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

Revision as of 21:19, 20 March 2009

Revision as of 21:23, 20 March 2009

Line 350:

:::::* 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. Note the abundantly clear sentence in my post: {{xt|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.}}<p>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.<p>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)

:::::*'''P.S.''' When delinking [[1925]], I wouldn’t mind a bot-assisted edit summary that said ''“Undo [[turd]] link to non{{nbhyph}}turd article”'' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)