Revision as of 01:47, 14 March 2009 edit Arthur Rubin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 130,168 edits →Clerk: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:01, 14 March 2009 edit undo Sssoul (talk \| contribs) 6,886 edits →rationale please: new section Next edit →
Line 96: If that isn't a statement by Ryan (it looks similar, but not identical, to some statements made by Ryan as a ''proposed'' neutral statement), it needs to be clearly marked '''proposed wording'''. — [[User:Arthur Rubin\|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin\|(talk)]] 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) == rationale please == the proposed wording includes the statement "For instance, specific day-month articles may be linked in articles about holidays that fall on the same day every year, e.g. [[Christmas Day]], [[April Fools' Day]], and [[Cinco de Mayo]]." could someone please explain what the perceived value of links to [[25 December]], [[1 April]] and [[5 May]] is in those articles, or provide a link to where the rationale is given? if the main aim is to visually highlight the date in such articles, that should be specified as one of the perceived advantages of linking. [[User:Sssoul\|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul\|talk]]) 08:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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