Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 28, 2006
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, Feb. 6, 2006
January 28, 2006[edit]
Non-standard day page - I might have just redirected it to January 28, but it's best to not encourage linking to dates like this (as it bypasses people's date display preferences). — sjorford (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second - investigating further..........................
Okay, I just noticed the "This date in recent years" section on the existing day pages, which links to January 28, 2006, January 28, 2005, January 28, 2004, and January 28, 2003. I hadn't noticed this before. Is it a Good Thing? Is it just intended for inclusion on the Current Events pages? Please help unconfuse me... — sjorford (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furtherness: list of links to similar pages here. — sjorford (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, bypasses preferences. We have a standard in the manual of style about dates. Anything that links to pages like this should be linked to the date without a specific eyar attached. - Mgm|(talk) 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put a list of all such pages I can find on my Playpen - in particular, there seem to be a lot of pages included as templates on monthly pages for the first six months of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Is there some sort of organised project that's creating these pages? I'm tempted to withdraw this AFD until more is known. — sjorford (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As was discussed the last time this came up, the developers (specifically at the time, Tim Starling I believe) said it was trivial to adapt the MediaWiki logic so that prefences are respected for this date types too. I am actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been turned on yet :(. Even so I think the single date pages are a great idea Keep :-). Pcb21 Pete 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NB at that time I wrote User:Pcb21/Date FAQ. It attempts to explain why the current method of linking is next to useless, and why the single date method is much better (but perhaps not perfect). Please do ask questions if there is anything not clear there, as it was typed in rather a hurry. Pcb21 Pete 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's good info...okay, so what do we do about this page, and also January 24, 2006, January 25, 2006, and January 26, 2006 which have all been blanked? If they're going to be part of your new system, fine, but at the moment, these four are kind of a dead end, and aren't included in the January 2006 page. — sjorford (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NB at that time I wrote User:Pcb21/Date FAQ. It attempts to explain why the current method of linking is next to useless, and why the single date method is much better (but perhaps not perfect). Please do ask questions if there is anything not clear there, as it was typed in rather a hurry. Pcb21 Pete 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As was discussed the last time this came up, the developers (specifically at the time, Tim Starling I believe) said it was trivial to adapt the MediaWiki logic so that prefences are respected for this date types too. I am actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been turned on yet :(. Even so I think the single date pages are a great idea Keep :-). Pcb21 Pete 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am against such a recentism and detailism. This is not newspaper. Such "articles" would only encourage people to add non-encyclopedic stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this stuff has been part of Wikipedia from the beginning - the only question is to lay it out in a big gloop (as a single month), or more finely grained (single day). Most people regard up-to-date coverage ("recentism") and plentiful detail as two of Wikipedia's strengths, btw. Pcb21 Pete 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete\ per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:54 2006-02-05
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.