| Revision as of 13:37, 1 April 2009 editZvika (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,937 edits cleanup← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:37, 2 April 2009 edit undoSapphic (talk | contribs)6,851 editsm →Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responsesNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --] (]) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --] (]) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Point taken, though I'm afraid it hasn't changed my mind. The alternative proposals for autoformatting would make the wikimarkup even more unfriendly than it is today. --] (]) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | :Point taken, though I'm afraid it hasn't changed my mind. The alternative proposals for autoformatting would make the wikimarkup even more unfriendly than it is today. --] (]) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::That's fine; I wasn't trying to change your mind (although I certainly wouldn't have been upset if you did, either!) You might want to make the same clarification to your comments on the poll page itself, since people have already started to question how we should interpret "oppose" votes that make reference to ''autolinking'' instead of ''autoformatting'' (or equivalently, ''markup'', as you have here.) Cheers, --] (]) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:37, 2 April 2009
I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
Please watch this page if you comment.
 Archives |
Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses
Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --Sapphic (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, though I'm afraid it hasn't changed my mind. The alternative proposals for autoformatting would make the wikimarkup even more unfriendly than it is today. --Zvika (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine; I wasn't trying to change your mind (although I certainly wouldn't have been upset if you did, either!) You might want to make the same clarification to your comments on the poll page itself, since people have already started to question how we should interpret "oppose" votes that make reference to autolinking instead of autoformatting (or equivalently, markup, as you have here.) Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)