Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Initial discussion: question' |
Locke Cole (talk | contribs) m →Initial discussion: missing paren |
||
Line 10:
::May I suggest that instead we isolate the ''issues'' that might be RfCed. If possible, the RfC(s) should be kept as simple as possible, and should be worded so that everyone can understand them. Why is it necessary to have two phases? I'd have thought something like dabomb's list of exceptions might form the basis of a yes/no list of responses (or even Likert-scale choice of 1–5 to indicate approval–disapproval – I'm unsure until it's more concrete). I haven't researched fully how the opposing parties feel, but I notice Arthur Rubin said "DaBomb's new summary of the consensus is reasonably close to my understanding" at the Workshop page. [[User:Dabomb87/Summary_of_the_Date_Linking_RFCs#Linking_chronological_items|Here]] is his summary of "When to link". Could this—preferably tweaked and reduced in size, if possible—form the basis of a series of questions? I think people need to discuss this here first. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Date auto formatting should be in this RFC as the matter was not settled by the last two RFCs (in fact a majority of Wikipedians seemed to support some form, as evidenced at [[WP:MOSNUM/RFC]] (see Question #2)). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
When will those polled be asked ''how often'' they want chronological items to be linked? In phase 2? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||