Jump to content

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Month-day responses

[edit]
Please indicate your support vote under ONE option, accompanied by a concise explanation for your choice. Your explanation is important in determining the community consensus.
[edit]
  1. Seems the best option of the four. Steve Crossin Talk/24 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To reduce link density, I believe in general only the relevant information should be linked, and this should be no different for dates. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please, let common sense prevail. Links are hardly relevant and seldom help deepen understanding of the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, the links are almost never relevant. Remember, dates may be relevant, but the date articles that are being linked to almost always aren't. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely. Even when a date is notable in its own right, e.g. Christmas Day, it may be irrelevant to the passage in which it occurs. --Philcha (talk)
  7. Support: The date links are almost never relevant, so this shouldn't need to be done too often. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I hope this provision will be construed fairly narrowly. -- Donald Albury 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, common sense. All links, including links to dates, should only exist when they further the understanding of an article's subject. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Though I have a fairly high standard for relevance. I would rank the options 1,4,2,3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Common sense suggests to me that option 4 should have almost exactly the same effect. But since not everybody agrees, this is much better, as it settles the question. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC) In fact, option 4 is the worst one because there is no chance it will end the fighting. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Dates should be linked like anything else - they should enhance the reader's understanding of the article's topic.Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This pretty much covers the rare circumstances when dates should be linked. The proposed wording says it all: dates “should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject.” Enough said. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Reduces pointless links, allows the odd occasion where strictly useful. Dates need treating separately from "normal links" due to the controversial issues surrounding date linking and autoformatting.—MDCollins (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I would tend to support the remove guidance option, but I suspect that past tendencies to link all dates would lead to continued overlinking. Guidance is needed to limit date links to those of notable historical significance. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per pretty much all supporters above. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I too pondered on the remove guidance option, but I think it is disparity on this issue that got us here in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This is a helpful elaboration of the general guidance on wikilinks. Eubulides (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I prefer as few links as possible, and find date links rarely relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: reckless linking of dates only serve to disrupt the reading experience; a date clicked about a medieval battle should point to relevant details in that time, rather than showing the day Titanic won record Oscars or such. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support : I get tired of seeing blue links in articles that take me to date articles that have absolutely no relevance to what I'm reading.SteveB67 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Seicer. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Actually, I most support Option 4 - no guidance means nothing to edit war over, and the practical result would be identical to this guideline. Since the poll format ostensibly won't allow supporting multiple options (Why? Seriously, why?) I support this one on the basis already stated - it is identical to option 4 in practice, and more likely to be supported by others in practice. However, your poll format is broken in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support.-gadfium 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support—This conservative guidance on when to link month-day items (like, very rarely) is already established on WP. The project is now maturing in its use of wikilinking, from the original undisciplined scattergun to a more selective approach—smart linking, if you like—that avoids diluting high-value links. It's about time. Nothing turns readers off more than a sea of blue, and they will tend to click on nothing. Tony (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Like others, I find date linking unnecessary and dislike the extra blue. bridies (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. if the now-deprecated autoformatting system had not incidentally created links, we wouldn't need any extra guidance about linking dates - but it did, and we do. links should be made on the basis of the relevance of the articles they lead to. squillions of unwarranted links need to be removed. i'd also support changing the names of most month-day pages to something like List of Events on Month-Day Throughout History. Sssoul (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Seems like the most sensible text. While the treatment is not really different from other links (link only if relevant) date links require special guidance because they are so often made inappropriately.--Srleffler (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support—Chris! ct 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Rare links are of course okay. What we don't need is routine linking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Date linking is a clunky solution in search of a problem. Bishonen | talk 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Support as second option (Please see comment under option 4). I prefer option 4, for much the same reason as I do not accept that this poll is best served by supporting only a single selection :-) AKAF (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support If date links won't format, what the hell is the point of linking unrelated dates? Oren0 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Links should only be made to dates in exceptional circumstances where they are clearly relevant and needed to explain the context. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. This is the only option that explicitly states that each date link must be relevant. No more, no less. That is the same with non-date links but after a long period of overlinking, editors need explicit guidance. Lightmouse (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, with caveat that dates aren't ever per se "relevant". Bongomatic 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Would be blessed to get rid of all the irrelevant date links that confuses articles now.--HJensen, talk 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. We do need a rule, for consistency's sake (so no to Option 4). Dates just aren't normal links (so no to Option 3). I don't see a risk of orphaning date articles (so no to Option 2); if they are relevant to a given article they'll be linked to (so yes to Option 1). YLee (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as per above comments. Extremepro (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I need say no more. This, that and the other [talk] 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Links should always be judged based on relevancy and value to the reader. — TKD::{talk} 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support (this or option 2; I'm not sure what the difference is in practice, the wording probably needs tightening in either case).--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Links are almost never relevant. Articles and the edit window looks cleaner without all the wikilinks and markup. - kollision (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It makes the most sense - you don't want to link to days that are just "days" (birthdays etc.), but it would be rather weird to have a page on a holiday or a world event that didn't link to what was going on on that day... Bangdrum (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per TKD. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Only when relevant makes the most sense to me. Camw (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - this is what I've gotten used to in the past months, and it works just like any other links. This is equivalent to #4, but special guidance is necessary because of the history here. --NE2 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. This is what WP:OVERLINK says, no reason why dates should be any different. — Emil J. 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Reluctant support', I guess this is the best choice, but they are almost never relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support but we should be stronger and say that such links are almost never relevant in the guidance. GRBerry 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I hate seeing links to articles with no content related to what I am reading, they are pointless - Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. Date links are almost never relevant; if and when they are, this seems the best solution. Cnilep (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I might have chosen remove guidance, but the dust won't settle for months or years yet. Light our path, and we may avoid some bumps along the way. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support that dates are linked for chronological articles, but not for any other purpose. I strongly oppose the other options. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Unless specifically germane to the article or context, date links are almost always empty links. The prime example of a wikilink which illuminates little or nothing in the original article. Pigman☿/talk 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Reluctant Support per User:SandyGeorgia. I struggle to think of any circumstances in which these links should be included in articles, so I don't think this is strong enough - but it's the best choice of the four. Pfainuk talk 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Perhaps in the future formal guidance on this issue can be removed. Since it's been a back and forth issue for a while, we need it for now, I think. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support The vast majority of date links have no relevance to the article and should only be used when there is a meaning specific to the article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support per most of the above arguments Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support 61 other people have said it. Read above. Alan16 talk 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support although should not be overused - should be used for articles about the date itself, or linking to very very particular and well recognised uses eg July 4. Orderinchaos 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support sparingly --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, mainly for use in "what links here". I rate the options: 1,2,4,3. Let's get rid of the useless links to lists of irrelevant trivia that happened to occur a whole number of years later. Certes (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, there is no need to needlessly overlink articles. Plastikspork (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Rettetast (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weak support. Seems the most logical to me, but implementing it will take careful work. Greggers (t • c) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. My preference would be to eliminate all linked dates, but this option is the best of the bunch. It avoids overlinking, unless there is some particular relevance to the date. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. This is concurrent with the general guideline to make onlyrelevant links. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. There are some rare links that are useful so this would seem to cover them. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. The history of this debate shows that guidance is necessary, so option 4 is not sufficient. There is little reason to treat links to month-day articles differently from links to any article, so only those which are clearly relevant should be linked. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. When we link to articles whose content is not relevant to the context, we do our readers a disservice by distracting them from links to relevant articles. In the absolute majority of cases, month-day links are irrelevant to the context of the article from which they are being linked. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Links are pointless and detrimental unless they are of semantic value. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support These must comprise the overwhelming majority of pointless blue links! These articles are just big, useless lists of events, births and deaths-who clicks on them? RupertMillard (Talk) 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support: I don't find the actual day-month articles pointless as RupertMillard suggests (I rather like them!), but I don't think they should be linked to in the manner that they have been. I also think Option #4 is scary and will only lead to incessant edit-warring (which has already been happening, and we really don't need any more of that!). I think that some guide, somewhere, should state the accepted instances for date links (rare) and keep the issue quite simple and defined. Maedin\talk 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. This should be the "common sense" option as I don't see any reason for it to be otherwise. Dates should be linked under the same rules as anything else - if relevant. |→ Spaully₪† 18:19, 30 March 2009 (GMT)
  77. Support. Links are useful mainly to define or further explain specific terms in an article. Nobody needs to look up the meaning of a date such as March 30. Dirac66 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, allowing linking to Dec. 25 in the Christmas article. Frankly these links are almost never useful in the wider encyclopedia, but do have occasional value. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Pro --Morten (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support options 1 and 2. Note: marking in both lists for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per above, only link when needed. TheAE talk/sign 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support per all the above. Alarics (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per Casliber above. We need to reach something definitive and hopefully put this issue to rest.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support linking if relevant, but not linked if not relevant. User preference issue can be dealt with in other ways if that is the consensus. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. In my opinion the most useful option. Liffey (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support In general, links to dates take the reader nowhere worthwhile. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Most logical. KellenT 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support This is the clearest option, and the most in keeping with existing policies about overlinking. Anaxial (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support It is the most logical and practical option. ~EdGl ★ 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Agree with comments 2,3,5,6, etc, etc, etc. CS46 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Date-linking in Wikipedia articles was a poor idea to begin, and the less of it, the better.  JGHowes  talk 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Would remove irrelevant links while still keeping ones that had value. – Joe N 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Seems obviously correct to me. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Although in an ideal world, option #4 would be sufficient, in practice I think that the clarity of option #1 will be the most effective. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support This is the only option that makes sense - new readers are constantly confused by date links to articles that have no relation to the original subject being read. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Although I've long been a proponent of date autoformatting, I've always believed that most date links were irrelevant and wished I could have separate autoformatting and linking. RossPatterson (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. The best of the four options by a country mile. There's little on Wikipedia that's less useful than these month-day links. Julianhall (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support faithless (speak) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per common sense: only relevant words get linked, so it should be with dates. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. If it's relevant, then it is potentially useful to the reader and linking it would increase simplicity in the reader's point of view. Useight (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - dates should only be linked if the link makes sense, rather than every time. --PresN 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - There have been many articles I frequent that have had links removed from them. To say I haven't missed them would be the understatement of the year. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support this follows existing guidelines and just makes sense; don't link it if it isn't relevant -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Reasonable sense to link to only relevant dates otherwise it's unnecessary. ddima.talk 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Suppport. Wikipedia does not exist for numerologists alone. VikSol 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, Option 1 not only means that date links will be treated like other links, but there will also be a guideline to put an end to revert wars. We need a guideline because linking has already been done and de-linking means a change: imagine if the word imagine had been linked every time, then suddenly it wasn't. A guideline will prevent any short term confusion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support and also support mass delinking of all such dates to get to where we should be: few links Hmains (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. 99% of date links are irrelevant to the article content. RainbowOfLight Talk 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. First choice. shoy (reactions) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - This is the goldilocks option (not too hard, not too soft, but JUST RIGHT). There should be very few links to dates, but every once in a while, a link may be relevant. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - I see no reason to treat dates like this any differently than other word. Links should be employed only where relevant in any case. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - However, I think the mark up should be there, even if it is not rendered as a link. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Makes complete sense. I remember I was confused as a new user when I clicked on these links and expected to go somewhere relevant, but didn't in most cases. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support: This option seems the most consistent with Wikipedia's existing linking policy. Regarding option four, I think that it's not unreasonable to state this in the MoS. — D. Wo. 06:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support: As with other links, date links should have a good reason. Most of the month-day articles do not provide useful context, and this are simply extraneous links within articles. NJGW (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: Seems obvious to me. Link only if a link makes sense. -- WORMMЯOW  08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support The best option for reducing unnecessary links. --JD554 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Common sense, really. Why on earth do I need to know, in a random article mentioning a random date, whatever else happened on the same random date?  Sandstein  11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Newbies need guidance not to "improve" an article with irrelevant links. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support but option # gives no examples for link to something like March 24 and I can' think of any reason myself, or any reason to read March 24. Such articles are 100% trivia. Colin°Talk 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - date linking almost never adds to an article, and in fact is essentially WP:OVERLINKing.  Frank  |  talk  13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - link only a few relevant dates such as July 4, 1776 and July 20, 1969. Bubba73 (talk), 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support = This is the best of the four choices. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, given most date links would otherwise be unhelpful happenstance and clutter. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support, indiscriminate linking of dates is pointless. noq (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Will reduce link density. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support, but I was almost tempted to option 2. The use of the word "relevant" will lead to edit wars down the road, but what's new about that? David Brooks (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support the proposal meets my expectations of linking only articles which are directly relevant, not those which will lead to a sea of blue irrelevance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support As most logical. Option 4 doesn't seem to preclude the re-creation of mosdate guidelines after they are removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support, they are certainly ugly and apparently unnecessary. --Aqwis (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. I think the date policy at WP:OVERLINK justifies itself. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Seems the most sensible solution. Just like with every other possible internal link, we encourage only linking relevant terms that provide addtional context to the reader. Otherwise nearly every word in an article would be linked, which wouldn't help anyone. It's the same for dates. Why there is such an obsession with linking dates all the time, even when such links aren't relevant in any way, is beyond me. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. This is common sense. Moreover, I'll propose something that may trigger reactions: Let a bot run and remove ALL month-day links and then re-add the relevant ones. From my experience, the relevant ones are very few. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Strong support: rarely relevant, and irrelevant links impose a mental cost on readers. Also gives pages a cluttered appearance. Making the links less common would make the remaining dates stand out more, which is probably a good thing in those limited circumstances where they are relevant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support, month-day linking is rarely relevant. — Xavier, 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support, month-day linking is rarely relevant. — MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, month-day linking is rarely relevant, and mainly adds visual clutter. Ground Zero | t 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. It's rarely relevant, and this way seems good. Wise dude321 (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Avoid overload. --Kbh3rdtalk 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Me, too. LilHelpa (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. Very few dates really need to be linked and we do not need an article for every date. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. This type of linking clearly amounts to gross over linking of information that does not add to article content. The only issue I have here is that interpretation of what is a relevant date may well be a cause for edit warring in the future. So if this passes, guidance should be to avoid unless it is clear that the link adds to the article and is really, really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Definitely the best option of the bunch. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Not sure when a link to a date has helped someone. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Common sense!! --Popiloll (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Ruslik (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Seems the most sensible and efficient way to go about it. Colds7ream (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support—Day-month links should be treated like any other potential link but instead of simply removing any mention (option 4) explicit guidance not to link unless the content is germane and topical to the subject should act as a catalyst in turning back the tide and repairing the damage. There is still a fair bit of inertia to link dates out there; we some extra force to help the decelerating won't go astray. However, option 4 could be worth considering in a few years' time. JIMp talk·cont 08:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. A date can be a meaningful link. Where a link is useful it makes sense to do it. SilkTork *YES! 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Weak support—If used properly, this use would be a rare occurrence. Usually the information on the date pages is over weighted toward certain types of events and not evenly weighted globally (battles in the Western world, English language literature etc.). As long as the editor carefully considers whether the info on the date page is relevant to the article, then I would support a limited use of this option. I personally have never found a date link meaningful and find it annoying when I accidently click on a date page. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Pointless date links are annoying. Ditto above comment. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I think that this is probably the best option VJ (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. I understand this to more-or-less mean that date links should be treated like any other (link when non-trivially relevant, otherwise don't), but I oppose #4 because I think that after all this fuss we need some specific guidance on this. Saying nothing just opens the door to endless further disputes. Matt 13:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
  155. Support I'm struggling to think of any reason to link month-day, except for the curiosity value of finding out what happened on your birthday - and that's not what an encyclopaedia is for. Any metadata these links provide is so vague as to be worthless. It's not helpful to anyone to know that some unspecified event, related to the subject of the article in some unknown way, happened on that day of the year. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Strong support Linking of irrelevant dates leads to overlinking and dilutes the quality links in an artcle Rubisco (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support This sort of linking is clearly over-linking. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support, although I recommend much more basic, easy-for-beginners examples of good candidate for date linking and bad candidate for date linking than that given. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. - I Oppose all day and month linking; day and month articles are nothing but glorified dab pages. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support - The reader's time is too valuable to divert it onto a topic unrelated to the one they have chosen to read about. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support, this kind of internal wiki-linking adds NO value to an article at all because the date is often IRRELEVANT to the context. It often gives historical information which just isnt needed, if people want it they can search for that particular date (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  162. Support. Link relevant dates only. Powers T 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - guidance is needed at present, although some years from now, option #4 may end up being okay. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support I would like WP:Popups or some other script to allow me to go to a date page for any date (which would be easier if there was the autoformatting meta data present), but in general excessive irrelevant visible links is bad. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Pointless links dilute the value of useful links. Links from an article should only be used to provide further information about the topic (or related topics). Overlinking is distracting to the reader ("what am I missing by not clicking that link?"). Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support In nearly all cases, date links are irrelevant and distracting. Exceptions can be made for the few that aren't. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support per Rivertorch.--Aervanath (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support When relevant we should link. Taemyr (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Very reluctant Support because I see no better alternative. In the past I'd be closer to option 4, but now it seems too vague to me.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. I've never followed a date link and found anything of relevance or interest, so they are a waste of time to putin, and dilute hight value links. A few relevant dates may benefit from linking.YobMod 09:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support This option improves on the amount of relevant links. (with the understanding that overlinking repeated cases of the same link is already discouraged by existing policy) - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Relevance should always be the operative factor in any link. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support as this proposal is consistent with our general approach to linking, and avoidance of overlinking. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support overlinking is distracting. --NullSpace (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. Only link relevant dates; month-day linking is rarely relevant. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. Commemorative days are the obvious need for a link, but limiting it to ONLY that is too restrictive. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. Date links were generally irrelevant and just added to link overload, and I think they should be generally avoided. However, if the author thinks that a specific date is truly relevant, then they should be allowed to link. Esobocinski (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. Linking dates only adds to the "sea of blue" problem; only when strictly necessary should a date article be linked to, as we do for every other article. Steve T • C 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support – While some editors might interpret this rule more loosely than others (such as using various "rationals" to support the linking of all months/days in an article), a formatting change is needed to reduce link density and irrelevance. momoricks (make my day) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support - Overlinking is something good to avoid - if a date link is there, then it should be there for relevance. Enforcing the rule will be time consuming though, so as long as there's a vigilant network for doing so, I'm in favour of Option 1 Australian Matt (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support - Date links are usually irrelevant for readers. Cacycle (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support This is the only option of the four that makes any sense to me.Yilloslime TC 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. User:MC10/S - seems like the best option of the 4 and prevents overlinking. MathCool10 Sign here! 04:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support I think users should have the option of seeing all dates linked, by means of improved date autoformatting/autolinking software — but I think the default should be something along the lines of option 1. --Sapphic (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Pile on support per Duh. Wikilinks are there for a reason, when the reason is there, so should the wikilink.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Me too--ClubOranjeT 07:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support despite the destructive impact on Wikington Crescent. Orpheus (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. I thought about the "remove guidance" option but that seems likely to lead to more arguments; guidance is just what is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Why would people use these links? Probably not to find a definition of April 14, so we don't need a lot of linking to dates and years. Samulili (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support linking in only relevant cases. It is pointless to link to every date, or even every date that is distantly related to the article in which they appear. Linking these dates should only be used when obviously relevant. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support. This option just emphasizes the idea against overlinking for which dates have traditionally been overlinked too much. --seav (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support per relevance and populating What links here, which is often quite useful. Bendono (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support I never understood why there were links to those articles. Deegee375 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. Relevance should be the reason for a link, whether a date or otherwise. —ADavidB 06:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Reduce unnecessary and unhelpful links. Date-month link will almost always be pointless. PamD (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. .Support Best option. Will prevent needless wikilinking.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Seems like the best way of doing it, and (off hand) follows existing guidelines on when to wikilink. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Best of all four options. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Treat month-day like anything else: link only if relevant, which they rarely are. Struway2 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Linking every date is obnoxious and contributes to information pollution, clouding the reader's ability to get to the meat of the topic and sort out relevant and interesting links from date links which contribute nothing to the article, nor do they contribute to anyone's ability to find information relevant to a specific date. There are too many such date links to be useful. Nuke all of 'em but the most specifically relevant to a topic. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support, second choice (#2 is my first choice.) – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support, have never seen the need for date linking. Can't actually think of any case where it is necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Per Btphelps. — Σxplicit 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Removes unnecessary links and makes it easier to to read Hohohob (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support I see no need for any bare date links. Ever.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support -- Same principle as for all links. KISS! -- William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support Linking useful if there is a genuine connection, but not otherwise. More general linking leads to the ludicrous and overwhelming situation where trivial dates are linked, such as the date a web page was accessed (I've seen this more than once!). Richard New Forest (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support add practically nothing constructive whilst diluting usefulness of What Links Here, Related Changes, etc. No need to link to lists which are trivially bound by astronomical constants, except in the rarest of occasions. Knepflerle (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support This option provides a clear and consistent recommendation, allows for consistent appropriate linking, and will help minimize overlinking. —Danorton (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support Least complicated and most common sense option. Peter Isotalo 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support, Why does everything turn into such a debate. This makes sense, the others do not.--Mrboire (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support — Coherent, consistent, common-sense link policy calls for treating dates the same as we treat any other potentially linkable word, phrase, or number: we link them only if they are really relevant to the article at hand. We don't link words just on speculation that the reader might happen to find the link target interesting, or because we happen to be using a linkable word as part of the article text. —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support -- Eliminates a lot of unnecessary link clutter, while still keeping the option available for cases where the links would actually be relevant. Brian Powell (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support All links should be included only if relevant, right? Why should dates be any different? The Grand Rans (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support. It is unconscionable to adopt a policy by which supplying irrelevant links is a feature of the default practice. Most occurrences of dates, in most contexts, are simple markers on a timeline; they are not gateways to any sort of rich and relevant background. In most cases, therefore, a link would make a false promise, and distract from the force and immediacy of the text.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Not sure if I understand the difference between this and Option #2, though. (It seems like such an edge case.) --Cyde Weys 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support - guides the reader to other articles only when valuable to do so. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support Treat it like any other link; we deplore overlinking, and mindless policy-driven month/day linking has long been an egregious example. Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support Date links are rarely relevant IMHO, but I wouldn't object to there being language to allow linking them in certain cases or when there is a concensus. dissolvetalk 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support -- Acroterion said it best...Treat it like any other link. Link when relevant. Farmercarlos (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support...whatever the hundred or so people said before me. But really, this is better than either alternative (link all, or link none: either hampers usability). ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support - yup. Xenus (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support there's no need to link dates except in rare circumstances. Guidance is needed to prevent edit wars over this, and this seems the best option. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support Does this section read "use resonable judgement." I'm a fan of that! Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support best option --Armchair info guy (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support Date links are almost always irrelevant. Link when relevant only, it's a far simpler rule to work with. --GedUK  20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support Let the writer decide and others edit what is relevant. We'll end up with completely blue pages if we start down this path! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support. Seems appropriate to link only relevant dates, no context for dates, i.e. WP:OVERLINK. Rehevkor ✉ 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support. If a link adds value to an article, include it. If not, don't. EyeSerenetalk 09:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support. I see this problem as one pertaining to relevancy, and option 1 seems to solve this problem just perfectly. --A.K.R. (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support I only wish to see links relevant to an article. Finavon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support I find irrelevant links reduce readability. It's like all the linked dates are read by Billy Mays in my head. Cstaffa (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support Events that simply happened on any given month-day combination is not an encyclopedic grouping, it's just trivia. Deep down the community recognizes this; that's why we don't have Category:March 24. Arbitrarily connecting two topics because the Earth happened to be in the same position relative to the sun is not at all link-worthy, it is utterly trivial. These month-day combinations are only encyclopedic when the date itself is representative of a specific event: July 4 and September 11 are common names for Independence Day and the destruction of the Twin Towers, respectively; by contrast, Dec 7, however infamous, is not generally used as a synonym for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support to avoid overlinking. Fletcher (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support Put an end to this silly overlinking.EEng (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support, linking dates provides no relevant information in the majority of cases. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support, linking to a date usually adds nothing to an article. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support. Linking of dates other than according to this principle is just annoying visual noise. Removing guidance altogether is a recipe for future conflict. The best option is a simple guideline like this one. McKay (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support  Like any other term, a date should be linked only when appropriate, according to the editors' judgment. —Michael Z. 2009-04-11 16:15 z
  241. Support I think that this is the best option as long as "relevant" is defined liberally. I think that too many links is better than too few. Captain panda 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Although I'd prefer option #3, this seems like an adequate compromise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support. My heart says remove all guidance, but my editorial head says we've got many beginners who love to make a sea of blue links, so let's tell them no. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support, erring on the side of not linking (if some other autoformat option is available).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support - Option 1 seems to make the most sense as links should only really be provided if they would be helpful for the reader on the topic they are reading. Removing all guidance would just be unhelpful and would cause future conflicts. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support This seems to make the most sense—only links that are relevant, and all links that are relevant. It's worth having policy on dates as well as other links.—Jchthys 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support This is the only option that makes sense. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support We should be strict about this. Such links should share an important connection with that subject Let relevancy rule, with a tight interpretation of "relevancy". Reconsideration (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support; these links are usually unnecessary. Option 4 would be fine too. --Spangineerws (háblame) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support - I expect that hardly ever would these links be appropriate. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support This strikes me as the best option of the four. Removing all date linking is too harsh, offering no guidance is a mess, and allowing the first date reference to be linked is useful for years but not full dates. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  252. I find this the most reasonable option: it avoids undue rigidity, but offers, at the same time, simple guidance based on established linking practice. Waltham, The Duke of 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support The most appropriate balance between an absolute ban and overlinking. Dl2000 (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support Links should always be relevant, and dates should be no exception. In addition, if the resolution of the autoformatting question is that autoformatting is not desired by the community, or if autoformatting is desired and the eventual implementation of it does not rely on linked dates, links that were solely for the purpose of autoformatting will need to be removed. Two important points related to this, however. First, no links should be removed until the question of autoformatting is decided. Second, the most efficient method of removing these links is through automated and semi-automated methods. However, since it is impossible for bots and scripts to determine relevancy. a method must first be created to identify and protect links that are determined by editors to be relevant — this, for me, is the main issue related to the current arbitration. Mlaffs (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support Articles that have dozens of dates, all linked, simply look cluttered. This indicates that some editors are not thinking about what will help the reader, but are just following a formula. Chris the speller (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support. This proposed standard relies upon editors' discretion, but that's not unusual for an MOS item. In this case, although that means that there isn't a simple algorithm that covers all possible instances (relevance is context-dependent), the likelihood is high that the end result will be broadly acceptable to the users of the encyclopedia. TheFeds 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  1. Seems a reasonable solution to allow the month-day articles not to become orphaned. My preference for options is in the order 2,4,1,3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support options 1 and 2, except "only" part in option 2. Note: marking in both lists for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support although this is very similar to option 1 - commemorative dates probably do count as relevant dates - so I would be happy with either. Perhaps date articles should be treated as lists, and linked to from "see also" where appropriate? Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Option 2 is clearer than option 1, since it is not clear what would be "relevant" for option 1 purposes, but option 2 is clearly defined. I agree we don't want to orphan the date articles, and this seems like the way avoid that. Option 4 is ridiculous. Richard75 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Option #1 is too broad. --David Göthberg (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Option 2 is stricter than 1. If option 2 fails to win, count my vote to support option 1. −Woodstone (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, I want the strictest avoidance of overlinking. Tempshill (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, though only very marginally over option 1 - they both make sense. Shimgray | talk | 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, first choice. – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Of lack of an option that simply eliminates all possible date linking, this will provide the least blue. Date links have no function and reduce readability significantly. Dates are the worst—they look hideous, and serve no practical function for the reader. Arsenikk (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I think month-day links should generally be avoided, but that they would be acceptable in articles referring to a holiday or other event that is intrinsically linked with a particular date. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Option 1 leaves too many pointless links. Kennedy (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: I prefer this as it is stricter than option 1, but otherwise count this as secondary support for option 1. Option 3 is boneheaded; it misapprehends why we link first occurrences of many things ("albinism", "rugby union", etc.), but do not at all link other things ("woman", "night", etc.) except in very particular and peculiar contexts. Option 4 is simply pointless, since as disputations over linking dates re-arise, the necessity to add guidance on the matter to the MOS will automatically also re-arise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Options 1 and 3 are overlinking. Option 4 is the road to inconsistency and edit wars. This is a good compromise. – IbLeo (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Second choice would be #1 Agathoclea (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Followed (in order) by #1, #4, and #3. Automated or default removal of dates should not be implemented, however. I would like to see date linking die in a mostly natural way, but I would like to see it die. IF the date is significant to the article, that's one thing. But linking every date is a waste of the reader's time. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  1. This is how everything else is linked, I don't see why dates should be treated any differently.-Jeff (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not too bothered really, but I think it is better when the days & months are linked. Unsigned contribution struck out,  Sandstein  20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, But only for certain dates (like birth and death) I am going to be the apparent oddball here and say that I think that overlinking is bad but there is nothing wrong with linking the dates the first time, or maybe even twice if one is an infobox and 1 is in the article itself. We have to remember that WP is not a paper encyclopedia, it is a 4 dimensional online encylclopedia that allows pages to be "linked" to other pages. I alot of folks have argued that it adds little value to them, but if I am reading an article and want to look at the date why should I have to type it in to go see it. Also, if we are going to remove links to dates then should we also consider deleting the date articles themselves, we are going to get quite a few orphaned date articles of we remove all links.--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, Personally I love links, it is the whole reason why WP > paper encyclopedia, will the data necessarily point to something germane to the article at hand? Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean that the reader won't find whatever it links to interesting. We might as well take out 'random page'. I would have voted for 4. But worried that it will simply be used to removed linking, not further it. Unomi (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I guess I'm rooting for the underdog here, but I feel that linking dates adds an inherent depth to wikipedia which is probably unobtainable anywhere else. I detest overlinking and don't think that every date in an article should be linked, maybe option 2 1/2 ? Like Kumioko said only birth/death dates, or the relative equivalent - the date of an important discovery, but not every date at Handel works. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support. I think it is part of what makes Wikipedia so cool: If a date is contained somewhere in an article, you are able to see what was going on at the same time (which is quite important if you are for example researching something...) Also, personally, I like reading the month-day pages linked from articles. They give a link to knowlage I probaly wouldn't have found else and make interesting connections between articles. They're just a cool thing. Also, what is relevant to one may be unrelevant to someboedy else... How do you want to determine what is relevant or what is not? For me, these links are relevant since they give the opportunity to find and discover other interesting articles better than any other feature. Old Death (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support. Per above, adding that serendipity sometimes plays a useful role in research.[1]Daytrivia (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I can't see any convincing argument against it. Deb (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I support this option. My reasons are the same as those explained by everyone else who supports this option. Go links!Simplebutpowerful 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option #4 (removal of guidance)
[edit]
  1. Strongly support. All links are required to be relevant and helpful to the reader. what more do we need to say about these? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the only way to ensure that date links are treated like other links. I observe that, despite the successful campaign to remove this objective from this poll, this equality has received support from support for all forms of language.
    • Even #3 has been read to impose restraints on date links which do not apply to other links, as in These comments. #1 and #2 have been used to justify extreme and sweeeping removals.
    • I therefore strongly oppose #1, Oppose #2 (which at least concedes a major use of these links) and weakly oppose #3. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes please; take as much as possible out of the hands of the hands of the people who made this clusterfuck in the first place. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly support as first preference. It doesn't seem that the date guidelines in MOS actually help anyone to do anything which they wouldn't otherwise be doing, and the constant edit wars show how little consensus the whole concept of a manual of style has. AKAF (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Option #3 is just silly: other than for the current form of date autoformatting (i.e. Dynamic Dates), I can see no reason whatsoever to add any link in the sentence "Retrieved on 30 March 2009." at the end of a citation. Option #1 spends way too many words, and makes the point of "relevance of the content of an article rather than of its topic", which some editors like so much way too explicit. (I wonder if they would remove the link to Ronald Reagan in Santa Fe Trail (film) on the basis that most of the former article is about his career as a politician, which couldn't possibly be relevant to a film in which he acted decades earlier.) Also, it seems to acknowledge that the month-day articles are listcruft, which can be taken as decreeing that they should forever continue to be such. (Will it still be so useless to link the article April 23 from St George's Day if it becomes like this?) Option #2 happens to match somewhat closely the criteria I would personally use to determine when to link such articles (except that I would say "event" rather than "commemoration"—how is linking 21 June from Solstice any worse than linking 17 March from St Patrick's day?—and I would add "... and eponymous events": ideally September 11 could contain a section about how that phrase has become a synonymous with the attacks of 11 September 2001, which would be outside the scope of the already very long article about the latter, but which could be linked to by it). But I don't think we need explicit instruction on when to link dates any more than we need explicit instruction on when to link common names of animal species: the Wikipedia guidelines are already bloated enough without WP:Linking mentioning that St Patrick's Day isn't celebrated on 17 March in some years. Hence, I support option #4, although I wouldn't oppose adding "...and days of the year" to the third bullet point of WP:LINK#What generally should not be linked. (FWIW, my preferences are 4-2-1-3 in decreasing order.) --A. di M. (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Too many events are simply irrelevant, and would rather metadates be used. Day/Month alone is next to pointless. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, MOS should not be dictating when to link as it is a Style Guide, not a Content Guide. MOS overreached when they tried to dictate when to link. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I see no fundamental reason why 1) Wikipedia should have uniform expectations or 2) such expectations should be enforced. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I wish I could say something more than what has been clearly -- if not forcefully -- stated above. There are many, many useless links in articles that have nothing to do with days, months or years, but for some reason a group of Wikipedians have decided to focus their attentions on removing all date-related links, instead of finding & removing these unhelpful links. -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support as I found it very useful and interesting to be able to click a date and see what other events happened then. Yes, there were (and still are) a lot of articles linked to specific dates (as happens in a world with a long history), but I think that argument is irrelevant. All this worry about articles having too many links to them is pointless worry as we will have more and more articles linked to each other as the encyclopedia grows. Are we going to start limiting the number of links which can be placed into articles when we reach 5 or 10 million articles just so we don't have "too many links" to any given article? That's just absurd. We're going to have to accept that many articles on main topic are going to have hundreds, thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of links to them. In the case of dates, it's likely they will be on the high end of things, but that's what happens when an online encyclopedia grows. And the argument that someone is going to have to go put back the links that someone removed is absurd. Just run the same bots again, only in reverse. It certainly won't be any more difficult than it was to remove them all. I also strongly oppose #1 and #2 and #3 is too arbitrary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Nihonjoe --Cybercobra (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I've been aware of these discussions for a while and today I saw the watchlist notice so I decided to finally make a comment on the topic. I find these proposals CREEPY. This is much more than when to use italic text or in what way bullet points should be used in an article. This is about links, the fundamental infrastructure of the web and the connections between articles on Wikipedia. Whether or not a specific date article requires a link is not the point, such a blanket guideline is too much and it'd be better handled on a case by case basis. --Bill (talk|contribs) 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Let the editors maintain control over what is and isn't relevant. bots do enough as it is — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Dates should be treated like anything else, if they are relevant to the article they can be linked. TJ Spyke 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support We need exactly one rule for when to use links, dates are not special. When I click on a link I expect useful information in the context of what I am reading. Date categories serve the purpose of linking in time similar events and can be specific to the type of article. --NrDg 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Many dates require linking, regardless - and besides that, Infoboxes look much nicer when dates are highlighted. Hence, I support #4. Daniel Benfield (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support It just doesn't matter so let people do what they want. hulmem (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Option one is just a watered-down version of this, which is more elegant and relies (gasp!) upon the judgment of the community. Somehow I think we can handle treating dates like other links and having one less MoS to have to look at!otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I am hard pressed to see any use for articles that list events that happened on a certain date (month-number) throughout the centuries. What difference does it make that Pierre Corneille was born on June 6 (1606, in the Julian calendar, just by happenstance the same combination of a month and a number as D-day, 1944, in the Gregorian calendar)? And what about those civilizations that don't use the Western calendar? Thus I would never choose to link a date, and I would certainly not liked to be forced to. For what it's worth, I normally will delete date links in any article I am editing. Thus I support Option 4, or maybe Option 1. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I dont care if dates are linked or not in general, but individual editors in a particular article can best determine this. This option also allows things like "births in YEAR", etc. dm (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. Only one of the options which stands a cat in hell's chance of actually being followed. Physchim62 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support reduce the number of rules and increase creativity J04n(talk page) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ✔ Yep. It's a wikilink, so why shouldn't it be treated as any other wikilink? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support I really agree with J04n's comment. With Wikipedia edited by many contributors, with different ideas of appropriateness, imposing one Procrustean solution is stupid. (I felt the same about year linking, and I wonder why the two are being polled separately.) -- BRG (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Let editors determine appropriate implementation at the article or project level. Content discussions are not under the purview of MOS. --guyzero | talk 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support. Anything that doesn't need to be in the MOS, shouldn't be in the MOS. Trust the editors to know what's best in each set of circumstances. – iridescent 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support this proposal that leads to the least rule-creep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per guyzero above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Do we really need the instruction creep? bibliomaniac15 23:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Enough instructions already.--catslash (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. However, leave a comment that the style used to be to link every date, and many articles still do this, but now dates should only be linked if the they follow the general rules. JonH (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Treating dates like other links does not seem much different from proposed solutions. And yet, the cost of a specific guideline is nonzero. --Thomas B♘talk 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support Where to add links and what to link to is currently at the discretion of the editor. I would need a compelling reason to change this. Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Reconsidering my position. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Every unnecessary piece of policy should go.--Pgallert (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Editors can make up their own minds. Too many rules and they're unlikely to be followed. G-Man ? 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. This or option three, but mostly I think editors should decide. I'm not troubled by overlinking, and I believe attempts to make Wikipedia conform to a consistent style are futile and foolish. There's already too much excuse for rule-mongering editor-hobgoblins to tromp on newcomers. Fijagdh (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support (or rather, oppose everything else) - years are one thing, but days are usually pointless. Leave it up to the editors' discretion. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 03:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've never understood the need for these links. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support The date pages have nothing of consequence to these articles, end the clutter and get rid of them all. You can still find them by typing it in the search box.- J.Logan`t: 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support perhaps with a caveat that we add a small non-guidance statement to MOSNUM or MOSLINK stateing explicitly "Links to dates are not treated any differently than links to other articles." or some such. Not necessary, but may be helpful. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Dates are not special. Jayron32's suggestion for a caveat is imminently sensible too; given the history of the affair, a sentence that explicitly states "not special" might be a good idea. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strongly Support: Let the editors decide (as they should with so very much else that the MoS and outside 'bots are trying to decide for them) what's useful or helpful and what isn't. The editors who are actually concerned with the particular topic at hand will disagree at times, but they can argue it out the way they decide any other secondary matter on the basis of specific issues. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
[edit]
  • Septentrionalis originally gave reasons for their opposition to the first 3 options here. Ryan removed them because they should go in the comments section. I've linked Septentrionalis' original opposition diff here as I don't want to refactor their words but feel a history record should be present in canse Septentrionalis does not return to comment further. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?)
  • (Without having checked Septentrionaliss comments). Option 4 seems acceptable, but would require additional interpretation to see if it where it would end up fitting in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3. Furthermore, option 1 is mis-titled; it should read "link to only (presently) relevant date articles". Where "link to only relevant dates" would appear in the spectrum from option 1 to option 3 would also be a subject for discussion. For those who wish to quote WP:OVERLINK, this would explicitly amend that guideline, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requiring voters to pick exactly one option is broken. It's possible for a rational person to find two options generally acceptable, and at least one option unacceptable, and this format essentially requires voters to pick one of their preferred options at random and hope that everyone with identical properties picks exactly the same way rather than splitting down the middle. An Acceptable/Unacceptable vote for each choice would have been far better. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adv/disadv discussed metadates, yet all options only addressed linking, not metadates, so it is unclear whether that is an oversight, presumed or inferred. billinghurst (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 is intuitive, since the reason most people oppose month/date linking is the same reason they oppose any other overlinking. But month/date linking is such a ubiquitous "problem" (if it is a problem) that I think it deserves its own mention outside of regular overlinking guidelines, to make our stance more explicit. At the very least, that would be helpful when you need to provide a rationale for having added or removed date links in an article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that Option 2 is more restrictive than Option 1, as it excludes all relevant, but non-commemorative links. However, I question whether I'm interpreting it correctly, because I had it in mind that Arthur Rubin (sole supporter of Option 2 at this time) generally favored linking dates. I oppose irrelevant links, and believe that major celebrations that always happen on the same day of a year are generally relevant links. That is, I'd link to July 4 for the American holiday generally known as The Fourth of July, but not System Administrator Appreciation Day (even if it were always 31 July instead of on the last Friday of July).
  • Why is 1940s mentioned? It's not a month or day. I could have supported #1, but I can imagine lots of articles that could link to 1940s with good reason. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because #1, despite the number of editors who support it on the grounds that it will lead to treating date-links like any other links, is being used by a handful of extremists to justify removing all datelinks whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's pure FUD. The obvious reason is that the 1940s are not mentioned as an article that needs an exception for being linked to (it doesn't, because it's not covered by this poll). They are mentioned as an example of an article from which even under option 1 it will be OK to link to 1940, 1941, ..., 1949 (and perhaps also to 1937 and 1956). --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of this poll is protested; see this section on talk. A {{disputedtag}} would be appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to be the first one to go out on a limb and ask this, but why is there no option that advises against all links? Judging by the commentary up there, such an option would receive substantial support. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been noted by several editors, but it is too late to go back and address it now. In any case, I think we can all tell by looking that dates should be linked once in a blue moon, if ever. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to disallow links from 1940s or 1939 to 1940 you are not going to get much support. If you allow them, it's really just a special case of option 1. Obviously the fine-tuning of option 1 should happen after the poll; otherwise we would have had to fine-tune the other options as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: For those who think a linking bot can be written. It's possible, but the occassional presence of a number next to a month which do not form a date make such a bot problematical. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it appears that most people voting for #4 think it's #1 (link very rarely), and many people voting for #1 think it's #4, possibly because of the subtitle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have 1 comment in regard to option number 1, we should be more descriptive when identifying which dates will be linked that "relavent". I think that birth and death dates are relavent, although others may not so I think this needs to be clarified.--Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble understanding the practical difference between options #1, #2, and #4. What are cases where a month-day would be linked under one option, but not linked under a different option? – Quadell (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really can't, in good conscience, vote in this, unless I have some good idea of what the difference is between the options. Can anyone please give examples of month-days that would be linked under one plan but not under another? – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article Saint Patrick's Day begins Saint Patrick's Day (Irish: Lá ’le Pádraig or Lá Fhéile Pádraig), colloquially St. Paddy's Day or simply Paddy's Day, is an annual feast day which celebrates Saint Patrick (circa AD 385–461), one of the patron saints of Ireland, and is generally celebrated on 17th of March.
        Using option #1, the words "17th of March" would not be linked to the article March 17 because that article contains nothing that helps or expands the understanding of Saint Patrick's Day.
        Using option #2, the words "17th of March" would be linked to the article March 17 because the date March 17 is normally the commemorative date for St Patrick's Day.
        Using option #3, the words "17th of March" would be linked to the article March 17 because it's the first occurrence of those words in the article. However, no other occurrences would be linked.
        Using option #4, the words "17th of March" might or might not be linked to the article March 17 because we wouldn't be giving any guidance and your guess is as good as mine.
      • Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify: is the only difference between #1 and #2 that recurring events are linked in #2 and not in #1?
        • Also, there's a problem with that analysis of option #1: the March 17 article does say "1756 - St. Patrick's Day is celebrated in New York City for the first time (at the Crown and Thistle Tavern)." One would also learn that it's the same day as Joseph of Arimathea's feast day, and one might wonder how those saints interrelate. In general, wouldn't one wonder how the celebration of a particular holiday affected (or was affected by) historic events that happened on that day? The wording says "unless their content is germane and topical to the subject", and I can't think of a recurring event where what happened during that event was not germane and topical to it. (The first National Brotherhood Week fell on the same day that Malcolm X was assassinated, a coincidence mentioned in the article itself. Would it be non-topical and non-germane to wonder what other events happened?) – Quadell (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (1) Option #1 states commemorative dates are treated as for any other link. That is, link to the date-article if that article helps or expands the understanding. (2) The first St. Patrick's Day celebration in NY is already in the St. Patrick's Day article, so under option #1 it would not be linked because you already had that information. (3) Personally, I can't see how wondering about a relationship between Joseph of Arimathea and St. Patrick helps me expand my knowledge of St. Patrick's Day (which is about the celebration, not the saint). There are only 365 days in a year, there are bound to be coincidental Saint's Days. (4) You are making the same error as many of the supporters of linking dates of birth and death: Although those dates are very relevant to the person, the wikipedia article almost invariably is not. On the odd few occasions where the year-article for the year of birth actually contains something relevant to the subject's early life, that information ought to be in the "Early years" section of the biography anyway. (5) Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, or coincidences either, and while I sympathise with a natural inclination to wonder about possible connections, I would prefer Wikipedia to remain as a source of reliable information. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the explanation. I think the wording doesn't make it very clear. I have to wonder if most voters for option #1 are aware that it would prohibit links from events to their month-day articles. (Afterall, if Joe Blow was born in Detroit, we normally link to Detroit, even if the Detroit article doesn't say anything about Mr. Blow. That seems to me to be a pretty direct parallel.) – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well to be honest, I probably wouldn't make that link to Detroit, but if someone found it useful to Joe Blow, why not? It's hard without real examples, but I'd make the link to Detroit, for example, where it's mentioned in Al Capone - even though he wasn't born there. On the other hand, I'd hardly ever link United States in a biography, as most people probably know where it is. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't consensus decide what is releavnt, as with all content? Voting for no linking ever would mean over-riding consensus on a page, in which linking a date is really useful (can't think when, but it could happen!). Guidelines should be flexible wrt consensus.YobMod 09:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too right it does. That's what collaboration is all about!Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I might be in favor of Option 1. However, the write-up given for this option would be a lot more useful if it included example(s) of instances where the date should be linked, rather than just the converse. Jgm (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

From Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#CSS link color settings for mw-formatted-date. After some testing, it was found that following addition to ones CSS (at Special:Mypage/monobook.css if you are using the standard style sheet) disables the display of wikilinks around dates: 

span.mw-formatted-date a {color: black;}

Hope this helps. -- User:Docu

Thanks, Docu ... except that I like my wikilinks. Thing is, smart linking—that is, a selective approach—is the way to optimise the utility of linking for our readers and ourselves. (I do turn the bright blue down to a darker shade of blue, but that may be because my Mac monitor is pretty strong on colour display. My user page has instructions on how to do so.) Tony (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wasn't under that impression. I'm sure you'd be better off if you just changed the link color of auto formatted dates. The articles will always disappoint you in the context of most articles they are linked from, similar to other frequently linked articles, e.g. United States. This unless you know how they are structured and what they include. -- User:Docu
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Month-day_responses&oldid=1147972795"