Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Plastikspork (talk | contribs) Replace per WP:TFD outcome |
m fixing lint error using AWB |
||
Line 9:
#Support, the links are almost never relevant. Remember, dates may be relevant, but the ''date articles'' that are being linked to almost always aren't. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Even when a date is notable in its own right, e.g. Christmas Day, it may be irrelevant to the passage in which it occurs. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]])
#'''Support''': The date links are almost never relevant, so this shouldn't need to be done too often. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]]
#Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
#Support, common sense. All links, including links to dates, should only exist when they further the understanding of an article's subject. <font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977|Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 70:
#'''Support''', there is no need to needlessly overlink articles. [[User:Plastikspork|Plastikspork]] ([[User talk:Plastikspork|talk]]) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Weak support'''. Seems the most logical to me, but implementing it will take careful work. [[User:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#00A">Greggers</b>]] <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">([[User talk:Greg Tyler|<b style="color:#A00">t</b>]]
#'''Support'''. My preference would be to eliminate all linked dates, but this option is the best of the bunch. It avoids overlinking, unless there is some particular relevance to the date. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is concurrent with the general guideline to make onlyrelevant links. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 216:
#'''Support''' Least complicated and most common sense option. [[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Why does everything turn into such a debate. This makes sense, the others do not.--[[User:Mrboire|Mrboire]] ([[User talk:Mrboire|talk]]) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — Coherent, consistent, common-sense link policy calls for treating dates the same as we treat any other potentially linkable word, phrase, or number: we link them only if they are really relevant to the article at hand. We don't link words just on speculation that the reader might happen to find the link target interesting, or because we happen to be using a linkable word as part of the article text. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Scheinwerfermann|T]]</sup>
# '''Support''' -- Eliminates a lot of unnecessary link clutter, while still keeping the option available for cases where the links would actually be relevant. [[User:Bmpowell|Brian Powell]] ([[User talk:Bmpowell|talk]]) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' All links should be included only if relevant, right? Why should dates be any different? [[User:The Grand Rans|The Grand Rans]] ([[User talk:The Grand Rans|talk]]) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 271:
#'''Support''', though only very marginally over option 1 - they both make sense. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. -- [[User:KelleyCook|KelleyCook]] ([[User talk:KelleyCook|talk]]) 15:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — [[
#'''Support''', first choice. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Of lack of an option that simply eliminates all possible date linking, this will provide the least blue. Date links have no function and reduce readability significantly. Dates are the worst—they look hideous, and serve no practical function for the reader. <font face="serif">[[User:Arsenikk|<font color="green"><strong>Arsenikk</strong></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Arsenikk|<font color="grey">(talk)</font>]]</sup></font> 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 326:
#'''Support'''. Enough instructions already.--[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. However, leave a comment that the style used to be to link every date, and many articles still do this, but now dates should only be linked if the they follow the general rules. [[User:JonH|JonH]] ([[User talk:JonH|talk]]) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Treating dates like other links does not seem much different from proposed solutions. And yet, the cost of a specific guideline is nonzero. --[[User:User6985|Thomas B]]
#'''Strong Support''' Where to add links and what to link to is currently at the discretion of the editor. I would need a compelling reason to change this. [[User:Phil burnstein|Phil_burnstein]] ([[User talk:Phil burnstein|talk]]) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Reconsidering my position. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||