User talk:RafaAzevedo/2008/April

Turns out the section (which used to have some more detailed comments) got moved away to WP:CONTEXT: "As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages [year/decades/centuries etc.] only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I left the date for the start of the Spanish colonization as it does provide very useful contexts, but the publication years did not really provide useful context (e.g. the random reader did not have a reason to expect or desire a link there; I regularly add links—rarely date links, though—to other pages when they are lacking and I would expect one to show up there).

A rule of thumb that was once suggested was that the link is only pertinent if the event is actually mentioned on the page, but I think that a bit over-restrictive. Does that make more sense? In a different angle, it is usually felt that single year links should be used sparsely because they otherwise reduce the overall effectiveness of bluelinks in general, and of year links specifically (a solution is still sought for date links, the issue being discussed at MOSDATE). Circeus (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisk article

Hi, To avoid an edit war, can we take the Fisk-critics thing to the talk pages? PiCo (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]