown-3088322.shtml discourage new users and old alike] and there's no need to code the site to be in synch with that exclusionary culture.[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]]<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Otherlleft|No, really, other way . . .]]</sup> 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' <s>Autoformatting</s> Date linking served no rational purpose and wasted the time of writers and editors. I don't want it to return. [[User:Finetooth|Finetooth]] ([[User talk:Finetooth|talk]]) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 346 ⟶ 354:
#'''Oppose''' Every little added complexity to wikitext mark-up makes it harder to pretend that this is an encyclopdia anyone can edit. [[User:Ian Spackman|Ian Spackman]] ([[User talk:Ian Spackman|talk]]) 07:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': There's no problem that this solves. If dates must be in a certain format, they can be treated similar to British vs. American English: a given format should be used where it is reasonable. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose''': I'd oppose more strongly if I felt it was an important issue, but I don't see that we should be offering autoformatting if it isn't consistent across all dates in the encyclopedia (including sigs), and it could allow for all sorts of dates in the first place. However, it's a bit of a non-issue, we'd do better to agree a recognised style in the MOS if only that was possible. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;background:#ffffff">[[user:Worm That Turned|<
#'''Oppose''' We need less links on pages. Linked dates clog up pages with blue, reducing readability. They also make pages look less professional. We do not have a linked autoformatting system to 'convert' between US/UK spelling, why should we have it for a dating system that is completely mutually understandable? Autoformatting has been a constraint for Wikipedia for years, and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. <
#'''Oppose''' Autoformatting is not seen by unregistered users, but the datelinks are, and they look like a classic case of [[WP:OVERLINK|overlinking]]. In fact, for years I wasn't even aware of the autoformat feature and was constantly irritated at these superfluous links. They still seem unprofessional to me, just like you wouldn't link the word "born" in "[[Barack Obama]] was born in [[Hawaii]]." --[[User:Zvika|Zvika]] ([[User talk:Zvika|talk]]) 08:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Added in response to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZvika&diff=280985430&oldid=280619819 comment] by Sapphic: While my main opposition is to datelinks, I also oppose autoformatting which does not appear as a link, primarily because of the wikimarkup complications which appear to be inevitable with this kind of approach. Our markup needs simplification, not the opposite. Perhaps [[utopia|one day]], when we have a WYSIWYG editor. --[[User:Zvika|Zvika]] ([[User talk:Zvika|talk]]) 13:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Can create far too many blue links in articles. --[[User:JD554|JD554]] ([[User talk:JD554|talk]]) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#Apart from the issue of overlinking, this is ''one'' encyclopedia project producing ''one'' version of an article for everybody. What's next, allowing users to switch between American/British English? Even if such customization were desirable, it is certainly not worth the effort and complication. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#Yay! Options on date formats is just what I'd like to see distract me from writing articles. No problem to solve, leave it alone. —'''[[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]]''' ([[User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Cyclonenim|email]]) 11:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The format of the date is an ENGVAR issue like spelling or grammar. An article should be self-consistent wrt all of these. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 356 ⟶ 364:
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I was hugely relieved when autoformatting was stopped last summer - For the majority of users, they are excessive and pointless links with very little benefit. Everyone understands what is meant, whether the format used is "Day Month" or "Month Day". As long as we are consistent within individual articles then there is no problem to address.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] ([[User talk:Jackyd101|talk]]) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should, or that we need to. The format of a date in an article is not a significant issue. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates]] covers the situation well enough. People are quite used to seeing 17 November 1956 and November 17, 1956 - and these do not cause a problem. Both versions are understandable by readers, and most people encounter both versions in everyday life, and will use both versions. It seems totally inappropriate to create work for most editors in order to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. I hope this is the last poll we get on this issue. Four polls within 6 months is rather too much. Each time the consensus is that this is not needed and not wanted. Stop with the polls already! <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
#'''Oppose''' Marking up every date in every article (millions of them) - just so that people can choose between day-month and month-day? Madness! [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Something I think people are forgetting is that the ''vast majority'' of our readers are unregistered. The people for whom this is supposed to provide the most benefit aren't even going to know it's going on. Leave it as it is, and let an [[WP:ENGVAR]] type solution take care of it. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 16:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 364 ⟶ 372:
#'''Oppose''' This is a weak solution without a problem. Most readers are not even logged in anyway. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 17:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I agree with Richard75; I don't think this will accomplish much except put off new editors and make other editors spend time making minor edits, to very minor effect. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 17:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Most readers aren't logged in, and the different date formats are easy to understand anyway. In addition, anything that reduces the sea of blue in articles is welcome. This is a solution looking for a problem. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
#'''Oppose'''. What the Statement Against says - specifically, there is no problem to solve. Furthermore the solution is arduous for new editors, and potentially error-prone. [[User:DavidBrooks|David Brooks]] ([[User talk:DavidBrooks|talk]]) 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' – <b>[[User:Theleftorium|<
#'''Oppose''' - just solving problems that don't exist. We have plenty of real problems to solve and articles to expand. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#Per Steve Crossin. --[[User:Nemo bis|Nemo bis]] ([[User talk:Nemo bis|talk]]) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 388 ⟶ 396:
#'''Oppose'''—Anderson above mentions "irresoluble grammatical difficulties", here's another. Take the phrase ''an August 7 decision'' change format and you have to have ''a 7 August decision''. <nowiki>{{#formatdate:}}</nowiki> cannot even handle ranges yet; can we expect ever to have it handle this? But let's suppose for the moment that these problems are solved (... it's the year 2187 ...) autoformatting brings with it another ill. By displaying dates in the user's preferred format underlying inconsistency can be hidden from the very people who would otherwise be fixing such problems. Perhaps a page-by-page default system could be implemented to avoid this. Thus WikiMedia's autoformatting has a fair way to go until it is a realistically workable solution. Is it worth the trouble? Is there any great difference between looking at the other sides date formatting as opposed to looking at their spelling? Date formatting is just one aspect of dialect, let it thus go under ENGVAR ... or at least until someone comes up with a workable solution to that. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 08:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#in the words of Donald Knuth, "premature optimization is the root of all evil". But I would be all for a smart ''client-side'' date autoformatting tool, e.g. in the shape of a firefox plugin. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 08:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''—Not a benefit that editors see date formats that vary from that which the general reader sees. We are all flexible enough to recognize and understand dates in various formats. —[[User:Mattisse|<
#'''Oppose'''. I've happily gone my whole life without realising that this is an issue, or that there are (supposedly) country-specific preferences. I read "April 1" and "1 April" equally easily -- the difference doesn't even register. As many others have said, I don't see that there is a problem to solve, and I oppose the unnecessary addition of markup that simply serves to make editing more cumbersome, cryptic, error-prone and time-consuming. Matt 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
#'''Oppose''' I don't really see the point in this [[User:VJ|VJ]] ([[User talk:VJ|talk]]) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 398 ⟶ 406:
#'''Oppose''' - I basically think it is a waste of manpower to make the overhaul.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Too much work for the gain, though I cannot agree with those who say the existing date formats pose no problem. The ISO dates are a pain in the neck and the problem for dates before the 12th of the month is real and needs to be addressed by editors. But i cannot see that autoformatting is a solution. [[User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] ([[User talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - There's no real problem to fix; most people can understand both forms of dates. It essentially seems like a lot of work for next to no real gain. '''''—[[User:LedgendGamer|<
#'''Oppose''' - There's really no need for it. 2 April or April 2, not all that different than the difference between color and colour. Simple difference depending on your dialect. Not a big deal in my view. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Date formatting would give complex wikitext with the only benefit that sensitive people used to "April 1" could hope to never see "1 April", and vice versa. Complex wikitext makes it harder to focus on the important content in an article. Date formatting would be a pointless overhead on the WP servers, and a frivolous time-waster for editors. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 417 ⟶ 425:
#'''Oppose''' Number 130 says it better and I don't see anyone comment the fact the genealogists in USA are using day/full month/year far more than the other one. Even FamilySearch use this throughout. I use European dating. [[User:Samuelsenwd|Samuelsenwd]] ([[User talk:Samuelsenwd|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I suspect most readers don't care whether an article says April 2 or 2 April; the order is trivial enough not to warrant the additional coding complexity. [[User:Steve|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">'''Steve'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve|C]]</sup> 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' this unnecessary added complexity.—[[User:S Marshall|<
#'''Oppose''' - Our own Chief Technical Officer says: "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting." THis whole thing is complex and laborious with little to no added benefit. As long as a date is given, I don't care if it's written April 2, 2009, 2 April 2009, or the second day of the month of April of the year 2009. [[User:Jd027|<b><
#'''Oppose'''. Do I have to repeat the arguments? -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - We should not manipulate article text to the animosities of certain user groups, especially when there is absolutely no problem with understanding any date variant. [[User:Cacycle|Cacycle]] ([[User talk:Cacycle|talk]]) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 430 ⟶ 438:
#'''Oppose.''' primarily because this is just a simple case of [[WP:ENGVAR]]. The supporters that say that Wikipedia should present dates consistently conveniently forget that we don't spell colour/color or meter/metre consistently across the encyclopedia either. The example that Britannica uses consistent date formats is just an extension of the fact that they use consistent British English spelling. The thing that we need to do is to have consistent date formats within each article and plain text dates can solve that without the need for additional markup. --[[User:Seav|seav]] ([[User talk:Seav|talk]]) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - on the KISS principle and because of all the issues facing Wikipedia (which is asking for donations to keep itself going) and its volunteers, this seems very low priority. Further, if anything at all is needed from editors to attend to this issue, it's not worth it. In other words, I wouldn't expend any sort of resources (even this poll seems time-consuming) and in my opinion, as a fairly new Wikipedian, Wikipedia is already bogged down in an enormous number of these kinds of discussions. The current system works, all editors know they are supposed to be consistent within articles, and as a member of the copyediting team, so far I rarely find that any article is inconsistent - but if it is, tag it for copyediting and let it go. Nothing requiring additional mark-up should be added to Wikipedia until a larger number of people are familiar with current mark-up.[[User:Levalley|Levalley]] ([[User talk:Levalley|talk]]) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' — [[
#'''Oppose'''. <
#'''Oppose''' Autoformatting hassle isn't worth the effort so some registered editors can see only one kind of date format. Everyone else will be seeing two formats depending on which article they land on. That is no big deal. [[User:Deegee375|Deegee375]] ([[User talk:Deegee375|talk]]) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As far as I can see only logged in users would be able to see it. If that's the case then it simply should not be introduced. [[User:Peanut4|Peanut4]] ([[User talk:Peanut4|talk]]) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 437 ⟶ 445:
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:Holcombea|Alex Holcombe]] ([[User talk:Holcombea|talk]]) 08:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strongly oppose'''—Autoformatting Is For Markup Lovers. The sane (and productive) expend their energy much more wisely.—[[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]] ([[User talk:DCGeist|talk]]) 09:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - No, No, a thousand times No! Autofotamting is to be avoided at all costs. Also its evil and it must die!
#'''Oppose''' Autoformatting would overcomplicate things, and the benefits we would get from it are very minor IMO. Let's simplify the markup as much as possible and not the other way! [[User:Laurent1979|Laurent]] ([[User talk:Laurent1979|talk]]) 12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I just don't see what the big issue is - I'm from the UK (and prefer UK date formatting personally) but I can easily understand the American format (Month Day, Year - maybe not so much M-D-Y) or the ISO format (YYYYMMDD). ~~ [[User:JGXenite|<span style="color: #AB0F31">[ジャム]</span>]]<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">t</span>]] - [[Special:Contributions/JGXenite|<span style="color: #000">c</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 443 ⟶ 451:
#'''Oppose''' Keep it simple, choose an appropriate format per [[MOS:NUM]], and write it out consistently. We can cope with [[WP:ENGVAR]], we don't need a technical solution to cope with using an appropriate date format. [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - There is no real point, it causes problems, and it is not worth the effort and disputes. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I don't see how the result is worth the cost. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
# '''Oppose'''. Never did see sense in it. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 03:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - Anything that requires digging through preference options will only be used by a tiny handful of users. Furthermore, the vast majority of our users aren't even registered. Much work, little benefit. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 06:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 449 ⟶ 457:
#'''Oppose''' Let the editors working on an articlr agree on consistent formats. No need for an automatic process, which could well produce more problems. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Do not add complexity where it is not needed and is prone to errors and misinterpretations.--[[User:Avg|Avg]] ([[User talk:Avg|talk]]) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Inelegantly solves what needn't be. --[[User:User6985|Thomas B]]
# '''Oppose'''. Arguments against really sum it up completely. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<
#'''Oppose:''' Don't think dates should be linked, looks messy. [[User:Ryan4314|<strong><
#'''Oppose''' - I supported the first time, when first brought up, I support it now. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> ThinkBlue </span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue/Autograph book|'''BLUE''')]]</span> 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per excellent arguments. As Tony said, simplicitty without sacrificing quality is key; sadly, autoformatting has the potential to violate both. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': I believe we should strictly follow ISO standard in all and any cases not just with dates but time, units and everything else. Could this be achieved autoformatting would be a trivial task of simple pattern recognition that even could be done locally with java scripting, the only special tag needed is in the case when a format should not be localized. The reason I oppose this is that I think that all form of localization should be in a general format, to implement a special case for dates would be confusing and will work against a uniform standard in the raw text format. I understand that "correcting" everything to ISO standard is a monumental task however I think the benefit outweighs the cost and we do not lack the manpower to do so. [[User:SweBrainz|Brainz]] ([[User talk:SweBrainz|talk]]) 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Only a small subset of Wikipedia readers will benefit from auto formatting and the complex syntax deters new editors. -- [[User:Swtpc6800|SWTPC6800]] ([[User talk:Swtpc6800|talk]]) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Each month Wikipedia has about 56 million unique viewers. There are only 180 thousand Wikipedians that set a data preference so at best it is 1 out of 300 viewers (0.3 %) that will benefit from date autoformatting. -- [[User:Swtpc6800|SWTPC6800]] ([[User talk:Swtpc6800|talk]]) 02:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I disagree with differing formats for registered v. non-registered. [[WP:ENGVAR]] answers this non-problem perfectly.--[[User:2008Olympian|<
#'''Oppose''' - Lack of impact/beneficiaries compared to amount of work to implement. Remember cost/benefit. [[User:Annihilatron|Annihilatron]] ([[User talk:Annihilatron|talk]]) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Linking dates for the purpose of reformatting breaks the typical user's concept of linking and they also end up with tons of irrelevant links all over the page. The proposed replacement is just as bad. People who absolutely need to have date reformatting, should do it with a personal javascript or a browser plugin. -- [[User:Austinmurphy|Austin Murphy]] ([[User talk:Austinmurphy|talk]]) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - No reason why date format cannot be done in the same way as spelling and other regional differences. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per #1 and per ''if it crashes the server''... '''[[User:Miranda|<
#'''Oppose''' in the cost-benefit analysis, the small cost of added complexity outweighs the almost-indistinguishable-from-zero possible benefit. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 16:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This is a waste of resources imho. [[User:R3ap3R.inc|R3ap3R.inc]] ([[User talk:R3ap3R.inc|talk]]) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 472 ⟶ 480:
#'''Oppose''' very marginal improvement (as either date format is perfectly comprehensible, and the majority of readers do not use accounts) versus a huge dilution of the prominence of valuable blue links. The articles on days and years, while they may serve some purpose, are NEVER a useful link in the context of any article. I believe the consensus against this is strong, but even stronger when one examines the views of users that have either written a featured article or worked as a reviewer in that process. [[User:Savidan|Savidan]] 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' if it ain't broke, don't fix it. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' — Negative cost/benefit (cost here in terms of nuisance, effort, and time). It's a neat capability, to be sure, but it is the answer to a question that doesn't really need asking, akin to hiring a translator to translate a speech being made by an Australian to an American audience or vice versa. Nobody's access to Wikipedia is hindered by encountering dates in this format versus that format; let's focus our efforts on implementing features to expand accessibility where such expansion is actually needed. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Scheinwerfermann|T]]</sup>
#'''Oppose.''' The push for autoformatting is an understandable but inappropriate response to Wikipedia's inherent complexity, and to the diversity of Wikipedia's readership. It exemplifies an insidious technocratic, "high-priestly" approach, by which the great majority of ordinary editors are disadvantaged and discouraged. The supposed benefits are not worth the concession that it requires – to a vocal minority who fail to understand the human side of involvement in Wikipedia. Perhaps in future the project will rest on more rational technical foundations; till then, this sort of initiative is to be resisted as unworkable. For both users and editors we need to keep things straightforward and comprehensible.–<
#'''Oppose''' - quite unnessecary. [[User:PluniAlmoni|PluniAlmoni]] ([[User talk:PluniAlmoni|talk]]) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#"Oppose"<!-- Yes, entirely deliberate quotation marks. Boldface NOT intended. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADate_formatting_and_linking_poll%2FAutoformatting_responses&diff=282397348&oldid=282391395 : thanks but no thanks. -->, I suppose. Actually I'm not at all opposed to the ''general concept'' of date autoformatting, unlike, say, Noetica, as I interpret his/her response close above. However, in effect we're not asked our opinions on the ''general concept'' but instead on the implementation that we're likely to get. ''This,'' the implication we're likely to get, I '''oppose''', for reasons pointed out by Jimp in vote (or if you prefer "!vote") circa 146 above. Of course yet more work could go into perfecting a context-sensitive algorithm, and this ''might'' even work, eventually; but that would seem a bizarre expenditure of time, effort, and perhaps also processing power, as explained by Largo Plazo in vote circa 56 above. (NB my vote has nothing to do with date ''linking,'' which of course (a) sucks, but (b) is beside the point here.) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Support Jimp (147). The "for" reasons are very weak. [[User:Platia|Platia]] ([[User talk:Platia|talk]]) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Seems like far too much effort and risk for something so trivial. If implemented, it could be followed by proposals for auto-formatting British vs. US spellings, etc. How boring. One delight of Wikipedia is its heterogeneity - it's also the nature of the English language. Why try to squeeze that heterogeneity into a uniform box? [[User:Pinkville|Pinkville]] ([[User talk:Pinkville|talk]]) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' In isolation, auto-formatting is potentially neat. When measured against its downsides, however, it falls short. The very minor upsides are not worth all of the hassle. --[[User:Cyde|<
#'''Oppose''' Seems like a lot of effort to solve a minor issue, and another step on the learning curve for new editors. What's next, an ENGVAR-corrector? '''<
#'''Oppose'''. This is supposed to be ''The Encyclopedia anyone can edit'', not ''The Encyclopedia anyone willing to learn esoteric markup rules can edit''. We're already too far down this particular slippery slope, I think. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] ([[User talk:Jgm|talk]]) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Awadewit. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 487 ⟶ 495:
## Another argument is that DA prevents petty arguments. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia for the world at large, not just for the editors. We are all working on one project, so we should be seeing the same things that our readers see. It is one thing to customise things like time zone in the talk and project pages, but in the mainspace, I hold this as a non-negotiable principle.
#: I could say much more on DA, but the bottom line is: we don't need it, and we'll be better off without it. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[user:kennedy|<
#'''Oppose''' I find it useful to see the date format an editor uses to get a rough idea which side of the pond they're on. Plus, autoforatting dates is really, really minor. --[[User:Armchair info guy|Armchair info guy]] ([[User talk:Armchair info guy|talk]]) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Keep Wikipedia as simple and straightforward as possible. [[User:Apuldram|Apuldram]] ([[User talk:Apuldram|talk]]) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The oppose box sums it all up perfectly for me. I just don't see it as necessary, and it can be complicated and confusing for newcomers. --[[User:Ged UK|<
#'''Oppose''' I do not see why it is neccesary and I can see how it hurts newcomers. [[User:Zerter|Zerter]] ([[User talk:Zerter|talk]]) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Vote for this''' (opposing an opposing position is nonsense). Please stop bickering and voting endlessly over something of such minor importance. Brion Vibber's solution is fine by me, as are any number of variants. Nice though it is, we don't need autoformatting of dates, and apparently there isn't consensus to do that. There would be no consensus for autoformatting of spelling, surely. Enough said, end of story. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Confusing and unnecessary. Wikipedia is a thing in and of itself. If you want a completely consistent encyclopedia, do what regular reference books do, appoint a panel of editors who edit it all and give up on the idea of a work that anyone can edit. Wikipedia has too many editing rules as it is. [[User:Fijagdh|Fijagdh]] ([[User talk:Fijagdh|talk]]) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Everyone should use YYYY-mm-dd format. [[User:Python eggs|Python eggs]] ([[User talk:Python eggs|talk]]) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' As well as the many other reasons mentioned, I think it adversely impacts readability. [[User:Hohenloh|<
#'''Oppose''' I acknowledge that this might be beneficial for some, but overall will probably bring more evil than good. <strong>[[User:Husond|<
#'''Oppose''' I imagine that after a tremendous effort, and the burden of an ongoing cost to many editors and IT, the entire encyclopedia from a readers point-of-view will be, all other things held equal, ''mostly unchanged.'' - only editors with negative experiences and ongoing frustrations would be aware of it a month or so after the unvieling. --[[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]]) 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' having got used to un-autoformatted dates, the advantages of linking dates to date articles is outweighed by the cleaner appearance without trivial blue links for unimportant dates. I've never set the preferences, as it's always better in my opinion to see the dates formatted according to the preferences of the relevant country, as with spelling. Too much effort and hackery to fix a non-problem of dates in two commonly recognisable arrangements. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 505 ⟶ 513:
#'''Oppose''' Date autoformatting can easily end up as an excuse for editors to impose difficult to understand formats in the normal text, justifying this by saying "if you do not like it, just set your date autoformat preferences". Wikipedia pages should be written so that normal people can understand them - they should not need to be logged in members with various wikipedia-only preferences set up.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Linking dates is pointless silliness that sends the wrong message and is ugly. [[User:2005|2005]] ([[User talk:2005|talk]]) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose...BIG TIME''' We love over-complicating things here, don't we? <small>[[User:Udonknome|<
#'''Oppose''' A waste of time for editors with very little benefit for anyone. [[User:McKay|McKay]] ([[User talk:McKay|talk]]) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Just doesn't work and is hardly necessary. --[[User:Itub|Itub]] ([[User talk:Itub|talk]]) 02:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's a waste of time even to discuss this. (1) Wikipedia can live without absolute standards when there is such variety of actual usage. (2) Users are intelligent enough to manage this for themselves. (3) Furthermore, in exact quotation, the format should be exactly what it is in the quoted material. (4) Finally, all this effort should be devoted to improving ''numerous'' articles in which a non-expert reader is immediately lost, such as many on pharmaceuticals, Chinese legendry, Indian history, diseases, weather, and so forth. [[User:Zaslav|Zaslav]] ([[User talk:Zaslav|talk]]) 06:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', but I really think a proper consensus should be made as to which date format we use in prose, refs, etc. '''<
#'''Oppose''' I find the different date formats much less noticable than the different spelling systems which we can live with. There is nothing wrong with some diversity. This is not the Simple English wiki.--[[User:Charlesdrakew|Charles]] ([[User talk:Charlesdrakew|talk]]) 10:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I agree it makes no real difference, all it does is add extraneous formatting or the annoying links everywhere. - <
#'''Oppose''' It is too much effort for something trivial. Out of all the complaints I have heard about Wikipedia, there has never been a "The date is the wrong way around" [[User:MortimerCat|MortimerCat]] ([[User talk:MortimerCat|talk]]) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Same reasons as I noted last time, auto-formatting dates often makes for sloppy looking articles when you consider the need for date spans. Thus, we should format dates based on the topic just like [[WP:ENGVAR]]. Common sense. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 520 ⟶ 528:
# '''Oppose''' for many of the reasons stated above. [[User:Ti-30X|Ti-30X]] ([[User talk:Ti-30X|talk]]) 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' --[[User:Juliaaltagracia|Juliaaltagracia]] ([[User talk:Juliaaltagracia|talk]]) 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' We don't autoformat issues such as American/British usage, so why do this issue? 11 April 2009 and April 11, 2009 are both unambiguous, and as long as an article is ''internally'' consistant, there is no need for all of Wikipedia to be so. It would be exactly like autoformatting British users to read "colour" where American users type "color". It seems rather pointless. If the software could be modified to recognize and autoformat dates ''without'' any action from users (such as adding wikilinks or template headers or magic words or ANYTHING) that MAY be an OK idea. But the notion that editors should have to add square brackets or even worse, an entire template, to every date just so that we can pick whether we want the month name first or second seems beyond pointless. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' per above arguments. [[User:NSR77|<span style="color:#000000;">'''NSR'''</span><span style="color:#26466D ">'''77'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:NSR77|<span style="color:#000000;">T</span>]]</sup> 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' What need is there for such a feature? This is not a rhetorical question; the answer is none. Unnecessary and trivial – basically per above. [[User:Andre666|Andre666]] ([[User talk:Andre666|talk]]) 17:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' as per Scheinwerfermann (#233) and Waltham (#244). Also, the value of helping persnickety WP editors to see dates always in the format they're used to seeing them in does not outweigh the bother involved. No one is confused by dates, and editors need to be tolerant about style. [[User:Reconsideration|Reconsideration]] ([[User talk:Reconsideration|talk]]) 18:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''; too much effort for too little return. Make it truly automatic (no special formatting required) or forget it. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]<sup>[[:wikisource:User:Spangineer|ws]]</sup> [[User talk:Spangineer|<small style="color:brown;">(háblame)</small>]] 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#per all of the above arguments, and because a decision is needed. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# — [[User:Jake Wartenberg|<span style="color:#21421E; font-family:Harrington">Jake</span>]] [[User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg|<span style="color:#21421E; font-family:Harrington">Wartenberg</span>]] 23:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# (Disclosure - I was contacted privately to contribute after expressing an opinion last year, and would not have seen this discussion otherwise) - Oppose - What will the default format be? If it forces all articles into the same format, that will be bad - UK articles should default to UK format and USA articles should default to USA format. So the only way to make it work is to have two format statements (one for USA format, one for UK format) - and it's just not worth it for such a minor thing. Adds too much complexity to editing for no good reason. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 11:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. No benefit (and only grief) for the wiki. Moreover, the pro arguments are not convincing.
#:<nowiki>#</nowiki>1 Proponents for date formatting allege that date-formatting is necessary to extract meta-data. That is false.
#:* Meta-data has nothing whatsoever to do with date-formatting.
#:* Meta-data is not a property of markup. If dates with markup have meta-data, and – as is implied – dates without markup do not have meta-data, then (it follows that) meta-data must be a property of markup. The implied ability to auto-generate meaningful content from markup would be, uh, [http://www.google.com/search?q=allinurl%3A+miracle pretty miraculous.]
#:* The meta-data instrinsic to dates has nothing to do with how how dates are written or formatted. Regardless of whether a date was formatted by hand, or with <nowiki>[[ ]], or {{#formatdate}}</nowiki>, the information that can be culled from that date will always remain the same. For example, that "12 April 2009" is a Sunday, that it is the 102nd day of the year, and so on.
#:<nowiki>#</nowiki>2 Proponents for date formatting allege that "date markup has been identified" (?) "as central to the development of new features".
#:* Those "features" have not been developed yet. We can't be expected to vote on vaporware.
#:* Wikipedia is not a giant sandbox. If proponents want to develop new features, then they are welcome to do it elsewhere first, and then come back here for feedback.
#:* Date-markup has existed for "almost six years now". Nothing whatsoever has been done with it in that time.
#:<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 Proponents for date formatting presuppose that automation depends on dates being marked up. This is false.
#:* It is not difficult to [http://www.google.com/search?q=%2212+April+2009%22+OR+%22April+12,+2009%22 find all instances of a certain date]. From those 80 million hits, of which only a minute fraction are marked up, it should be obvious that one does not need to markup a date to find references to it.
#:* It is not at all difficult for software to "find" dates in text. Special markup is neither necessary nor desirable. Every reasonably-competent programmer can put together a routine to parse a text for dates. Such a routine is not significantly more complex than a routine that searches for any other combination of words.
#:<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 Proponents have alleged that (server-side) "[d]ate autoformatting allows greater consistency". This is false.
#:* Automated date formatting ala <nowiki>[[ ]] or {{#formatdate}}</nowiki> does not facilitate greater consistency than what can be accomplished if editors were to write out their dates by hand.
#:* Articles have a whole gamut of consistency issues. Consistency is not just limited to date formatting style, but also includes citation style, ndash/mdash style, era style, and ENGVAR style.<br />MOS has guidelines for ''all'' these issues, and there is no reason whatsoever why date formatting should warrant special treatment.
#:* Editors are obliged to work cooperatively. This means that – before they begin editing an article – they also take the time to determine where the content that they wish to add should go. This means that they also honor the style already in use in an article. Not just citation style, dash style, era style, and ENGVAR style, etc, but date style as well.
#:* It is not the task of servers to ensure consistency within articles. What server-side date-formatting automation ''does'' do is allow editors to disregard existing date-formatting conventions. Proponents for date markup sell this as an argument for "more choices". But what they really want is a license to say "what do I care what dateformat, engvar, era, citation style is in use? I'm going to use my preferred one, and the technology should sort it out!" Needless to say, that is outrageously inconsiderate, and – from a technical point of view – myopic.
#:Summary: There is no "problem". Ergo, there is also nothing that requires a "solution". The original date-formatting solution (DateFormatter.php) was implemented to quell edit warring over date style. In the meanwhile we have gotten a fairly robust MOS guidelines for that and other style issues, and DateFormatter.php is no longer necessary. We don't need another hack to replace the first hack. We need editors to conform with MOS, which is a "site-wide standard" already in place. If anons/newbies fail to adhere to that "site-wide standard", then we can have a bot clean up after them. If established editors persistently refuse to adhere to that "site-wide standard", then we ought to community-block them (Arbcom decisions on style warring are a precendent). MOS rules, and the community doesn't need [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|endless drama]] over non-problems. -- [[User:Fullstop|Fullstop]] ([[User talk:Fullstop|talk]]) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weak oppose.''' I originally voted 'support' because I think more customizability is generally better, and because the predominant "MMM DD, YYYY" date format feels like a case of American cultural standards being imposed on the rest of the world, and that makes me uncomfortable. {{user|Phil Bridger}} and others convinced me that that is not actually the case, and that, if anything, this change appeals mainly to Americans who can't cope with Continental date conventions. I'm also convinced that using even lightweight markup to dress up something as fundamental as a calendar date is ultimately confusing for new editors, and we should not be taking the encyclopedia that way. At this point, I think that while a bit of date markup like <nowiki>{{date|2009|04|07}}</nowiki> might still be useful for tasks like building sortable tables, it should not be made the standard way to express dates throughout the encyclopedia. [[User:Twp|Tim Pierce]] ([[User talk:Twp|talk]]) 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I am neutral on the general concept of autoformatting=====
Line 529 ⟶ 564:
# Tired of this stupid debate over dates. Lets get back to writing articles and improving the '''substance''' of the content. [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# What, this still hasn't been resolved? Wait, that's no surprise. What this problem needs is someone proficient in PHP and very familiar with MediaWiki spending about a month working on code covering as many cases as possible, and ''then'' coming back and presenting their model + test cases. In the meantime, I could care less, and I have [[User talk:Dinoguy1000/to-do|far better uses]] of my time than arguing over something so utterly trivial. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">「[[User:Dinoguy1000|ダイノ]][[User talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #080; font-weight: normal;">ガイ</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: #F90;">千</span>]]？！」<sup>(Dinoguy1000)</sup></span> 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# Link them, don't link them, how does that matter? I once found that I like the dates being in pretty blue links, but most of the time they don't really serve a purpose. Let's just be done with this discussion so that we can continue to write our articles without linking/delinking dates over and over again. <span style="background:white;color:"><
# Much ado about nothing <
# Per A. di M. above. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
# I actually like the idea of autoformatting and agree it is a good way forward (and yes i think it could eventually affect BC/BCE and other personal formatting tastes in order to create a more consistent and professional encyclopedia. the concerns about "too much work" are ridiculous - obviously there is ''somebody'' out there who would like to do this, a majority of dates are wrapped up in templates and those that aren't could be easily tagged with [[WP:AWB|AWB]], i've perfomed several similar edits applying {{tl|convert}} to multiple articles with few errors which had more to do with my own shortcomings. however, it does not appear there is any demonstrated use of this and i would rather see it hacked out at wikilabs or somewhere else first before i agree to having this. -[[User:Zappernapper| ΖαππερΝαππερ]] <sup>[[User talk:Zappernapper|Babel]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zappernapper|Alexandria]]</sub> 08:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 537 ⟶ 572:
# I have no objection to allowing use of the {{#formatdate}} function, as long as it is not mandatory. Using it doesn't seem to do any harm, since unregistered users will see the same thing they would see if the date were not formatted at all, and registered users can use the preference setting if they wish. It also has the minor benefit (apparently, based on limited testing) of properly formatting at least some mis-formatted dates (like changing "April 2 2009" to "April 2, 2009"). Just don't go around berating editors who type in dates in plain text! --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Provided the date is specified as 7 March, 1997 or March 7, 1997 rather than 7-3-97 or 3-7-97 then there is no major problem. [[User:PRL42|PRL42]] ([[User talk:PRL42|talk]]) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
# Voting Breeds [[Sock Puppets]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gsonnenf|contribs]]) </small>
# I am neutral in that ultimately I do not really care. However, I am leaning towards oppose because autoformatting is only useful to registered editors, not the general reader. [[User:Bendono|Bendono]] ([[User talk:Bendono|talk]]) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
# I am neutral because I see a balance of competing valid interests and can go along with whichever prevails. However I am strongly opposed to the notion in evidence in the subtext of many of the responses that elimination of date formatting eliminates the need for special markup for some dates. Used in narrow contexts such as with infoboxes, there is a family of templates whose only purpose currently is to emit [[microformat]] information. There have been a great deal of erroneous remarks that use the term metadata to associate this information with search and the like. Wikipedia also emits coordinate microformat data, and in the same way that it allows interaction with internet map applications, date/time templates allow interaction with internet applications that understand time data. With that said, I share the opinion of Professor marginalia and Peregrine Fisher expressed above and believe that edit text should not be needlessly cluttered with templates or other complicated markup. Even plain wikitext is a significant barrier and stands in the way of the core principle that everyone is an editor.-[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#:<s>Neutral, per [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] who makes excellent points just above. I don't really mind either way, but I agree that Wikipedia articles are getting too complicated when viewed in an edit box. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)*'''Addendum'''. Just looked at the talk page and seen all the inane arguments over what consensus is. Please add my vote to whichever side gets the biggest pile in the hope it settles this once and for all and all parties accept it with good grace. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</s>
# My, my. Count me among the don't care crowd. I will never link another date again, regardless of the outcome of this debate. I've spent many tedious moments on WP linking dates for autoformatting at the demands of review processes within WP. I am sure if it ends up being policy, someone else will be happy to waste their time doing it. Me, not so much. Glad I got to opine though.--[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] ([[User talk:IvoShandor|talk]]) 06:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#:What I am saying is, as long as I don't have to do anything I don't care what we do. Thus, the neutral.--[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] ([[User talk:IvoShandor|talk]]) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 559 ⟶ 594:
::::*And why must I give yet another rationale when so many have already been given. This is not something like AfD, where the weight of arguments invoking policy should be decisive, this is a preference poll. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*I've stated my opinion several times in the past, so I feel there's no need to provide a rationale. This is, as the title suggests, a poll. –<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong> | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*Agree that this is a poll and tons of reasons have been given by others already.—<
:::::*Sorry, I meant no offence and no rationale is of course perfectly OK. The only problem is that in a situation where some editors give rationales that prove they are confused ("I hate autoformatting because I hate the sea of irrelevant blue links") with no clue how they would have voted if they were not, every vote without a rationale will potentially be discarded by those who don't like the result of the poll.
::::::*Ah, ye of little (good) faith. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 566 ⟶ 601:
:*I'm concerned about this too. If the proposal is defeated, so be it, but it would be a real shame if it were defeated because a large number of editors were still under a wrong impression of the implementation details. [[User:Twp|Tim Pierce]] ([[User talk:Twp|talk]]) 13:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*Why is it that so many people seem to think that marking up millions of dates requires a great deal of work, but removing markup from those dates is no work at all?[[user:Jeff02|-Jeff]] <sup>[[user talk:Jeff02|(talk)]]</sup> 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
:*Bots can easily recognise and remove double-square brackets around dates. Adding date coding (especially complex coding) must be done contextually (instance-by-instance). [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::Actually, I'd bet that a lot of the basic markup could be done by bots, if all they have to do is recognize dates and enclose them in something trivial. The actual choice of what format to use would need human intervention, but that could be separated from the markup around particular dates. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreeing with the above. Bots should be able to easily recognize dates, marked up or not, through the use of [[Regular expression|regular expressions]].[[user:Jeff02|-Jeff]] <sup>[[user talk:Jeff02|(talk)]]</sup> 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::(To the above two posts) The edit comment of "'''''Most''' of the work could be bot-accomplished''" is the key. How is ''most'' defined? Also, "''The actual choice of what format to use would need human intervention''" is a whopper in terms of slowing down the process. Anyhow, doesn't change the basic point that bot-removal of date formatting is trivial (to get back to the original post). [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::If you separate the recognition of formattable dates from the format control, it's no big deal - just add a <nowiki>{{DEFAULTDATEFORMAT}}</nowiki> (or whatever name) parameter that works like <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki>, appearing once per article to control the default date display format. Then you can add separate markup to actually set off dates, with an option to set the default display format for that one date. The sticky bit is that dates in direct quotations shouldn't be autoformatted, so a bot solution would have to recognize when to skip marking those up. A bot that got this even 90% right would leave very little work for human editors to slog through. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::With your response above, you've confirmed the validity of my initial response to the original question (you do remember the original question?). Please take this up on a talk page somewhere—we've been discussing these sort of issues for months now. Thanks. [[User:HWV258|<b><
* I guess we need to add to the bold flashing editnotice that "unregistered users see inconsistent dates" ''can be easily fixed'', so opposing on that basis is rather … misguided. And edit wars would occur just as often in the absence of a magic word with autoformatting, but they'd be worse because the warriors would be messing with dates all over the article (and possibly missing some each time). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
**'''Prevention of edit-warring?''' The notion I see raised above by one or two editors that autoformatting is needed to avoid edit-wars over which format is chosen for an article is, I believe, barking up the wrong tree. Yes, apparently the original system was a response to friction on this matter, but 2003 was early days for the community, and we had established proper rules for neither date formatting nor ENGVAR spelling. We now have well-established practices for both (MOSNUM, MoS), and they are highly successful, by all accounts. [[User:Tony1|<
***And yet still not as simple as letting editors enter dates in whatever format they like and letting the system auto format them to what readers prefer... at some point in the chain (editing/reading) you'll have someone using or seeing a date format they don't prefer when it needn't be that way. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 10:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
***With regards to these "well-established practices" for date formatting, if they are really "highly successful", why has Wikipedia's Chief Technical Officer called for a rewrite of that guideline to use only one consistent format site-wide? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
****I am on record as wanting a mono-format for dates. Unfortunately, I am in the minority. It's not going to happen, because people believe WP:ENGVAR works, so we have to live with it. Having date-autoformatting could be likened to slicing off part of your feett to fit the new undersized shoes you just bought (in other words, don't make a mistake to compensate for a dumb move. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*** Note that at the time of my comment above, there was only one person alluding to autoformatting as a solution for edit warring (and that in a vague, "it would have helped in this one case" way), while there was one "oppose" specifically claiming that autoformatting with a magic word for setting a default format for the article would directly lead to edit warring over the default format setting with the implication that there would not be such edit warring otherwise. I agree that autoformatting is not ''needed'' for edit war prevention; although it would likely prevent some would-be edit warriors from ignoring or fighting over how to apply [[WP:ENGVAR]], I personally regard that as a side effect rather than a major driving reason. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*<small>''(In response to Neutral #1 above)''</small> Would something along the lines of "<nowiki>{{d|30 March 2008}}</nowiki>" be simple enough? Keep in mind that the function "#formatdate" can easily be called from a template with a much simpler name. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
*:Considering the millions of times such a template would be called, that would be an enormous waste of server resources; but we could ask that the #formatdate function be renamed to #d, for example. --[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 08:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*Expansion on my rationale. One of the arguments for autoformatting is to "present a consistent date format". I think we should have consistency, but I don't believe autoformatting is the way forward. Personally, I would love for every article to use the fairly international style of day before month, but I fear that people like arguing about the pointless stuff too much for that to ever happen. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
:*Isn't that an argument for auto formatting? Here we have a system that removes the need to argue (ever!) over which format to use, and it's a simple software solution. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::*No it is not. If IPs—the majority of Wikipedia readers—cannot choose their preference then autoformatting is not a good option. The only way to prevent IPs from getting a horrible mess of different formats is to choose what they see. If we do that, we might as well choose the style for everyone or completely standardise all dates into one format. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
:::* Part of the current proposal is that there would be a Wikipedia-wide default format setting (most likely DMY) for everyone who has not set a preference, including IP users, and a magic word so a particular article can change the default (i.e. to MDY) when that is appropriate per [[WP:ENGVAR]]. Then user preferences override the default for that user. This has been said time and time again, which is why can't [[WP:AGF|in good faith]] understand why opposers keep claiming IP users will see some sort of mish-mash. I also find a claim that every IP user has to be able to set a date preference spurious, as we have an easy way for anyone to set ''any'' preference: register an account. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*But the point you are missing is that in order to maintain consistency for all users, ''every'' date on a page needs to be coded (in order to be rendered properly based on various preferences). The problem with "every date" is that it is extremely difficult to define rules needed in order to detect all the different types of date formats found on WP. Date ranges and slashed-dates are just two examples, but also difficult is to precisely detect the comma in US date formats. These issues remain unaddressed—after months of debate, and lots of examples demonstrating the problems can easily be found. Many people voting "support" are unaware of the technical issues involved. (Incidentally, I don't blame them so much as these issues are not easily grasped by people who have not been involved with the debate for some time.) [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::* Hi, I'm a computer programmer. Are you? The reason I ask is that you assert that "it is extremely difficult to define rules needed in order to detect all the different types of date formats found on WP", which strikes me as a statement that would be made by someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about. There is no real "detecting" necessary; someone just needs to come up with a syntax for specifying date ranges, slashed dates, trailing commas, and the like. For example, <nowiki>{{#formatdate:1 January 2009/2 January 2009}}</nowiki> could be the format for a slashed date, and output as "1/2 January 2009", "January 1/2, 2009", and so on based on the active format; <nowiki>{{#formatdate:1 January 2009–10 January 2009}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{#formatdate:1 January 2009|10 January 2009}}</nowiki> could be the format for entering a date range, and output appropriately (there could even be a preference for "1 January 2009 – 10 January 2009" versus "1–10 January 2009" style output, if people wanted it). With a little more effort, any of the (unambiguous) output formats could also be accepted as input. The need for the trailing commas could easily enough be specified as <nowiki>{{#formatdate:1 January 2009|,}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{#formatdate:January 1, 2009,}}</nowiki>. Something else that I personally would like to see is a "<nowiki>{{#formattabulardate}}</nowiki>" function, so people who would prefer to see dates in tables and lists as 2009-01-01 versus 1 Jan 2009 versus the full 1 January 2009 could set a preference for that. It's not particularly hard to do any of that, but why should someone bother when the discussion is full of people <small>(not necessarily you, don't take this personally)</small> who will oppose '''everything''' without end, drowning out any other discussion, to the point of [[WP:POINT]]? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*Actually, I am a programmer (and your question indicates to everyone that you haven't been following the debate over the previous few months). I was the only one who actively push to get a specification for auto-formatting established ([[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Specification_for_'son_of_autoformatting'|here]]), however nothing came of it (despite a myriad of suggestions in various locations—similar to yours above). You do understand that all your examples above simply will be thrown into a pot—a pot that is already full to the overflowing with similar suggestions—however a pot that has so far failed to provide anything nutritious (or in the least bit edible) for the community. As you have not responded to my point "''every date on a page needs to be coded''" I'll assume that you have understood that, and are in favour of it. Please consider a page such as [[List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel|this one]] that has over 700 dates (in many different formats), so to apply formatting to all dates (similar to <nowiki>{{#formatdate:8 January 1705}}</nowiki>) is quite an undertaking (an undertaking that has had no analysis in terms of viability). The people you mention "''who will oppose everything without end''" are actually people who have thought through all these issues and have come to the considered conclusion that simply entering dates using plain text solves all significant issues, and has no syntactical complexity for the wider editing community. In addition, I belong to the group of programmers who believe it is inappropriate (and downright unprofessional) to commence coding without (at least a functional) specification. A large part of the reason for the mess we are currently in is the (well-intentioned) introduction of code that had no specification, let alone community consensus. [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::::* Of course I haven't followed the debate, certain people have made the situation akin to diving for pearls in a cesspool. I don't understand how you can claim it's so difficult for code to solve the problems you raised in your paragraph above, though, since you state that you are familiar with programming. I also don't see any particular problem with [[List of compositions by George Frideric Handel]]; sure, it might need a bit of human attention to get everything marked up, but I see nothing in there that would cause any trouble for a well-written formatter; or is the whole of your concern there that someone would have to do a little bit of formatting work? As for those "''who will oppose everything without end''", either we're talking about different people or our views are so opposed that we will never reach an agreement on the matter. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*I didnt' claim "''it's so difficult for code to solve the problems''"—rather it is looking increasingly likely that it is impossible to specify the problem in the first place. [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::::::* How is it impossible to specify what the a bot would do? The bot would find plain dates, pre-existing or entered by new users, and convert them to a standard form inside an autoformat bracket. Regular expressions already exist for finding dates in widely used forms. If the date was ambiguous, such as 07-03-02, it could inform wikignomes via wiki: page or any other method, who could manually fix it, helping in the already existing task of removing ambiguity from Wikipedia. The scope of the bot and implementation seem completely clear, maybe 5 hours coding tops on an existing framework.[[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf|talk]])
::::::::::I think the bot would have to be quite conservative. Spend an hour or so trying to devise a syntax for date formats. After doing so, how to work out ambiguous dates— or at least discover that they are ambiguous and mark them so. Then partial dates such as "April 2009" or "2009". (oh, whoops, it {{convert|2009|km}}). Then quoted dates which must be left alone. Then perhaps the French Revolutionary Calendar. It is *not* trivial. I am in support but I think it is best left to human markup rather than a bot. For sure, have a bot gather the info after it's been marked up, I'm all for that. But not guess what is, or is not, a date. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 597 ⟶ 632:
::::::::::I agree the bot would need to be conservative. As I understand it partial dates aren't used with date autoformat, please correct me if I'm wrong. When you say "Spend an hour or so trying to devise a syntax for date formats." do you mean thinking of how to have the parser recognize them? If so, this problem has already has a published solution. Nested quotation recognition is also a solved parser problem. The logic code for determining ambiguity of format in recognized dates is simple as a couple if/then/and statements. This still looks like a simple task, I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "trivial" as it has different meanings in different science fields. I could see how a new coder or one without exposure to modern parsing libraries or parsing exposure may see this problem as complex. With proper knowledge, which I'm sure many coders on Wikipedia have, the solution is simple to implement. I would prefer conservative date changes by bots with human confirmation. This would ease the burden and time constraint on humans. Manually verifying a date on a page would probably take 5-10 seconds, where in going through the sequence of changing them could take about 5 to 10 times as long (depending on server conditions).[[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf|talk]])
::::::::::*"''How is it impossible to specify what the a bot would do?''"—this is wandering from the original point (i.e. I didn't mention bots). Please re-read my points. [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::::::::* I re-read your points and find them moot. The vast majority of date forms can be easily recognized. I disagree with your statement that "every date on a page needs to be coded". Date forms that are intentionally abiguious or not well formed (e.g. year 197x ) should either be clarified manually or left alone. Autoformatting would only need to be applied to well formed dates. Any date that can be recognized unambiguously, (jan 16, 1973, 10/22/1001) could be easily recognized by both humans and parsers. So in this case it is not longer "extremely difficult to define rules needed in order to detect all the different types". The comment "Date ranges and slashed-dates are just two examples, but also difficult is to precisely detect the comma in US date formats" is not correct, these can be easily identified using a parser and regular expressions. The above comment is also very suggestive of a bot, which contradicts your statement "I didn't mention bots". Unless of course you meant that humans would have a hard time "detecting the comma in US date formats", which is complete nonsense. So as it turns out my above argument does not wander from the original point. Unless of course you wandered from the original point in your above statements. If that is the case, please present your original point and present an argument that does not "wander from the original point".[[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf|talk]])
::::::::::::* "''I disagree with your statement that "every date on a page needs to be coded"''" leads me to believe that we are talking about different things (and your disagreement probably indicates you have not been following the debate over the previous number of months). The point about coding ''all'' dates is that it is impossible to guarantee date rendering consistency in an article that contains at least one coded date—but with not all dates being coded in the article. It has been clearly understood by all that you either code all dates in an article, or you code none. If you are suggesting that coding isn't necessary because a page pre-processor can parse (and reformat) all dates in real time—then you are probably the first to do so. These current RfCs are not to do with bot activity (that debate will come after these RfCs are complete). [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::::::::::* It sounds like your suggesting that "It has been clearly understood by all" that dates containing (in no particular order) Months/day/year and month/day and all other forms, must be subject to autoformating. This is not consistent with the autoformating Background statement that addresses only MDY/DMY format under its definition "What is a date format?". The entire primary statements of Summary and Pro's only mentions "DMY/MDY" format. The con's section specifies incomplete dates forms of type MD as a possible extension to the proposal, "(double the number of keystrokes—even more if |dmy/md is added)", demonstrating its not part of the initial scope. So when you say "its clearly understood by all that you ... code 'all' dates", you are contradicting the primary background statement if you include partial dates in your definition of dates. It appears you are constructing an argument via [[false dilemma]] by asserting all people recognize that ALL dates, included partial dates must be encoded or none at all. This of course is not true as demonstrated by the primary statements on autoformatting.[[User:Gsonnenf|Gsonnenf]] ([[User talk:Gsonnenf|talk]])
::::::::::::::* Please read the history of the debate (over the previous many months). You are "arguing" in isolation and clearly don't have all the background information at your fingertips. All this has been covered, and I have no appetite for repeating here what has been covered (to death) many, many times before. If you need more help to understand the background of the debate, please take it up in a different forum—I'll be more than happy to attempt to bring you up to speed on the salient points. Cheers. [[User:HWV258|<b><span style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial; font-size:small"> HWV258 </span></b>]] 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::*The IPs would not get a bunch of different styles since the feature would provide a standard default for them. Also, developers have mentioned using Javascript to allow IPs to set a preference, though no developer has yet worked on that solution.—[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::* *sigh* If you actually read my last post I never claimed IPs will get a mish-mash of styles. I said that the only way to prevent them getting that is to choose their preference for them. I then said that there is no point in choosing a standard style for them, because it would need to be agreed upon. If we can agree a choice for that, we should just implement that choice as ''the'' date style across Wikipedia without autoformatting, because that would give real consistency. I am well aware of what is going on and am not fond of other users trying to twist my words towards their !vote. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
:::::* You have presented a [[false dichotomy]] in assuming that we would have to pick one format for all of Wikipedia for IP users, with no possibility of overriding that where [[WP:ENGVAR]] calls for another format. So yes, you're not quite claiming "IP users will get a mish-mash of styles"; you're claiming "IP users will get a mish-mash of styles unless we get rid of [[WP:ENGVAR]] on this issue". [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 22:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*<small>''(In response to Oppose#89 above)''</small> FYI, we are discussing that; the recent changes to the system now allow autoformatting to apply a default format for unregistered users, and there is a patch in the works (I'll try to get the Bugzilla link ASAP) that would add the "per-page" option you've mentioned. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
*:Um ... no, Josiah is talking about autoformatting in the sense of allowing a few privileged editors to select a month-day or day-month order. A consistent fixed-text format for IP users is the reality in the thousands of article that have dispensed with autoformatting. [[User:Tony1|<
*::Actually, you're both right. I '''oppose''' autoformatting as it currently exists, as a special option for a few editors. However, I would '''support''' autoformatting as something that could be applied universally '''with appropriate regional variations'''. For example, if a citation using the ugly 2009-04-05 format were used in two articles, one dealing with a US-based subject and the other dealing with a UK-based subject, it would appear (to all readers) in the US-based article as April 5, 2009 and in the UK-based article as 5 April 2009. I'd support an autoformatting system that automatically translated dates in that fashion, as long as there was a parameter that allowed for articles to use appropriate formats, in keeping with [[WP:MOSDATE]]. In other words, I'd support autoformatting as a method for producing consistency within articles, but I oppose autoformatting as a way to enforce consistency throughout the encyclopedia, or as a way to make dates appear consistent to a small minority of readers. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 06:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 622 ⟶ 661:
:::Sorry; either I made a mistake; they changed their !votes, or the !votes got renumbered. Still, the purpose of this poll is to find [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and I don't see even a clear supermajority for '''oppose''' (yet). As not wanting logged-in editors to see different content than unlogged in users, one might argue that it's a reason contrary to policy as defined by the developers. We would need to remove the gadgets and javascript customization. I'll post more on the talk page. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
*:The "only for editors" claim has been bandied about throughout this debate over the past year, simply because it is an easy rallying cry for the three or four core editors who are really pushing the "delink" campaign. Thing is, there's never been any proof for the numeric claims (despite repeated requests), and never any acknowledgement of the ''readers'' who may have registered an account not to edit, but in order to access features such as date formatting, watchlists, and gadgets. (The "only for editors" mantra also fails to mention that IPs can't access ''any'' special perks, not just autoformatting.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
'''Good grief! how hard can it be?'''. The whole formatting thing is a no-brainer. Simple fact is, if functionality is provided for autoformatting it can be provided to most IP users too with simple preferences option for them via cookie system or countless other ways. Search engines, most news sources and millions of commercial sites have been doing it since Jesus was a small boy. Come down to it, autoformatting also allows the potential to do away with the linking argument completely because it can be controlled by a users preferences as well. Want to link dates? switch it on via preferences. don't want them linked? leave it off. And don't bore me with the non-logged in users rubbish - most of them a: don't care, b: have cookies turned on (or are unaware of their presence) or c: know how to allow for cookies by site. BOTs to do the bulk conversions to ''simple syntax'' (say YYYY-MM-DD or #dYYYY-MM-DD) and wikignomes will make short work of the rest. Default presentation for those who haven't set it (maybe with a bit of fancy footwork detecting where they are accessing from to feed them American or ISO format by default). Doing ''something'' is unlikely to make it more inconsistent than it currently is.--<small><b><i>Club<
* Has anyone thought of having a bot do autoformatting? That would nearly neutralize editor requirements, just invest some effort in the bot, and sit back and watch! [[User:Oldlaptop321|Oldlaptop321]] ([[User talk:Oldlaptop321|talk]]) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:I think it is accepted on all sides that there will be bots and templates to assist (and hopefully not to destroy). If it is relatively relaxed and gets it right most of the time, like Template:Coord or Template:Convert, I don't see it being a big problem. But like those, you don't *have* to use them, hence my support; they are nice things to have. In a way I can't see why this even goes to a vote since I can't think of much of a reason, beyond finding user preferences, why this can't all be done in a template. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 01:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 638 ⟶ 677:
All '''Support''' entries that are founded on reader choice should be disregarded when finalizing the findings of this RfC. What reader choice? The reader gets the site default, or the contributing editor's choice. Remember that registered users = subset of editors, and in turn editors are a tiny subset of readers. All '''Support''' users who clamor that the reader need only ''edit'' a setting should be deliberateley ignored by the rest of the community for a period no shorter than the time it takes defeat any and all proposals in support for auto-formatting. --[[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]]) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, but that's not valid. There is no requirement that you must edit if you register; anyone - '''anyone''' - can register an account, and if they choose to use that account to read only, so be it. Accounts can be useful to readers who wish to use the gadgets, the watchlist, different skins, and so on. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
:: Sorry about that, but if we leave out the middle, it is correct: Remember registered users are a tiny subset of readers. Not that it has bearing, but registered users are also a subset of editors. [[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]]) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of the contra arguments speak to the issue that most readers are anons. I know from experience that people assume the only reason to register for an account is to make edits. If there were tangible benefits (like getting standardized dates, watchlists, and so on) and those benefits were promoted to readers, we might get more editors. And once they have an account, they might be more obliged to make an occasional edit. And that could lead to editing as a hobby, until they are fully assimilated into the collective. (Oops! Been watching too much Star Trek perhaps?). The point is, anything that is good for editors is ultimately good for the readers, too. --[[User:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">'''Will'''</span><span style="color:#D13">scrlt</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">→“¡¿Talk?!”</span>]])</small> 14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
=====Responses=====
Line 649 ⟶ 690:
*To the users who cited metadata as a reason for needing autoformatting, can someone provide examples of how this metadata could be used? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:Other than imposing a site-wide single format, as the developers have suggested, how do you propose to ensure all articles are consistent with one another? Either we go to a single standard, or we persist with the first-past-the-post "this is American no it's international" methodology. If the latter is the case, it is only prudent to provide some method of presenting a uniform, consistent look. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<
::Sorry, I'll be more clear. I edited my above post. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 670 ⟶ 711:
::::::okay, so you don't find it daunting or annoying to have to wade through markup that you perceive as unnecessary; other people do find it daunting and/or annoying. it's one of those "different opinion" things, and saying "no it isn't" doesn't change that. peace [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 07:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(''In response to support vote # 82'') Sorry UC_Bill, but you can't have it both ways. You removed the demo page that could have shown the community how date ranges (and hopefully date slashes) would have worked, and then you claim the programming is easy ("''10 hours''"?). Please re-establish the demo page if you really have got it going, otherwise you'll have to understand why I'm entitled to treat your claims above with a healthy dose of scepticism. To other voting parties, please note that what is proposed is far more than "''four brackets (<nowiki>[[ ]]</nowiki>) around dates''" (as even the post before UC_Bill's indicates). I'm not suggesting that you (are you back?) or perhaps other programmers couldn't get something going to handle individual cases, however as has been demonstrated over more than three years, it is increasingly difficult to not only get the basics of auto-formatting right, but seemingly impossible to specify how auto-formatting should work for the many ways that dates are represented on WP. [[User:HWV258|<b><
(''In response to oppose vote # 138'') "''I have never come across a web information source or news provider that worries about this enough to give readers an option as to how to display the date''"—well spotted; a very good point. In terms of "''MMM DD, YYYY all round''", there is no need to be so dictatorial, as very often an article will lend itself to "DD MMM YYYY", in which case, that can simply be the format of choice for the page in question. Is it that much of a worry to see dates in the "DD MMM YYYY" format in the [[England]] article and at the same time to see dates in the "MMM DD, YYYY" format in the [[USA]] article? [[User:HWV258|<b><
:It's no worry at all to me, as I am from a country (the UK) where both formats are used interchangeably. If you reread my post above (oppose 138) you'll see that [[The Times]], regarded for a long time (at least before Rupert Murdoch bought it) as the UK's [[newspaper of record]], uses MMM DD, YYYY, so why does the Wikipedia article about England lend itself any less to that format than the other? It's a myth that there is any consistent standard outside the United States, so why not just follow the standard that is used exclusively in civilian life there, and used interchangeably with DD MMM YYYY everywhere else where English is used? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if I'm following any more (my confusion above started with the word "''there''" in "''so why not just follow the standard that is used exclusively in civilian life '''there'''''"—where is "''there''"?). Are you suggesting that the [[England]] article should use "MMM DD, YYYY" date formatting? If you are, you should be aware that that's far more radical than anyone else has dared suggest in this debate? As an aside, if a global format is being suggested, I'd lean towards using the less syntactically complicated "DD MMM YYYY" (you know, the one that is used at the end of each of these posts). [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::Sorry if I was unclear, by the word "there" I meant the United States. And once again, what is radical about using MMM DD, YYYY for the [[England]] article, when both formats are used interchangeably in England? Everyone seems to be assuming that there is a strong preference for DD MMM YYYY outside the United States, but, as I demonstrated with my links above (oppose 138), this is not true. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::It's simply not true that they are used interchangeably. If you ever have to fill a form in the UK, it's quite possible that you have to enter a date into fields that look like this, __/__/____. In my experience they will always expect you to use DMY format, even though in some cases they may not mention it because it really goes without saying. This is because DMY format is ''much'' more common in general, including when the month is spelled out. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 680 ⟶ 721:
::::::Sorry for absurdly lecturing you without seeing that you are actually from the UK. I agree that standardising on MDY would be an option. However, this is very similar to standardising on Oxford style "ize" spellings for verbs in British English, and it seems that we haven't adopted this either. Therefore it seems unlikely that your argument will convince many in this poll. I think it should really be discussed separately. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd just like to concur with this point - whenever I see this debate crop up, I honestly find it hard to remember which variant I'm supposed to prefer, or which one I'm supposed to object to. Written ''numerically'', there's a standard, but written textually then "1st February" or "February 1st" are pretty much interchangeable to a British reader, and I'll often use the two in the same piece of writing, or use one one day and the other the next. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 15:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::A few of the above UK newspaper examples don't use American date format consistently when digging into the news articles. While the top banner of ''The Sun'' may show MDY, DMY-based content such as "Published: 04 Apr 2009" appear in articles before the current date [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/captaincrunch/article2359823.ece]; [http://www.dailystar.co.uk/football/view/76559/Oh-brother-as-Dickson-shakes-City/ here's a "13th April 2009"] from ''The Daily Star'', and [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169625/Pictured-Student-suspect-Al-Qaeda-North-West-terror-plot.html another 13th April] from ''The Daily Mail''. Such commercial websites may not be reliable indicators for date format anyway as these can sometimes be skewed by software defaults, often biased towards US usage.
::::::Government standards and practice would seem more reliable to consider for this discussion. UK government usage consistently uses DMY and rejects US/MDY format. There are moot differences as to whether ordinal letters (12th vs 12) are used on day numbers, but there is no interchangeability of ordering on official UK levels e.g. [http://www.tda.gov.uk/about/editorialstyleguide.aspx TDA], [http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/styleguide/$file/styleguide-glossary.htm#dates Cabinet Office], [http://www3.hants.gov.uk/style_guide-2.doc Hants], [http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1763&p=0 Mansfield District Council].
::::::Furthermore, DMY is generally used by international bodies such as the [[United Nations|UN]] [http://www.un.org/news/], [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]] [http://www.oecd.org], [[International Telecommunication Union|ITU]] [http://www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx], [[International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement|ICRC]] [http://www.icrc.org/eng]. That's compelling evidence of what date format is considered the norm on an international scale and where a global project such as WP should be headed. But if we can't get there in the short term, we should make good use of the autoformatting capability (already developed for the most part) for the benefit of the various audiences. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
'''Silly autoformatting:'''
'''Uladzimir Katkouski''', a well-known and [http://content.tut.by/2006.html award-winning] [[Belarusians|Belarusian]] blogger, editor of several Belarusian websites and activist for the usage of the [[Belarusian language]] on the Internet. He made 1343 contributions to the English Wikipedia and 1286 contributions to nine other Wikimedia projects.<ref>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?blocks=true&lang=en&user=Rydel contributions of Rydel per Luxo's global user contributions tool]. Accessed [[January 7]], [[2008]].</ref> Katkouski mostly edited articles about [[Belarus|his country]] and [[Belarusian language|his language]]. He was hit by a fire truck in [[2006]] and, after being in a coma for about a year, he died on [[May 25]], [[2007]].
Line 688 ⟶ 731:
:Only a few of these comments make arguments against based on issues other than linking. The '''vast''' majority of the ones I've cited base their given explanation soley on the linking proposal. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::(1) Voters are under no obligation to provide all of their inner reasoning. Are you objecting to those who provided no comment? (2) It is no surprise that many people still refer to the concept of date autoformatting at "linking"—that has been the vernacular term for the concept for some five years. (2) There is reference to "the links" in the ''Statement for'' the concept of autoformatting, and to "new features" such as "database dumps" that would, of course, require a feature for editors to identify autoformatted dates as links. Why ''wouldn't'' some voters use the common synonym "linking" to refer to the concept of autoformatting. [[User:Tony1|<
:::Because it's a poll and not a vote, reasoning is instructive as to the actual proposal's support. Even the most adamant opponent should not ''want'' people to be misinformed about the nature of the proposal (or if they did, they could never vocalize it), and should be disturbed when there's evidence a number of users are confused.
Line 700 ⟶ 743:
'''Vote by User:Neurolysis'''
I note that User:neuro returned and added:
*''Sleeping on this, I think I made this comment too quickly.''
That looks to me like a retraction. [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, it was. <
'''Make the server do it while assembling the page'''. Why are human editors concerned with this question? Why can't we make the server search for dates in the text and then reformat them for the viewer based on their preference? The server already changes <b><nowiki><br>, </br> and <br/> to <br /></nowiki></b> without anyone ever noticing. I think dates should be the same; that editors should just type a date and the server will handle how it's served up. There's no reason why bots or humans should have to go through articles and apply templates or formatting. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 714 ⟶ 757:
:::Perhaps I have got Binksternet's comment wrong, but if the suggestion is that the server should be able to parse text and work out that a particular piece of text is a date, that is a very hard task. I'd suggest that ''some'' markup is inevitable. Also, I am not sure if the server understands different languages? Parsing language-specific text surely is the job of a particular Wiki's template not the server core. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:Perhaps I've also misunderstood the original comment, but just in case the suggestion is to parse dates that don't have some sort of mark-up wrapped around them, have a look at the following example: "On Jan 1, 2000 Wikipedians went crazy". Is that: all Wikipedians going crazy on 1 Jan 2000, or is that 2000 Wikipedians going crazy on 1 Jan? [[User:HWV258|<b><
::What about adding a freakin' comma after the year if the first of those two meaning is the intended one? --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]], not [[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Will you make a list of poorly formatted sentences on WP, or shall I? :-) [[User:HWV258|<b><
'''Autoformatting ''into'' ISO dates'''
Line 735 ⟶ 778:
::::* My original point was that "auto-formatting ''can'' - contrary to the suggestions above - be of benefit to unregistered editors"; nothing said to date has changed that. It may well be that, as a community, we decide that unregistered readers see date as unformatted - that, then, will be our choice. My point is that autoformatting ''does'' give us that choice, despite claims to the contrary. Turning to your evidence, in Scotland [http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Quiet-smouldering-fury-of-RBS.5141754.jp one newspaper] uses DD MMM YYYY and [http://theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2499837.0.Sir_Fred_rebuked_for_failing_to_return_pension.php the other] uses MMM DD YYYY (with no comma - first time I've seen that): I don't believe that this - or that the evidence you've presented - says anything other than ''newspapers'' use a variety of different styles. Surely the key thing here is what ''people'' are taught at school, use in their daily lives, and recognise in correspondence from government? If you wish, I'll try and dig our references supporting my belief that DD MMM YYYY is taught in schools in the UK, New Zealand and Singapore (countries in which I experienced education at some level) in preference over MMM DD, YYYY, that this format is used by the governments of those countries, and that people tend to use that format more as a result - and I dare-say that other editors can provide references for other countries. However you're asking for evidence that MMM DD, YYYY is ''not'' a perfectly acceptable format - which no one, so far as I can see, is suggesting. Of course people more familiar with DD MMM YYYY recognise and understand MMM DD, YYYY, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. This is about ''preference'', not about ''acceptability''. My preference is for YYYY-MM-DD, and I'd like a system where that preference can be catered for. My preference in no way affects my ability to ''accept'' or ''understand'' MMM DD, YYYY or DD MMM YYYY. Your evidence shows that people can ''accept'' or ''understand'' MMM DD, YYYY simultaneously with DD MMM YYYY - which comes as no surprise to me - however I do not believe it shows anything beyond that. Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 11:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
(''In response to neutral vote # 14'') Actually, there lies a significant problem: a not-inconsiderable proportion of dates are wrongly input (Sept 4, for example, or your example), and the proposed system would need to be programmed to fix each individual possibility. Another reason, I believe, that we should not mess with editors' control over simple fixed-text dates. [[User:Tony1|<
: <nowiki>{{#formatdate:Sept 4, 2007|dmy}}</nowiki> produces "{{#formatdate:Sept 4, 2007|dmy}}". I don't see how that makes anything worse than it would be if an editor simply typed in an incorrectly written date without the autoformatting code. I voted "neutral" because it seems to me that the autoformatting question really contains two hidden subquestions: (1) should we ''permit'' use of #formatdate, and (2) should we ''require'' (or encourage or recommend, etc.) its use? I would vote "yes" to the first and "no" to the second; therefore neutral on the combined question. I do recognize that some people complain about having to wade through additional markup code when editing, but I personally don't see that as a big problem. And, on the other side, I recognize that some people seem to think it is important that every date in every article be viewable in the same format, but again I don't see that as a huge problem when we allow (and affirmatively endorse) such inconsistencies as American and British spellings and some other usages that vary from one article to the next. --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 12:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:* R'n'B, I agree about your point with American regarding British spellings. As an American, encountering “I realise that…” interrupts my train of thought whereas encountering either “4 April” or April 4” causes me no interruption in my train of thought—and ''certainly'' no confusion.<p>The trouble is, “autoformatting” is nothing of the sort for 99.9% of our readership. For I.P. users, all it would do in any given article is default to one format or another. And ''that'' is no better than just writing out the date in fixed text. The real *benefit* of autormatting (presenting a date in accordance with a preferences setting) works only for registered editors. It’s not worth so much fuss to benefit so few users to address a purely stylistic issue over which no confusion arrises.</p><p>For some editors, this is just a big fuss to never see a date style that isn’t '''''[http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg their way.]''''' Indeed, I just don’t “get it” because I can handle seeing either date format and have no patience for those who insist that everyone else jump through hoops for their viewing pleasure. For the programmers, its about cool code. But they’re trying to sell refrigerators to Eskimos. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 02:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)</p>
Line 750 ⟶ 793:
'''Statement for is biased and fallacious: creative content is not a “user interface”'''
[[#Statement for]] betrays the wrong attitude that readers and editors are “users”, and that my creative contribution, protected by the <del>GPL</del> <ins>GFDL</ins>, is a “user interface” which should be rewritten by a machine to support “user preferences”. “Personalized date formats in operating systems” don't rewrite the books you are reading or correct the language in music you listen to. This explanation is biased and fallacious, and is misleading editors who read it and vote. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-11 16:41 z</small>''
: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." No mention of "machines" being excluded from the aforementioned editing is there? --[[User:WebHamster|'''<
:Also note content here is under the GFDL, not the GPL. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 17:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 766 ⟶ 809:
::::: I'm concerned that you are claiming WP:Ownership over articles, or parts thereof, to which you contribute on WP. Is it OK if I read them in a different font from you? Or perhaps I prefer to use a speech reader, or read them in French using machine translation. One of us is missing the point; if you think you have ultimate control over the form in which "your" work, creative contribution, text is "republished", don't put it on WP; if not, what's the difference between the examples I gave and changing (manually or automatically) a date format? I can't see any voting stance that implies, as you seem to, that nobody should ever touch "your" text the way you have written it. Have I completely misunderstood? Best wishes [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I'd say you have. [[WP:OWN]] is about editing disputes and has nothing to do with this.
:::::: You are welcome to transform the article any way you like for your private use. But when Wikipedia distributes articles by publicly displaying them on its website, it is bound by the licence. Read [[WP:COPYRIGHT]], which says “the text of the Wikipedia is copyrighted . . . by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License”. Under the GFDL, if the article has been modified from the editors' version, then Wikipedia must not display it without taking credit for modifications. [[Wikipedia:GFDL]]:
::::::* Ҥ 0. PREAMBLE: . . . this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. . . .
::::::* § “1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS: . . . A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language. . . .
::::::* § “2. VERBATIM COPYING: . . . you may publicly display copies. . . .
::::::* § “4. MODIFICATIONS: . . . you must do these things in the Modified Version:
::::::** “A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions . . .
::::::** “B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications . . .
::::::** “E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices. . . .
::::::** “I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", . . . and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version . . .”
:::::: I didn't make this up. You and I are bound by the licence, and so is the Wikimedia Foundation. The licence says that any modifications made must be acknowledged in distributed copies. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-12 16:04 z</small>''
:::::::You didn't have to quote chapter and verse, I am capable of looking up a reference. Anyway, I really think this is a dead end to this particular discussion. Nothing says the republishing agent has to be a natural person, the Wikipedia page rendering engine could just thwack a copyright notice at the bottom of the page saying "go see the original text"-- in fact, since the rendered version is ipso facto different from the edited text (assuming even the most minimal markup) I could argue it already should-- if it reduces a picture to a thumbnail, for example. These clauses are intended to stop people not crediting Wikipedia and its contributors a whole, not to stop minor changes for rendering purposes. I have started doing some translation and have to credit the original under GFDL, but that doesn't mean I can't change the article, in fact it's encouraged where appropriate The aim of the GFDL is to protect the Commons and Wikipedia etc and to ensure fair use etc. It does not mean, however you would like it to mean, that pages cannot be rendered in a different way by different engines, be they the server or client, or my own blurry eyes when I remove my glasses. I am not going to quote all kinds of references here but the whole Look and Feel argument of the early 80's (Lotus 1-2-3 vs Borlland Quattro) established that, in law in the US, but in practice everywhere. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: A school of red herrings (my favourite is “the discussion is now over, and here's 200 words explaining why...”).
:::::::: Yes, editing is encouraged, but only allowed under the GFDL. I'm not claiming copyright over my “look and feel,” but over the words I've written. What do your blurry eyes have to do with rewriting some of these words without respecting the explicit terms of the licence? Nothing.
:::::::: The GFDL ''does'' say that whoever the republishing agent is, individual or corporation, they have to take credit for their modification. And you're quite right, thwacking a copyright notice, along with the required change of title and the acceptance of credit could well be enough – but the foundation doesn't. The copyright notice linked from every article says explicitly that copyright is held by the editors, and not by the foundation. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-13 20:25 z</small>''
::::::::: So argue for them to put a copyright notice on. That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's also slightly ingenuous of you to start with that quote when I never said anything of the sort; I know you will say neither did you, but to head the reply that way implies that. I know... let's suggest that every phrase, word or quote used in wikipedia should have markup and copyright references. So if I quote Churchill I better make sure I have a good source (History of the Engish-Speaking Peoples, perhaps) and make sure that I check whether it is in or out of copyright. What nonsense. The copyright issue is completely irrelevant, and whatever red herrings there were, you didn't point them out. Discussion is over, in fewer than 200 words. [[User:SimonTrew|SimonTrew]] ([[User talk:SimonTrew|talk]]) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
;To answer Martindelaware's question (support 189):
| |||