Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 244:
#'''Support'''. Again, the issue here is relevancy. However, here I have decided to go for option 2 instead. I disagree with the part in option 1 regarding birth and death years. The birth and death of someone or something, etc. can often be used as markers for an era of influence, and/or such. For example, knowing that [[Philip C. Johnson]] died in 2005 lets me know that, with the exception of post-humous works, there are no works by him after that year that he will be directly or personally involved with, since he's already passed-on, and that any works after that year will be, at most, influenced by him ''but not'' directly or personally worked by him. --[[User:A.K.R.|A.K.R.]] ([[User talk:A.K.R.|talk]]) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Just as I said in the month section, I think that "relevant" should be defined liberally. Better to have too many links instead of too few. I also think birth and death years are always relevant. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
# The last sentence of option #1 makes it unacceptable. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 18:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I support Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)=====
| |||