On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/13/08, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
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?
What if readers are curious as to with whom Miz Oppens shares a
birthday? Fuck 'em?
What if readers are curious which other people have names which, when
converted to numbers, sum to the same value?
You have to draw the trivia line some place, the only question is where.
There are many hundreds of thousands of date related articles in
Wikipedia. The number of articles mentioning February 2 is enormous.
To answer trivia such as "who else was born on the same day" you're no
worse off searching. (The date article can't hope to list all the
people born on that day, and whatlinkshere will be no more informative
than a search).
Also, the year articles, by contrast with the date articles, often have
non-list background information relevant for the article they're linked
from. See, for example, the excellent article on [[1345]].
-Mark