Talk:Rosemary Vodrey

Untitled

It's normally considered polite to explain a wholesale revert, if only because the User concerned may have spent some time on making the various edits. Could you explain why you did so in this case, especially in the light of Wikipedia advice on such actions? The main problem seems to be the dates; recent discussions on the subject indicated, I'd thought, broad agreement that it was inappropriate to link dates unless they were relevant; a list of notable things that happened on, say 3rd January, or in 1976, isn't relevant to most articles, including this one. I notice that I slipped on the link to Premier, so I understand that one.

There are a number of grammatical problems that need attending to, but there seems little point if you're going to revert the whole thing again, so I'd be grateful for a response. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My response:

I was unaware of any recent discussions concerning the use of dates in articles, and was puzzled by your decision to make the changes in question. If you could point me to the relevant discussions on this subject, I would be appreciative.

(Note also that corrections to grammatical errors will not be reverted.) CJCurrie 23:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've lost track of the discussion, but I'll search for it as soon as the Wikipedia search function is up and running again. There were only a couple of problems left, which I've corrected). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I Googled and came up with this (which isn't what I originally saw, but is a more formal version of it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting ... I'd not seen that particular discussion before (though I was hardly shocked to discover that no official consensus had been reached, given wikipedia's history in such matters).

My own position on the matter is largely unchanged, however. From what I could tell, there were two primary reasons given against the linking of dates:

(i) Aesthetic merit. Having too many blue-links diminishes the visual quality of the page, apparently. (My response: I can understand why some would hold this opinion, though I myself do not share in it.)

(ii) Lack of practical value. Few people use the date-links, making them essentially superfluous. (My response: While I doubt that many wikipedia readers use them on a regular basis, some may. These links can inform people as to other world events which occurred at contemporaneous moments, and can assist in the creation of a larger "timeline".)

A further response: the date-links do no discernable harm to any reader. I can't see a compelling need to delete them, frankly.

I've incorporated date-links into all of the articles that I've written -- and, notwithstanding the objections of some users, I don't see a compelling need to stop.

On a separate note, thank you for correcting the silly "she"/"her" error which I made in haste about an house (I might have noticed it myself, but there's no guarantee of this).

On a further separate note, how does a professor of philosophy come to find interest in an obscure Canadian politician? CJCurrie 23:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the glories of the random page function... (and don't stress the obscurity factor, or some officious person will come along and slap a VfD on the page on the grounds that she's a “nobody”. I've seen that too often, and I find it truly objectionable, especially when – no matter how obscure she is – she's probably done more, and affected more people, than all the ‘delete’-voters put together). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On that point, I couldn't agree more. And to be on the safe side:

Lest any pedantic vfd hound prowl these grounds, let it be known that Vodrey is obscure on the world stage, but locally significant. (And, anyway, the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that elected officials at the state level are unambiguously notable; in Canada, this would translate to provincial officials.)

My creation should be safe now ... CJCurrie 00:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I should apologise for my opening testiness; I probably shouldn't edit when I'm tired. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken. CJCurrie 00:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)