On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Al Tally <majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net
wrote:
Now, my next question
is, when going in to edit an existing Article that has the dates linked,
should they be routinely de-linked?
Yes.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
The one point I have a bit of an issue with the mass delinking of dates and
years that has been going on is that I've seen year links being deleted from
historical articles that would be useful for providing chronological
perspective to an event. It can be quite useful when reading about a person
or event from 1761 to get a quick summary of what else was going on in the
world during that same year.
I don't see why the usual rules of linking don't apply here- that is you get
to link a relevant article once (or maybe again in a distant section or in a
list/table).
Don't get me wrong, I've always thought the autoformatting feature was silly
anyways- people who are all hung up on which variation is "right" in terms
of spelling, dates, idioms etc. is the source of such stupidities such as
the first Harry Potter book being renamed for the American market to "the
Sorcerer's Stone" (a meaningless term) from "the Philosopher's
Stone"
something that "real" in the sense that alchemists were really looking for
the thing.
That's my two shekels...
--
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕
elipongo(a)gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elipongo