Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:14, 13 April 2009

Revision as of 16:30, 13 April 2009

Line 259:

#'''Support''' Links should always be relevant, and dates should be no exception. In addition, if the resolution of the autoformatting question is that autoformatting is not desired by the community, or if autoformatting is desired and the eventual implementation of it does not rely on linked dates, links that were ''solely'' for the purpose of autoformatting will need to be removed. Two important points related to this, however. First, no links should be removed until the question of autoformatting is decided. Second, the most efficient method of removing these links is through automated and semi-automated methods. However, since it is impossible for bots and scripts to determine relevancy. a method must first be created to identify and protect links that are determined by editors to be relevant — this, for me, is the main issue related to the current arbitration. [[User:Mlaffs|Mlaffs]] ([[User talk:Mlaffs|talk]]) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

#'''Support''' Articles that have dozens of dates, all linked, simply look cluttered. This indicates that some editors are not thinking about what will help the reader, but are just following a formula. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. This proposed standard relies upon editors' discretion, but that's not unusual for an MOS item. In this case, although that means that there isn't a simple algorithm that covers all possible instances (relevance is context-dependent), the likelihood is high that the end result will be broadly acceptable to the users of the encyclopedia. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">[[User:TheFeds|'''''TheFeds''''']]</font> 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

=====I support Option #2 (commemorative links only)=====