Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Responses: you can't have it both ways |
→Comments regarding autoformatting: I'll do my part, but you need to do plenty more reading first... |
||
Line 637:
::::::::::::* "''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><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 00:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::* 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><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></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)
| |||