Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Points removed from year markup disadvantages: Where are your facts? |
→rationale please: respond |
||
Line 111:
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)
* This comes from [[User:Dabomb87/Summary_of_the_Date_Linking_RFCs#Linking_chronological_items|dabomb87’s ''Summary of the Date Linking RFCs'']], on which Locke and others had arm-wrestled with Dabomb87 and they had arrived at an amicable agreement. I know of no other source of specifics to draw from for examples. Please take it up with Dabomb87 and work with him to revise his analysis. The ''meaning'' of that wording is exceedingly clear and needs no further clarification for the community to vote upon it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
== Two queries ==
| |||