Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Truth in advertising: new section |
|||
Line 311:
::::Autoformatting must be well-defined. If not, and the bare question "do you support autoformatting" receives a narrow majority, certain gadget-happy developers will develop something, claim it is autoformatting, and claim it is supported by the RfC. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
== Truth in advertising ==
* How about some “truth in advertising”? This…
:{{quotation|Year articles (e.g. [[1795]], [[1955]], and [[2007]]) should not be linked on Wikipedia unless the year is particularly relevant to the subject of the linking article; that is, an seminal event relevant to the subject of the article occured in that year. Examples may include the birth and death of a person and the establishment and disestablishment of an organization.}}
:…is disingenuous when it borrows terminology like “particularly relevant” and tries to pass off birth dates as being examples of that. You can put {{nowrap|“seminal event”-lipstick}} on a pig and try to pass it off as a prom date, but really, it’s still a pig. This prom date of yours might look like we are doing a better job of adhering to truth-in-advertising laws if it were revised to say ''“exceptions”'' include birth dates, rather than try to say—with a straight face no less—that our [[1925]] article “particularly relevant” to [[Angela Lansbury]].<p>The pro-linking camp seems to have difficulty understanding the “theory of mind” of other Wikipedians on this issue. Examine the vote comments in [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/RFC:_Unresolved_date_delinking_and_autoformatting_issues#Date_linking|this, simple, to-the-point RfC]]. I particularly liked one of the vote comments there. One reads:
:{{quotation|Wow, never an easier one. After clicking through the links to find they are basically just trivia dumping grounds I've trained myself to ignore them. They almost NEVER have anything to do with the article. It's incredible to see a frustration that seem unresolvable being resolved. The system works!}}
:And this one speaks to the issue:
:{{quotation|I've often wondered why we need to link to dates but I simply did it since it seems to be a tradition. I'm now not linking to dates at all if I don't feel the linked date article will provide further relevant details to the current article, which is almost all the time.}}
:Yet, here you are again, with the same thing. And the outcome will be the same. I guess it’s probably good that I don’t understand your logic and tactics. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||