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. |
→Year links: its about linking; not the articles |
||
Line 348:
::::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)
:::::* Not linking to articles like [[1925]] isn’t saying those articles have turd value, Earle; it’s entirely about overlinking and adhering to the principle that all links be germane and topical. I could, after all, have linked “[[turd]]” in my above post, which automatically redirects to “[[Feces]]’, which is not a turd of an article. But my linking to it in my above post would have been overlinking, which is a turd of a practice. If you don’t “get” this concept, please see [[User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house]]. Just because something ''can'' be linked to, is not a good enough reason to do so. The community already understands and agrees with this principle (as evidenced by past RfCs). I expect that point will be made abundantly clear with this upcoming RfC. And I can’t wait for that day as we seem to be going in circles with our arguments on this talk page (and others). We’ll just have to abide by the community consensus and get on with life. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||