Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 206:
#'''Support''' - Like with month linking links should only be provided if they have some relevance to the topic at hand; removing all guidance would again be unhelpful and cause future conflicts. I don't see birth/death linking as particularly necessary. [[User:Camaron|Camaron | Chris]] <small>[[User talk:Camaron|(talk)]]</small> 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -- "relevance" is a bit vague, but I guess it has to be. I do a lot of linking to the years-in-poetry articles, especially from bibliography sections of poet articles and list-of-[nationality]-poets articles, but that seems to be allowed with this option. Year-in-music and Year-in-film links are clearly relevant to anyone considering the historical context of a work of art, which would be the only reason someone would click on the link anyway. Same for any year-in-topic link. -- [[User:Reconsideration|Reconsideration]] ([[User talk:Reconsideration|talk]]) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - provides the best balance between overlinking and utter barrenness. However, projects could be allowed to refine the guidance on year-linking e.g. a sports project could advise when a [[2003 in sports]] link is appropriate. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
=====I support Option #2 (Option #1 plus birth/death years, etc)=====
| |||