https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
--- Comment #263 from S. McCandlish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-02 10:51:01 UTC --- Not to be overly argumentative, but re: #2/#7: 2 and 7 weren't identical, since 2 did not address [[:date]], only [[date]], but whatever. > it doesn't solve all the problems (crappy default being the big one) Refresh my memory; what's the crappy default? If it's that crappy, then just fix that, too, and we're done, right? I've seen [D]D Month YYYY suggested as the proper default, with little if any objection, including from Americans (like myself); we may not be globally popular folks right now, but we aren't retarded, and understand that format just fine. > B) its not clear if that's what people actually want, hence my summary of the multitude of options. >From my reading, it's the most-sought solution, and it would comport with MOSNUM's consensus, which took years to arrive at, meanwhile I don't think I've seen a credible, non-hypothetical reason not to go that direction, only "what-ifs" like "maybe there's a wiki somewhere where having all dates linked and autoformatted is useful". > C) Many of the options are easy, Option 1 for example doesn't need a patch at all, its a matter of removing 1 line from the Wikimedia config files. Just because option 2 happens to have had code written for it first doesn't mean its the best option. The opposite is also true. I never suggested that the other options are impossible, only that we are in a good position to implement the one that seems to have the most favor, and have been for some time. > D) I'm not entirely convinced its a good idea to use link syntax for a > non-link. Moot point, for all practical purposes, given both images and categories, which use "link syntax" (better thought of as "do something" syntax) to show a picture and put an article in a category, respectively. #2/#7 is just "do something, different in this case". (More accurately, it's "stop doing two things - linking and autoformatting - the latter of which is something different, and only do the one different thing".) > Category and Image links don't create normal links, but they do create links. That's picking nits; they would not actually have to - one could easily create a [[foo:...]] that did not create any form of link but did something else entirely, such as applying a CSS class or whatever. And [[date]] formatting could conceivably create some kind of "non-normal link", in some manner on the page somewhere, such as an entry in a (presently nonexistent) article timeline sidebar feature, or whatever. (For this reason, I faintly agree that dates should remain marked up with [[date]] formatting, rather than have the [[ and ]] removed by bots or by individuals with too much time on their hands.) E) I haven't tested it yet. True of all options, no? All that said, I'll ultimately be satisfied with any solution that ends the sea of useless blue date links, really. -- 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
