Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses

< Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MDCollins (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 30 March 2009 (→I oppose the general concept of autoformatting: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Autoformatting responses

Please indicate your support vote under ONE option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.
I support the general concept of autoformatting
  1. While I don't care much about having a user preference to make all dates into one format, something like {{#formatdate}} combined with a {{DEFAULTDATEFORMAT}} magic word to set the default for the whole page is necessary to avoid either forcing all date-handling templates to have a "dateformat" parameter on every use or forcing all date-handling templates to allow any arbitrary garbage in their "date" parameters and forgo any possibility of date manipulation. I also see no point in not allowing those who want the feature to have it, and frankly the "arguments against" above reek of FUD and logical fallacy with no real substance. Anomie⚔ 23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Anomie, autoformatting is preferential in most cases where possible, even in a few areas outside of dates. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I find it much nicer and easier as a reader to have dates autoformatted into a single style. I find shifting formats much more distracting than spelling variants like -or v. -our or -ize v. ise. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support partially per Anomie, but also because marking up dates with metadata lets us do interesting things that we can not do otherwise. Too many of the arguments against autoformating are actually against datelinking. dm (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I set my date preference to display dates in U.S. format, so I expect dates to display as such. Also, autoformatting helps prevent edit warring.-Jeff (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the general concept of autoformatting
  1. If Brion thinks that Autoformatting should be removed, that's good enough for me. I think the benefits of autoformatting do not outweigh the trouble implementing it will cause, such as tagging millions of dates with a marker to allow autoformatting. Steve Crossin Talk/24 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per all of the arguments against. We don't need more options. Neither of the accepted date styles are difficult to understand. I think we should continue to move away from the ISO style and we shouldn't be relying on autoformatting for consistency. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If they haven't been able to get it right in SIX YEARS, nothing makes me think they will get it right any time soon. While people say 'no pain, no gain', this is just sooo much pain for little gain. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weakly oppose. If this issue were to arise now, we would solve it by permitting both formats, along the lines of WP:ENGVAR. Autoformatting was a failed effort at a technical fix to a behavioral problem, and it faces irresoluble grammatical difficulties about whether a comma comes after the date. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per PMAnderson. --John (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. The bugzilla analysis is generally against it. Most users can understand both major formats (DMY and MDY). I see no point if it's not going to be retro-fitted, but that's likely to be a nightmare - and automating it would be very risky, as the bugzilla analysis identifies types of cases where automated retro-fitting would be wrong. Finally if making it work requires a template or any other extra mark-up typing, I'm totally against it - WP is so prone to WP:CREEP that it would probably become a MOS requirement in a few years, and I know no mechanism by which we could legislate now that MOS should never require it. -Philcha (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose There is no "problem" to solve. As it has been noted, WP:ENGVAR works well for English variants, so why not dates? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. -- Donald Albury 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: What problem are we trying to solve by this? seicer | talk | contribs 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As a featured contributor, I have found no reason for it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Most Wikipedia users are readers, not editors, therefore most features should be designed for them. Datelinking devalues useful links. It also necessitates useless extra work for editors. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I oppose autoformatting. I hate that meaningless blue mess of overlinked dates. And isn't it rather odd that people from the US and UK are supposed to be befuddled by each other's practically identical date formats, when the rest of the world with their much more wildly variable date formatting is quite capable of understanding both of them? Bishonen | talk 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Oppose, I don't really see this as needed, I'm not convinced there's a problem that needs this as a solution. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I would have thought this had been settled the first, second, and third time around. Now we’re at it a fourth time. No, autformatting is not desirable. Nor is it necessary. Just chose the format most appropriate for the article (based on MOSNUM guidelines), write it out in fixed text, and be done with it. Jumping through all these hoops just so a handful of editors can be spared the shock of seeing a date format they disapprove of is something they will survive; I guarantee it. Greg L (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. If Wikipedia readers are smart enough to handle "colour" vs "color" and "aluminium" vs "aluminum", they can handle "30 March" vs "March 30". On that premise, I would apply the KISS principle and avoid the added complexity. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: there is no need for autoformatting. As already mentioned, it enhances the differences between the registered and unregistered uses, masking any potential inconsistencies. Every article should be consistent, using WP:MOSNUM and WP:ENGVAR.—MDCollins (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on the general concept of autoformatting
Comments regarding autoformatting
  • How much of a huge, bold, flashing editnotice would be enough to convince people that this section is about autoformatting, not linking? Or do we need an AbuseFilter warning on the word "link"? Anomie⚔ 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses&oldid=280537628"