Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 186:
* Agree. The effect of a yes vote means this *would* happen. That is correct. “Will” assumes a certain vote outcome. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:Sssoul's text avoids the "never" suggestion, so that is OK. (As I said, this does ''not'' reflect a desire to restart the debate if it fails... this has gone on long enough!) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::is the related question of whether the community favours bot/script-assisted removal of the markup being left for a separate RfC? [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 204:
'''P.S.''' Nothing is going to move forward until one of you guys steps up to the plate and finishes the ''[[User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Statement_for|Statement for]]''. You don’t expect ''me'' to write it do you? (Even though I did, by borrowing liberally from a post by UC Bill). If we can’t find a volunteer, we will just have to go with what’s there; it is, after all, closely based on what a developer, who is intimately familiar with this business, wrote. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:There is no "burying" of the techniques; your text, sorry, just confused the matter. If we put that in, then we would ''have'' to also detail how there are several developments - Werdna's and Bill's for example - that are well under way. I can live with the restored "if no" text, but not the needless complexity. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:* We both know what “ needless complexity” you are really trying to address here. “[http://verdoux.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain.jpg Pay no attention to that needless autoformatting complexity behind the curtain.”] Absolutely unacceptable. Not wanting a vote on a “specific implementation” like UC Bill’s “Son of autformatting” and getting a vote on the “generalities of autformatting” may '''not''' be used as a pretext for sweeping the *inconvenient truth* of reality under the carpet. No way. What is known about the possible technical implementations under consideration <u>will be fairly disclosed</u>. Count on it. Sorry. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Greg, you know full well that I have been honestly working to write neutral language as best as possible under the circumstances. Using code to mark up dates is no different from using any other wiki code (such as headings, bold, and so on) and the language I have used presents it in a neutral manner. I'm not trying to hide ''anything'', and please note that I have also specifically avoided any fluffy ''positive'' text about autoformatting in the background statement, saving that instead for the "Statement for" section. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::* Well, now that I’ve got fair disclosure of what is truly being contemplated in our ''Statement against'', I’m not feeling the need to “go postal” on this. However, you and I both know that ''proper'' place for fully describing the true nature of autoformatting and what is being considered is in ''Background statement''. I see no valid reason whatsoever to not disclose the various options under consideration. You call it “trying to be neutral”, but being neutral does ''not'' include dropping the disclosure of salient facts—even if they look like a belly-full of hassle factor that is likely to turn off voters. Locke knew the community would reject “Son of autformatting” and it doesn’t take a mind reader to understand why he didn’t want to run “specifics” of “Son of autformatting” by the community in this RfC. There will be no sweeping of important information under the carpet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad you've put it in the "against" section, as I truly feel that is more appropriate. (That way, I can use the "for" section to demonstrate how DA will bring about world peace, which you can counter by showing how it causes cancer in the process... ha, bad joke I know.) I realize that we disagree on this, but I do feel that including the description as it was actually ''unbalances'' the text by making it seem more complicated than it actually is. The reality is that only one method will be used, and that applying it is no different from applying any other formatting. If we say "it could be method x, y, or z", we'd also have to then say "using it would be identical to using other Wiki coding" to balance the sentence, and that just leads to a bloated, hard-to-read paragraph. We want the text to be clear and direct, leading only to answers to the core question. No waffling about "I'd pick x, but not y" or "hey, what about method aa instead". --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
It is essential that the scale and consequence of a system which would arise from a successful '''for''' vote be understood. As ''all'' dates in an article (and eventually WP) will have to be coded in order to maintain consistency, it will be necessary for scripts to be redeveloped to recognise the greater range of date formats considered by the current auto-formatting syntax. For example, a date such as {{xt|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>9-12 July 2000<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}} will have to be accurately detected and reformatted to {{xt|July 9-12, 2000}} (based on various preferences and templates). Note that this issue is independent of a user's registered status. In addition, the extra resource requirements of eventually coding all dates on WP have not been analysed (the [[List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel|List of compositions by Handel]] page has over 700 dates, none of which are coded—so I'm more than a little curious to see if the load time of that page will change when every date gets coded).<br>
Line 218:
:*If page load were an issue, we would have heard about it long before this given the vast number of templates, infobxes, headers, footers, script and so on that each page uses. From what I recall, the line from the developers is to not concern ourselves with server load as it is not an issue. (Please check with Werdna/Bill etc. if you want verification, but that is what I recall from other template-related discussions elsewhere.)
:*The question of script development and use has never been an issue when you've been discussing Lightbot's scripts for ''removal'' of date formatting, so I fail to see why it should be an issue going the other way.
:*As for the ability to produce a system, Werdna has already installed one solution, and Bill has done a significant amount of development on another. They both seem to think that DA is a viable option, so we should not be making a mountain out of a molehill with regards to the implementation. Again, the developers can speak to this far better than you or I. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::*Well, you have points worth considering, but we'll never really know until what is being proposed has been '''fully''' specified. For example, date ranges have never been part of the current date auto-formatting <nowiki>[[...]]</nowiki> scheme, however with the mooted <nowiki>{{...}}</nowiki> date ''coding'' strategy they will need to be; or a mess will be generated (documented elsewhere in these parts). I've only asked for page load times to be considered/investigated (remembering that some pages have enormous numbers of dates that are currently not coded). Perhaps the Handel page I mentioned above could be added to a test set as a real world case study? Hmmm...comparing script behaviour in regards to the removal of square brackets around existing dates versus the recognition of ''all'' current WP date formats—hardly the same thing (or concern). I'm not calling into question WP's programmer's abilities—rather I'm calling into question two things: whether we need a technical solution to the "problem", and whether the specification of what is being mooted is truly known (and any honest appraisal of the situation reveals that it is not known). Without even a basic functional requirements specification, I'm not convinced that WP's programmers have a true concept of what they are about to walk into ("into the valley of death..." etc. etc.). [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 06:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 259:
Is there any chance this can be worked on quite quickly? I'd like to advertise it to the community soon so the quicker it's finished the better. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, I'll try to get to it ASAP now that the intro section is stabilizing. Any thoughts on how this will be advertised to the community? Watchlist notice? (It would be nice to get a wide-ranging input, rather than just the usuals.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::There's no way we'll be able to get a watchlist notice prior to opening. I plan to advertise on the VP, CENT and a few other noticeboards so we can get a few neutral people to look over the RfC and make any suggestions prior to it going live. Obviously, when it goes live we'll pop it on the watchlist and just about anywhere else we can! '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 23:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It would be very hard to locate truly "neutral" people: how would you do so? Merely be asking whether they are neutral WRT all three questions? It remains to be seen what they say, but their status seems unclear: "look over" with respect to ''what''? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 546:
== Order of questions ==
Hello all... been out of the loop for a few days, so I'll have to review what has been under discussion. However, one thought that occurred to me over the weekend: we should reorder the poll to put the "autoformatting" question first. For one, it is perhaps the most contentious question, but (more importantly) it is currently buried down at the bottom after a long and involved series of questions about linking. My thinking is that we want a good range of responses; people who hit the long list of linking questions (which will grow even more rapidly with responses) may well time out before they even get to the DA question, whereas the DA question section is not going to grow at the same rate. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:At first thought, I have no objection to this suggestion. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 06:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::At least the question on whether ''some'' system of autoformatting is desirable. If there is no consensus for or against that, as is at least possible, the rest of the poll is largely irrelevant. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 552:
Seeing as how there's been no objection, I've reordered the questions per the above. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:Thanks for doing that. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 573:
===Brion Vibber quote===
On a related note, I realize that the "for" and "against" sections are meant to be more opinionated; that was the primary rationale behind my cleanup edits on the introductory statement. However, I am concerned that the final line in the "against" section - quoting Brion Vibber - is leaving out a significant part of what he said. His actual comment was: <blockquote>''"[https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582#c65 My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia.]"''</blockquote>As I read that, it seems fairly obvious that he was saying that he would remove autoformatting and then format ''all'' dates in one style. This differs significantly from the positions held by both the "for" ''and'' the "against" sides in this RfC. However, as currently quoted in the "against" section:<blockquote>''"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting ... Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia."''</blockquote>it makes it appear as if Vibber only wants to remove autoformatting, without mentioning the single-style format at all. I think that if he is to be quoted, then the whole quote should be used so as to accurately reflect the context he intended. Thoughts?--'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:I might be missing something, but I would have thought that the full quote comes down heavily in favour of the "against" side. Why would any sort of date coding be necessary if only the "''English form, eg '4 December 2008'''" be used? The "against" side isn't of course saying that US formats couldn't be used, but surely the point being pushed by the original quote is that a non-technical solution is possible (dare one say, preferable). [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
*Ckatz's query over the Vibber quote. No, I though about that carefully, since I'm fussy about quotation marks. Vibber was expressing two different points in one sentence. There was no sense that his favouring the dispensing with DA was ''dependent'' on tampering with the MOSNUM rules for underlying date formats. In addition, as HWV258 says, it hardly helps your case to have the other bit included, does it. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::Tony, you say he is expressing two different points in one sentence, and that they are not dependent on each other. What proof do you have, then, that Brion's ''"Of course that's too simple and obvious for Wikipedia"'' refers specifically to the DA thought, and not instead to the "use only one format universally" thought? One could interpret the statement in a number of different ways - obviously, since we just did - but your selective quoting of his comment does appear to take some liberties. (Vibber could be saying removing DA is the "too simple" choice, he could be saying that using only one format is the "too simple" choice, or he could be saying that removing DA ''and'' using only one format is the "too simple" choice. (For all we know, he might be strongly opposed to the idea of removing DA ''without'' changing the mixed-format MOSNUM tradition.) Which is it, and how do we know short of asking him? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:::i propose leaving out the "too simple" part of the statement. the sarcasm of it will to many readers seem inappropriate to this context, and it doesn't add anything of substance. Vibber's statement "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting" is strong, clear and (along with a link to the original context) sufficient. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Sssoul, I believe this is a good suggestion. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 14:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Losing the sarcasm is appropriate, per Sssoul's comment - but it still doesn't address whether or not Brion is being misquoted. As explained above, he could support each option individually or only as a joint move; you simply don't know if he would support removing DA if it means keeping the existing DMY-MDY mix. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::::::I agree with Ckatz; the quote seems like it has been manipulated to support something he may or may not be supporting. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 677:
* Come to think of it, go ahead and leave it in. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:I've actually already removed it, as part of an effort to keep the focus on the date formatting. If a mention is needed, it is better suited to the linking questions that follow (rather than in "Autoformatting"). --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
== Proposed wording change ==
Line 754:
"''I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project''"—UC_Bill ([[User_talk:UC_Bill#Block|here]]).<br>Not our patch, surely? [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for reworking your previous post. The event that precipitated this is unrelated to the RfC, and many folks are very concerned as to what is up with Bill. However, there's nothing we can or should do about this (nor would it be appropriate) until there is a clearer idea of what is actually happening. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:Yep, it was our part of the project. The [http://dates.xoom.org/index.php/Main_Page demo page] has now shifted emphasis. (Pity we didn't have a functional specification.) [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 848:
* Today is {{#formatdate:2009-03-25}} (<nowiki>{{#formatdate:2009-03-25}}</nowiki> formats per user prefs, unformatted for IPs).
* Today is {{#formatdate:2009-03-25|dmy}} (<nowiki>{{#formatdate:2009-03-25|dmy}}</nowiki> formats per user prefs, specified format for IPs).
--'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
* Am I missing something here as to what would posses you to make such a pronouncement? It seems you just announced a technology that the community has repeatedly said it isn’t interested in. And you also did so while we’re busy preparing yet another RfC to prove this mood. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 856:
::**Was Hex involved in making this happen, either? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::Greg, the ability to have link-free date autoformatting is now an active feature on Wikipedia. That's not my wishful thinking, or a proposed enhancement; Werdna's patch has now gone live and is fully functional. In a nutshell, the software has been enhanced to address the creation of links when formatting. That issue was one of the most significant concerns that contributors such as you and Tony1 expressed about DA, so I would think that you would be happy to see a solution to the so-called "sea of blue". Remember, we're here to gather information about what the community wants, and a part of that involves letting contributors know what Wikipedia's software is capable of doing. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::* Splendid. Then update [[Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll#Background_statement|Background statement]] that you now have an ''avocado-colored'' side-by-side refrigerator to sell to the Eskimos. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span>
Line 867:
I see no reason for the background statements to be before the question on autoformatting question. We don't agree on what arguments should be included; or which are valid; we won't by the 28th. Let the polled come up with their own argumnets. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, but what?!? There's been no discussion whatsoever for this change, and given the complete absence of said discussion I've reverted your change. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:* I agree. It seems the closer we get to prime time, the more editors are getting anxious and bold—upsetting the apple cart in the process. How about a lighter touch on things that have been stable for a while? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 934:
::* And check out how Ckatz is reacting to this outbreak of sanity. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Greg, sorry, but could you please clarify what you just said? --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
I'm pretty happy with Greg's condensed options. (Mainly because #2 is more or less the only thing I've been concerned about from the start of all of this.) Thanks. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 964:
== ?!? ==
Why is the page locked? I was in the middle of adding quotations marks, only to see the pink screen... ---'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
:Ah, just saw the edit war over the other section (links). If anyone objects to the two changes I made, please let me know and I'll revert them. One was to put quotation marks around soe date examples, the other was to change "for example" to "e.g.". --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small
::Nope, that's fine - I just wanted to stop the edit war. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||