This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sapphic (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 2 April 2009 (→Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:37, 2 April 2009 by Sapphic (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)