Content deleted Content added
Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) →Month-day responses: moved comments on other options to bottom, per instructions - especially if "[nothing]] more do we need to say" |
Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) →Month-day responses: missed this bit of disruption |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Month-day responses=== |
===Month-day responses=== |
||
{{disputedtag|section-yes}} |
|||
:''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.'' |
:''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.'' |
||
Revision as of 02:47, 30 March 2009
Month-day 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.
I support #1 (link only relevant dates)
- Seems the best option of the four. Steve Crossin Talk/24 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- To reduce link density, I believe in general only the relevant information should be linked, and this should be no different for dates. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please, let common sense prevail. Links are hardly relevant and seldom help deepen understanding of the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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. 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. --Philcha (talk)
- Support: The date links are almost never relevant, so this shouldn't need to be done too often. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- 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. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Though I have a fairly high standard for relevance. I would rank the options 1,4,2,3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Common sense suggests to me that option 4 should have almost exactly the same effect. But since not everybody agrees, this is much better, as it settles the question. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Dates should be linked like anything else - they should enhance the reader's understanding of the article's topic.Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This pretty much covers the rare circumstances when dates should be linked. The proposed wording says it all: dates “should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject.” Enough said. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Reduces pointless links, allows the odd occasion where strictly useful. Dates need treating separately from "normal links" due to the controversial issues surrounding date linking and autoformatting.—MDCollins (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I would tend to support the remove guidance option, but I suspect that past tendencies to link all dates would lead to continued overlinking. Guidance is needed to limit date links to those of notable historical significance. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per pretty much all supporters above. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I too pondered on the remove guidance option, but I think it is disparity on this issue that got us here in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is a helpful elaboration of the general guidance on wikilinks. Eubulides (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I prefer as few links as possible, and find date links rarely relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: reckless linking of dates only serve to disrupt the reading experience; a date clicked about a medieval battle should point to relevant details in that time, rather than showing the day Titanic won record Oscars or such. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support : I get tired of seeing blue links in articles that take me to date articles that have absolutely no relevance to what I'm reading.SteveB67 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per Seicer. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I support Option #2 (commemorative links only)
- Seems a reasonable solution to allow the month-day articles not to become orphaned. My preference for options is in the order 2,4,1,3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I support Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)
- This is how everything else is linked, I don't see why dates should be treated any differently.-Jeff (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I support Option #4 (removal of guidance)
- Strongly support. All links are required to be relevant and helpful to the reader. what more do we need to say about these? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes please; take as much as possible out of the hands of the hands of the people who made this clusterfuck in the first place. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Other comments
- This is the only way to ensure that date links are treated like other links. I observe that, despite the successful campaign to remove this objective from this poll, this equality has received support from support for all forms of language.
- Even #3 has been read to impose restraints on date links which do not apply to other links, as in These comments. #1 and #2 have been used to justify extreme and sweeeping removals.
- I therefore strongly oppose #1, Oppose #2 (which at least concedes a major use of these links) and weakly oppose #3. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Septentrionalis originally gave reasons for their opposition to the first 3 options here. Ryan removed them because they should go in the comments section. I've linked Septentrionalis' original opposition diff here as I don't want to refactor their words but feel a history record should be present in canse Septentrionalis does not return to comment further. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?)
- Much obliged. This has, however, succeeded in suppressing my arguments. I am sure this is not Ryan's intention; but those who unilaterally imposed this format have motives not beyond question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Without having checked Septentrionaliss comments). 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 date articles". Where "link to only relevant dates" would appear in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3 would also be a subject for discussion. For those who wish to quote WP:OVERLINK, this would explicitly amend that guideline, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)