Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) m Protected Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Voting closed ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
=====I support Option #1 (link only relevant dates)=====
#Seems the best option of the four. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve Crossin|<
#To reduce link density, I believe in general only the ''relevant'' information should be linked, and this should be no different for dates. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
#Please, let common sense prevail. Links are hardly relevant and seldom help deepen understanding of the subject. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Per [[WP:OVERLINK]]. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, the links are almost never relevant. Remember, dates may be relevant, but the ''date articles'' that are being linked to almost always aren't. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Even when a date is notable in its own right, e.g. Christmas Day, it may be irrelevant to the passage in which it occurs. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]])
#'''Support''': The date links are almost never relevant, so this shouldn't need to be done too often. <small>[[User:Seicer|<
#Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, common sense. All links, including links to dates, should only exist when they further the understanding of an article's subject. [[User:Raven1977|<
#:<s>'''Support''' Though I have a fairly high standard for relevance. I would rank the options 1,4,2,3. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)</s>
#Support. Common sense suggests to ''me'' that option 4 should have almost exactly the same effect. But since not everybody agrees, this is much better, as it settles the question. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC) In fact, option 4 is the worst one because there is no chance it will end the fighting. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 10:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 18:
#'''Support''' Reduces pointless links, allows the odd occasion where strictly useful. Dates need treating separately from "normal links" due to the controversial issues surrounding date linking and autoformatting.—[[User:Mdcollins1984|MDCollins]] ([[User talk:Mdcollins1984|talk]]) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I would tend to support the ''remove guidance'' option, but I suspect that past tendencies to link all dates would lead to continued overlinking. Guidance is needed to limit date links to those of notable historical significance. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk:Tcncv|talk]]) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Per pretty much all supporters above. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
#'''Support''' I too pondered on the ''remove guidance'' option, but I think it is disparity on this issue that got us here in the first place. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is a helpful elaboration of the general guidance on wikilinks. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 26:
#Per Seicer. –<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong> | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Actually, I most support Option 4 - no guidance means nothing to edit war over, and the practical result would be identical to this guideline. Since the poll format ostensibly won't allow supporting multiple options (Why? Seriously, why?) I support this one on the basis already stated - it is identical to option 4 in practice, and more likely to be supported by others in practice. However, your poll format is broken in any case. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support.-[[User talk:gadfium|<
#'''Support'''—This conservative guidance on when to link month-day items (like, very rarely) is already established on WP. The project is now maturing in its use of wikilinking, from the original undisciplined scattergun to a more selective approach—''smart'' linking, if you like—that avoids diluting high-value links. It's about time. Nothing turns readers off more than a sea of blue, and they will tend to click on nothing. [[User:Tony1|<
#'''Support''' Like others, I find date linking unnecessary and dislike the extra blue. [[User:Bridies|bridies]] ([[User talk:Bridies|talk]]) 04:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. if the now-deprecated autoformatting system had not incidentally created links, we wouldn't need any extra guidance about linking dates - but it did, and we do. links should be made on the basis of the relevance of the articles they lead to. squillions of unwarranted links need to be removed. i'd also support changing the names of most month-day pages to something like List of Events on Month-Day Throughout History. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Seems like the most sensible text. While the treatment is not really different from other links (link only if relevant) date links require special guidance because they are so often made inappropriately.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 04:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—<
#'''Support'''. Rare links are of course okay. What we don't need is routine linking. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Date linking is a clunky solution in search of a problem. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
Line 38:
#'''Support''' Links should only be made to dates in exceptional circumstances where they are clearly relevant and needed to explain the context. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is the only option that explicitly states that each date link must be relevant. No more, no less. That is the same with non-date links but after a long period of overlinking, editors need explicit guidance. [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 08:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', with caveat that dates aren't ever ''per se'' "relevant".
#'''Support'''. Would be blessed to get rid of all the irrelevant date links that confuses articles now.--'''[[User:HJensen|HJensen]]''', ''[[User_talk:HJensen|talk]]'' 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We do need a rule, for consistency's sake (so no to Option 4). Dates just aren't normal links (so no to Option 3). I don't see a risk of orphaning date articles (so no to Option 2); if they are relevant to a given article they'll be linked to (so yes to Option 1). [[User:Ylee|YLee]] ([[User talk:Ylee|talk]]) 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 48:
#'''Support''' It makes the most sense - you don't want to link to days that are just "days" (birthdays etc.), but it would be rather weird to have a page on a holiday or a world event that didn't link to what was going on on that day... [[User:Bangdrum|Bangdrum]] ([[User talk:Bangdrum|talk]]) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per TKD. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
#'''Support''' - Only when relevant makes the most sense to me. [[User:Camw|Camw]] ([[User talk:Camw|talk]]) 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - this is what I've gotten used to in the past months, and it works just like any other links. This is equivalent to #4, but special guidance is necessary because of the history here. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is what [[WP:OVERLINK]] says, no reason why dates should be any different. — [[User:EmilJ|Emil]] [[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# ''' Reluctant support'''', I guess this is the best choice, but they are almost ''never'' relevant. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
# '''Support''' but we should be stronger and say that such links are almost never relevant in the guidance. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I hate seeing links to articles with no content related to what I am reading, they are pointless - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 59:
#'''Support''' — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' that dates are linked for chronological articles, but not for any other purpose. I strongly oppose the other options. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Unless specifically germane to the article or context, date links are almost always empty links. The prime example of a wikilink which illuminates little or nothing in the original article. [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']][[User_Talk:Pigman|<
#'''Reluctant Support''' per [[User:SandyGeorgia]]. I struggle to think of ''any'' circumstances in which these links should be included in articles, so I don't think this is strong enough - but it's the best choice of the four. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Perhaps in the future formal guidance on this issue can be removed. Since it's been a back and forth issue for a while, we need it for now, I think. --[[User:TreyGeek|TreyGeek]] ([[User talk:TreyGeek|talk]]) 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The vast majority of date links have no relevance to the article and should only be used when there is a meaning specific to the article. --[[User:Captain-tucker|Captain-tucker]] ([[User talk:Captain-tucker|talk]]) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' per most of the above arguments <big><font face="Old English Text MT"> [[User:Johnny Au|<span style="color:#ffd700;background:#000080">Johnny Au</span>]]</font></big> <sub>([[User talk:Johnny Au|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Johnny Au|contributions]])</sub> 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' 61 other people have said it. Read above. [[User:Alan16|<
# '''Support''' although should not be overused - should be used for articles about the date itself, or linking to very very particular and well recognised uses eg July 4. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ''sparingly'' --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 70:
#'''Support''', there is no need to needlessly overlink articles. [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] ([[User talk:Plastikspork|talk]]) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weak support'''. Seems the most logical to me, but implementing it will take careful work. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greggers</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]]
#'''Support'''. My preference would be to eliminate all linked dates, but this option is the best of the bunch. It avoids overlinking, unless there is some particular relevance to the date. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is concurrent with the general guideline to make onlyrelevant links. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. There are some rare links that are useful so this would seem to cover them. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
#'''Support'''. The history of this debate shows that guidance is necessary, so ''option 4'' is not sufficient. There is little reason to treat links to month-day articles differently from links to any article, so only those which are clearly relevant should be linked. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#When we link to articles whose content is not relevant to the context, we do our readers a disservice by distracting them from links to relevant articles. In the absolute majority of cases, month-day links are irrelevant to the context of the article from which they are being linked. –'''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])</sup> 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Links are pointless and detrimental unless they are of semantic value. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|edits]])</small> 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' These must comprise the overwhelming majority of pointless blue links! These articles are just big, useless lists of events, births and deaths-who clicks on them? [[User:RupertMillard|RupertMillard]] <small>([[User talk:RupertMillard|Talk]])</small> 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support:''' I don't find the actual day-month articles pointless as RupertMillard suggests (I rather like them!), but I don't think they should be linked to in the manner that they have been. I also think Option #4 is scary and will only lead to incessant edit-warring (which has already been happening, and we ''really'' don't need any more of that!). I think that some guide, somewhere, should state the accepted instances for date links (rare) and keep the issue quite simple and defined. [[User:Maedin|<b><
#'''Support'''. This should be the "common sense" option as I don't see any reason for it to be otherwise. Dates should be linked under the same rules as anything else - if relevant. |→ [[User:Spaully|Spaully]]<sup>₪</sup>[[User talk:Spaully|'''''†''''']] 18:19, 30 March 2009 ([[GMT]])
#'''Support'''. Links are useful mainly to define or further explain specific terms in an article. Nobody needs to look up the meaning of a date such as March 30. [[User:Dirac66|Dirac66]] ([[User talk:Dirac66|talk]]) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', allowing linking to Dec. 25 in the Christmas article. Frankly these links are almost never useful in the wider encyclopedia, but do have occasional value. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#{{Agree|Pro}} --[[User:Morten Haan|Morten]] ([[User talk:Morten Haan|talk]]) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' options 1 and 2. Note: marking in both lists for clarity. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per above, only link when needed. '''[[User:American Eagle|<
#'''Support''' per all the above. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Casliber above. We need to reach something definitive and hopefully put this issue to rest. <br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 95:
#'''Support''' Agree with comments 2,3,5,6, etc, etc, etc. [[User:CS46|CS]]<sup>[[46 (number)|46]]</sup> 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Date-linking in Wikipedia articles was a poor idea to begin, and the less of it, the better. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JGHowes|<font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> JGHowes </font>]]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>[[User talk:JGHowes|''talk'']]</sup></font></b></i> 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Would remove irrelevant links while still keeping ones that had value. – [[User:Joe_N|<
#'''Support'''. Seems obviously correct to me. [[User:Gareth McCaughan|Gareth McCaughan]] ([[User talk:Gareth McCaughan|talk]]) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Although in an ideal world, option #4 would be sufficient, in practice I think that the clarity of option #1 will be the most effective. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 105:
#'''Support'''. If it's relevant, then it is potentially useful to the reader and linking it would increase simplicity in the reader's point of view. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - dates should only be linked if the link makes sense, rather than every time. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - There have been many articles I frequent that have had links removed from them. To say I haven't missed them would be the understatement of the year. '''[[User:Giants2008|<
#'''Support''' this follows existing guidelines and just makes sense; don't link it if it isn't relevant -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Reasonable sense to link to only relevant dates otherwise it's unnecessary. [[User:DDima|ddima]][[User talk:DDima|.talk]] 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 111:
#'''Support''', Option 1 not only means that date links will be treated like other links, but there will also be a guideline to put an end to revert wars. We need a guideline because linking has already been done and de-linking means a change: imagine if the word [[imagine]] had been linked every time, then suddenly it wasn't. A guideline will prevent any short term confusion. [[User:Sillyfolkboy|Sillyfolkboy]] ([[User talk:Sillyfolkboy|talk]]) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''support''' and also support mass delinking of all such dates to get to where we should be: few links [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] ([[User talk:Hmains|talk]]) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' 99% of date links are irrelevant to the article content. [[User:RainbowOfLight|<
# First choice. [[User:Shoy|shoy]] <small>([[User talk:Shoy|reactions]])</small> 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This is the goldilocks option (not too hard, not too soft, but JUST RIGHT). There should be very few links to dates, but every once in a while, a link may be relevant. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 130:
#'''Support''', given most date links would otherwise be unhelpful happenstance and clutter. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', indiscriminate linking of dates is pointless. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Will reduce link density. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
#'''Support''', but I was almost tempted to option 2. The use of the word "relevant" will lead to edit wars down the road, but what's new about that? [[User:DavidBrooks|David Brooks]] ([[User talk:DavidBrooks|talk]]) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the proposal meets my expectations of linking only articles which are directly relevant, not those which will lead to a sea of blue irrelevance. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 147:
#'''Support'''. Very few dates really need to be linked and we do not need an article for every date. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This type of linking clearly amounts to gross over linking of information that does not add to article content. The only issue I have here is that interpretation of what is a relevant date may well be a cause for edit warring in the future. So if this passes, guidance should be to avoid unless it is clear that the link adds to the article and is really, really needed. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#Definitely the best option of the bunch. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<
#Not sure when a link to a date has helped someone. –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#B22222">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">edits</span>]]''</small> 06:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Common sense!! --[[User:Popiloll|Popiloll]] ([[User talk:Popiloll|talk]]) 07:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 154:
#'''Support'''—Day-month links should be treated like any other potential link but instead of simply removing any mention (option 4) explicit guidance not to link unless the content is germane and topical to the subject should act as a catalyst in turning back the tide and repairing the damage. There is still a fair bit of inertia to link dates out there; we some extra force to help the decelerating won't go astray. However, option 4 could be worth considering in a few years' time. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. A date can be a meaningful link. Where a link is useful it makes sense to do it. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weak support'''—If used properly, this use would be a rare occurrence. Usually the information on the date pages is over weighted toward certain types of events and not evenly weighted globally (battles in the Western world, English language literature etc.). As long as the editor carefully considers whether the info on the date page is relevant to the article, then I would support a limited use of this option. I personally have never found a date link meaningful and find it annoying when I accidently click on a date page. —[[User:Mattisse|<
#'''Support''' Pointless date links are annoying. Ditto above comment. [[User:CheesyBiscuit|CheesyBiscuit]] ([[User talk:CheesyBiscuit|talk]]) 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think that this is probably the best option [[User:VJ|VJ]] ([[User talk:VJ|talk]]) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 173:
#'''Support''' When relevant we should link. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Very reluctant Support''' because I see no better alternative. In the past I'd be closer to option 4, but now it seems too vague to me.--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] ([[User talk:Yannismarou|talk]]) 08:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've never followed a date link and found anything of relevance or interest, so they are a waste of time to putin, and dilute hight value links. A few relevant dates may benefit from linking.[[User:Yobmod|<b><
#'''Support''' This option improves on the amount of relevant links. (with the understanding that overlinking repeated cases of the same link is already discouraged by existing policy) - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Relevance should always be the operative factor in any link. <b><i>[[User:Ed Fitzgerald|Ed Fitzgerald]]</i> <sub>[[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]]</sub></b> 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 182:
#'''Support'''. Date links were generally irrelevant and just added to link overload, and I think they should be generally avoided. However, if the author thinks that a specific date is truly relevant, then they should be allowed to link. [[User:Esobocinski|Esobocinski]] ([[User talk:Esobocinski|talk]]) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Linking dates only adds to the "sea of blue" problem; only when strictly necessary should a date article be linked to, as we do for every other article. [[User:Steve|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">'''Steve'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve|C]]</sup> 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – While some editors might interpret this rule more loosely than others (such as using various "rationals" to support the linking of all months/days in an article), a formatting change is needed to reduce link density and irrelevance. <font face="constantia">[[User:Momoricks|'''<
#'''Support''' - Overlinking is something good to avoid - if a date link is there, then it should be there for relevance. Enforcing the rule will be time consuming though, so as long as there's a vigilant network for doing so, I'm in favour of Option 1 [[User:Australian Matt|Australian Matt]] ([[User talk:Australian Matt|talk]]) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Date links are usually irrelevant for readers. [[User:Cacycle|Cacycle]] ([[User talk:Cacycle|talk]]) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 189:
#'''Support''' I think users should have the ''option'' of seeing ''all'' dates linked, by means of improved date autoformatting/autolinking software — but I think the ''default'' should be something along the lines of option 1. --[[User:Sapphic|Sapphic]] ([[User talk:Sapphic|talk]]) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Pile on support''' per Duh. Wikilinks are there for a reason, when the reason is there, so should the wikilink.[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 06:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Me too'''--<small><b><i>Club<
#'''Support''' despite the destructive impact on [[WP:Wikington Crescent|Wikington Crescent]]. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I thought about the "remove guidance" option but that seems likely to lead to more arguments; guidance is just what is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#Why would people use these links? Probably not to find a definition of April 14, so we don't need a lot of linking to dates and years. [[User:Samulili|Samulili]] ([[User talk:Samulili|talk]]) 12:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' linking in only relevant cases. It is pointless to link to every date, or even every date that is distantly related to the article in which they appear. Linking these dates should only be used when obviously relevant.
#'''Support.''' This option just emphasizes the idea against overlinking for which dates have traditionally been overlinked too much. --[[User:Seav|seav]] ([[User talk:Seav|talk]]) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per relevance and populating What links here, which is often quite useful. [[User:Bendono|Bendono]] ([[User talk:Bendono|talk]]) 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 209:
# '''Support'''. Per Btphelps. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<font color="000000">Σ</font>]][[User talk:Explicit|<font color="000000">xplicit</font>]]''''' 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Removes unnecessary links and makes it easier to to read [[User:Hohohob|Hohohob]] ([[User talk:Hohohob|talk]]) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I see no need for any bare date links. Ever.--[[User:2008Olympian|<
#'''Support''' -- Same principle as for all links. KISS! -- [[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] ([[User talk:William Allen Simpson|talk]]) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Linking useful if there is a genuine connection, but not otherwise. More general linking leads to the ludicrous and overwhelming situation where trivial dates are linked, such as the date a web page was accessed (I've seen this more than once!). [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 216:
#'''Support''' Least complicated and most common sense option. [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Why does everything turn into such a debate. This makes sense, the others do not.--[[User:Mrboire|Mrboire]] ([[User talk:Mrboire|talk]]) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — Coherent, consistent, common-sense link policy calls for treating dates the same as we treat any other potentially linkable word, phrase, or number: we link them only if they are really relevant to the article at hand. We don't link words just on speculation that the reader might happen to find the link target interesting, or because we happen to be using a linkable word as part of the article text. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Scheinwerfermann|T]]</sup>
# '''Support''' -- Eliminates a lot of unnecessary link clutter, while still keeping the option available for cases where the links would actually be relevant. [[User:Bmpowell|Brian Powell]] ([[User talk:Bmpowell|talk]]) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' All links should be included only if relevant, right? Why should dates be any different? [[User:The Grand Rans|The Grand Rans]] ([[User talk:The Grand Rans|talk]]) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support.''' It is unconscionable to adopt a policy by which supplying ''irrelevant'' links is a feature of the default practice. Most occurrences of dates, in most contexts, are simple markers on a timeline; they are not gateways to any sort of rich and relevant background. In most cases, therefore, a link would make a false promise, and distract from the force and immediacy of the text.–<font color="blue"><sub>'''[[User_talk:Noetica |⊥]]'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>[[User_talk:Noetica |T]]</sup>– 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# Not sure if I understand the difference between this and Option #2, though. (It seems like such an edge case.) --[[User:Cyde|<
# '''Support''' - guides the reader to other articles only when valuable to do so. --[[User:4wajzkd02|4wajzkd02]] ([[User talk:4wajzkd02|talk]]) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Treat it like any other link; we deplore overlinking, and mindless policy-driven month/day linking has long been an egregious example. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<
# '''Support''' Date links are rarely relevant IMHO, but I wouldn't object to there being language to allow linking them in certain cases or when there is a concensus. [[User:Dissolve|<span style="color: #000; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;">dissolve</span>]][[User talk:Dissolve|<span style="color: #000; font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -- [[User talk:Acroterion|Acroterion]] said it best...Treat it like any other link. Link when relevant. [[User:Farmercarlos|Farmercarlos]] ([[User talk:Farmercarlos|talk]]) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'''...whatever the hundred or so people said before me. But really, this is better than either alternative (link all, or link none: either hampers usability). ~[[user:orngjce223]] <
# '''Support''' - yup. [[User:Xenus|Xenus]] ([[User talk:Xenus|talk]]) 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' there's no need to link dates except in rare circumstances. Guidance is needed to prevent edit wars over this, and this seems the best option. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Does this section read "use resonable judgement." I'm a fan of that! [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' best option --[[User:Armchair info guy|Armchair info guy]] ([[User talk:Armchair info guy|talk]]) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Date links are almost always irrelevant. Link when relevant only, it's a far simpler rule to work with. --[[User:Ged UK|<
#'''Support''' Let the writer decide and others edit what is relevant. We'll end up with completely blue pages if we start down this path! [[User:Wikipeterproject|Wikipeterproject]] ([[User talk:Wikipeterproject|talk]]) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Seems appropriate to link only relevant dates, no context for dates, i.e. [[WP:OVERLINK]]. [[User:Rehevkor|Rehevkor]] <big>[[User talk:Rehevkor|<
#'''Support'''. If a link adds value to an article, include it. If not, don't. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I see this problem as one pertaining to relevancy, and option 1 seems to solve this problem just perfectly. --[[User:A.K.R.|A.K.R.]] ([[User talk:A.K.R.|talk]]) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 241:
#'''Support''' Put an end to this silly overlinking.[[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', linking dates provides no relevant information in the majority of cases. '''<font face="verdana">[[User:Cornucopia|<span style="color: Orangered">Corn.u.</span><span style="color: crimson">co.pia</span>]] • [[User talk:Cornucopia|<span style="color: Teal">Disc.u</span><span style="color: Seagreen">s.sion</span>]]</font>''' 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', linking to a date usually adds nothing to an article. <small>[[User:Udonknome|<
#'''Support'''. Linking of dates other than according to this principle is just annoying visual noise. Removing guidance altogether is a recipe for future conflict. The best option is a simple guideline like this one. [[User:McKay|McKay]] ([[User talk:McKay|talk]]) 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Like any other term, a date should be linked only when appropriate, according to the editors' judgment. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-11 16:15 z</small>''
Line 249:
#'''Support''', erring on the side of not linking (if some other autoformat option is available).--[[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#228b22" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Option 1 seems to make the most sense as links should only really be provided if they would be helpful for the reader on the topic they are reading. Removing all guidance would just be unhelpful and would cause future conflicts. [[User:Camaron|Camaron | Chris]] <small>[[User talk:Camaron|(talk)]]</small> 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This seems to make the most sense—only links that are relevant, and all links that are relevant. It's worth having policy on dates as well as other links.<font face="Candara">[[Special:Contributions/Jchthys|<font color="dark red">—</font>]][[
#'''Support''' This is the only option that makes sense. -- '''[[User:M2Ys4U|M2Ys4U]]''' <sup>(
# '''Support''' We should be strict about this. ''Such links should share an important connection with that subject'' Let relevancy rule, with a tight interpretation of "relevancy". [[User:Reconsideration|Reconsideration]] ([[User talk:Reconsideration|talk]]) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''; these links are usually unnecessary. Option 4 would be fine too. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]<sup>[[:wikisource:User:Spangineer|ws]]</sup> [[User talk:Spangineer|<small
#'''Support''' - I expect that hardly ever would these links be appropriate. —[[User:Mattisse|<
#'''Support''' This strikes me as the best option of the four. Removing all date linking is too harsh, offering no guidance is a mess, and allowing the first date reference to be linked is useful for years but not full dates. --[[User:Perry Middlemiss|Perry Middlemiss]] ([[User talk:Perry Middlemiss|talk]]) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
# I find this the most reasonable option: it avoids undue rigidity, but offers, at the same time, simple guidance based on established linking practice. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 259:
#'''Support''' Links should always be relevant, and dates should be no exception. In addition, if the resolution of the autoformatting question is that autoformatting is not desired by the community, or if autoformatting is desired and the eventual implementation of it does not rely on linked dates, links that were ''solely'' for the purpose of autoformatting will need to be removed. Two important points related to this, however. First, no links should be removed until the question of autoformatting is decided. Second, the most efficient method of removing these links is through automated and semi-automated methods. However, since it is impossible for bots and scripts to determine relevancy. a method must first be created to identify and protect links that are determined by editors to be relevant — this, for me, is the main issue related to the current arbitration. [[User:Mlaffs|Mlaffs]] ([[User talk:Mlaffs|talk]]) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Articles that have dozens of dates, all linked, simply look cluttered. This indicates that some editors are not thinking about what will help the reader, but are just following a formula. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This proposed standard relies upon editors' discretion, but that's not unusual for an MOS item. In this case, although that means that there isn't a simple algorithm that covers all possible instances (relevance is context-dependent), the likelihood is high that the end result will be broadly acceptable to the users of the encyclopedia. [[User:TheFeds|<font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">
=====I support Option #2 (commemorative links only)=====
Line 271:
#'''Support''', though only very marginally over option 1 - they both make sense. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. -- [[User:KelleyCook|KelleyCook]] ([[User talk:KelleyCook|talk]]) 15:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — [[
#'''Support''', first choice. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Of lack of an option that simply eliminates all possible date linking, this will provide the least blue. Date links have no function and reduce readability significantly. Dates are the worst—they look hideous, and serve no practical function for the reader. <font face="serif">[[User:Arsenikk|<font color="green"><strong>Arsenikk</strong></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Arsenikk|<
#'''Support''' - I think month-day links should generally be avoided, but that they would be acceptable in articles referring to a holiday or other event that is intrinsically linked with a particular date. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. [[user:kennedy|<font color="#800000" face="lucida handwriting">Kennedy</font>]] <sup>([[user_talk:kennedy|<
#'''Support''': I prefer this as it is stricter than option 1, but otherwise count this as secondary support for option 1. Option 3 is boneheaded; it misapprehends why we link first occurrences of many things ("[[albinism]]", "[[rugby union]]", etc.), but do not at all link other things ("woman", "night", etc.) except in very particular and peculiar contexts. Option 4 is simply pointless, since as disputations over linking dates re-arise, the necessity to add guidance on the matter to the MOS will automatically also re-arise. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Options 1 and 3 are overlinking. Option 4 is the road to inconsistency and edit wars. This is a good compromise. – [[User:IbLeo|IbLeo]] ([[User talk:IbLeo|talk]]) 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 304:
#'''Support''' I see no fundamental reason why 1) Wikipedia should have uniform expectations or 2) such expectations should be enforced. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I wish I could say something more than what has been clearly -- if not forcefully -- stated above. There are many, many useless links in articles that have nothing to do with days, months or years, but for some reason a group of Wikipedians have decided to focus their attentions on removing ''all'' date-related links, instead of finding & removing these unhelpful links. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' as I found it very useful and interesting to be able to click a date and see what other events happened then. Yes, there were (and still are) a lot of articles linked to specific dates (as happens in a world with a long history), but I think that argument is irrelevant. All this worry about articles having too many links to them is pointless worry as we will have more and more articles linked to each other as the encyclopedia grows. Are we going to start limiting the number of links which can be placed into articles when we reach 5 or 10 million articles just so we don't have "too many links" to any given article? That's just absurd. We're going to have to accept that many articles on main topic are going to have hundreds, thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of links to them. In the case of dates, it's likely they will be on the high end of things, but that's what happens when an online encyclopedia grows. And the argument that someone is going to have to go put back the links that someone removed is absurd. Just run the same bots again, only in reverse. It certainly won't be any more difficult than it was to remove them all. I also '''strongly oppose #1 and #2''' and #3 is too arbitrary. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
#'''Support''' per Nihonjoe --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've been aware of these discussions for a while and today I saw the watchlist notice so I decided to finally make a comment on the topic. I find these proposals [[WP:CREEP|CREEPY]]. This is much more than when to use italic text or in what way bullet points should be used in an article. This is about links, the fundamental infrastructure of the web and the connections between articles on Wikipedia. Whether or not a specific date article requires a link is not the point, such a blanket guideline is too much and it'd be better handled on a case by case basis. --[[User:Bill|Bill]] <sup>([[User_talk:Bill|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bill|contribs]])</sup> 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Let the editors maintain control over what ''is'' and ''isn't'' relevant. bots do enough as it is — [[User:Ched Davis|Ched]] ~ <sup><i> [[User talk:Ched Davis|(yes?)]]</i></sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ched Davis|©]]</sub> 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Dates should be treated like anything else, if they are relevant to the article they can be linked. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User:TJ Spyke|<
#'''Support''' We need exactly one rule for when to use links, dates are not special. When I click on a link I expect useful information in the context of what I am reading. Date categories serve the purpose of linking in time similar events and can be specific to the type of article. --[[User talk:NrDg|NrDg]] 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Many dates require linking, regardless - and besides that, Infoboxes look much nicer when dates are highlighted. Hence, I support #4. [[User:Daniel Benfield|Daniel Benfield]] ([[User talk:Daniel Benfield|talk]]) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 320:
#'''Strong support''' I really agree with [[User:J04n|J04n]]'s comment. With Wikipedia edited by many contributors, with different ideas of appropriateness, imposing one Procrustean solution is stupid. (I felt the same about year linking, and I wonder why the two are being polled separately.) -- [[User:BRG|BRG]] ([[User talk:BRG|talk]]) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Let editors determine appropriate implementation at the article or project level. Content discussions are not under the purview of MOS. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. Anything that doesn't need to be in the MOS, shouldn't be in the MOS. Trust the editors to know what's best in each set of circumstances. – '''<font style="font-family: Courier">[[User:Iridescent|<
#'''Support''' this proposal that leads to the least rule-creep.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Black">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="black" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Black" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per guyzero above.
#'''Support'''. Do we really need the instruction creep? '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
#'''Support'''. Enough instructions already.--[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. However, leave a comment that the style used to be to link every date, and many articles still do this, but now dates should only be linked if the they follow the general rules. [[User:JonH|JonH]] ([[User talk:JonH|talk]]) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Treating dates like other links does not seem much different from proposed solutions. And yet, the cost of a specific guideline is nonzero. --[[User:User6985|Thomas B]]
#'''Strong Support''' Where to add links and what to link to is currently at the discretion of the editor. I would need a compelling reason to change this. [[User:Phil burnstein|Phil_burnstein]] ([[User talk:Phil burnstein|talk]]) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Reconsidering my position. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Every unnecessary piece of policy should go.--[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 09:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Editors can make up their own minds. Too many rules and they're unlikely to be followed. [[User:G-Man|<
#'''Support'''. This or option three, but mostly I think editors should decide. I'm not troubled by overlinking, and I believe attempts to make Wikipedia conform to a consistent style are futile and foolish. There's already too much excuse for rule-mongering editor-hobgoblins to tromp on newcomers. [[User:Fijagdh|Fijagdh]] ([[User talk:Fijagdh|talk]]) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (or rather, oppose everything else) - years are one thing, but days are usually pointless. Leave it up to the editors' discretion. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<
#'''Support''' I've never understood the need for these links. --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The date pages have nothing of consequence to these articles, end the clutter and get rid of them all. You can still find them by typing it in the search box.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">[[User:JLogan|<sub>J</sub>.Logan`]][[User talk:JLogan|<sup>t</sup>]]</font>: 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 341:
=====Other comments=====
*[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] originally gave reasons for their opposition to the first 3 options [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADate_formatting_and_linking_poll%2FMonth-day_responses&diff=280526740&oldid=280524814 here]. Ryan removed them because they should go in the comments section. I've linked Septentrionalis' original opposition diff here as I don't want to refactor their words but feel a history record should be present in canse Septentrionalis does not return to comment further. <small>[[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
**Much obliged. This has, however, succeeded in suppressing my arguments. I am sure this is not Ryan's intention; but those who unilaterally imposed this format have motives not beyond question. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*(Without having checked [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]s comments). Option 4 seems acceptable, but would require additional interpretation to see if it where it would end up fitting in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3. Furthermore, option 1 is mis-titled; it should read "link to only (presently) relevant date '''articles'''". Where "link to only relevant dates" would appear in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3 would also be a subject for discussion. For those who wish to quote [[WP:OVERLINK]], this would explicitly amend that guideline, as well. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 23:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
*Requiring voters to pick exactly one option is broken. It's possible for a rational person to find two options generally acceptable, and at least one option unacceptable, and this format essentially requires voters to pick one of their preferred options at random and hope that everyone with identical properties picks exactly the same way rather than splitting down the middle. An Acceptable/Unacceptable vote for each choice would have been far better. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
* The adv/disadv discussed metadates, yet all options only addressed linking, not metadates, so it is unclear whether that is an oversight, presumed or inferred. [[User:Billinghurst|billinghurst]] ([[User talk:Billinghurst|talk]]) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' is intuitive, since the reason most people oppose month/date linking is the same reason they oppose any other overlinking. But month/date linking is such a ubiquitous "problem" (if it is a problem) that I think it deserves its own mention outside of regular overlinking guidelines, to make our stance more explicit. At the very least, that would be helpful when you need to provide a rationale for having added or removed date links in an article. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
* It seems to me that Option 2 is more restrictive than Option 1, as it excludes all relevant, but non-commemorative links. However, I question whether I'm interpreting it correctly, because I had it in mind that Arthur Rubin (sole supporter of Option 2 at this time) generally favored linking dates. I oppose irrelevant links, and believe that major celebrations that always happen on the same day of a year are generally relevant links. That is, I'd link to [[July 4]] for the American holiday generally known as [[The Fourth of July]], but not [[System Administrator Appreciation Day]] (even if it were always 31 July instead of on the last Friday of July).
*Why is [[1940s]] mentioned? It's not a month or day. I could have supported #1, but I can imagine lots of articles that could link to 1940s with good reason. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 352:
***That's pure [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]]. The obvious reason is that the [[1940s]] are not mentioned as an article that needs an exception for being linked ''to'' (it doesn't, because it's not covered by this poll). They are mentioned as an example of an article ''from'' which even under option 1 it will be OK to link to [[1940]], [[1941]], ..., [[1949]] (and perhaps also to [[1937]] and [[1956]]). --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
*The format of this poll is protested; see [[Wikipedia_talk:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Year-linking_responses#Format_unacceptable|this section on talk]]. A {{tl|disputedtag}} would be appropriate. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*I hate to be the first one to go out on a limb and ask this, but why is there no option that advises against all links? Judging by the commentary up there, such an option would receive substantial support. '''[[User:Giants2008|<
**This has been noted by several editors, but it is too late to go back and address it now. In any case, I think we can all tell by looking that dates should be linked once in a blue moon, if ever. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
**If you want to disallow links from [[1940s]] or [[1939]] to [[1940]] you are not going to get much support. If you allow them, it's really just a special case of option 1. Obviously the fine-tuning of option 1 should happen after the poll; otherwise we would have had to fine-tune the other options as well. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 378:
* I think Option #1 is '''particularly stupid.''' Who decides what is '''relevant'''? -- [[User:BRG|BRG]] ([[User talk:BRG|talk]]) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
** very good point. thats why we need an option to vote against all date linking. [[User:Loosmark|Loosmark]] ([[User talk:Loosmark|talk]]) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Doesn't consensus decide what is releavnt, as with all content? Voting for no linking ever would mean over-riding consensus on a page, in which linking a date is really useful (can't think when, but it could happen!). Guidelines should be flexible wrt consensus.[[User:Yobmod|<b><
::::Too right it does. That's what collaboration is all about![[User:Wikipeterproject|Wikipeterproject]] ([[User talk:Wikipeterproject|talk]]) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
* I ''think'' I might be in favor of Option 1. However, the write-up given for this option would be a lot more useful if it included example(s) of instances where the date ''should'' be linked, rather than just the converse. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] ([[User talk:Jgm|talk]]) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 384:
====== How to disable the display of wikilinks on dates ======
From [[Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#CSS link color settings for mw-formatted-date]]. After some testing, it was found that following addition to ones CSS (at [[Special:Mypage/monobook.css]] if you are using the standard style sheet) disables the display of wikilinks around dates:
<
Hope this helps. -- User:Docu
:Thanks, Docu ... except that I ''like'' my wikilinks. Thing is, ''smart'' linking—that is, a selective approach—is the way to optimise the utility of linking for our readers and ourselves. (I do turn the bright blue down to a darker shade of blue, but that may be because my Mac monitor is pretty strong on colour display. My user page has instructions on how to do so.) [[User:Tony1|<
::Personally, I wasn't under that impression. I'm sure you'd be better off if you just changed the link color of auto formatted dates. The articles will always disappoint you in the context of most articles they are linked from, similar to other frequently linked articles, e.g. [[United States]]. This unless you know how they are structured and what they include. -- User:Docu
| |||