Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 30:
#:Unless I'm missing something, this has nothing to do with date linking. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]][[WP:Editor review/Neurolysis|(review)]]</i></sup></font> 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Oppose, I don't really see this as needed, I'm not convinced there's a problem that needs this as a solution. <font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977|Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''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]]'''
#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)
#Per Tcncv. <font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NuclearWarfare]]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)</sub>''''' 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Editors seeing a different output than the readers is a recipe for disaster. I appreciate autoformating, it is nice to have (international format FTW), but when I first became aware of its shortcomings, I stopped using it. Ever since, I've seen a great deal of articles being inconsistent because of this. Articles that have been fixed because I turned the feature off. The only way I would support autoformatting is if '''ALL''' articles would have the '''SAME''' ouput for unregistered users, preferably international dates (DD MM YYYY) as we are addressing an international readership. AKA, no tagging individual pages with magic words specifying in what format dates should be displayed, that's just asking for having endless revert wars until the end of time. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
=====I am neutral on the general concept of autoformatting=====
| |||