Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Year links: Response to Earle Martin on year articles, which are close to my heart |
|||
Line 368:
*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. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||