Content deleted Content added
Line 45:
** Seems a bit out of place to revert the consensus attained move and re-open a closed RM. If you saw an error, you should report it so it can be investigated. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 15:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
**:Well since the move had broken thousands of pages, I think it was quite justified myself. Try to consider the readers next time, {{u|Gonnym}}, instead of launching attacks on me. If someone wants to close this they can, but it needs much more consideration than has been shown so far. For now it is relisted, as was done by {{u|BD2412}} this morning. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
** Consensus does not become invalid because implementing it is difficult: some templates have sat at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell]] for more than a year. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)▼
*: I'm seriously baffled. This is far from my first requested move of a module, and all of the other ones I've done have gone smoothly. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*: {{ping|JJMC89}}. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Pppery}} yep, as I said above I have no idea what is wrong with it. Just that whatever was attempted was not done correctly! Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::Not sure how my comment can be considered "launching [of] attacks on [you]", but I still stand by them. If you'd have reported the issues, someone (me included) could have looked at the issue and see what the issue is. As it stands I have no idea what red errors you saw, as when I try that page with the /sandbox version I don't get those red errors. From a very basic look and without any error to work on, it would seem that the issue might be related to the fact that the module has a specific template set up as the wrapper. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
▲*
*'''Oppose'''. DTS is quite clear: it is a quick device to make a date sortable and is good as an acronym or code that is not meant to be spoken out literally. The term "date table sorting" is descriptive of the overall issue; one could create a Wikipedia article [[date table sorting]] on the general topic, as applies in Wikimedia and in Excel / Lotus 1-2-3, other table systems current and historical. The term "date table sorting" does not naturally apply to the formatting of a given datum. What is needed is a code.
:The requested move seems like "needless tinkering" as someone suggested above. It would be like trying to force the world to change from Qwertyuiop keyboards to something more "sensible", which would cause needless disruption. Everyone who uses the template knows what it is; the quest to change it (in order to make it more understandable/clear?) only imposes needless burden on everyone. Or maybe this would be like a quest to replace use of the code "." by the word "period" to make it more understandable? Bad idea period. We all know what the code is, and a code is what is needed, and the expanded term is not even descriptive to the individual usages.
| |||