Revision as of 00:31, 24 April 2009 edit GFHandel (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 12,534 edits →Article list: Yes and no... ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:24, 24 April 2009 edit undo A. di M. (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 7,928 edits →Article list: comment Next edit →
Line 630: :I agree that bots should be used, and that an exclusion list might be a solution; but remember that an article could have a relevant date link as well as irrelevant date links. I'd have to be honest and say that I don't believe the link to 2000 is relevant in the MM article. Someone might be interested to find out that MM and 2000 can be synonymous, but why that means they would be interested in finding out what else happened in 2000 is beyond me. [[User:HWV258\|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) ::Well, MM is a disambig. page, whose function is supposed to point readers to different articles; if you think the reader wouldn't be interested in the contents of [[2000]] there shouldn't be any entry about it on the page; --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.\|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.\|Deeds]], not [[User talk:A. di M.\|words]]''.</small> 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions