on 10/17/08 3:23 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)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