Content deleted Content added
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
*'''Support'''. As Quadell notes, this is how it should have been done. -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. As Quadell notes, this is how it should have been done. -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'''. Per Quadell and Earle Martin. Bravo. [[User:AKAF|AKAF]] ([[User talk:AKAF|talk]]) 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Per Quadell and Earle Martin. Bravo. [[User:AKAF|AKAF]] ([[User talk:AKAF|talk]]) 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'''. Well-thought-out and long overdue solution to a problem that everyone would surely want to be moving on from.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Oppose === |
=== Oppose === |
Revision as of 11:58, 22 June 2009
|
||
Ready?
The arbitration case is closed and I see no reason to wait. Has all concerns raised above been answered? Is there anything else that needs to be changed? I just made some edits, so please take a final look at the proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to add a comment that if any part of the proposal proves difficult to code in a way that achieves a low false-positive rate, that part will not be implemented? --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see one reason to wait: At least some parts of the community are sick of this whole date mess and could use a break. But it seems to be too late now, and given the format of the discussion below any useful comments are likely to be lost in a mass of "Blue linked dates! DESTROY!!!!111oneone" supports. Anomie⚔ 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
RFC
Please indicate your support or opposition to this proposal, along with your comments. Please use numbers to refer to specific points in the proposal that you are referring to, particularly if you overall support the proposal but oppose particular points, or vice-versa. The RFC will be open for two weeks. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Support as proposer. Date linking for autoformatting has been deprecated since a discussion in August last year. Two RFCs in December, one in January and one in April has confirmed this and further clarified when dates should be linked. There has still been dispute over where and how dates can be delinked leading to an arbitration case. I have not been involved in the conflict, so I hope this discussion can focus on the proposal, not people. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. This looks like a cautious, thoughtful proposal that proceeds conservatively with respect for all points of view. This is how the matter should have been handled in the first place. – Quadell (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support, is this a vote? I sure hope not. Anyway, delinking dates in this way seems like a good plan. I never could understand the value of linking dates as a matter of course, and I think that editors got the impression that it was required, and then imitated what they saw. Abductive (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. As Quadell notes, this is how it should have been done. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Per Quadell and Earle Martin. Bravo. AKAF (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Well-thought-out and long overdue solution to a problem that everyone would surely want to be moving on from.--Kotniski (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)