Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Year links: Same old bad attitude and short-sightedness from Greg L. |
|||
Line 345:
:::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. Eventualists’ attempts at doing 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]]'''
::::I'm sure the people who have spent a lot of time working on [[1345]] would be overjoyed to hear that charmingly-phrased opinion. After all this is over, I suggest you begin your activities by proceeding to remove [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=1345&namespace=0 all the links to that article], and explaining in each case how it's not worth linking to a "turd". -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||