User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2010/Oct

Date unlinking

Ahem. Dates are not to be unlinked in articles about chronological periods, such as 2015. I'm not sure about November 2008 in sports. I believe the consensus was that those are also articles about dates, and hence the dates were not to be unlinked. I ask you to revert your date unlinking in those articles. (This is not the same as linking all the dates, which is what I would have to do to revert it if it's not fixed quickly.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard my comment about the sports timelines. There seems to be no project consensus. However, if you continually unlink dates in year articles, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you think a reader who's interested to find out about events expected to happen in 2015 would benefit from a link to the events of, say, March 20, in some random set of completely different years. The only date link that's even arguably relevant, albeit remotely, is '21st century': the month-day links are of no value whatever.

And if you come to my page trying to bully me with threats of blocking again, you will find yourself at ANI. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlinking city names inside a table

I don't think it's wise to unlink a single city name inside a large table where all of the other entries in the column are linked. You should leave Paris linked in the tables in French Chess Championship. In a table, appearance and consistency are more important than the concern that a single common word is linked. Quale (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Quale has a good point here (it's a textbook example, actually). MOSNUM also says that for linking purposes, table rows should be treated separately. Tony (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I do want to make the point that when the wikilink signal (blue) is used as wallpaper for aesthetic reasons, it threatens its real meaning. The result is that readers click on astoundingly few of our links. Tony (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Chess article, there is one table where I believe it is thoroughly legitimate to argue for complete delinking – therein, there are about 15 occurrences of 'Paris', plus one each of 'Toulouse' and 'Nice'. All three of these terms are linked to multiple times within the remainder of the article. So there is no reason for any of the mentions within that block to be linked. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

MOSNUM recommends linking all rows rather than just the usual practice of just linking first occurrence, because a table can be reordered, so the first occurrence may not remain the first occurrence. That isn't the issue here, where we have some values that just shouldn't be linked at all. Quale, you have a legitimate point about the better aesthetic appeal of having all entries linked, rather than a patchwork, but personally I'm not convinced that that consideration outweighs the disadvantage of having multiple low-value links. There's no easy answer to this one, so I'm happy to leave it to work itself out a on a case-by-case basis by local consensus. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the great, copy edit on 142nd Field Artillery article.Damon.cluck (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)