Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Update signature (name changed). |
m fixing lint error using AWB |
||
Line 219:
#'''Support''' Irrelevant links just distract form those that are truly of value to the reader. --<font style="color:#355E3B">[[User:Droll|'''droll''']]</font> <font style="color:#704214">[[User talk:Droll|'''[chat]''']]</font> 22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The overhead seems minor, and it lets readers see dates in a consistent manner. Also, consider that the day may come when the format "March 11, 2009" looks terribly out of style and we'll all want those individual instances updated. Better to just automate it now, while Wikipedia is still small. [[User:Spiel496|Spiel496]] ([[User talk:Spiel496|talk]]) 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This will improve consistency and display dates per user preferences. But will it eliminate thousands of punctuation errors such as omitting the final comma from
#'''Support''' to make things easier/more consistent for readers. --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 07:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per user Ckatz and the argument about metadata (the most important as I see it). It should also be mandatory using [[ISO 8601]] (proleptic) gregorian dates as input parameter to the #formatdate since this is the International standard nearly every country has adopted (even the US and EU). [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 10:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 251:
#'''Oppose''' There is no "problem" to solve. As it has been noted, [[WP:ENGVAR]] works well for English variants, so why not dates? [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': What problem are we trying to solve by this? <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]]
#As a featured contributor, I have found no reason for it. --<font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltempierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The "pro" arguments are not convincing at all, but the "contra" arguments describe very real problems. All the disadvantages just to give a few people the option to display an article with US spelling in UK date format or vice versa? This is obvious feature bloat. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 306:
#'''Oppose''' Not worth the effort and would reduce the readability of the wiki source. [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] ([[User talk:Plastikspork|talk]]) 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', way too much complexity for most users, and zero benefit for the vast majority of our readers. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font >]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font >]] 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I honestly don't see the point - dates are more than readable as they are. It's just making extra wok for minimal gain. Whilst I can see the interest on forums, I think Wikipedia should just leave its style be. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greggers</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]]
#'''Oppose''' PMAnderson summarises my views exactly. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', this seems to be creating more work and problems with very little benefit. We have some amazing programmers who can help us through any perceived problems. Our readers deserve better articles and we really have spent a ''lot'' of energy on these discussions and project-wide on this issue. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]] 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 437:
#'''Oppose.''' primarily because this is just a simple case of [[WP:ENGVAR]]. The supporters that say that Wikipedia should present dates consistently conveniently forget that we don't spell colour/color or meter/metre consistently across the encyclopedia either. The example that Britannica uses consistent date formats is just an extension of the fact that they use consistent British English spelling. The thing that we need to do is to have consistent date formats within each article and plain text dates can solve that without the need for additional markup. --[[User:Seav|seav]] ([[User talk:Seav|talk]]) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - on the KISS principle and because of all the issues facing Wikipedia (which is asking for donations to keep itself going) and its volunteers, this seems very low priority. Further, if anything at all is needed from editors to attend to this issue, it's not worth it. In other words, I wouldn't expend any sort of resources (even this poll seems time-consuming) and in my opinion, as a fairly new Wikipedian, Wikipedia is already bogged down in an enormous number of these kinds of discussions. The current system works, all editors know they are supposed to be consistent within articles, and as a member of the copyediting team, so far I rarely find that any article is inconsistent - but if it is, tag it for copyediting and let it go. Nothing requiring additional mark-up should be added to Wikipedia until a larger number of people are familiar with current mark-up.[[User:Levalley|Levalley]] ([[User talk:Levalley|talk]]) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' — [[
#'''Oppose'''. <font face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|talk]])'''</font> 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Autoformatting hassle isn't worth the effort so some registered editors can see only one kind of date format. Everyone else will be seeing two formats depending on which article they land on. That is no big deal. [[User:Deegee375|Deegee375]] ([[User talk:Deegee375|talk]]) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 456:
#'''Oppose''' Let the editors working on an articlr agree on consistent formats. No need for an automatic process, which could well produce more problems. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Do not add complexity where it is not needed and is prone to errors and misinterpretations.--[[User:Avg|Avg]] ([[User talk:Avg|talk]]) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Inelegantly solves what needn't be. --[[User:User6985|Thomas B]]
# '''Oppose'''. Arguments against really sum it up completely. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<font color="000000">Σ</font>]][[User talk:Explicit|<font color="000000">xplicit</font>]]''''' 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose:''' Don't think dates should be linked, looks messy. [[User:Ryan4314|<strong><font color="Black">Ryan</font><font color="CornflowerBlue">4314</font></strong>]] ([[User talk:Ryan4314|talk]]) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 479:
#'''Oppose''' very marginal improvement (as either date format is perfectly comprehensible, and the majority of readers do not use accounts) versus a huge dilution of the prominence of valuable blue links. The articles on days and years, while they may serve some purpose, are NEVER a useful link in the context of any article. I believe the consensus against this is strong, but even stronger when one examines the views of users that have either written a featured article or worked as a reviewer in that process. [[User:Savidan|Savidan]] 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' if it ain't broke, don't fix it. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' — Negative cost/benefit (cost here in terms of nuisance, effort, and time). It's a neat capability, to be sure, but it is the answer to a question that doesn't really need asking, akin to hiring a translator to translate a speech being made by an Australian to an American audience or vice versa. Nobody's access to Wikipedia is hindered by encountering dates in this format versus that format; let's focus our efforts on implementing features to expand accessibility where such expansion is actually needed. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Scheinwerfermann|T]]</sup>
#'''Oppose.''' The push for autoformatting is an understandable but inappropriate response to Wikipedia's inherent complexity, and to the diversity of Wikipedia's readership. It exemplifies an insidious technocratic, "high-priestly" approach, by which the great majority of ordinary editors are disadvantaged and discouraged. The supposed benefits are not worth the concession that it requires – to a vocal minority who fail to understand the human side of involvement in Wikipedia. Perhaps in future the project will rest on more rational technical foundations; till then, this sort of initiative is to be resisted as unworkable. For both users and editors we need to keep things straightforward and comprehensible.–<font color="blue"><sub>'''[[User_talk:Noetica |⊥]]'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>[[User_talk:Noetica |T]]</sup>– 07:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - quite unnessecary. [[User:PluniAlmoni|PluniAlmoni]] ([[User talk:PluniAlmoni|talk]]) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||