Talk:Rachelle Lefevre/Archive 1

MOS:SYL and WP:OVERLINK

I was asked by User:G.-M. Cupertino to lend assistance in explaining MOS:SYL. It seems, according to the article history, that there is a disagreement over the linking of dates and/or years. I don't know why Cupertino has come to me for assistance with this considering the fact that the two of us have butted heads over these two style guidelines before. That being said, here's my take on the situation. You can consider this as a third opinion (WP:3O) if you like. There are a few things to point out here:

First, according to MOS:SYL, the linking of dates for the purpose of autoformatting has been deprecated. So, given that, I don't see why, during the recent edits, the links for the subject's date of birth had not been removed. If the word of the guidelines is in contention, then I would think that that date would have already been fixed.

Second, while researching my response to Cupertino's request, I found the following, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) under the "Linking of years" section: Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. 1989), especially when part of a date. So, because a filmography is a list of works, according to this guideline, the year after the title of the film/play/television show/etc. should not be linked. Therefore, I side with User:Sergay on this point since he has been removing the "X in film", "X in television" links.

Third, according to WP:OVERLINK, there are these two items that I'd like to point out:

1. Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. (emphasis was not mine, that's in the original)
2. In the article on Supply and demand, you should:

• almost certainly link microeconomic theory and general equilibrium as these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight;
• consider linking price and goods only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic (a section-link is generally preferable in this case);
• not link to the "United States" because that is a very large article with no particular connection to supply and demand.
• definitely not link "potato", because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on Supply and demand, beyond its arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.

Drawing examples from this article, words such as "sushi", "waitress", "psychologist", "television show", etc. should not be linked because they:

1. Are not technical terms that readers are unlikely to understand at first sight
2. Do not have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to Rachelle Lefèvre
3. Are links articles that have no particular connection to Rachelle Lefèvre
4. Or are common terms with no particular relationship to the Rachelle Lefèvre article

For this third point, I side with Sergay again.

Questions, comments? Please, list them. If you have a problem with my WP:3O style third opinion, and would like to continue up the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ladder. The next step may be a request for comment, though you may want to double check that. Dismas|^(talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You've allways kept links to years in activities such as film, television and music. How's this now? G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always kept them because I was uncertain as to the guidelines that were applicable. I have very little time to work on WP. I edit with the little free time that I have. So it wasn't until now (luckily you caught me on a weekend without much going on) that I could sit down and read over the guidelines and see that links to "X in film" or "X in television" shouldn't be present. It's not that I was siding with or against you in the past, I just didn't know enough to have an informed opinion either way at the time. I was, in a sense, abstaining. Now that I know what the guideline has to say, I'll be removing such links where I see them. Dismas|^(talk) 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to build concensus and avoid edit warring, I agree with and support Dismas' assessment and feel the year links in a filmography, per WP:LOW, offer little value. dissolve^talk 18:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Dismas (and Dissolve), I appreciate it. Andrea (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)