Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→When can we expect results?: ahem… *dignity* please |
→Turning date linking off in one fell swoop: silly kludge |
||
Line 611:
:* I think I'll stop trying to explain this now, because clearly what I thought in Good Faith would help move this forward is something that you're prepared to keep arguing will not. At this point, I'm sure we could find arguments against gravity thoroughly discussed in the talk pages of MOSNUM, but I'll let you find those for yourself. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
::*This has been the problem all along. Any solution, no matter how intuitive or well reasoned, will be shunned or argued against if it doesn't involve mass delinking of dates via bots. Apparently Lightmouse is the way, the truth and the light, and anything else is... well, clearly not good enough. They've apparently "won" something, and they want their trophy (all dates sans square brackets), even if that doesn't have consensus. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be a silly [[kludge]] which would turn off all autoformatted links, including the ones which do comply with the new [[WP:LINK#Chronological items]] guidelines, and wouldn't turn off any non-autoformatted link, including the seventeen occurrence of [[2007]] (without a day link) in the same section. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]], not [[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||