Wikipedia talk:Why dates should not be linked

date links for "highlighting"

pretty many editors have said they link dates in order to highlight them, so it seems like it would be useful to have a section in the essay to address that. with the idea of drafting a section like that, i was looking around the MoS for a policy/guideline discouraging that practice, but so far the closest i've found is WP:Manual of Style (text formatting), which isn't especially close. is there a more explicit statement somewhere in the MoS that links are not meant to be used for highlighting? or maybe it was regarded as a "do not shave the kitty" kind of thing ... Sssoul (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Someone once told me that color-alone was not to be used to denote important information. So if one had a table of values, a subset of them that represented a special class couldn’t be denoted with just color. Using color, IMO, to set off dates—or any other body text for that mater—sounds thoroughly silly to me. I think this issue can be addressed elsewhere by 1) ignoring it, or 2) citing Wikipedia:Use common sense. We don’t need to fight that battle; others will, and the suggestion will die out through the process of natural selection.

  My objective (this is my suggestion here for going forward), is to try to keep this essay as short as possible. I’ve looked at other essays on this date issue and some of them are l-o-o-o-n-g. I had hoped, by using a “take-you-by-the-hand”, conversational tone, and by keeping this essay short and to-the-point, that it will actually be read.

  My fundamental objective in producing this essay was to educate those editors who haven’t ever participated in formulating MOSNUM policy, or even participated in a Talk:MOSNUM discussion. Some of these editors, upon seeing their cherished blue dates become de-linked, are coming to Talk:MOSNUM with a huge WTF! reaction. It doesn’t seem to be working out very well when we simply tell these editors that the date-linking issue had been patiently discussed for the last two years, that a consensus has been reached (a bone of contention with the opponents), and that they missed out on all those discussions, (but trust us, we’re doing the right thing).

  We need a tool (this essay) to quickly give these editors the “Ah HAAA” on what’s really going on in order to efficiently get them on the band wagon. I’ve found myself writing the same thing over and over on WT:MOSNUM. Succinctly covering the essential elements and resisting the temptation to address each and every nuance of the discussion best serves our interests here. Details and nuances can be addressed on Talk:MOSNUM. Do you agree? Greg L (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

sure! (by the way: i feel the "try reading four date pages" version of the "trivia test" makes the point better than the "try reading twelve" version. but do as you see fit, of course - i grasp that you've been dealing with these issues a lot longer than i have). swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

nice work, Greg

This is cogent and beautifully written. I'll be linking people to it. Thank you! Tony (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• You’re welcome. My pleasure. Funny. No one commented (noticed?) the little touch I’m most proud of: the drop-shadow under the preferences pane. I like little details. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

comments

Although I disagree with your interpretation of the "principle of least astonishment", I'll get back to you with more details. I agree with much of this essay; perhaps it's possible to reach agreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• That’s welcome news Arthur. Greg L (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Failing water?

If someone is reading up on the famous architect Frank Gehry, providing a link to beautiful architecture, like Fallingwater, is a good idea. But…

Hold up, Fallingwater is by Frank Lloyd Wright and isn't mentioned in the Frank Gehry article!! WanderingWanda (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)