Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

As per this, User:Reconsideration is intent on changing thousands of pages in order to put a see also section without an RfC or anything like that. When this was pointed out to them on their talk page here, they seemed unwilling to even care about WP:CONSENSUS. See also sections are highly frowned upon in FAs and GAs, as we are supposed to keep such things integrated unless absolutely necessary. These links do very, very little and are encyclopedically inappropriate, and it constitutes spamming. They are currently intent on adding such things to all poetry pages, and there has not been one discussion. Here is where they are intent on adding such a section to an ongoing FAC, even though it would jeopardize the FAC. Something really needs to be done, as this user does not respect consensus at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion of this at the numbers & dates RfC -- both of them. I got some feedback there. Since when do I need to get feedback first before making bold edits? Did you get consensus somewhere before you suddenly popped up opposing what I was doing? This is an odd time for Ottava Rima to be objecting to having "See also" links in articles. Anyone, take a look at Benjamin Harrison. Sound familiar? That's because it's the featured article for Misplaced Pages, on the front page, right now. It has a "See also" section which links to List of American Civil War generals. That's very much like the links I added to articles about poetry published in a particular year: A link to the article for the poetry published in that particular year. I pointed this out to Ottava Rima in an attempt to politely discuss the matter on our talk pages. I was met with rudeness there and rudeness here and rudeness by Ottave Rima on SandyGeorgia's talk page. (lovely, isn't it?) Why is it that when I politely engaged you in discussion, you just insulted me and stopped discussing, then went to some other editor's talk page and insulted me further there? The ultimate question really is this: What do you think gives you the right to treat other editors this way when Misplaced Pages has a policy called WP:CIVILITY? I looked in that policy but nowhere does it say "This applies to all editors except Ottava Rima". This AN complaint is an attempt to get here first after I asked Ceoil on that editor's talk page whether or not I should make a complaint against Ottava Rima here. I asked Ceoil because Ceoil was having behavioral problems with Rima at some featured-article discussion page.

Rather than repeat all the links here, I'm just going to cut and paste what I said at Ceoil's talk page:

I added this to the Lucy poems article and Ottava removed it (which is his right) with this edit summary (which isn't) (inappropriate and tacky). That's a classic form of incivility (see third bullet at WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility). He and I had discussed this a bit beforehand on our talk pages (last edits about this on each page: ) and after insulting me a bit and not replying to my statements, he seemed to shut down after posting more insults at the talk page of Sandy Georgia. I was thinking about maybe bringing a notice to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts but then I noticed I wasn't the only one having problems with Ottava. Should this be brought up at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents? I'd like to get him to stop insulting me at the least and engage in a reasonable discussion at most. Any thoughts? Reconsideration (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a violation of WP:CIVILITY if I point out that Ottava Rima has a singularly divisive way of dealing with other editors? Reconsideration (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bold is not changing thousands of pages, including many GAs and FAs that had consensus to their status and not talking to any of the editors at those pages. And your claims of a breach of civility are blatantly false, which is a violation of Civility. Please link to -any- insult. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bold is not changing thousands of pages, including many GAs and FAs Changing pages is called editing. Changing thousands of pages is called experienced editing. Calling other people names, dispagaging what they're doing and heaping abuse on them is called incivility. Which of these does Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines support and which does it condemn? Reconsideration (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your actions are nothing more than an egregious violation of protocol and WP:CONSENSUS. They are not experienced editing. Furthermore, your claims that I called you names are factually incorrect and a violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't Reconsideration integrate these links as in 'Bad brown stuff is an 1803 poem about a small nugget of fudge found by a small boy in the wake of an elephant parade.'? That way, his articles are integrated and a 'see also' which is thoroughly redundant tot he category link in the Category box, is eliminated? especially since his See Alsos also include purported facts which would be better off integrated. ThuranX (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the first things I pointed out is the integration of the link within the article and I was attacked for it. I guess it doesn't show off his pages in a big enough manner. The sheer alteration of thousands of poetry pages without even a mention to WP:POETRY or anything close is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair question, ThruanX. I'll find the link later (I need to go offline for an hour or so), but in the last two dates & numbers RfCs late last year or early this year, there seemed to be a number of editors who said piped links were not a good idea for year-in-something pages. I thought adding a "See also" section at the bottom would remove that objection and still give readers a chance to know there was an article about other poetry published that year. There's nothing new about "See also" sections. Please see the comments I made on Ottava Rima's talk page about this (link in that note to Ceoil I copied above). The year-in-poetry pages have a lot more information than any category ever could. That's such a standard point that Misplaced Pages has a whole page on that here: , as one helpful editor said on SandyGeorgia's talk page. Reconsideration (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava writes just above: One of the first things I pointed out is the integration of the link within the article and I was attacked for it. Does anybody else agree with Ottava that the following comments were an attack on Ottava Rima:

• So you're talking about the "See also" sections in the " in poetry" articles. In list articles, these seem useful to me, given the purposes of list articles. Given the nature of "year in" pages, mass additions or mass changes are to be expected and are the only way to make some changes, including additions to "See also" sections. You didn't answer my question. Reconsideration (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please provide an example. I'm adding a link to the corresponding year-in-poetry page to the "See also" sections of articles on poems and books of poems. It isn't some kind of stretch to see why that could be useful for a reader. I don't actually recall doing so for any GA or FA articles, but if I did, that would be perfectly acceptable, since plenty of FAs (including many recent ones) have "See also" sections. Examples: List of castles in Cheshire#See also, List of tallest buildings in Chicago#See also, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa#See also, Freedom Monument#See also, Anne of Denmark#See also, Fauna of Scotland#See also, Thriller (album)#See also, John Calvin#See also, 2006 Westchester County tornado#See also, and Talyllyn Railway#See also. Please take a look at Benjamin Harrison#See also]]. That article is about to be featured on Misplaced Pages's main page. The "See also" section has a link to List of American Civil War generals. If I add a link at an article about a book or poem to a list about contemporary poetry, there's a pretty strong reason for that link, at least as strong as the one on the Benjamin Harrison page. The " in poetry" articles and similar pages are, like all lists, partly for navigation, partly for information, partly to help serious students and people who browse to find related information, so in the right spots, they're very helpful. Reconsideration (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Which editor was abusive here and which one was trying to politely discuss the issue? I'll be back later. Reconsideration (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't administrators give editors who are constantly uncivil "civility blocks"? I think Ottava Rima should get one. His incivility just goes on and on. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with what I've just gone through. Here's a list of this editor's abuses in just four edits by him or her:

• I am talking about you randomly adding see also sections to GAs and FAs simply because you want to draw attention to your article in a highly inappropriate manner. Isn't this a violation of WP:AGF? There was nothing "random" about it, and I was doing what every WP editor is supposed to do: try to improve the encyclopedia. He makes it sound like I'm trying to promote myself. You're supposed to try to link to articles you're trying to improve. It's part of improving them. It's in WP:STYLE somewhere or some other Misplaced Pages page suggesting to editors what they should do.
• To SandyGeorgia: He is just creating what is already done in categories, taking up space, and defacing thousands of perfectly good articles. Obvious violation of WP:CIV
• To SandyGeorgia: He doesn't seem to care or care about anything but linking his pages where ever he can. I can't stand people who make such low level nonsense and promote it out the wazoo (same link as the last one) I don't care about improving the encyclopedia. He can't stand me? My work is just low level nonsense? Thanks. Thanks a lot. Reconsideration (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reconsideration - you have linked the pages you worked on to thousands of articles in what constitutes as spam. Those comments about your -work- clearly do not violate civil in any way, and saying that those pages are useless is a fact. You have not gone through an RfC. You have not sought consensus. You have edited thousands of articles in appropriately. I am surprised that you were not blocked at the very beginning of this, as your actions are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You were asked to stop and go to an RfC. You refused. You started criticizing me on various pages. There was nothing "polite" nor correct about your actions. Experienced editing is not changing thousands of pages without consensus before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I don't think you should get a civilty block, but do you think you could try to be a little more civil here?--_{Sky Attacker} 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote or expanded many, many pages that he mass changed. My watchlist has been constantly flooded with his changes. We already have year in literature pages, and Geogre never did anything like this with them. I do not like people going through and making mass changes like that without even a hint of consensus. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but WP:POOR. An incivil environment is also not how Misplaced Pages works.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please quote where I was incivil. Saying a page does not contribute anything is not incivility. Comment on work, not on people. That is clearly what I have done. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please quote where I was incivil Ottava Rima, I've quoted it twice, first on Ceoil's talk page and above when I cut and pasted my comment from there. Here it is a third time and I'll just put it in boldface because you apparently find it hard to read regular type: this edit summary ("inappropriate and tacky"). That's a classic form of incivility (see third bullet at WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility). And look at your comment on SandyGeorgia's talk page Now I've quoted you here and elsewhere in this thread, specifically pointing to your incivility and pointing to the specific spot at WP:CIV which you violated. You've told me that I violated something called protocol which I've never seen in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and that I violated WP:CONSENSUS except that there hasn't been a discussion that I'm aware of and I'm the one who's attempted to discuss the matter on talk pages. Why don't you point out the specific part of WP:CONSENSUS that I violated and explain to me how I did that. Of course, I asked you to do this before on your talk page, and you couldn't. Reconsideration (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have been uncivil User:Reconsideration has probably proven that already. Besides, I never said you were uncivil I just asked if you could try to be a little more civil. That's all.--_{Sky Attacker} 00:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy against see also sections. In fact, the MOS explicitly permits them as a guideline: WP:ALSO. The two well-known books on Misplaced Pages explain how to use them, as do many help pages. Most Misplaced Pages articles that are more than stubs have them. None of the FA related pages I can find in WP space give their absence as a criterion. If OR or other active FAC people wish to deprecate them, they should try to change the guideline in the MOS or at least their own pages, which seem to have consensus as informal guidelines--as they well might, since the advice given there about article writing is extremely sensible. Insisting on removing them would seem unjustified. However, to put them in thousands of articles, apparently against known or predictable opposition, is remarkably unwise. BOLD depends on being reasonable, and this is not. An overbold use of BOLD does not help cooperative editing. Insisting on one's own way on style does not help cooperative editing either--nobody owns a page. I suggest the people involved try to discuss the issue and if necessary involve the rest of the community. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

to put them in thousands of articles -- I never put them in "thousands" of articles; you're assuming Ottava Rima's exaggerations, which he's done constantly in everything about this, are accurate, in fact I have put them in a lot of articles; apparently against known or predictable opposition -- where do you get the idea that the "opposition" was either known by me or predictable? Nobody ever said I shouldn't add these links until Ottava Rima did a day or two ago. As I said, the current featured article, Benjamin Harrison has a similar link in a "See also" section, and that article was recently passed through FA. So where's this opposition, even at FA? What is it that I'm doing that isn't done everywhere on Misplaced Pages? I do it repeatedly because I see places that need these useful links. The year-in-poetry pages have been expanded, going back 500 years, over the past 12 months or so, so these links wouldn't have been made before that, but links have been made to the longer-lasting year-in-poetry pages for some time. I don't understand what people think I'm doing wrong or where in policy/guidelines it says I shouldn't do this. Is there a spot in WP:CONSENSUS that I missed? I brought the matter up when the year-linking RfCs came up but didn't get told I shouldn't do this. When Ottava Rima objected I immediately tried to discuss the matter with him on our talk pages -- and Ottava Rima stopped discussing and abused me. When I added a "see also" section to the Lucy poems article, Ottava Rima reverted it and abused me again in the edit summary. At every step I've tried to follow policy/guidelines and at every step Ottava Rima has been rude and has turned away from discussion. And when Ottava Rima reverted on the Lucy Poems page, I started a discussion at that article's talk page. You don't get consensus without discussion, and I'm not required to wait for consensus when I can't predict that something I'm doing will be controversial. I see some editors commenting here, but there's still no consensus against it. Consensus at FA? It evidently isn't there, as I pointed out to Ottava Rima, who then stopped discussions. What have I done wrong? What has Ottava Rima done right? If I did something wrong, how was I supposed to know? -- Reconsideration (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) revised my statement in minor ways

Reconsideration - There are 2720 poetry articles that are part of WP:POETRY. There are many that are not part of the wikiproject. Since you are going by year, it is assumable that you are going through most of these and those not listed. Since you are not stopping and constantly add more and more, it seems obvious that your intent is to cover them all. Furthermore, we already have a year in literature page, so these are unnecessary content splits. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which part of your objections is an issue for this noticeboard? If you want to combine all the pages, do an AfD or merge discussion or RfC or whatever. Then you'll successfully run me off Misplaced Pages and I'll tell everybody to go to hell and you'll be happy. The pages are separate because they have the potential to be a lot like 2008 in poetry which is too big to merge and still doesn't cover its subject because it concentrates too much on English-language poetry. Compare that with the worldwide coverage of 1965 in poetry and then compare with 1945 in poetry#Events, which still probably doesn't cover a fourth of the events involving poetry in that year that it could cover, and there are prose sections, occassional quotes, pictures and whatnot. The field of Indian poetry, surprisingly to me, is huge (see the coverage at 1935 in poetry to pick a random 20th-century example). For someone who wants to either browse or is a serious student of poetry, these pages are valuable, and that's why their traffic statistics show so many visits each month. The number of articles being edited is irrelevant if what I'm doing is OK with policy and consensus. If you object, it's your job to show me where I've gone against either policy or consensus. You haven't. Instead you've been insulting. We know that you don't like what I'm doing, but where's your proof that it's wrong? Reconsideration (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DR, people, if you can't work it out amongst yourselves. This isn't the place for it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for a temporary ban of his actions. That is not what WP:DR handles. It is what WP:AN handles. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm neither disrupting anything, nor going against any consensus, nor going against any policy, nor doing anything harmful to Misplaced Pages, there's nothing for this noticeboard to do. At Talk:The Lucy poems the discussion I started is going on. While discussion continues anywhere, I won't add any more links to "See also" sections, but as soon as discussion dies down and no new discussion crops up anywhere else, and if there is no consensus, it seems reasonable to me to resume because I'm just following regular Misplaced Pages practice. I've also added links to Bibliography sections of poet articles (most recently, see Peter Viereck#Poetry collections). An RfC would probably be a good idea, with a three-part question: Should Misplaced Pages allow the links to be added to articles about works of poetry? If so, should they be added in "See also" sections or within the text of the article? If within the text of the article, as piped links (with an explanation in parentheses for multiple mentions) or as unpiped links? I want readers to be able to use this year-in-poetry resource. As far as I can tell, despite the fact that these year-in-poetry pages are still only a fraction of what they can be, there is no better poetry chronology with a worldwide scope anywhere, online or offline, than this one. And it's available to anyone with an internet connection, and it has links to articles for in-depth coverage of most of its poets. I don't care how it's linked from poetry-related articles, but it should be linked, and I think most editors would agree. It's also the most footnoted of any of the year-in-subject pages. Against all this, Ottava Rima has insults, disparaging comments, unproven assertions and assumptions of bad faith, but no arguments that I've seen. I think a consensus of editors would agree with me. Reconsideration (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This shows that Sandy verified my original assertion about FAs. Your comments about my actions are all equally false. And yes, mass changes like this are incredibly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia didn't oppose links from poetry articles to year-in-poetry pages. I've said repeatedly that I don't care how the links are made. Can we all agree that the links can be made from within the text? If so, I won't add them from "See also" sections because there will be no need to. Could you ask Sandy whether or not the links should be piped or unpiped (I assume within parentheses). If Sandy can agree on this, can you? Then we could settle this right here and now. In the interests of coming to a consensus, I'll back off from citing your violations of Misplaced Pages behavioral policies again. Can we come to a consensus on this? I'm trying to be flexible here. Reconsideration (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd better ask this, too: Can we agree that links such as those at Peter Viereck#Poetry collections are OK, too? Reconsideration (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The very first comment I made on your talk page is for you to integrate the links into the articles instead of creating a see also section. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to settle this or quarrel? Your first comment on my talk page could be read either way. Are you going to answer my questions about whether the links should be piped (like this: 1807) or unpiped (1807 in poetry)? Are you going to object later to links such as those at Peter Viereck#Poetry collections? If you and Sandy agree, we have a consensus and can stick a fork in this discussion with no need to continue it. Reconsideration (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia tells me this isn't her fight, so it's up to you, Ottava. Please answer my questions. Reconsideration (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lifebaka. DR may or may not handle it, but AN is certainly not the place for this discussion. Take this yoohoo somewhere else.--_{Sky Attacker} 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't support a topic ban of any sort against Reconsideration. He's trying to improve things; I can find good faith in his edits, and I think my skepticism on that mark is well documented. I would ask him to stop, and bring this to the appropriate places - poetry, MoS, and see what can be worked out. It may turn out that linking 'year' in 'topic' articles should be in the same named caegory, and that's how readers can find such articles. I'm not sure that a year alone is enough of a connector for a topic like poetry; certainly the idea that cultural exchange was having much influence on contemporary poetry before the last couple hundred years is still debatable, not carved in stone. I could see 'Victorian Poetry' being a See Also-worthy addition, or Post-revolution french poetry, or some such thematically linked thing, but a year alone may not be enough. I may be wrong. Take it to the experts, sort it out. And Ottava Rima yet again ,rein in the incivility. ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that is the point; that a "see also (Year) in poetry" section is spurious if the only relevant information in that article is already in the article being linked from. For example, in Christabel (poem), it is mentioned that the poem was published in 1816 in the work "Christabel; Kubla Khan: A Vision; The Pains of Sleep", but the See Also section is to 1816 in poetry, where the only relevant information to the article is that ... the poem was published in "Christabel; Kubla Khan: A Vision; The Pains of Sleep" in that year. Whilst not wrong, as such, this is just pointless. If the Year... article contained more relevant information to the article, then it could be justified, but I can't see how sections such as the example can be. Black Kite 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite and ThuranX are addressing content issues. Black Kite, please see WP:SEEALSO, which has just been changed in major ways by SandyGeorgia, restoring language previously there (I don't object to the changes, but any reading of that guideline shows that what I've done falls within the purpose of "See also". A sentence in the now-restored part reads These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.). I have a lot to say about why the year is a useful link but this really isn't the place. I'll start a consensus discussion, probably an RfC on its own page, as soon as I have time, probably Monday. Please see the content discussion at Talk:The Lucy poems as well. Almost all the editors who actually are involved with editing poetry-related pages seem to like the links. Ottava, the exception, seems to object mostly to putting the links in "See also". Reconsideration (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX - the topic ban would be to prevent any major changes until an RfC can be created to adjust how to do this. There are many pages that passed FA and GA. I just want some sense of consensus, as these pages represent -a lot- of work and effort, and FAC has a tradition of opposing "see also" sections . Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief, is this still going on? Ottava, nobody seems inclined to agree with you that a topic ban is warranted. This boils down to a content dispute and cannot and will not be solved on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, learn from me: I followed Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, all in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS, and tried to adjust what I was doing once I saw some uncomfortableness with piped links at the numbers & dates RfC. Then I started using "See also" sections, in accordance with WP:SEEALSO. I never had a hint that what I was doing was either anything but normal editing or objected to by anybody until you left a confusing note on my page. I then tried to engage you in discussion, asking questions and politely explaining my reasoning. When you stopped discussing the matter with me on our talk pages and made personal attacks, uncivil comments and assumption-of-bad-faith comments on SandyGeorgia's page, it was reasonable of me to conclude that you weren't interested in working together. I continued adding the "see also" sections and you reverted at The Lucy poems page with a rude editorial summary comment. When you did that, you didn't add the link in the text, you just removed the link. Then I started the discussion on the talk page there, where, true to form, you've continued your rudeness, although that discussion shows further support for the links. In the face of your immediate and constant rudeness, assumptions of bad faith, lack of interest in coming to consensus and ignoring of my efforts, I eventually went to Ceoil for advice. At no time did I attack you in return, nor was I even rude to you. Since you and one or two other editors have now objected to the way I'm doing it and raised this content issue, I've been flexible and agreed to start a discussion to get a consensus, just as you had suggested. I've been flexible in stating that I can support any kind of links, so long as I can be reasonably sure that what I'm doing has enough support out there that it's likely to stick. Even just above, I asked you if you could come to an agreement on this, and you ignored the offer. Your maliciousness has been baseless and astounding -- it's odd that admins here haven't blocked you already for your campaign of ongoing incivility. There is no further need for this thread, and some editor should box it for archiving. I'm done here and I'll start an RfC, with a notices at Village Pump and elsewhere. Reconsideration (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the consensus decision to allow links to year-in-topic articles. From Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to use "Year in Field" links in November and December 2008. I might go ahead with an RfC to clarify a few things brought up here. But I certainly was not making many edits without any consensus whatsoever. That charge was simply mistaken. I wish I'd had time to find this earlier. Reconsideration (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And here is further justification from a Misplaced Pages guideline. From Misplaced Pages:Linking#Year linking, a Manual of Style guideline:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

If a particular development on the metric system in that year is worth linking to a year-in-science article, then the publication of a book of poetry (or perhaps writing of one) is an obvious candidate for a relevant link to that year in poetry, according to the manual of style. Also, according to WP:EGG, I shouldn't be piping the links except in lists and charts where being concise is important. I guess I'll add something like "published in 1807 (see 1807 in poetry)" although that looks a bit awkward as a replacement of a simple year in parentheses when a book publication year is mentioned. If Ottava Rima objects to the linking, he should take it up at the MoS guideline. If there is a particular problem with a link in a particular article, it can be worked out on that talk page. I'll be happy to avoid adding "see also" sections. What further consensus do I need to continue following the November-December '08 RfC and WP:LINK? How can that be disruptive no matter how many times I do it in the future? -- Reconsideration (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)