Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m fix italics |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 46:
::::*Thanks, I appreciate that. I've already voted, if I understand the arguments correctly. [[User:Daniel Benfield|Daniel Benfield]] ([[User talk:Daniel Benfield|talk]]) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*Sorry, but "''... on date linking, none of which has a consensus as to the consequences of the results''" is incorrect. Have a careful read of the comments [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM#Proposal_1:_A_return_to_the_linking_of_dates_and_date_fragments|here]] and perhaps try to work into your future posts reasoning based on the fact that over 94% of respondents at that RfC had serious reservations with the linking of dates. Please don't reply too rapidly as it will take you some time to properly read the comments there (you can also examine a summary [[User:Dabomb87/Summary_of_the_Date_Linking_RFCs|here]]). [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::*There ''may'' be consensus against linking ''all'' dates, although there is considerably more support for it [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#Deprecating_the_current_date_autoformatting|here]]. The poll HWV258 cites is an attack on a straw man, posted by a user who began by voting against his own proposal. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*I can only reiterate that anyone interested in this should have a careful read down the list of comments posted by the 94% of '''oppose''' respondents ([[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM#Proposal_1:_A_return_to_the_linking_of_dates_and_date_fragments|here]]). Even detached from the poll question, those comments are illuminating, and undeniable. [[User:HWV258|<b><
:::::::*''we should link to dates, as to other words and phrases, when the link is useful to readers.''
:::::::*''Linking dates should stay as the exception, rather than the rule, ''
:::::::*''Date links should not be treated any differently than other links.''
:::::::These are some of the 94% which have serious reservations about linking all dates; decide for yourself if they sre reservations with the linking of ''any'' dates. Misrepresentations of this point grow tiresome. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*No, I refer to the multitude of comments along the lines: "''Such links provide nothing useful to the reader, and only serve to confuse''". Please read the ''entire'' list of '''oppose''' comments ([[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM#Proposal_1:_A_return_to_the_linking_of_dates_and_date_fragments|here]]) and see if your views are still so strong (misrepresentations?). I agree that you will be tired though after reading the entire list of '''oppose''' comments. :-) [[User:HWV258|<b><
::::::::::I have done so; such comments are less than 50% of the total; many oppose the idea of linking ''every'' date, which was the question asked. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
{{Hat|Irrelevance removed, per request}}
Line 152:
::::I was listening, but it seems you weren't. The issue of "vote to discontinue autoformatting through the use of wikilinks" was settled conclusively in the Nov/Dec RfCs as "Deprecate". The problem that then arose was that some editors posited that those RfCs showed support for "date autoformatting without creating links". In other words, the issue of "date autoformatting by some other means" was raised. This RfC is designed to answer that specific question and not to go over old ground where the consensus is already clear. I'm sorry I've been so blunt about it, but it does nothing to help move forward, if editors continually raise questions that have already been settled. Hope that helps. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::If this was really the case then why do we have an RFC based on autoformatting ''and'' how to link dates? If the result was deprecate then why are these two unrelated topics ''still'' coupled together? It's too late now (again, for the third time) but people will continue to misunderstand what they are voting for if we keep holding joint RFCs on these topics. [[User:Sillyfolkboy|Sillyfolkboy]] ([[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|talk]]) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::Ckatz: as you have taken an interest in this issue (by responding to Ohconfucius' post), and based on the information supplied by Greg_L below, could you please respond to the content of the original post? Thanks. [[User:HWV258|<b><
* Ohconfucius is just giving voters a lapel pin to wear as they exit the polling booth. He gave one to me. That isn’t disruptive. Sapphic is badgering Wikipedians who voted one particular way in an effort to get them to go back in and change their vote. <u>That must stop right now</u>. She should be warned and taken to an ANI if the [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]] persists. I doubt that the effort—and the trouble she could find herself in as a result—will pay off with a change of a single vote; it’s just that she is cheating, which doesn’t impress. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
**In an actual election, providing lapel pins (which support, as Ohconfucius' do, a particular side) to those leaving the polling booth would be unlawful; this analogy needs work. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 438:
::In accordance with how things have always worked here on WP, the ''[[status quo ante]]'' prevails where a consensus is not reached for the adoption of a new proposal. There is no denying that both Ryan and Ohconfucius would be happier if there was a 6% swing for a "conclusive result", but I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw at this point is that acceptance of autoformatting has not been gained by the community, and we must accept that it is about as clear it is likely to get. If we fail to recognise this inherent limitation of [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], we would be rightly accused of [[Decision making|indecision]]. Whilst accepting that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], the next question which should be asked is whether the community is prepared to accept a prolongation of this discussion ''ad infinitum'' until it is conclusive enough for you or I? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::* I endorse what Ohconfucius has written here 100%. His logic is unassailable. <u>I ask that you, Ryan (and the other arbitrators) read it ''thoroughly''</u>.
::Oh, something else in Ryan's post which struck me upon further reflection after making my post above: I would pertinently remind all that this RfC vote is '''not''' on a specific DA scheme but for the <u>general principle</u>. However "far from it in the Wikipedia sense of polling/consensus" the poll result may be on the issue, to go and explore "other methods of autoformatting for the future that wouldn't require date linking" seems to me to be counter-intuitive and "''anti-consensus''", as it would presuppose the eventual adoption of DA when the community will have voted 60% <u>against</u> it ''en principe''. Of course, if you were to include the 'oppose' in the second poll, the outcome may be something interesting like this: <small> 'keep old DA' 5%, 'new DA with <nowiki>{{#formatnumber}}</nowiki>-style markup' 12%, 'new DA with no markup' 20%, no DA at all 58%, undecided 5%</small> - what will fractioning that vote change??? Anyway, as there is supposed to be a 2 week discussion based on these results, I think perhaps Ryan may be jumping the gun here a little... [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 474:
:::::*What I'm saying is that the developers don't act unless they have consensus for a change. I'm not 100% convinced that the developers will see our current poll on autoformatting consensus for anything so won't act. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<span style="color:green;">Ryan</span> <span style="color:purple;">Postlethwaite</span>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 07:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::*If all it is is your fear, we can work on that. But we are agreed that they cannot and should not stand in the way of consensus, right? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
*"''In a month or two (or however long it takes to develop the new software) we have one last poll to either adopt the new software or drop the issue once and for all''"—to the programming community: please be very careful with this approach. This strategy smacks of the approach that was taken many years ago—the one that delivered the current problem-riddled date formatting and linking system. If you want to get your programming teeth into something beneficial, then get consensus for a replacement system from the community <u>before</u> any coding takes place. At the very least, create a page that has the specifications for what is being developed so that there is transparency and the possibility for comment. The best programmers that I've seen in my career are the ones that don't want to operate in secrecy from their end-users. A happy and safe Easter to all. [[User:HWV258|<b><
Every here needs to chill out and discuss this calmly and stop bashing the clerks, who are only trying to do their jobs in a neutral manner. Yes, consider this is a final warning. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 696:
::::::Dates should be linked if key to the article. Therefore bot delinking should not continue and it should be accepted that the process requires human editors to make a concious choice about relavence to the article not a turbo charged bot without an ounce of clue. [[Special:Contributions/86.132.128.230|86.132.128.230]] ([[User talk:86.132.128.230|talk]]) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::* To I.P. user from London: We already had that discussion. Scientifically. The error rate of Lightbot in complying with these new guidelines was <u>zero</u> false positives. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::* To 86.132.128.230: The point is that bots allow for a "clean slate" approach to date linking. After the dates have been unlinked, human editors can make conscious choices in order to link the relevant dates. It is too much work to manually unlink the enormous number of dates that currently have been linked purely because it seemed like a good idea at the time. By the way, can you give some examples of "relevant" dates? (this [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_115#RfC:_Linking_of_dates_of_birth_and_death|RfC]] demonstrated that it isn't even clear cut as to whether the community wants dates of birth and death to be linked). [[User:HWV258|<b><
| |||