on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:35 AM, Sam Korn at smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through
and
unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death
Date.
Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
If that is the case, that is disturbing, because it is very clearly not permitted by the BRFA (<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3
).
I can't, however, see edits removing birth and death date links in recent contributions -- have you got any examples?
Yes. This is the one I found today that prompted my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 3018http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&oldid= 2470
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.
Carcharoth
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
Marc