on 10/9/08 6:26 PM, Delirium at delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
The old "link all dates" is now deprecated, and we're advised to just write them in a standard form (14 November 2000 or November 14, 2000). It'll be interesting to see if this helps reduce overlinking
The old system was laudable, but really only worked for a small minority of readers, usually active editors themselves. For everyone else, it just got confusing...
The old system did, however, tend to reduce the number of tendentious editors going around mass-changing date formats to their preferred format, because such editors could just set their preferences and not have the "wrong" format grate on them henceforth. Anecdotally, there's been a big spike in the past few weeks of that sort of garbage editing.
-Mark
on 10/9/08 6:45 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I have noticed that too, Mark. Another thing, when I began editing several years ago the Birth and Death Dates consistently, and reliably, followed the Full Name of the person. This not only appeared well, but also gave the reader an immediate indication that this is, indeed, the person they were looking for. It also appeared on the first line of a Google or Yahoo! search. Now, in more are more Articles, these dates are scattered, sometimes appearing in later paragraphs. I realize the use of info boxes is useful in this regard, but the lack of consistency in the body of the Articles detracts from the professionalism of the encyclopedia.
To follow-up on this earlier thread, I would like to propose the following for first-line entries in a biography:
Example: [[Ursula Oppens]] (born February 2, [[1944]]. The day of birth would not be linked, but I agree with those who feel that linking the year gives the reader (if they desire) an opportunity to see what else was happening in that year. The format, according to taste may be February 2, or 2 February; I don't see where that would be a problem. Any thoughts on this?
Marc Riddell