On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many
people,
though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse
has
stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at
some
point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Please take a look at this. This is the Main Article Page for Joe Pass. It's the one I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
That's the one I'm looking at as well. The link seems to be breaking over two lines.
Does this work better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol...
What I see there is this change:
from: "January 13, [[1929]] – May 23, [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 – May 23, 1994"
That is the single-year link to the birth year being removed. And the single-year link to the death year being removed.
A full date delinking would have been:
from: "[[January 13]], [[1929]] – [[May 23]], [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 – May 23, 1994"
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting. My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Carcharoth