Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Autoformatting responses: Support. |
→I oppose the general concept of autoformatting: Oppose autoformat |
||
Line 36:
#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)
#'''Oppose''': the pros pointed out benefit only those who are logged in. For those who are not logged or are not registered users, they might see dates of varying formats. Autoformat does not promote consistency; the actual text is still inconsistent (and as pointed, obvious to those not logged in). Without autoformat, editors would readily spot any consistency errors in the date formats for an article. [[User:Jappalang|Jappalang]] ([[User talk:Jappalang|talk]]) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
=====I am neutral on the general concept of autoformatting=====
| |||