Revision as of 15:03, 9 March 2009 edit Tony1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors 279,133 edits →Suggested autoformatting question: Link to statement ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:40, 10 March 2009 edit undo Hex (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 25,702 edits →Point removed from year markup disadvantages: new section Next edit →
Line 82: A major statement on the notion of involving a proposed "Son of Autoformatting" is [[User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Date_linking_RfC#Son_of_autoformatting_as_yet_is_an_imagined_experiment\|here]]. [[User:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) == Point removed from year markup disadvantages == ''The search box is readily available as an alternative to low-relevance links, which can also be highlighted and/or piped by "gateway" links in the "See also" section to avoid cluttering the text.'' This isn't a disadvantage of year markup, it's a discussion of the workaround to issues caused by overlinking - so I've removed it from the list. It's also poorly-written, colliding separate points in one sentence. -- [[User:Earle Martin\|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin\|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin\|c]]</sub>] 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions