Talk:Lunar Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the West Midlands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the West Midlands. In so doing it works and collaborates with the two related projects UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Linking dates

WP:MOSDATE#Date formatting says simple dates "should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so". So Noisy, if there's a good reason you keep linking these, pls mention it in the edit summary – or, better, here – so that User:Jclerman and the rest of us don't keep undoing your work. Cheers JackyR 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They set the historical context for the people and events that are being discussed! Let me expand. Thoughtless removal of dates without an appreciation of the article as a whole, and the value that linked dates provide for putting articles in their historical contexts by comparison with other personages and events that were around at the time is tantamount to vandalism, in my book. Ruthlessly applying a guideline when it is known to stir up passions is reckless provocation, and I can't understand how Bobblewik has got away with it for so long. Noisy | Talk 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that historical context is important. What I've always done is link the first date in an article, and often the last. Then I link selected others, if there is a particular event of that year that is mentioned in the date article, like a war or invention. The MoS deprecates "low-value" date linking, and I agree. So I (usually!) make sure that the destination of my link will specifically add something – and on really competent days say what in the edit summary... JackyR 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, Bobblewik removed the dates of formation and dissolution of the Lunar Society. That's plain disruption in my opinion. I remove subsequent linkings (unless widely separated, and adding value), as well. Noisy | Talk 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the result, four out of five dates are now linked. I wouldn't do that much myself, and don't think you can reasonably accuse those who disagree with you on this of "vandalism", "reckless provocation" or "disruption". But it's not an issue I feel strongly about per se. I do feel strongly about avoiding pointless edit wars, so I hope that explaining your thinking will have given others at least the chance to understand and perhaps agree. Cheers, JackyR 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)