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

Revision as of 16:39, 16 March 2009

Revision as of 16:43, 16 March 2009

Line 112:

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)<p>'''P.S.''' Please also remember: The analysis that Dabomb87 did is one of the “community consensus” as evidenced by the past RfCs; it is not supposed to be a place where editors argue to make a case for why something is or is not a good idea. If you go to Dabomb87 to argue the details with him, please keep the objective focused strictly upon capturing and memorializing the best possible interpretation of the community consensus. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Two queries ==