Revision as of 16:47, 11 April 2009 edit Mzajac (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 66,545 edits →Other comments: [wrong place] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:09, 11 April 2009 edit undo Captain panda (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 57,994 edits →I support Option #1 (link only relevant dates): support Next edit →
Line 244: #'''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>'' #'''Support''' I think that this is the best option as long as "relevant" is defined liberally. I think that too many links is better than too few. [[User:Captain panda\|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda\|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) =====I support Option #2 (commemorative links only)=====

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions