Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:01, 30 March 2009

Revision as of 00:02, 30 March 2009

Line 6:

#Concur with Anomie, autoformatting is preferential in most cases where possible, even in a few areas outside of dates. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b>^{<i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]][[WP:Editor review/Neurolysis|(review)]]</i>}</font> 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

# I find it much nicer and easier ''as a reader'' to have dates autoformatted into a single style. I find shifting formats much more distracting than spelling variants like -or v. -our or -ize v. ise. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

# I support partially per Anomie, but also because marking up dates with metadata lets us do interesting things that we can not do otherwise. Too many of the arguments against autoformating are actually against datelinking. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

=====I oppose the general concept of autoformatting=====