Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Truth in advertising: Moving into new section |
→Truth in advertising: making a pretty stool? |
||
Line 340:
:::This part of the whole debate is just yet another occurrence of the ancient debate between [[meta:immediatism|immediatists]] and [[meta:eventualism|eventualists]]. The immediatists say "year pages aren't useful", the eventualists say "be patient. Look at [[1345]] as an example of what year pages will be like."
:::I ask the de-linking side: if your concern is that year articles aren't good enough, why don't you get off your ass and do something about it, rather than removing 99% of links to them and helping to guarantee that the improvements needed will almost certainly not be made for a very, very, very long time? Thousands of our articles are complete garbage, much worse than any year article you could point to, containing mistakes, mangled English, irrelevant rambling or even flat-out lies. If your approach was taken to its ultimate extension, we should have hordes of robots removing links to anything tagged as needing cleanup or a rewrite. -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::* …{{xt|why don't you get off your ass and do something about it [and improve the date articles]}}… Because there is no way to improve a sea of irrelevant trivia so it somehow becomes germane and topical to articles that link to it. Attempting to do so is like saying ''we should try to pick up a turd by its clean end:'' same problem no matter how you approach it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||