Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→I support Option #1 (link only relevant years): Added comment |
|||
Line 201:
#'''Support for piping''' I support this guidance for unpiped years. Lots of things happen in a year, and most have no relation to each other, and the year should not be linked from such articles. However, if a year is properly piped to define related contexts, I believe that this is an acceptable compromise. [[2000]] is a useless trivia page, but [[2000 in film]] can be meaningful (for example, if one is researching year-over-year trends in film). [[User:Ham Pastrami|Ham Pastrami]] ([[User talk:Ham Pastrami|talk]]) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Ditto what I said for month-day linking: Put an end to this silly overlinking.[[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' Linking the year a film was released or a book was published or a song was written makes sense, since it leads to articles about similar accomplishments within the same year. But why link birth and death dates? How often does someone read a biographical article and feel the need to see who else was born or what else happened in that year? [[Special:Contributions/209.247.22.164|209.247.22.164]] ([[User talk:209.247.22.164|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I support Option #2 (Option #1 plus birth/death years, etc)=====
| |||