Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:12, 21 April 2009

Revision as of 11:19, 12 December 2012

Line 528:

#There's the "suck-in" phenomenon, where much of what is treated in such a large, broad article, pertains to the surrounding years as well; would 1345 be largely similar? I think so. This is why I called for ''year'' pages in the pre-modern period to be merged into ''decade'' pages; again, a bit of discussion, but no progress.

:But this is all beside the point: year pages are not generally going to be like 1346, in its incomplete and unrepeatable uniqueness, any time in the next few decades—not as we see the situation now. If it ever changed, in a future world, bots could easily link year pages with a minimum of human oversight. At the moment, linking years in unlikely and distant hope is whistling in the wind. Year pages are hardly orphaned when one is highlighted on the '''main page''', if you please, every day. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

::"any time in the next few decades" - pretty big words for someone who's been with the project for less than four years. There are a lot of things here now that we would never have expected back when I signed up. --— [[User:Earle MartinHex|Earle<span Martinstyle="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [<sup>[[User_talk:Earle MartinHex|t]]</supspan title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<subspan style="color:#900">[[Special?!</span>'''<span style="color:Contributions#000">❞)</Earle_Martin|c]]span></subspan>]] 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

:::But EarleHex, you ''do'' agree with the gist of my thread, don't you, and you accept my good faith towards year articles? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

== You know you've been partecipating in this discussion too long when... ==