Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:06, 13 April 2009

Revision as of 14:14, 13 April 2009

Line 258:

#'''Support''' The most appropriate balance between an absolute ban and overlinking. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Links should always be relevant, and dates should be no exception. In addition, if the resolution of the autoformatting question is that autoformatting is not desired by the community, or if autoformatting is desired and the eventual implementation of it does not rely on linked dates, links that were ''solely'' for the purpose of autoformatting will need to be removed. Two important points related to this, however. First, no links should be removed until the question of autoformatting is decided. Second, the most efficient method of removing these links is through automated and semi-automated methods. However, since it is impossible for bots and scripts to determine relevancy. a method must first be created to identify and protect links that are determined by editors to be relevant — this, for me, is the main issue related to the current arbitration. [[User:Mlaffs|Mlaffs]] ([[User talk:Mlaffs|talk]]) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

#'''Support''' ReadersArticles whothat carehave enoughdozens toof setdates, aall preferencelinked, forsimply datelook formatcluttered. shouldThis be able to see dates consistently displayedindicates that way. Readers who do not care enough to set a preference just do not care, and the anti-formattingsome editors shouldare not carethinking about themwhat either;will athelp leastthe thosereader, readersbut wouldare see themjust infollowing a consistent format that adds to a professional appearanceformula. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 14:0614, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

=====I support Option #2 (commemorative links only)=====