Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m fixing lint error using AWB |
m Fixed Lint errors on this page (obsolete tags) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
=====I support Option #1 (link only relevant years)=====
#Best option out of the four. If the year link is relevant to the article, link it. If not, don't. <
#I would prefer absolutely no links at all, because they are hardly relevant and seldom help deepen understanding of the subject. Let common sense prevail. Few links only please. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Once again only link to the year if it is very ''relevant'' to the topic. Links to YYYY in music/film etc. are okay, but even some of those are linked to too much. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><
#Per [[WP:OVERLINK]]. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Even when a date is notable in its own right, e.g. [[1492]], it may be irrelevant to the passage in which it occurs. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''': We are overlinking enough as is. <small>[[User:Seicer|<
#Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, the value of these links are way overstated. Year articles are still (mostly) lists of trivia; please note that I am not necessarily saying that these articles are ''bad'', just that they will not help readers of other articles in their current format. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, only link the year if it's relevant to the article. Again, common sense and the best way to prevent overlinking, in my opinion. [[User:Raven1977|<
#Support. Exactly the same effect as option 4, except there is a chance of less fighting. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Just to make sure that nobody reads this as option 4 being my 2nd choice. It is not. It's actually the worst option because it doesn't settle the question. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Date links, like all others, should enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. This can be decided on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 18:
#'''Support''' as per Greg L.—[[User:Mdcollins1984|MDCollins]] ([[User talk:Mdcollins1984|talk]]) 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (Ditto my date linking reason.) 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]]) 00:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Per Steve, Bishonen, and Greg. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
#'''Support''' The additional guidance would help avoid overlinking years. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as this is the closest to my preferred position of link no dates at all. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 24:
#Per Steve Crossin. –<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>]] 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''': Of all the options available, I support this one. I tire of seeing fields of blue date links that take me to places that are not germane to the topics I'm reading.[[User:SteveB67|SteveB67]] ([[User talk:SteveB67|talk]]) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support.-[[User talk:gadfium|<
#'''Support''': Year articles are almost entirely a bunch of coincidental happenings. I cannot find ''one'' year article that would provide the deeper understanding of a topic that you'd want it to (see Bishonen, above). The sea of blue looks seriously unprofessional in an article, dilutes the good links, and clutters the text. The "See also" section at the bottom is a better place if an editor feels an unbridled urge to link to one or two years, but I'd still want to see the justification—not just so people can indulge in discretionary browsing (I think we kid ourselves that readers hit such links, anyway). [[User:Tony1|<
#'''Support''' I find year links unnecessary and dislike the extra blue. [[User:Bridies|bridies]] ([[User talk:Bridies|talk]]) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I strongly oppose the presumption in #2, that links to year articles (which contain mostly trivia) are somehow more relevant in the case of birth and death dates. If anything, they are less relevant. Random events occurring in some year are almost never relevant to the life of someone born in that year, for example.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 05:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—<
#'''Support'''. links should be made when the articles they lead to are relevant. on the rare occasions when a year page might add some useful context, the "see also" section is the perfect place for it. i would also support renaming most year articles to something like "List of Events in [Year]". [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 05:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', as with the date links. (Note that in a perfect world I would side with Pmanderson and vote for complete removal, but apparently some people need to be told more explicitly.) [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 35:
#'''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]]) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Why link to irrelevant years like birth years, unless they are relevant? So, only link to years if they are relevant. I was puzzled why I linked to years when I joined the project three years ago. It was and is a waste of time and adds nothing to articles.--'''[[User:HJensen|HJensen]]''', ''[[User_talk:HJensen|talk]]'' 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with caveat that years are seldom "relevant" ''per se''.
#'''Support'''. I need say no more, as before. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] <sub>[[[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]]</sub> 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)\
#'''Support'''. Years that aren't relevant don't need to be linked, which is most of them. [[User:Extremepro|Extremepro]] ([[User talk:Extremepro|talk]]) 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 43:
#'''Support'''. If I understand correctly, then this is what we do now. I see no reason to change. Adding unhelpful links to articles harms Wikipedia, since readers are misled as to where they might find additional relevant information.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I was going to write something witty, but Bishonen encapsulated it much better than I could have (or is it would have?) [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Option 2 was also tempting, but Arther Rubin's comment down in the Comments section (that it's too open to interpretation) is a good point, and also there is the problem that it would add yet another detail to scare newbies. So I can't support Option 2 unless it is clarified (for example, to link only the year in the first sentence of the article, where it says when X person was born or X book was written), and even then I might still not support it. Option 1, on the other hand, can effectively allow the same kind of linking and delinking as Option 2, and is an easier "rule of thumb" to remember. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
#'''Support''' The most reasonable proposal. Articles shouldn't be overlinked with trivial links. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] ([[User talk:Darwinek|talk]]) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This seems to be the best option. [[User:Camw|Camw]] ([[User talk:Camw|talk]]) 13:40, 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]] 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', just like with month-day linking. — [[User:EmilJ|Emil]] [[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' because it's the best choice, but year links are almost ''never'' relevant. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
# '''Support''' Here, however, there are likely to be relevant articles that should have significant prose and could be linked via piped links (e.g. XXXX in European politics, YYYY in Asian art - where XXXX and YYYY might be years, decades, or centuries depending on the topic and time). Such links are generally more likely to be relevant than the useless year lists we currently have. It would be fine if the guidance suggested such piped context links as more likely to be of use to the reader. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as per my response to the month-day poll - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 55:
#'''Support''' per Bishonen. But again, I want this to be a bit stronger - the year articles are almost always irrelevant to the subject at hand and should almost never be linked to. If you want to reference an event that happened in a specific year, surely it's far more logical to link the event. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#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]]) 15:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Basically the same as above. [[User:Alan16|<
#'''Strong support''' based on most of the above. <big><
#'''Support''' Makes the most sense, although I personally see no point in links to year except in date articles. I think the piped links are a good idea and should not be discouraged, and discouraging direct year links will make them more visible. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Suport''' What SandyGeorgia said. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 66:
#'''Support'''. Whatever we can do to minimize the unnecessary overlinking of years. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is concurrent with the general guideline to make onlyrelevant links. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We have to veer toward quality links for our reader's benefit. This is a good step. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
#'''Support'''. It is important to distinguish between a year being relevant to an article and the year-article being relevant. Often the first is true; very rarely the latter. Clear guidance is essential to avoid future disputes. When year-articles reach the quality of 1345, 1346 and 1347, then links to them will likely be relevant. This option will remove the current state of overlinking, without prejudicing relevant links when year-articles are improved. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 17:14, 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, year 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> 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 76:
#{{Agree|Pro}} --[[User:Morten Haan|Morten]] ([[User talk:Morten Haan|talk]]) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per SandyGeorgia. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 18:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support:''' Really can't see the point in linking them. Others supporting in this section have said it much better! [[User:Maedin|<b><
#'''Support'''. I don't value linking the years...I never use them myself so it scores as code-cruft to me.<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<
#'''Support''' this option, seems the best of those presented. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. As with date linking, it's only useful occasionally. [[User:Mr Stephen|Mr Stephen]] ([[User talk:Mr Stephen|talk]]) 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Most logical. [[User:Kellen`|Kellen]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kellen`|T]]</sup> 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is the most logical and most practical option. [[User:EdGl|<
#'''Support'''. Same as the dates; years can occasionally be relevant, but very rarely and therefore much be linked to with caution. – [[User:Joe_N|<
#'''Support''' per Hans Adler. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is the only option that makes any sense and avoids linking to articles that are irrelevant to the first article. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 88:
#'''Support'''. As with the month-day linking poll, option 1 is the best option by a distance. Useful rarely, overused massively. [[User:Julianhall|Julianhall]] ([[User talk:Julianhall|talk]]) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Faithlessthewonderboy|<span style="color:blue">'''faithless'''</span>]] [[User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy|<small><span style="color:black">(<sup>'''speak'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I see no point in having these links, and like I said above, I haven't missed them in cases where they have been removed. '''[[User:Giants2008|<
#'''Support''', agree this is the best option and brings year linking into compliance with general linking guidelines - if its relevant, fine, but just linking Year in films, year in Sports, year itself, etc is not. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' The bright blue is a visual distraction and it's only relevant to [[numerology|numerologists]]. [[User:VikSol|VikSol]] 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''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]]) 02:47, 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]]) 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Most years are highly overlinked and irrelevant to article content. [[User:RainbowOfLight|<
# First choice. [[User:Shoy|shoy]] <small>([[User talk:Shoy|reactions]])</small> 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support.''' Best choice to limit over-linking and improve the readability of articles and the utility of links is to treat years just like any other word- only link if it's a related or useful topic. --[[User:Spasemunki|Clay Collier]] ([[User talk:Spasemunki|talk]]) 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)<br><
# The year in which a person is born is seldom relevant. A [[wp:mos]] should point that out. '''Support this option or No. 4.''' Yours, [[User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] ([[User talk:GeorgeLouis|talk]]) 05:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Again, another thing that has always puzzled me since I joined Wikipedia. Links should always be relevant. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]]. [[User:IanManka|Ian Manka]] 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' but that does not mean no autoformatting. Especially for negative years (before year 0). If we want more cool tools exposing Wikipedia data in interesting ways, we must write years in a very explicit way. [[User:Nicolas1981|Nicolas1981]] ([[User talk:Nicolas1981|talk]]) 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''': only articles with relevant information should be linked to, otherwise why link? Other uses are trivia. [[User:NJGW|NJGW]] ([[User talk:NJGW|talk]]) 07:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''': I was leaning towards option 2, but in reality, I don't see the benefit of finding out more about a year someone was born. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;background:#ffffff">[[user:Worm That Turned|<
#'''Support''' Again, this seems the best option to reduce unnecessary blue links. --[[User:JD554|JD554]] ([[User talk:JD554|talk]]) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#As with month/day, above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#'''Support''' but option 1 doesn't give a good example of a reason to link to a general year article like [[1795]]. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I would also suggest to avoid linking to articles like [[1964 in sports]] because they are rater useless. [[Timeline of World War II (1942)]] is fine. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 110:
#'''Support''', as above. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' There is no point in irrelevant links. That they might be "interesting" is not the point (and is also a rather unlikely outcome anyway: have you tried reading those articles?). [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Only link if the year is directly relevant to the article. Less is more when it comes to links. The more links, the less impact each link has. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
#'''Support''' As most logical. Option 4 doesn't seem to preclude the ''re-creation'' of mosdate guidelines after they are removed. All options except 1 will lead to an overly high [[Wikipedia:Overlinking#Link_density|link density]] in too many situations. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' so once more we stick with linking relevant links only and not inundating our readers [[with]] [[a]] [[bunch]] [[of]] unrelated [[link]]s. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 117:
#'''Support''': only when directly relevant, to reduce the burden on readers. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', second choice. Option #2 is my first choice. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Context-irrelevant links are worth avoiding, and there is no reason to make an exception for dates. ~ [[User:Mazca|<
#'''Support''', just adds visual clutter and very low-value links. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC).
#'''Support''' - it settles the issue by setting a policy. The policy doesn't need to be rigidly enforced and awareness of it doesn't need to be high. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) <b> clarification:</b> Would prefer no date linking at all. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the only sensible option provided, link the date to a relevant listing that connects to the article's content. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
#'''Support''' - Relevence ''good'' - Irrelevence ''bad''. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
#'''Support''' per summary. don't see the need for linking birth / death years, already linked to year of birth and death categories and onwards, and several million links to years does nothing really worthwhile.--<small><b><i>Club<
#'''Support'''. Most years do not need linking. Only a few add anything to the article by having a link. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 02:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as the most logical option. Again to avoid edit wars, guidance should be to only use if you can make a strong case for adding the link. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 129:
#'''Support'''. The most relevant option. --[[User:Popiloll|Popiloll]] ([[User talk:Popiloll|talk]]) 07:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—As with day-month links, year links should be treated like any other potential link. However, we're not ready for option 4 yet. Explicit guidance not to overlink will be a helpful maybe even essential part of reversing the damage done so far. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
#'''Support''' Too many year links are annoying, and they're usually worthless. [[User:CheesyBiscuit|CheesyBiscuit]] ([[User talk:CheesyBiscuit|talk]]) 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is the best option, we don't need to overlink [[User:VJ|VJ]] ([[User talk:VJ|talk]]) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 143:
#'''Support''' In nearly all cases, date links are irrelevant and distracting. Exceptions can be made for the few that aren't. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Again per Rivertorch, who appears to be reading my mind.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've never followed a year link and found anything of relevance or interest, so they are a waste of time to put in, and dilute hight value links. A few relevant year may benefit from linking, but rarely.[[User:Yobmod|<b><
#'''Support''' The sea of blue which can be found in some articles is worsened by having irrelevant date links. Only relevant links are useful, and as such ''only'' these should be highlighted in blue. See [[WP:OVERLINK]] [[User:-m-i-k-e-y-|<strong>-<
#'''Support'''. Year links should be done at most to year articles on specific subjects. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] ([[User talk:Woodstone|talk]]) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support,''' pretty much for the same reasons as supporting Option #1 on month/day links. --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 152:
#'''Support'''. Seems the most reasonable option: Don't link years that are just factual timeline markers, which is by far the most common. Optionally link years if the year article provides relevant context. [[User:Esobocinski|Esobocinski]] ([[User talk:Esobocinski|talk]]) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Link years only when necessary for context or usefulness, as we do for everything else. I really wonder why this was controversial all these years. [[User:Steve|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">'''Steve'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve|C]]</sup> 22:08, 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 years in an article), a formatting change is needed to reduce link density and irrelevance. In addition, piped year links, such as <nowiki>[[2008 in film|2008]]</nowiki>, are useful to readers. <
#'''Support''' - As per Months and Days. Relevance isn't a difficult thing to determine with years. [[User:Australian Matt|Australian Matt]] ([[User talk:Australian Matt|talk]]) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - All links must be relevant for users. [[User:Cacycle|Cacycle]] ([[User talk:Cacycle|talk]]) 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#[[File:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' - relevant links can prevent overlinking. '''[[User:MC10|<
#'''Support'''. Guidelines should strongly encourage links such as [[1924 in Science]] in the see also sections as an alternative however.[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 06:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. As for the month-day linking. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 11:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 171:
# '''Support''' Almost all date links are, as stated frequently above, actively useless. To be discouraged unless serving some function. [[User:Igenlode|Igenlode]] ([[User talk:Igenlode|talk]]) 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', as least worst option, most year links are unnecessary. There may be occasional uses for it which I have not as yet encountered. The main potential use is already covered by cateorys such as 1937 births, etc. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Best of the worst option. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<
#Support. Most fitting option I believe. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Better option. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> ThinkBlue </span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue/Autograph book|'''BLUE''')]]</span> 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As per month linking relevancy. [[User:Hohohob|Hohohob]] ([[User talk:Hohohob|talk]]) 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I see no need for any bare date links. Ever.--[[User:2008Olympian|<
#'''Support''' Link where truly relevant, not otherwise. [[User:Richard New Forest|Richard New Forest]] ([[User talk:Richard New Forest|talk]]) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', although I do wish dates were not linked whatsoever. '''<
#'''Support''' - little benefit of linking to these lists with only trivial common connection. If an event is topically linked to others (no matter what year), perform the courtesy of linking directly to it - it's neither useful nor helpful to leave your readers scrabbling through a trivia list of events that happened in an almost arbitrary 365.25 day band around it. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' this option provides guidance on when to link, guidance that will help avoid overlinking, and such guidance will help minimize style dispute. —[[User:Danorton|Danorton]] ([[User talk:Danorton|talk]]) 18:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' appropriate guidance. years are rarely useful, so generally should not be linked. occasionally they can be helpful (e.g. linking [[1970s]] in the article [[western cosmetics in the 1970s]], so readers can see other cultural changes of the era). because there is a particular problem with overlinking years (a relic of autoformatting of yore) it makes sense to add a guideline specific to years. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 18:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A guideline encouraging sensible discussion will be more likely to lead to sensible editorial choices. [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Of lack of an option that simply eliminates all possible date linking, this will provide the least blue. Date and year links have no function and reduce readability significantly. <
#'''Support''' seems to be the standard of wikipedia to include what is noteworthy, and this would follow that recomendation.--[[User:Mrboire|Mrboire]] ([[User talk:Mrboire|talk]]) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — Coherent, consistent, common-sense link policy calls for treating years 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>·<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Scheinwerfermann|C]]</sub><small>00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
#'''Support''' As has been repeated many, many times by myself and others, every link should be included if relevant and not if not. Date links are no exception.
# '''Support.''' For the same reason as I gave for other date links: It is unconscionable to adopt a policy by which supplying ''irrelevant'' links is the default. 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. I grant that the year will ''sometimes'' be relevant – more often than a month or a precise day. In such a case, linking may be a good option. Simple!–<
#Wowza, this option has landslide support. Looks like the community is finally coming to a consensus on this issue. --[[User:Cyde|<
# '''Support''', easily, creating links to every single year is kinda useless. As [[Wikipedia:Overlinking]] says. [[User:Xenus|Xenus]] ([[User talk:Xenus|talk]]) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - links to years are generally unhelpful, and this option would remove most of them. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 193:
#'''Support''' No need to link every year, but some links would be useful. -- [[User:MightyWarrior|MightyWarrior]] ([[User talk:MightyWarrior|talk]]) 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' best option --[[User:Armchair info guy|Armchair info guy]] ([[User talk:Armchair info guy|talk]]) 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' matches my support in the daymonth; anything different for years would be confusing. --[[User:Ged UK|<
#'''Support''': Option 2 is too vague, and will lead to load of overlinking and fights about overlinking. Option 3 makes no sense at all (for the same reason that we don't link the first occurrence of everyday words like [[woman]] and [[food]] except in unusual contexts). Option 4 is pointless, as MOS exists for a reason, and inevitable date-related disputes will automatically re-engender MOS debate and eventual guidance on the matter. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I can't think of many occasions where years need to be linked, but the option should be available if doing so will improve a reader's understanding of an article. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Links are visually distracting. Irrelevant links reduce readability. [[User:Cstaffa|Cstaffa]] ([[User talk:Cstaffa|talk]]) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - definitely the best option of them all. Link relevant ones, as that actually adds to the article; don't link the others. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<
#'''Weak support'''. I would prefer not linking years at all, just like we never link weekdays (I hope). "Relevant years" seems POV-loaded to me and could lead to edit wars. But this is the least worst option of the 4. – [[User:IbLeo|IbLeo]] ([[User talk:IbLeo|talk]]) 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support for piping''' I support this guidance for unpiped years. Lots of things happen in a year, and most have no relation to each other, and the year should not be linked from such articles. However, if a year is properly piped to define related contexts, I believe that this is an acceptable compromise. [[2000]] is a useless trivia page, but [[2000 in film]] can be meaningful (for example, if one is researching year-over-year trends in film). [[User:Ham Pastrami|Ham Pastrami]] ([[User talk:Ham Pastrami|talk]]) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 203:
#'''Strong support''' Linking the year a film was released or a book was published or a song was written makes sense, since it leads to articles about similar accomplishments within the same year. But why link birth and death dates? How often does someone read a biographical article and feel the need to see who else was born or what else happened in that year? [[Special:Contributions/209.247.22.164|209.247.22.164]] ([[User talk:209.247.22.164|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Just like a date or any other term in an article, link if appropriate, and according to the editors' judgment. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-11 16:20 z</small>''
#'''Support''', remembering that the year article is almost never relevant.--[[User:Fabrictramp|<
#'''Support''' - Like with month linking links should only be provided if they have some relevance to the topic at hand; removing all guidance would again be unhelpful and cause future conflicts. I don't see birth/death linking as particularly necessary. [[User:Camaron|Camaron | Chris]] <small>[[User talk:Camaron|(talk)]]</small> 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -- "relevance" is a bit vague, but I guess it has to be. I do a lot of linking to the years-in-poetry articles, especially from bibliography sections of poet articles and list-of-[nationality]-poets articles, but that seems to be allowed with this option. Year-in-music and Year-in-film links are clearly relevant to anyone considering the historical context of a work of art, which would be the only reason someone would click on the link anyway. Same for any year-in-topic link. -- [[User:Reconsideration|Reconsideration]] ([[User talk:Reconsideration|talk]]) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 209:
#'''Support''', particularly with regard to links to 'year-in-subject' articles within articles about that subject, whether piped or not. 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. This is even more critical for year links than it is for month/day links. [[User:Mlaffs|Mlaffs]] ([[User talk:Mlaffs|talk]]) 12:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
# Perhaps special guidance will not be necessary in the future, but as long as we are accustomed to a precedent of treating year links differently from the rest, having identical guidelines for the two and expecting identical results will simply not do. This option about a simple relevance check is just the ticket. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. As previously noted for month-day links, relevance is context-dependent and discretionary, but on balance, this proposal will likely result in a broadly acceptable result. [[User:TheFeds|<
#'''Support''' - Single years are ridiculously overlinked now. The one reader in 10,000 who wants to go to a particular year article can type 4 digits (or fewer) and hit the "Go" button. No sense in cluttering up every article just to save 4 keystrokes for these very few readers. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] ([[User talk:Chris the speller|talk]]) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 218:
#:<s>'''Support'''. Say yes to global historical context. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 08:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)</s> Changing to option 4; however, this is the only non-4 option that makes sense. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Like date links, years should not be linked to unless relevant. Unlike date links, however, there is some relevance to being able to quickly find out what else happened the year that someone was born or died. [[User:Ylee|YLee]] ([[User talk:Ylee|talk]]) 09:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I would like birth dates to be linked. [[User:Reywas92|<
#'''Support'''. As a reader, I rather ''like'' having birth dates etc linked, and I know some who are fairly obsessed with it. Every "On this day ..." speaks to the popularity of this kind of link. — [[User:Sidhekin|the Sidhekin]] ([[User talk:Sidhekin|talk]]) 15:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. As a long-time fan of printed almanacs, I like this option best. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 15:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 246:
#'''Support''' -- Birth and death years are relevant, and it will be handier once the date preference formatting is removed from the links. -- [[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] ([[User talk:William Allen Simpson|talk]]) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' for reasons already stated. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' for maximum usability. Also, I'll steal Sapphic's argument above. ~[[user:orngjce223]] <
#'''Support''' as I do believe this option is the same as option 1, as the type of events described ''are'' relevant.--[[User:4wajzkd02|4wajzkd02]] ([[User talk:4wajzkd02|talk]]) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Broadly support. Although the meaning of 'events relevant to the subject' is open to interpretation, and will probably lead to more arguments. [[User:G-Man|<
#'''Support''' - first choice, choice 1 also acceptable. Birth and death years are relevent. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Again, the issue here is relevancy. However, here I have decided to go for option 2 instead. I disagree with the part in option 1 regarding birth and death years. The birth and death of someone or something, etc. can often be used as markers for an era of influence, and/or such. For example, knowing that [[Philip C. Johnson]] died in 2005 lets me know that, with the exception of post-humous works, there are no works by him after that year that he will be directly or personally involved with, since he's already passed-on, and that any works after that year will be, at most, influenced by him ''but not'' directly or personally worked by him. --[[User:A.K.R.|A.K.R.]] ([[User talk:A.K.R.|talk]]) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Just as I said in the month section, I think that "relevant" should be defined liberally. Better to have too many links instead of too few. I also think birth and death years are always relevant. [[User:Captain panda|<
# The last sentence of option #1 makes it unacceptable. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 18:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' while I personally can't what the fuss about these anniversaries is I notice that there is a large call for that kind of information. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] ([[User talk:Agathoclea|talk]]) 14:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Birth dates et. al. are important information. Option 1 is also acceptable. -- '''[[User:M2Ys4U|M2Ys4U]]''' <sup>(
#'''Support''' - Again, my ranking is #2, #1, #4, and last #3. Important and relevant dates and years should be linked. Irrelevant ones not. It's as simple as that. But an automated system should not make that determination, nor should there be a "witchhunt" to track down violating dates. Let date changes evolve naturally. It's safer. Important dates could be lost in articles otherwise. --[[User:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">'''Will'''</span><span style="color:#D13">scrlt</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Willscrlt|<span style="color:#46E">→“¡¿Talk?!”</span>]])</small> 13:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I support Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)=====
#This is how everything else is linked, I don't see why years should be treated any differently.[[user:Jeff02|-Jeff]] <sup>[[user talk:Jeff02|(talk)]]</sup> 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#As above, I think it should be like this, it can be interesting.
#'''Support''' Lets give the readers as many opportunities to find new information as possible, relevance is subjective and secondary. [[User:Unomi|Unomi]] ([[User talk:Unomi|talk]]) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''strong Support'''. Year links give access to have an overview about what happened around a certain date. This is relatively important while doing research, because this can add (historical) background information for those who which to know more about what happened at a certain time, what events might have also influenced public opinion etc. Also, what is relevant to one may be unrelevant to someboedy else... How do you want to determine what is relevant or what is not? For me, these links are relevant since they give the opportunity to find and discover other interesting articles better than any other feature. [[User:Old Death|Old Death]] ([[User talk:Old Death|talk]]) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 269:
#*This is the only way to ensure that date links are treated like other links. I observe that, despite the successful campaign to remove this objective from this poll, this equality has received support from support for all forms of language.
#*Even #3 has been read to impose restraints on date links which do not apply to other links, as in [[Wikipedia_talk:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Archive_2#Does_.27case_by_case.27_in_proposal_3_mean_.27apply_relevance_rules_in_proposal_1_or_proposal_2.27.3F|These comments]]. #1 and #2 have been used to justify extreme and sweeeping removals.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 00:41, 30 March 2009
#Yes please; take as much as possible out of the hands of the hands of the people who made this clusterfuck in the first place. <
#'''Support.''' I agree that years have been linked too much, but option #1 is over-reacting; on the other hand option #3 is silly (who would make any link in "Retrieved on 30 March 2009" at the end of a citation?). Option #2 is sane in principle, but the word ''seminal'' remembers me more of sperm than of anything which has anything to do with hypertextual links. The point is, I would make links if the historic context when something happened is relevant: I wouldn't link to [[1824]] in "However, there is no formula for general quintic equations over the rationals in terms of radicals; this is known as the [[Abel–Ruffini theorem]], first published in 1824, which was one of the first applications of [[group theory]] in algebra": that theorem could have been published in 1624, or in 1924, and that would make no difference to the point being made about quintic equations. But I don't think I would be able to put down in words all the rules I would use to decide when a link to a year is relevant: [[I know it when I see it]]. This issue is best left to editors' common sense than to blind application of a list of rules. (FWIW, my preferences are 4-2-3-1 in decreasing order.) ---[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As above, incl. metadata commentary and options. [[User:Billinghurst|billinghurst]] ([[User talk:Billinghurst|talk]]) 10:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' MOS should not be dictating content decisions to editors (and really, even style issues per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Style_guide|Requests for arbitration/Jguk]]), so all such language should be removed. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 11:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Anything more than this will result in overcorrection. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|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 '''strongly oppose #1 and #2''', and think #3 is too arbitrary. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
#'''Support'''. 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)
# I also support option 2. 1000% support of Gavia immer's comment above. [[User:AKAF|AKAF]] ([[User talk:AKAF|talk]]) 07:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 285:
#'''Support''' removal of all guidance (changed from option 1). This whole issue reeks of [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:BIKESHED]]. Editors can make their own decisions. I would always choose Option #1's logic, but don't feel that this justifies having a written guideline for it. This whole tempest in a teapot is reminiscent of people getting hot and bothered about the correct dash to use. When we hit the [[WP:DEADLINE]], we can clean up the little stuff before we send it to the printers. [[User:Somedumbyankee|SDY]] ([[User talk:Somedumbyankee|talk]]) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. Let's rid the ''MoS'' of such useless naval-gazing. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 19:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' fewer rules=good <
#BAM! [[The Man]] has too much power. — [[User:Twas Now|'''Twas ''Now''''']] <small>( [[User talk:Twas Now|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Twas Now|contribs]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Twas Now|e-mail]] )</small> 09:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' I really agree with [[User:J04n|J04n]]'s comment that fewer rules=good. With Wikipedia edited by many contributors, with different ideas of appropriateness, imposing one Procrustean solution is stupid. -- [[User:BRG|BRG]] ([[User talk:BRG|talk]]) 14:42, 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]] 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Editors should be allowed to link particularly important years to provide readers with background information about the events that occurred in that year, in order to better contextualize the current article's subject. Option 1 appears to disallow this; option 2 focuses on birth and death dates, which are the least relevant when talking about the events in a person's life; option 3 dilutes the value of year links. This leaves only option 4 for me. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] ([[User talk:AxelBoldt|talk]]) 03:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've always viewed this matter as a choice of individual preference. There's much too much creep here. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
#'''Support'''. Enough instructions already.--[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Seems better than any alternative. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 06:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 301:
#'''Support''' As Guyzero expressed it above: "Let editors determine appropriate implementation at the article or project level. Content discussions are not under the purview of MOS." Thanks, [[User:LiniShu|Lini]] ([[User talk:LiniShu|talk]]) 01:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I've never understood the need for these links. --[[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|talk]]) 07:20, 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.- <
#'''Support''' perhaps with a caveat, maybe a statement in MOSNUM or MOSLINK that states explicitly "dates are not treated any differently than any other word or term with regards to linking guidelines". That may make it more clear for users who historically are use to linking dates excessively, as the old guidelines said to do so. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Dates are not special. But, as Jayron32 has observed, given the history of the affair, a (placeholder) sentence that explicitly states "not special" might be a good idea. -- [[User:Fullstop|Fullstop]] ([[User talk:Fullstop|talk]]) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 342:
*I think discretion needs to be allowed to leave it in the hands of the article editors. I do agree, however, with Woodstone's comments about use of auto-parsing option, and if the editor wishes to have the date linked, then to link-box the dates. A dump would need to be periodically pulled for people who use awb (or something like it) to make the edits to alter any dates entered by otherwise experiences editors. But basically, I think the dating should onlny be necessary in the first instance in the article, and only if it lends to a greater understanding of the article and if the article the link is from is mentioned in the date's own article (such as ''"[[December 25]] is the day used to commemorate [[Christmas]], being the celebration of the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]"'', in which all three of these articles cross reference one another). If there is no such mention in the date article, but the item is in another date oriented article, it'd be appropriate to acknowledge that (''"[[U2]] released their album on January 1, 2000. See [[2000 in music]]."''). --[[User:Rm w a vu|<span style="background:#909;font-size:10px;font:Century Gothic;color:#fff;padding:0 4px;">rm 'w a</span>]][[User talk:Rm w a vu|<span style="background:#000;font-size:10px;font:Century Gothic;color:#09f;padding:0 4px;">vu</span>]] 10:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
* Does option 1 really solve anything? It seems to me that 'should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject.' is as wide open to interpretation as our current 'policy' and will probably just lead to more edit warring. [[User:G-Man|<
**Exactly. Option one doesn't change a blasted thing. Option 4 is the only thing that makes sense. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 06:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||