Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:57, 19 February 2025

Latest revision as of 06:06, 19 February 2025

Line 17:

*Cole, your mantra that "a majority of Wikipedians seemed to support some form, as evidenced at [[WP:MOSNUM/RFC]] (see Question #2))" needs to be nipped in the bud, [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_118#RfC2|as I've already done at MOSNUM]]. There, I clearly pointed out the reasons that your RfC funnelled respondents into a "sometimes" category, giving skewed results compared with your No. 1 RfC and the simple one I put up, which asked whether people wanted to keep the current deprecation or go back to "normally" autoformatting dates. Here is the text I put up, again.

<div style="color:darkgreen;">

<font color=darkgreen>That the following text in MOSNUM:

<blockquote>

'''Autoformatting:''' Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting|autoformatting]] (even though in the past this was considered desirable).</blockquote>

Line 25:

<blockquote>

'''Autoformatting:''' Dates (containing either day, month and year, or day and month) should normally be [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting|autoformatted]].</blockquote>
</fontdiv>

The result was overwhelmingly in favour of staying put. I've explained how yours funnelled people into a middle category: it's the old extreme book-end technique in questionnaires.