Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Year links: Ignoring the facts again. |
→Year links: Response to Earle Martin on year articles, which are close to my heart |
||
Line 361:
::::::Again, you are ignoring the hard work of others in order to shore up your opinion. Here is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1345&oldid=203467270 a "sea of irrelevant trivia" a year ago]; here is [[1345|the same article today]]. Let me know when you start deleting the links to it. -- [[User:Earle Martin|Earle Martin]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle Martin|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Earle_Martin|c]]</sub>] 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No, he's not ignoring the hard work, and his opinion needs no shoring up. Please keep the discussion non-personal. Resting an argument that year article will eventually be sufficiently relevant on [[1345]] is not going to work. A few observations:
*[[1345]] is out on a limb; no other year article is like it. Rather than a listy article, it's written in running prose. It has clearly been targeted as an experiment.
*As I've pointed out on the Wikiproject Years talk page, it sucks in much information from the surrounding period, so would be impossible to repeat at this level for all years, unless one invisages large-scale repetition from year article to year article. It is unrealistic. My suggestion that ''decade'' articles be written more in this vein caused a little interest at the wikiproject, but has not yet been taken up.
*I have lots of issues with [[1345]]; perhaps we could go into them after this RfC.
*As Greg points out, the detail contained in [[1345]], even though better researched and more comprehensive than that of other year articles, doesn't change one iota the issue of relevance, compared with the relevance issue in linking the typical listy, stubby, partial year article. If an "event" in a year article is worth linking, it should almost certainly be included in the article itself. So often, the only vaguely relevant item is a single, direct reference to the topic of the article itself: why link [[1976]] to find just that [[Benjamin Britten]] died in that year? We knew that already from the Britten article; if there's another "event" listed at [[1976]] vaguely to do with Britten (I doubt it), it should be ''in'' the Britten article. Year articles are, I'm afraid, just too unfocussed for this purpose. That is not to say that they're not a valuable part of the project: they are indeed, and I intend to contribute significantly to them as articles ''per se''. Let us not forget their Main Page exposure and their intensive linking relationships with other chronological articles. Orphanage is just not going to happen.
BTW, I enjoy Greg's "coarse" references, whether they're directed at me or others: this is not a nunnery, and there's scope for a little bawdiness when experienced editors use it to spice up proceedings.
| |||