Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1: Line 1:
===Year-linking responses===
===Year-linking responses===
{{disputedtag}}
:''Please indicate your support vote under '''ONE''' option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.''
:<s>''Please indicate your support vote under '''ONE''' option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.''</s>
::This was imposed by the edit-warring by a single editor, against strong opposition, as was the phrasing as ''support.'' Please be sure, however, that comments which are not support are not counted. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 00:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


=====I support Option #1 (link only relevant years)=====
=====I support Option #1 (link only relevant years)=====

Revision as of 00:28, 30 March 2009

Year-linking responses

Please indicate your support vote under ONE option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.
This was imposed by the edit-warring by a single editor, against strong opposition, as was the phrasing as support. Please be sure, however, that comments which are not support are not counted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Best option out of the four. If the year link is relevant to the article, link it. If not, don't. Steve Crossin Talk/24 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would prefer absolutely no links at all, because they are hardly relevant and seldom help deepen understanding of the subject. Let common sense prevail. Few links only please. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Once again only link to the year if it is very relevant to the topic. Links to YYYY in music/film etc. are okay, but even some of those are linked to too much. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. Even when a date is notable in its own right, e.g. 1492, it may be irrelevant to the passage in which it occurs. --Philcha (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: We are overlinking enough as is. seicer | talk | contribs 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- Donald Albury 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, the value of these links are way overstated. Year articles are still (mostly) lists of trivia; please note that I am not necessarily saying that these articles are bad, just that they will not help readers of other articles in their current format. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, only link the year if it's relevant to the article. Again, common sense and the best way to prevent overlinking, in my opinion. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Exactly the same effect as option 4, except there is a chance of less fighting. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Date links, like all others, should enhance a reader's understanding of the topic. This can be decided on a case-by-case basis. Awadewit (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. When did you last require "easy access to year articles"? I never have. Year articles are breathtakingly useless. And the day—impatiently awaited—that I do want access to one of them, the search box gives quite easy enough access for my needs. Moreover, the famous "metadata" isn't the same as "useful metadata". Bishonen | talk 00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I support Option #2 (Option #1 plus birth/death years, etc)
  1. Again, this seems the best compromise, with further discussion probably required to determine the exact circumstances where year links should be allowed and/or encouraged. (As noted above, this explicitly amends WP:OVERLINK as well as WP:MOSLINK, so comments referring to WP:OVERLINK are irrelevant.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Years are much more often relevant than month, day articles and should generally be linked to provide chronological context where relevant. I would rank the options 2,4,1,3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, birth years, death years should all be tied together in some way. dm (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is how everything else is linked, I don't see why years should be treated any differently.-Jeff (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option #4 (removal of guidance)
Other comments
  • Only Option 1 will be some assurance there will not be a 'sea of blue' on each article. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 seems acceptable, but would require additional interpretation to see if it where it would end up fitting in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3. Furthermore, option 1 is mis-titled; it should read "link to only (presently) relevant year articles". Where "link to only relevant years" would appear in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3 would also be a subject for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may take my "per WP:OVERLINK" comment above to mean that I support the current consensus version of this guideline and think the dilution effect of adding links which are valueless on a random basis throughout our articles to cause far more harm than benefit to our users. Thus I am in favor of retaining the guidance against adding low value links which year articles surely are. --John (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Year-linking_responses&oldid=280536224"