https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
--- Comment #244 from cypsy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-27 21:46:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #237) > (In reply to comment #236) > > Which patch? #1 is out of the question, as Bill points out. #2, #3 and #4 all prevent linked dates from being links. So they all fix the "seas of blue" problem. #4 also fixes the "ISO cruft for anons/noprefset" problem. The objection that "the squid cache makes [#4] unworkable" is not the whole story. Squid caching only applies to anons, so #4 still works fine for the noprefset registered users. And even *if* the patch were not modified to deal with anons some other way (eg comment #243), then anons would get to see whatever it was that the last anon who caused a fetch from MW saw. Which A) is still a whole sight better than seeing ISO cruft, B) a pretty good weighted-random choice of which dateformat to display for anons. The bottom line is that *something* needs to be done at DateFormatter too, otherwise the "seas of blue" will continue to exist, and people will continue to go around removing date links, which is inherently destructive. Although there is a Javascript solution available, its not a viable solution unless DateFormatter adds the appropriate markup /and/ the admins make the Javascript site-wide, which is unlikely to happen because -- as we see from the interminable "discussions" elsewhere -- common-sense is in short supply. Objecting all very well and good, but #3 and #4 are a GoodThing, and if there are problems with them, then these can be fixed or compensated for. Squid et al are not the show-stoppers that they being treated as. For those joining the discussion late (e.g. Mr. Z Man and Philippe Verdy): the title of this bug only tells half the story. This bug is in effect the search for a technical solution to the perennial discussions at en:wp, which are provoked by A) the eyesore caused by the linked dates also appearing as links; B) the fact that only very few dates actually need to be links; C) the inconsistencies that appear in an article if not every date is linked; D) the cruft that anons and editors without a datepref get to see, E) the (preservation of) meta information present in [[date]]s but not in plain text. Patch #3 addresses issues A, B, C, E. Patch #4: A, B, C, D, E. (comment #236) > People aren't just going to grab a patch and commit it. Especially when the > last patch seems to be entirely different from what's being requested in these > past several comments. This comment borders on stupidity. All the issues noted above are already mentioned in the top 10 comments on this page, which are from Jan-March *2006*. That these issues have not been addressed (and in fact the reason why this bug was once closed for equally ignorant and stupid reasons) is due solely to dev apathy and their inability to read (evident again in a recent email). One need only follow Tony Souter's (en:User:Tony1) comments on this page -- from engaged and supportive (comment #14) to disillusioned (comment #158) -- to recognize how destructive dev negligence has been. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
