Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→rationale please: Agree |
|||
Line 120:
::thanks for responding - i'm not trying to argue anything or change Dabomb's analysis - i simply want to know what the perceived value is. i did ask on Dabomb87's page a while back but no one clarified it. it seems like someone should be able to state what the rationale is. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::* Well, I don’t see the value either. I don’t look forward to reverse engineering Dabomb’s analysis and wading hip-deep into the old RfCs. Dabomb (bless his heart) did all this for us and worked hard to memorialize it all into a well-organized summary. But he also did some arm wrestling with Locke over the results and he certainly might have caved and added concessions that can’t be supported by the RfC results. Rather than second-guess Dabomb, I suggest we give him an opportunity to explain why that bullet point is in his summary. I might add that wording like this in [[Cinco de Mayo]]:
:::{{quotation|Cinco de Mayo is always celebrated in Mexico on [[May 5|May 5]].}}
:::…doesn’t seem to me to meet the test of being germane and topical to the subject matter. If the user clicks on the link, they will be taken to a list of events that have precious little to do with Mexico and Cinco de Mayo that they didn’t already know before they clicked on the link. I suspect that bullet pointed exception in Dabomb’s summary is in error. Not sure.<p>I’ve added the {clarification needed} tag back in as a reminder to ourselves that this needs to be addressed. Thanks, Sssoul. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
== Two queries ==
| |||