on 10/17/08 3:23 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Typical example of Wikipedia changes being applied excessively due to lack of judgment. The idea that it was unnecessary in most cases to link day or month was a good one; carrying it to year is ridiculous. Even print reference sources often provide a listing by year of births and deaths--almanacs for example. A small group of self-selected specialists with the persistence to follow all the MOS discussions should not be deciding these things--they should be able to distinguish the parts that do need more general community involvement. (To expect the community in general to follow ''all'' of MOS is not practical).
I agree with you, David. But with the Wikipedia set of policies and procedures beginning to look like the US Tax Code, how does one begin to challenge an MOS "Policy". I am tempted to take a firm stand, leave the day & month unlinked, link the year, and risk getting into an edit war just to force some sort of action from someone. (It's not exactly '60s Berkeley, but I've already been there & done that :-) ).
Marc