Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Orphan per TFD outcome |
|||
Line 195:
This is unacceptable. The burden is not on our “Against” statement to provide the community with a clear picture of what is being contemplated. I did borrow your “we don’t know” verbiage from your edit summary and add that to the ''Background statement''. So it now reads (with my underlining only here)…
{{quotation|'''Effect of a “Support” consensus.''' If the community expressed its desire here to re-introduce the concept of autoformatting, a new system would be developed. <u>The developers don’t know exactly what sort of technique might be offered in the final analysis</u>, but as of the time of this RfC, techniques under consideration would have dates be surrounded with curly brackets '''<code><nowiki>{{March 11, 2009}}</nowiki></code>''' or with square brackets '''<code><nowiki>[[March 11, 2009]]</nowiki></code>''', or with some kind of template, such as '''<code><nowiki>[[templatename|March 11, 2009]]</nowiki></code>'''. As explained above, some sort of tag would establish a default format that would be displayed for IP users in each article. It would be necessary for all dates in articles that use this scheme to be marked up with the autoformatting method.}}
This is completely true and factual. You and I might have the general idea of what the developers are contemplating, but unless we properly disclose it here, many would-be participants would have absolutely no idea. As I alluded to in my edit summary, leaving the technique completely unaddressed leaves it all in the voters’ imagination (“some sort of magical goodliness from Goodville”), when in fact, the developers today ''do'' have a basic idea of the techniques that could be used. If Locke doesn’t want to have a vote on a “specific implementation” such as UC Bill’s, there ''certainly'' isn’t going to be a wholesale burying of the nature of the techniques currently being contemplated.
| |||