Talk:Faces of Fear

Faces of Fear has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	Faces of Fear is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faces of Fear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

If dates are to be linked in this article, then other dates including "April 15" and "July 22" must be linked, too, for auto-formatting purposes.
For publishers in references, only publications need to be italicized, not all of them.

Gary King (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Template:Cite web, it is my belief that something like "SLAM! Wrestling" is a "work" rather than a "publisher":

"Work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work."
"Publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company."

I find that "SLAM! Wrestling" is closer to being a website than a company, so it seems appropriate to classify it as a "work" in the citation template. Because of the autoformatting, "works" are italicized, whereas "publishers" are not. This is the format I have followed in every other Good Article that I have written (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

From what I've been told (based on Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates), there is no need to link dates that do not include a year, as it is not "likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". For example, April 15 would not be linked, but April 15 1991 would be linked.

Please let me know if you have further concerns about these matters. Thanks for the review, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the part about the dates that is relevant:

# Dates that contain day, month and year (25 March 2004, or March 25, 2004) or day and month (25 March, or March 25) (February 10) may be linked using MediaWiki's date autoformatting mechanism ( 25 March 2004 and 25 March, respectively). Although autoformatted dates are coded with double square-brackets, as for linking, autoformatting is a quite different mechanism and conception. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking for the advantages and disadvantages of autoformatting in various contexts.

This is because otherwise, if the dates are not linked, then they will appear a different date format than other linked dates. Gary King (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we interpret it differently (possibly because I was taught one way and have always believed it to be correct, which could very well influence my interpretation). What you say about the different date formats makes sense, though, so I have wikilinked the three stand-alone dates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]