Wikipedia talk:Date linking request for comment

Arthur's view

User:Arthur Rubin said [21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)] "and if not, should an error-prone tool (such as User:Tony1 for delinking or User:Tennis Expert for linking) be allowed." I feel that this comment is far too targeted and personal, and should be refactored. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you suggestions? I want to imply, although stating it outright might be better, that certain editors have been acting as if they were unintelligent bots. The names are not that important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed. Names removed, but specifically noting that I include as a an "error-prone tool" editors who link or delink without thought. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deb

What I called 'relevancy' is based on the statement: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles" as found in WP:MOSLINK. I was hoping that the general principle of only making relevant links would be accepted, but I read your view as indicating that you prefer the position where each individual editor decides unilaterally what links (of any sort) they may make. I would reject that as it runs counter to the principles of collaborative editing, consensus and consistency between articles - the three 'C's, if you wish. You could always make a proposal to test that stance in an RfC. If I'm mistaken and you are suggesting only that date-links should be treated differently from any other links, then please make a suggestion for testing that in an RfC. In either case, it would be instructive to see the balance of opinion on such questions. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this "new understanding" -- which is, after all, only a few months old -- is that it would preclude most of our traditional links. For example, in the article on Ben Franklin, we would no longer link to Philadelphia, or electricity, or kite, or United States one hundred-dollar bill because none of those links are likely to "deepen" a reader's understanding of the topic of Ben Franklin. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that links to 'electricity', or 'kite' do nothing to further one's understanding of Ben Franklin. However, the banknote is germane (and therefore relevant) because this former President's likeness features on one of them; likewise, Philadelphia is where much of the revolution stuff happened. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]