Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →I support Option #1 (link only relevant dates): like any other term, and subject to editors' judgment |
→Other comments: Statement for is biased and fallacious: creative content is not a “user interface” |
||
Line 367:
:Thanks, Docu ... except that I ''like'' my wikilinks. Thing is, ''smart'' linking—that is, a selective approach—is the way to optimise the utility of linking for our readers and ourselves. (I do turn the bright blue down to a darker shade of blue, but that may be because my Mac monitor is pretty strong on colour display. My user page has instructions on how to do so.) [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::Personally, I wasn't under that impression. I'm sure you'd be better off if you just changed the link color of auto formatted dates. The articles will always disappoint you in the context of most articles they are linked from, similar to other frequently linked articles, e.g. [[United States]]. This unless you know how they are structured and what they include. -- User:Docu
====== The statement for doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground ======
[[#Statement for]] betrays the wrong attitude that readers and editors are “users”, and that my creative contribution, protected by the GPL, is a “user interface” which should be rewritten by a machine to support “user preferences”. “Personalized date formats in operating systems” don't rewrite the books you are reading or correct the language in music you listen to. This side of the vote is biased and fallacious, and is misleading editors who read it and vote. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-11 16:41 z</small>''
''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2009-04-11 16:41 z</small>''
| |||