Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 28:
#'''Oppose''' I would have thought this had been settled the first, second, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/RFC:_Unresolved_date_delinking_and_autoformatting_issues#Date_autoformatting|third time around]]. Now we’re at it a fourth time. No, autformatting is not desirable. Nor is it necessary. Just chose the format most appropriate for the article (based on [[Wikipedia:Mosnum#Full_date_formatting|MOSNUM guidelines]]), write it out in fixed text, and be done with it. Jumping through all these hoops just so a handful of editors can be spared the shock of seeing a date format they disapprove of is something they will survive; I guarantee it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Oppose. If Wikipedia readers are smart enough to handle "colour" vs "color" and "aluminium" vs "aluminum", they can handle "30 March" vs "March 30". On that premise, I would apply the [[KISS principle]] and avoid the added complexity. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk:Tcncv|talk]]) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': there is no need for autoformatting. As already mentioned, it enhances the differences between the registered and unregistered uses, masking any potential inconsistencies. Every article should be consistent, using [[WP:MOSNUM]] and [[WP:ENGVAR]].—[[User:Mdcollins1984|MDCollins]] ([[User talk:Mdcollins1984|talk]]) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
=====I am neutral on the general concept of autoformatting=====
| |||