Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Changed protection settings for "Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses": drop protection to allow for lint error fixes ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
m Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
||
Line 198:
#'''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. <font face="Gill Sans">[[User:Andrew Dalby|<span style="color:green;">And</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Andrew Dalby|rew D]]'''[[User:Andrew Dalby/Bibliography|<span style="color:green;">alby</span>]]</font> 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''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)
Line 444:
#'''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 571:
# 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)
| |||