Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Alinnisawest (talk | contribs) →I support Option #4 (removal of guidance): support option #4 - leave it to editors' discretion |
→I support Option #2 (commemorative links only): The best compromise |
||
Line 254:
#'''Support''' Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. [[user:kennedy|<font color="#800000" face="lucida handwriting">Kennedy</font>]] <sup>([[user_talk:kennedy|<font color="#800000">talk</font>]]) </sup> 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''': I prefer this as it is stricter than option 1, but otherwise count this as secondary support for option 1. Option 3 is boneheaded; it misapprehends why we link first occurrences of many things ("[[albinism]]", "[[rugby union]]", etc.), but do not at all link other things ("woman", "night", etc.) except in very particular and peculiar contexts. Option 4 is simply pointless, since as disputations over linking dates re-arise, the necessity to add guidance on the matter to the MOS will automatically also re-arise. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Options 1 and 3 are overlinking. Option 4 is the road to inconsistency and edit wars. This is a good compromise. – [[User:IbLeo|IbLeo]] ([[User talk:IbLeo|talk]]) 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I support Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)=====
| |||