Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Year links: its about linking; not the articles |
→Year links: quote myself and trifurcate |
||
Line 349:
::::I'm sure the people who have spent a lot of time working on [[1345]] would be overjoyed to hear that charmingly-phrased opinion. After all this is over, I suggest you begin your activities by proceeding to remove [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=1345&namespace=0 all the links to that article], and explaining in each case how it's not worth linking to a "turd". -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::* Not linking to articles like [[1925]] isn’t saying those articles have turd value, Earle; it’s entirely about overlinking and adhering to the principle that all links be germane and topical. Note the abundantly clear sentence in my post: {{xt|Because there is no way to improve a sea of irrelevant trivia so it somehow becomes germane and topical to articles that link to it.}}<p>I could, after all, have linked “[[turd]]” in my above post, which automatically redirects to “[[Feces]]’, which is not a turd of an article. But my linking to it in my above post would have been overlinking, which is a turd of a practice. If you don’t “get” this concept, please see [[User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house]]. Just because something ''can'' be linked to, is not a good enough reason to do so.
| |||