→Arbitrary break: more |
Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) →Arbitrary break: the lights are on, but... anybody home? |
||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
::*Once again, what you say applies equally well to content as to links. This is an [[encyclopaedia]], whose mission is to [[education|educate]] and [[information|inform]]. We exercise editorial judgements every day in deciding what content to have in any given article, we add or remove content depending on its direct [[WP:RELEVANCE|relevance]] to the given article. Therefore, deriding the execution of delinking on those grounds cited directly above, arguing 'subjectivity' is IMHO completely specious. While I am not saying that we must reduce linking of any article to ten or fifteen or twenty occurrences, I believe it will focus the mind no end for us to prioritise in our minds when going through an article, to list the five or ten or fifteen 'most important' links. It's easy, but fallacious, to say that if you don't want to click on a link you should ignore it. Psychologically, I find that any propensity to consciously ignore a mass of bright blue links will lead to greater fatigue, or a dampening down of my sensitivity to links in general. [[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 07:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
::*Once again, what you say applies equally well to content as to links. This is an [[encyclopaedia]], whose mission is to [[education|educate]] and [[information|inform]]. We exercise editorial judgements every day in deciding what content to have in any given article, we add or remove content depending on its direct [[WP:RELEVANCE|relevance]] to the given article. Therefore, deriding the execution of delinking on those grounds cited directly above, arguing 'subjectivity' is IMHO completely specious. While I am not saying that we must reduce linking of any article to ten or fifteen or twenty occurrences, I believe it will focus the mind no end for us to prioritise in our minds when going through an article, to list the five or ten or fifteen 'most important' links. It's easy, but fallacious, to say that if you don't want to click on a link you should ignore it. Psychologically, I find that any propensity to consciously ignore a mass of bright blue links will lead to greater fatigue, or a dampening down of my sensitivity to links in general. [[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 07:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::*How is it fallacious to suggest you simply ignore a link if you don't wish to click on it? People have been doing that for time eternal, whether they are skipping over a newspaper article that they're not interested in, flipping past a channel they don't want to watch, or skipping tracks on their music player. Look, I'll accept that ''you'' may not like the idea, but you seem to be denying the reality that there are many people who ''do not'' mind having the very same links you are deleting. After all, and despite the tedious "sea of blue" nonsense, the reality is that we are arguing over "blue" text that makes up a very, very small percentage of the content in most articles. I could better accept your rationale if we were faced with articles that really ''were'' a "mass of bright blue links" - but the fact is that most articles simply are not that way at all. If you review the objections that have been filed against the delinking script, it is clear that the problem lies not with the material that is clearly overlinked -- repeats, extremely simple terms and so on - but in the material that is ''subjectively'' perceived as "overlinked", such as geographical terms. When I look through articles and see "History of" pages that have no links to the primary subject, or articles about city infrastructure that have no links to the city they are actually in, and the article's history shows they were stripped away by the delinking script, it is clear that there is a real problem to be addressed. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::*How is it fallacious to suggest you simply ignore a link if you don't wish to click on it? People have been doing that for time eternal, whether they are skipping over a newspaper article that they're not interested in, flipping past a channel they don't want to watch, or skipping tracks on their music player. Look, I'll accept that ''you'' may not like the idea, but you seem to be denying the reality that there are many people who ''do not'' mind having the very same links you are deleting. After all, and despite the tedious "sea of blue" nonsense, the reality is that we are arguing over "blue" text that makes up a very, very small percentage of the content in most articles. I could better accept your rationale if we were faced with articles that really ''were'' a "mass of bright blue links" - but the fact is that most articles simply are not that way at all. If you review the objections that have been filed against the delinking script, it is clear that the problem lies not with the material that is clearly overlinked -- repeats, extremely simple terms and so on - but in the material that is ''subjectively'' perceived as "overlinked", such as geographical terms. When I look through articles and see "History of" pages that have no links to the primary subject, or articles about city infrastructure that have no links to the city they are actually in, and the article's history shows they were stripped away by the delinking script, it is clear that there is a real problem to be addressed. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::* Hello???!!! [[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Linking in infoboxes and tables == |
== Linking in infoboxes and tables == |
Revision as of 09:37, 20 April 2010
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
WP:CONTEXT archives
WP:BUILD archive WP:MOSLINK archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Overlinking At Steamroller
We should keep internal links (bluelinks or wikilinks) to a mininum:
- if it is not a piped link
- unless it is to a different article
road roller is linked 3 times:
- "A steamroller (or steam roller) is a form of road roller"
- "This is another example of how the use of "steam roller", to describe a modern road roller, still persists in the English language."
- "* Road roller – internal-combustion-powered road rollers"
We should reduce the number to 1. These 3 instances seem to have different definitions. We should write these occurrences so that it is readably more clear, but I have a dispute with some editors. Please help resolve this dispute.174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Extraordinary abuse of our wikilinking facility
Here. It has just been entered at the Silliwili awards for March. Tony (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Announcement: Silliest wikilink of the month awards (January–February 2010)
Greetings, my fellow Wikipedians, and welcome to the second SILLIWILI awards ceremony for the year two-thousand and ten of the Common Era. This time I was supposed to make the announcement earlier, but have delayed it as a courtesy to the Oscars. Let it never be said that I wish to steal anyone's thunder.
Before we begin, an announcement. As some of you may have noticed, there have been a couple of changes to the rules. Or, rather, we have created a couple of rules. These will apply from this month onwards, and are the following:
Firstly, the scope of the contest has been restricted to articles. It is to the mainspace that the Manual of Style applies, so it makes sense not to include project pages and templates, which often follow different (or no) guidelines. Therefore, last December's winner will probably be the only project page to win the award, at least as long as I am judge. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; I suppose such anomalies and exceptions are at the core of any event's history and cherished traditions...
Secondly, a limit has been placed on the number of links that can be nominated for each article. I cannot put enough emphasis on the fact that in this contest we reward links, not articles; each submitted link is judged individually on its own merits, and therefore it is counter-productive to flood the nomination tables with them in the hopes of increasing an article's chances. The new limit of four links is meant to encourage nominators to think harder about the specific links they enter. Note that, as only one link can be silliest wikilink of the month, groups of links are necessarily represented by one of their number if selected (see October 2009). Among the elements evaluated in all links are their surroundings, so nominators can submit one link from a group and make a note about this. It will be noticed anyway, but it is best to draw attention to the fact that the link is part of a group, just to be sure.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, on to the awards for the last two months. Drum roll please...
- With 82 entries, January 2010 broke all records of participation, and I cannot begin to say how delighted I am. This was, of course, what made me realise that a nominations limit was necessary, but I am certainly very happy to see so many new faces. Unfortunately, this also means that my choice is made harder, and that I'll have to pass over many excellent candidates. Now, the winner... Enough drum roll, thank you. Ahem. From the article Civil confinement, an unexpected bit of linguistic meta-commentary in the form of the link [[Litotes|not without]]. Nominated by Robofish, it is a type of Easter egg that we should never, ever have to see in articles, and for this reason it wins this busy month's award.
- Two honourable mentions this time. First, SuperFlash101's "3", from Phineas Flynn. Not only was it entirely unnecessary but, as most Wikipedians know, it leads to the article for a year—specifically, the year when the rule of emperor Augustus was renewed for a ten-year period, and Wang Mang foiled a plot by his son, his brother-in-law and the Wei clan to oust him. Interesting stuff. Second, Majorly's "linked" from Rubber duck. I actually found "spoke" funnier, but one has to appreciate the self-referential nature of redundantly linking the word "link".
- In February there were many bizarre links (although definitely fewer than in January), and I liked many of them, but the award goes to one with a great educational value, which illustrates one of the greatest mistakes an editor can make when linking. The article in question is Marvin Gaye, and in it could be found the following gem: "Martin Lawrence". See how hard it is to tell that they are two links? After some dithering, I decided that the first link—"Martin"—was more ridiculous (the disambiguation page was longer), and so this shall be the silliest link of February 2010. A warm round of applause for its nominator, Belovedfreak! All right, enough applause; I should also like to tell him that his diff was, rather oddly, for the current version of the article, and I had to search for the version with the link. If I cannot find the silly link, I cannot select it, so please be careful.
- My second choice for this month was another confusing link:
Tony1's[User:A. di M. (Edited by Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC):)] "LHC" from Large Hadron Collider was a delightful false tautology with a great potential for throwing readers off track.- That entry was mine, not Tony1's... ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- So it was!
- My second choice for this month was another confusing link:
And so ends the second awards ceremony of our competition. I do enjoy what I do, but make no mistake: entertainment value aside, if I could wish out of existence all links like the ones seen above, I'd do so. However, in the knowledge that there will be such links for a long time to come, I can only hope that they will be found, eliminated, and placed here for all to see and learn from. And on this note, I leave you for another two months of judicious de-linking. From Waltham Hall, I bid you a good day! Waltham, The Duke of 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- What? My goodness, the card was misprinted. Please, Mr A. di M., accept our sincerest apologies for this terrible error. Here, have some money, too. Please don't sue us.
- Now, let's have a talk with my loyal and effective employees... They deserve a bonus for their hard work, don't you think, Cartwright? A severance package, perhaps... Waltham, The Duke of 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I shan't sue you; I acknowledge how hard such a work must be, and errare humanum est. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delighted to make history as the first and last anomalous winner in defiance of these very reasonable new rules :-) Commendable work, your Grace. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
'Germane' again
I have noticed during my recent travels across Wikiland that articles carry a large number of links which I believe to be unhelpful although they may satisfy the 'relevance criteria' because they are not sufficiently germane. We all know now that whilst linking in an intelligent fashion helps the readers' understand the topic in question, linking can also be value destroying. In much the same way that linking to dates should only be done when the date is germane - and it now seems to be accepted that dates in the vast majority of instances are not - I have amended the text accordingly, to state that other links should also be germane. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. CKatz, would you mind going into the issues that you feel make it an undesirable edit ... substantive issues? Tony (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reverted, because the existing version is simpler, clearer, and doesn't merge the "technical terms" language. (Not sure why this didn't post previously.) As an aside, I'd ask per WP:BRD that you please refrain from reverting your change back in until we can get a good range of input. This being a guideline, it is important that we establish consensus for revisions first. --Ckatzchatspy 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Simplify and clarify if you wish, but there is every good reason to provide editors with advice on the linking or non-linking of technical terms. Tony (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I merged simply because I felt that these are similar ideas which are more logically grouped. In essence, I made two changes: one was the merger of 'technical terms and jargon', the second one was the insertion of the word 'germane'. Your argument above targets the former, though it's good that you do not appear opposed to linking what is not germane. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- CKatz, your recent edit summary is on the boundary of WP:CIVIL: "Please have the decency to revert yourself when you realize I did post a discussion". Whatever you may feel emotionally, please do not allow it to spill over into statements that accuse another editor—in this case, Ohconfucius—of indecency. As an admin, we look to you to exemplify the community's expectations of calm and even-handed behaviour towards other editors. Tony (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, please stop the incessant overuse of WP:CIVIL; it is really quite tiresome, and unbecoming of a long-time editor such as yourself. For some reason, you've chosen to tag me alone for this while completely ignoring the fact that OC used near-identical phrasing ("Please at least have the decency to discuss") in his post immediately prior to mine. You've also chosen to ignore the fact that OC and I have already discussed and resolved this between ourselves in user space, a more appropriate venue, rather than on a more public page. Now, I'm virtually certain that you'll try to censure me for this post too, but before you do so I simply ask you to review your posts (and related edit summaries) to various talk pages over the past few months and note how many times you have brought up WP:CIVIL against other editors. --Ckatzchatspy 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not offended by the edit summary. In fact, I discovered that the edits crossed cyberspace in a short period of time, so we were slightly cross-purposes. I left a note on Ckatz's talk page to the effect. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ckatz, you're right, I did not examine previous edit summaries (they're now not on my watchlist). All the same, I think you are meant to be the example of moderation in dealing with other editors. Tony (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- CKatz, your recent edit summary is on the boundary of WP:CIVIL: "Please have the decency to revert yourself when you realize I did post a discussion". Whatever you may feel emotionally, please do not allow it to spill over into statements that accuse another editor—in this case, Ohconfucius—of indecency. As an admin, we look to you to exemplify the community's expectations of calm and even-handed behaviour towards other editors. Tony (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reverted, because the existing version is simpler, clearer, and doesn't merge the "technical terms" language. (Not sure why this didn't post previously.) As an aside, I'd ask per WP:BRD that you please refrain from reverting your change back in until we can get a good range of input. This being a guideline, it is important that we establish consensus for revisions first. --Ckatzchatspy 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you point out some examples of the links you found to be "to be unhelpful although they may satisfy the 'relevance criteria'"? Maybe there's a clearer way to make your point. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Offhand, I can think of a number of them which fall into that category. I note in particular the tendency to systematically link to 'President George W. Bush', 'Prime Minister Gordon Brown' or 'President Hu Jintao'. In most cases, because it relates to somethink the individual did or said (usually related but not central to the subject), the title - and more often than not, the biography - of the individual has little bearing on the article in which the link appears. The title is what Tony would call a 'chain link', because the title is always linked in the biography, and thus wholly unnecessary. These are 'relevant', but fail germane, IMHO. A somewhat better test might be to ask oneself, before placing such a link, whether there may be a reciprocal backlink. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Aren't these already covered by the no-chain-links "rule"? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even if they are, the rule is not observed; also, links to George W. Bush and Hu Jintao under those conditions are not covered.
- If a rule already here is not observed, why do you expect that another rule against links which are relevant but not germane could change the situation, especially when the difference between relevant and germane will not be obvious to many readers? Also, I'm not sure I get your point about "links to George W. Bush and Hu Jintao". If they are relevant (enough for a reader to be likely to want to read them) link them, if not don't link them, as with anything else. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's of interest to anyone, I'm having just that sort of argument with someone at Talk:Hong Kong by-election, 2010#Chain links. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- To someone who has never heard of Zhuhai, "the annual meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Zhuhai" conveys no more information than "the annual meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference", so either the place where the meeting was held is relevant (in which case the reader needs to be able to easily find out where the heck it is), or it is irrelevant (in which case, why would it be mentioned in the first place?). (I'd guess it's the latter.) The chain-link rule doesn't apply, as neither of the other links in that sentence even mentions Zhuhai. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's of interest to anyone, I'm having just that sort of argument with someone at Talk:Hong Kong by-election, 2010#Chain links. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- If a rule already here is not observed, why do you expect that another rule against links which are relevant but not germane could change the situation, especially when the difference between relevant and germane will not be obvious to many readers? Also, I'm not sure I get your point about "links to George W. Bush and Hu Jintao". If they are relevant (enough for a reader to be likely to want to read them) link them, if not don't link them, as with anything else. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even if they are, the rule is not observed; also, links to George W. Bush and Hu Jintao under those conditions are not covered.
- Aren't these already covered by the no-chain-links "rule"? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Offhand, I can think of a number of them which fall into that category. I note in particular the tendency to systematically link to 'President George W. Bush', 'Prime Minister Gordon Brown' or 'President Hu Jintao'. In most cases, because it relates to somethink the individual did or said (usually related but not central to the subject), the title - and more often than not, the biography - of the individual has little bearing on the article in which the link appears. The title is what Tony would call a 'chain link', because the title is always linked in the biography, and thus wholly unnecessary. These are 'relevant', but fail germane, IMHO. A somewhat better test might be to ask oneself, before placing such a link, whether there may be a reciprocal backlink. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
When did we all of a sudden decide Zhuhai, Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Secretary for Home Affairs were such easy links? Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Linking "New York City" in article on New York City subway
Hi. Looking for some other views, as another editor and I have a reasonable difference of opinion, so we could use a sense as to the concurrence of view of editors who visit this page. I de-linked "New York City" in the infobox of the "New York City subway" article. He reverted. We discussed, and haven't reached consensus. What's your view? Our respective rationales are set forth here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The city link is certainly appropriate in this case. As per Oknazevad's comments, the city is definitely relevant to the subway system, and it is very reasonable to assume that a reader who is interested in the New York subway system might also be interested in the more general article about the city it services. --Ckatzchatspy 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- A reader who has followed a link from an article about metro systems in general may want to navigate to New York City in order to find out about the city's precise size or other details. Some readers will look for a link at the beginning of the lead, others will look in the infobox. Both types should be served. So this kind of link is actually required due to our efforts against over-linking. Hans Adler 22:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking in very general terms, I find the infoboxes are usually the most densely linked parts of any given article (whether the field or the label), but the general consensus seem to prefer packing them in. I have seen it often argued that this is the 'nutshell' where, if the reader goes nowhere else, they will visit, and click. I really don't actually see it necessarily as binary as that, nor do I subscribe to that.
To answer the specific question, although it might be "very reasonable to assume that a reader who is interested in the New York subway system might also be interested in the more general article about the city it services", I would probably delink in en passant, but I would not expect it to stick because many editors will actually feel it is appropriate, as the comments above will prove. If you ask me if is it "useful" to readers, I say no – fundamentally, it creates a diversion from higher value links. It is actually relevant and germane, but the likelihood of visitors clicking on it, IMHO, is zero. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no useful purpose in linking "New York City" in the infobox, unless you like the blue as decoration. This goes against the notion of focusing our readers on links that are more likely to be useful, and more relevant. "New York City", although deceptively linked via a name that many English-speakers will take to mean the local government entity ("owned by the City of New York"), is already there in the opening sentence of the main text. NYC is chain-linked from a further two links in the opening sentence. You cannot escape it. To link from the infobox as well, as though readers visit an article to look at the infobox alone (what?), is an unwanted dilution of wikilinking.
- Hans Adler, if someone wants to know the "the city's precise size", why wouldn't they go to New York metropolitan area? You'll have to come up with better than that. What is it that is useful to a reader who suddently wants to divert from the infobox? I'd be pleased to know. Here's your chance to justify in concrete terms, something CKatz will never do.
- Ckatz's, "the city is definitely relevant to the subway system"—relevance is insufficient; it must be useful for increasing the reader's understanding of the topic in the circumstances. By your standard, we should link "train" and "number" and "2009" and "sq. mi." as well in the infobox. We could turn everything blue: why not?
- Epifleche, you did precisely the right thing: it is a service to wikilinking. Please continue. Tony (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- To answer your question from a technical standpoint, Tony, linking to the New York City article, instead of the New York metropolitan area article is precisely correct because of the political entity you mention. Firstly, the subway doesn't serve the greater metro area (a term that includes, at its broadest definition, fairly rural areas two states away), but remains entirely within the political borders of the city (the Five Boroughs). Secondly, as the article somewhat explains (thouhgh it could do a better job), the political entity of the city actually owns (in terms of real property) the entirety of the subway system (the MTA operatation of it was part of a political deal), making it a truly germane link.
- More generally, as I said at my talk page, I really can't think of a more germane link for a metro system than the city that it principally serves. It is one of two defining characteristcs of a system (the fact that it is a metro being the other). Even the shortest stub article on the theoretical X-Town Metro would state "The X-Town Metro is a rapid transit system serving X-Town." Both "rapid transit" (which is the name of the article on such systems) and "X-Town" are germane, and therefore link-worthy, because they are neccessary to define the subject at the most basic level. oknazevad (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Relevance is insufficient"? Really? That's almost as good as the "Wikipedia is not about consensus" claim that was used by another editor in an unrelated discussion. Tony, once again I'd appreciate it if you could avoid cheap shots and presumptions as to what others are thinking. The discussion is specifically about linking the related topic "New York City", not about basic words such as "number", and making spurious claims about unrelated concepts serves only to distract from the discussion at hand. As for the link, keep in mind that many readers will appreciate it. If you don't wish to click on it, you don't have to, but there is no reason to deny the link to others who may find it useful. --Ckatzchatspy 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lovely article, this. I found all manner of trivia, as well as 'relevant' (sic) links such as 'escalator', 'elevator', 'broken windows', 'tunnel', 'mezzanine', not to mention irrelevant ones such as 'disability rights movement' 'Los Angeles Dodgers' 'newspaper' 'photograph' and 'food'. I think this proves that "relevance" alone is not enough, they need to be 'germane'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Linking should be both for germaine links and for terms that are not universally clear in the language and in relationship to the topic : both 'disability rights movement' and 'Los Angeles Dodgers' are completely fair links, as both presume an American reader. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- [[disability rights movement|handicapped-accessible]] is a misleading pipe. You argue that 'Los Angeles Dodgers' is a lesser known term which should be linked to inform, but I really fail to see how, it being several thousand miles away in logic and physical distance, that linkiong would serve the understanding of the readr. Simpler maybe to remove it altogether as trivia rather than arguing about that wikilink. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, "handicapped-accessible" is a very different term than "diability rights movement" and thus I would agree linking that way is unnecessary. But I will content that unless it is a well-established geographical location (United States, New York City, Paris, Tokyo, etc.) every proper noun should be linked barring certain circumstances – I expect people reading en.wiki to be readily familiar with English and thus all the other terms you listed are completely fair game to ditch links, but English language knowhow is not the same as person/place/thing knowhow. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lovely article, this. I found all manner of trivia, as well as 'relevant' (sic) links such as 'escalator', 'elevator', 'broken windows', 'tunnel', 'mezzanine', not to mention irrelevant ones such as 'disability rights movement' 'Los Angeles Dodgers' 'newspaper' 'photograph' and 'food'. I think this proves that "relevance" alone is not enough, they need to be 'germane'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As somewhat of an outsider to these discussions, and someone who isn't fond of overlinking in general, I took a look at the article. I have to say the unlinked 'New York City' in the infobox looked kind of naked. To my own surprise I plump down on the side of linking. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting how one can get used to these things. Bit like moving into a quieter district, one would initially feel it's too quiet. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting how one can find out all sorts of interesting things about oneself here. Thanks to Www for the insight. I, too, thought it looked naked without the link – perhaps that's precisely why I found it more appealing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think one reason it looks naked is that infoboxes are similar to navigation templates in important respects. And to some degree they function as such. (I certainly use them in this way.) Therefore an unlinked germane word such as "New York City" signals that we don't have an article for it. Hans Adler 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Hans ... I should have left a smiley face, I guess. That was meant as a joke. I don't view it as naked. Looks fine to me. Sorry for the confusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether it looks naked to you or not, my point remains: Infoboxes have a second function as rudimentary navigation boxes. If we restricted this function by rigorously restricting links in infoboxes, we would probably get more navigation boxes. That's not a desirable outcome at all. Hans Adler 09:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ckatz, I made no "cheap shots": everything I say is thought through. I must ask you again not to personalise issues; you are close to the boundary of WP:CIVIL, although not over it on this occasion. As an admin, we expect you to set an example, not to push debate into a personal frame. Please calm down—we need your talent as an excellent writer and editor, not engagement in mild combat at every opportunity.
Hans, if I can't work out the metropolitan/railway/boundaries issue from either the text or the links, it's not working. I am not assisted by linking to the whole NYC article. It wastes my time as a reader pretending that it is going to help me. That is what irritates visitors, and those who follow links to what turn out to be oceans soon give up on clicking at all. If we want visitors to hit wikilinks, we have to do them the service of rationing them, funnelling them down what we know through our acquiantance with the topic to be the best. Section links and daughter-article links need FAR more consideration, here and elsewhere.
Hans, you say "Therefore an unlinked germane word such as "New York City" signals that we don't have an article for it." No no no, we need to sit down over a cup of coffee to work through what I believe is a complete misinterpretation of the function of wikilinking. Please put yourself in the role of a visitor who knows nothing of wikipolitics and is just reading the text for what it is: such a message is, I believe, an artefact of being too close the machinations behind WP.
More generally on this article's links, I find a lack of skill and thought in some of the pipes: some are quite deceptive. I've tried to improve a few. Bad piping is almost as damaging as overlinking. Tony (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point, and in fact I am not sure there is one. Hans Adler 09:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't help but noticing that another disinterested editor seems to have come across the results of the wide-ranging, blanket de-linking scripts that one or two editors are running - and encouraging others to run - and commented that their application seems a little strict. As I suggested elsewhere, most people probably don't care too much one way or the other, but I'm obviously not alone in thinking this is all a little over-zealous, and being done without much in the way of consensus or accountability. It's also a little disappointing to see the same arguments still being trotted out, for example that people raising concerns "want to see everything linked" or a "sea of blue", and that those running this delinking campaign are doing it for everyone's else good because they know best. I'm also a little confused as to how linking from the New York subway page to the article on New York City, or to the page on the Seoul subway system, are examples of bad or irrelevant links, which must be purged. Even strictly interpreted as written, WP:LINK would appear to have no problem with this kind of link.
- I'm unclear as to how any link can strictly be described definitively as "not useful", let alone "unhelpful" - even what appears to be the dumbest link to one person is presumably likely to be useful to someone. If someone wants to move on to read another page on a related and significant topic - either because they don't know what the topic is about, or because they wish to see how WP treats the topic - why prevent them from doing so, especially out of prose, in an infobox? If you yourself don't want to read that page, and don't think personally that it is a useful link, don't click on it. But why deny that option to others? Claiming that "everyone knows what X is", or that "we're trying to direct people to the articles we think they should be reading" don't really cut it - it's surely impossible to make generalisations about why people do move between pages, and quite frankly somewhat arrogant for a small self-apppointed group to attempt to dictate how they should move between pages. People seem to have put a lot of thought into all this in order to come up with their own personal theories - that's all they are, after all - about the principles and purposes of wiki-linking, and then used that to justify an extensive de-linking drive. In my view that all rather over-complicates the issue - and in any event, seems to translate rather simplistically into nothing more than a fixed list of terms that apparently have to go.
- Look, all we're talking about in the end is a convenient device that allows easy navigation between relevant non-trivial pages in an online environment, and makes some text go blue. The scripts being run might have the marginal/debatable advantage of making a few words on each page stop being blue (while leaving plenty of others), but severely limit functionality and readers' ability to navigate easily to pages they may well want to go to. Since you're removing popular terms, some of those pages are going to be among WP's most-read pages. If you spot truly dumb and repetitive links on pages, why not just remove or improve them on an ad-hoc basis, as I do quite often. That's what editing here is meant to be about - not a rigid conformity, imposed without wide discussion, and without any flexibility or discretion in its application. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- First off, I am the one who cleaned up the overlinked New York City Subway. It was an ad hoc effort which took me over an hour; quite a lot of thought was involved. I don't dispute there is something 'mechanic' about the job - it takes on a mechanical character when a term is delinked for the fifth time. I have no idea how many links I undid, but would just say that of all of them, Ckatz chose to challenge me on approximately five links.
Secondly, articles are organic: they go through a growth phase and consolidation phase. You will undoubtedly have noticed many articles have unwieldy and or irrelevant content, whether through good faith edits or POV-pushing, that need cleaning up. I venture to argue the same applies to word-linking. We used to encourage editors to link liberally; people follow examples. I used to be one of those who linked ("wikify" is still the word which many use), as if the proper thing to do is to create as many relevant links because you can, or before you have found your place on te project. Then came the realisation that excessive linking is detrimental. Delnking is really not about the deprivation of choice - the beautiful search box on the left,and the navbar at the top is always there - just like placing good content, it's about providing knowledge in a form and quantity/quantity which, in one's judgement, would do service to those looking for it. Delinking is part of that consolidation. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the links to the Tokyo and Seoul subways: except I cleaned up the deceptive pipes. The link to NYC is chained twice in the opening sentence. It is one of the most well-known cities in the world. There is ample linking to it within the article. It is not a well-focused article, given that the reader almost certainly knows where the city is. There are more focused links at the start.
- There is a downside to low-value links: they dilute the high-value links. Tony (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- First off, I am the one who cleaned up the overlinked New York City Subway. It was an ad hoc effort which took me over an hour; quite a lot of thought was involved. I don't dispute there is something 'mechanic' about the job - it takes on a mechanical character when a term is delinked for the fifth time. I have no idea how many links I undid, but would just say that of all of them, Ckatz chose to challenge me on approximately five links.
- I accept the point that this case is about manual de-linking. Ckatz replaced some of the links - correctly in my view - as a manual re-linking. That's the normal editing process in action. On the wider debate, scripts or no scripts: why make navigation more difficult than it needs to be when the facility to link is there? I don't think it's an answer to always say "use the search function". And I think the idea that there has been a "realisation" that "excessive" linking is "detrimental" - while perhaps broadly true, if we were actually talking about a push to link everything, multiple times, and if we replace "detrimental" with "pointless" - is hard to accept in the more precise sense that I perceive it to be meant, as I've pointed out at length above. Who is this "we" exactly that "realised" this, and how do we define what is "excessive" and how that would exactly be "detrimental"? The answer seems to be that a small number of editors took it upon themselves to run scripts that remove, en masse, certain terms, on the basis that this would slightly reduce the overall number of blue words, and that it would supposedly better guide other editors and readers to use Wikipedia in the way that small group thought they ought to be using it. Some others make similar individual changes. Again, I really don't understand the point about "diluting links". What does that mean exactly? N-HH talk/edits 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- ps: The fact that you used to be in favour of liberal linking and have now swung the other way, I find more worrying than comforting tbh. The zeal of the convert, etc etc (a winking emoticon would have been added to this last point, if I did that sort of thing)
- Errr ... where did I say I used to be "in favour of liberal linking"? I saw immediately, as many educated visitors do, that there was a problem—but it took me a year or two to work it all out, and to have the confidence to promote the idea that, like writing prose, linking is a skill, not to be spattered about the way people did when it was first invented. I have grown with the project in terms of realising that the old way served no one well. Look at the French, German and Italian WPs: all blue spattered and rather dysfunctional linking systems, IMO. We have come a long way in realising that intelligent allocation, selectiveness, serves the system much better than indiscipline. Tony (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been clearer that there was an edit conflict there, and that I was originally simply responding to User:Ohconfucius, at whom those specific comments were directed. And of course focus and clarity are important, in formatting as in writing. But as I - also an educated visitor - have repeatedly pointed out, the basis for asserting what is more focused in the area of linking is being based on a whole raft of assumptions, about what people are likely to click through to as well as what they ought to click through to. I simply don't see how you can make those judgments on behalf of millions of readers, in the way that you seem to be doing, when the only indisputable changes that follow are a) slightly fewer blue words; b) less choice and navigability for readers. To what advantage precisely? N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think NHH was referring to what I said about 'wikifying'. I seem to recall a welcome message on my talk page telling me how to contribute - one of those tasks was 'pages needing wikification'. So I went to see how other articles were 'wikified', and then set off to make myself useful to the project. I now spend about half of my time on content, and half on MOS matters. I wouldn't call meself a 'convert' at all. I found wikifying pretty brainless, and found tasks more interesting to me. Does my apparent change of register now make me a potential delinking zealot? One or two of the presently assembled might think so, but I'm pretty sure that's about all. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Four edit conflicts later
- Yes, "low-value" links can interfere with the reader's experience. However, the problem lies in the fact the definition of "low value" has been arbitrarily created by a very small group of editors, without any real consultation or discussion. Furthermore, this definition is arguably far too strict and reflects personal preferences rather than a logical recognition of what the larger general audience may want or need. I think many people might accept that we do not necessarily need to link simple terms such as "cat" or "boat" every time they appear. However, I doubt that you would find wide-scale support for the removal of virtually all links to continents, major cities, wars, and the like. There are far, far too many examples available where the scripts have been used to strip out links without any apparent appreciation of either context or appropriateness. (According to this process, NYC was not only an irrelevant link for the subway article, but also for the article on Manhattan!) While the guideline may speak in generalities, there is no openness or transparency to the "in the field" determination as to what should stay and what should go. Links are stripped away based on an arbitrary list that is hidden away inside the code for the delinking script, where it cannot be easily assessed, or discussed. At the very least, such a list should be easily available for community review with access to all for adding and removing terms. It is also important to note that the vast majority of the script-based mass delinking is being done by a very small pool of editors. --Ckatzchatspy 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly - the automated process is arbitrary in terms of what it removes, yet is based on subjective preferences and judgments, and also imposes WP-wide changes without any scrutiny or peer assessment. As I said, no one would deny focus is a good thing. But focus on what? Another clique could come along and argue that we need to reduce the number of links by cutting out those to obscure pages that no one ever goes to - however much we educated people might wish them to - but to add more links to the everyday and the familiar, since those are the high-traffic pages that should be made easier to reach. At the end of the day, people are going to follow through to pages they want to follow through to, rather than arriving at an initial page hoping that someone has "selected", on their behalf, the key links that they, as an undifferentiated mass, should be going on to afterwards - were it even possible for such a judgment and selection to be made objectively anyway. All that's happening is that if one of those terms is on the sh#t list and that page has been hit by a de-linker, they won't be able to. However, if the link is still on the page, those who aren't interested don't have to click it. Which option is providing a better "service"? I don't think that's a hard question to answer. And to repeat - trivial, repetitive links, that's one thing. Occasional links to major countries, cities etc are another, and the latter are being mined out with no consensus. N-HH talk/edits 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I understood you correctly. I seem to read that you and Ckatz seem to be giving yourselves (or anyone else, for that matter) carte blanche to link indiscriminately, calling this giving a "choice" for readers, and then try and scupper any attempt to remove links on grotesquely overlinked articles like the 'New York City Subway' article - where I counted approximately 150 superfluous links - on the grounds what I'm doing is "subjective". You are forgetting your duty as editors to actually improve their understanding of the subject of the article, and not line the proverbial boulevards with large billboards of semi-clad or naked ladies so that drivers never get to the final destination? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have certainly never called for indiscriminate links, and I have never seen Ckatz do so. Tony and others have repeatedly alleged it though. It is getting a little tedious. I would go back and dig up the relevant quotes from what I have said here and on my own talk page - where for example I repeatedly talk about "relevance" and "significance", and call for the removal of dumb links when spotted, including from the New York subway article if there are indeed 100s of them - but I don't see why I should have to go to the trouble. I mean you could just look at the very last sentence of my previous comment. Nor, for the record, do I see how an article with perhaps a few more blue words than it might have otherwise, which link to relevant and related topics, somehow prevents readers from understanding the topic at hand, as if it were plastered with saucy photos. The point is that this massive, rigid and automated delinking drive is a solution in search of a problem. And that solution knocks out some perfectly good links as often as it removes pointless ones. Anyway it was a quiet Friday afternoon, but it is now the weekend. Cheers, N-HH talk/edits 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion would be much more productive if we could avoid statements that have no apparent connection to what other editors have written. OC, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you're sincerely misreading the above posts. However, it would really help if you could identify actual statements made by N-HH or me that give you the impression that either of us supposedly champion the notion of "indiscriminate linking". I'm not seeing it in N-HH's posts, and I know that I've never, ever, ever made such a statement, despite what some contributors here have claimed. Furthermore, as for the claim that we are trying to "scupper any attempt to remove links", where does that bit of fiction come from? you yourself said earlier "I have no idea how many links I undid, but would just say that of all of them, Ckatz chose to challenge me on approximately five links." There's a bit of a disconnect between the two statements. --Ckatzchatspy 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't spelt out. I understood perfectly what you said about automated delinking, but my comments were more general. I have been trying to pin Ckatz on where the sensible linking terrain lay, but the answer is elusive. You both send very mixed messages in the above exchanges but I think what I sensed (and wrote about) is obvious from the subtext. I grant that NHH did say xhe would delink the silly ones when xhe come across them, but when you (collectively) complain about delinking on any scale other than removal of a few square brackets, and argue so strongly against delinking on the grounds that such actions are subjective, and that a denuded article deprives the reader of 'choice', I sincerely believe one could be excused for coming to the wrong conclusion. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Although NHH only recently said: "I don't see why I should have to go to the trouble", the sentiment is that xhe prefers tokenism of delinking the odd silly link cross his/her arms and just tolerate, allow a poor situation to perpetuate. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't spelt out. I understood perfectly what you said about automated delinking, but my comments were more general. I have been trying to pin Ckatz on where the sensible linking terrain lay, but the answer is elusive. You both send very mixed messages in the above exchanges but I think what I sensed (and wrote about) is obvious from the subtext. I grant that NHH did say xhe would delink the silly ones when xhe come across them, but when you (collectively) complain about delinking on any scale other than removal of a few square brackets, and argue so strongly against delinking on the grounds that such actions are subjective, and that a denuded article deprives the reader of 'choice', I sincerely believe one could be excused for coming to the wrong conclusion. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion would be much more productive if we could avoid statements that have no apparent connection to what other editors have written. OC, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you're sincerely misreading the above posts. However, it would really help if you could identify actual statements made by N-HH or me that give you the impression that either of us supposedly champion the notion of "indiscriminate linking". I'm not seeing it in N-HH's posts, and I know that I've never, ever, ever made such a statement, despite what some contributors here have claimed. Furthermore, as for the claim that we are trying to "scupper any attempt to remove links", where does that bit of fiction come from? you yourself said earlier "I have no idea how many links I undid, but would just say that of all of them, Ckatz chose to challenge me on approximately five links." There's a bit of a disconnect between the two statements. --Ckatzchatspy 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
- I spend much more time going through articles unlinking more terms than could possibly be on a general script, checking for false positives, and in particular, fixing bad piping. When I see "daytime television" piped to "soap opera", I really become disheartened. Tony (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not feel automation would be or can be all that helpful, in that I have been unable to discern any pattern in overlinked words, due to the variability of common words linked in different articles. What Tony says reinforces that view. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, perhaps. My objections to what is being done come, roughly, in three parts -
- A fairly fundamental one, to the idea that there is an objective truth - as opposed to varying personal views - about what links are for, about how much blue is too much and about what readers should be linking through to; and the idea that overlinking in whatever form is "damaging" and "detrimental", rather than being simply pointless and a bit unsightly. You'd probably get a broad consensus about the merits of removing trivial or repetitive links, but why elevate one particular view that goes much further than that to the status of holy writ?
- To the idea that links to articles on countries and cities need to be removed from pages about things from those places (whether by automated process, or individually/manually). And where in wp:overlink does it say that major or well-known places, cities etc should never be linked, even when they are relevant, or even germane, to the topic at hand?
- To the running of scripts that strip specific terms from all articles, without any apparent discretion or oversight. Where is the discussion that confirmed a consensus to remove all links to Britain, World War 1 etc from every Wikipedia page, and mandated a handful of editors to start running official-looking scripts through hundreds pages in order to achieve that?
- In my view the main problem of overlinking does not lie in the fact that for example there are links to "Paris" and "France" in the article about French wine, and the solution to the problem of overlinking does not lie in the use of a script (or some other method) to remove those links, such that the page might then have a total of 51 links, rather than 54 - many of which may of course fall into the genuine category of pointless links, such that, as noted, the script has removed a couple of perfectly good links, while also leaving a far greater number of weak ones. The last two comments from each of you above seem to suggest that you actually agree with that after all, which has left me a little confused. N-HH talk/edits 09:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, perhaps. My objections to what is being done come, roughly, in three parts -
- I am not necessary a big fan of metaphors, but the best way I have been able to equate what our goals are for in linking within prose to achieve best-use is similar to that of the job of a tourist center. They know their way, to an unfamiliar visitor, to highly specific places within their area of knowledge, and can point that visitor to directions to get to afar, unfamiliar places, but they aren't going to tell you how to get to common destinations that are well outside the area they cover. Similarly, we should stick to linking of tightly associated terms for a topic, link to unfamiliar terms from far-distance fields that are useful for understanding the article, but avoid linking everything in between: common everyday English words that we would expect readers to know. The only added bit of advice based on this is the linking of Proper Nouns which should always be done except in one case: the use of geographic names (all continents, countries, and cities like Paris, NYC, Toyko, etc.) unless those terms fall into the "tightly assoicated terms" for a topic (such as the discussion of political and economic relationships one country has with another). --MASEM (t) 13:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I like the analogy. It would be well outside the call of duty for the Japanese tourist office in Okinawa to tell visitors how to get to a particular street in Nagasaki other than suggest that the questioner 'get on a train to the city and ask at the tourist office when you get there'. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, we are at loggerheads because of the three points I raised just above, and because you and a couple of other editors are running scripts through hundreds of pages. There were two questions there, which lie at the heart of the problem. Any answers? Masem, as per my point 1, I'm somewhat sceptical about this idea that some editors here can guide others to where they want to go or where they should be going. People use links to get to all sorts of places for all sorts of reasons. I don't really buy the argument that if people know what something is, we shouldn't link there. Yes, linking to common terms and common places is rather pointless when they are tangential to the topic, but in respect of things directly connected to the main topic, it seems equally pointless to obsessively remove them. As I said, I don't see the problem for example with links to France or Paris in the French wine page. Indeed I think that page ought to have such links. However, you wouldn't link Belgium if at some point the page mentioned that wine is often exported there. Conversely again, you would link Belgium in the article about Belgian chocolate. One other problem with the "common terms" issue is where you draw the line - at what point does a country or other thing become "well known" enough for it never to be linked? N-HH talk/edits 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- ps:can we indent a bit more consistently?
- You know, it's the "I don't see why I should remove such links" mentality which is troubling me - even if it's the square brackets around Belgium in your example above. I won't use a script, and you start removing links more deeply - do we have a deal? ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tony: I'm not sure I've been left any clearer by your answer. Ohconfucius: but I didn't say that, as I've already explained - the "I don't see why I should have to" was referring to whether I would dig up specific quotes from my own previous comments to refute your suggestion that I was in favour of indiscriminate linking. And as to your proposal, I regularly - relative to the amount that I edit substantively overall - remove dead or uncontroversially poor links. I've done this recently on a couple of pages with both internal wiki-links, and with external links (note, with the latter, the "dilution" point does actually come into play, in my view).
- If you don't mind my digging up one of your recent changes as indicative of the problem, shall we have a look at that? It also ties in with the section below about infoboxes. Anyway, this edit to "British rule in Burma" removed, among others, several links from the infobox. The changes leave in links to the "Burmese language" page - but took out the one to the "English language" page; it left behind links to Hinduism, Islam etc - but not to Christianity. That all just seems rather arbitrary. It also leaves the infobox looking disjointed, with some items within the same non-prose short collection of individual words in blue and others not. I can't ultimately see where this improves the article, either in terms of readability/aesthetics, or in terms of helpfulness to the reader, or in any other way to be honest. N-HH talk/edits 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- First off, I'd like to apologise for getting your message wrong. Secondly, I would point out that, among linking issues, inappropriate, irrelevant and misplaced inks as well as poor piping abound. I'm glad you chose one of my edits as an example: the primary problem I had with that article was the rather blind linking of terms to articles on ordinary contemporary geopolitical entities, and are completely inappropriate to the article in question; I believe that the mindset prevails, through some blind devotion to some "altar of wikification" for its own sake, or so it appears to me. Linking to English language in this article is again just plain stupid devotion to "wikification"; it is not germane, and even if it were, it is the language of this WP. I would have been a lot less inclined to remove some of the links had they been piped to British Empire or British Imperialism in Burma/Myanmar. They were not. Therefore, unless editors can be bothered to find the best link, they are fair game to removal, as being generic and misleading. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the article on Anglo-Friesian, maybe; but a section-link to the history of the English language might be more acceptable. In "British rule in Burma" on the English WP, such a link is rather quaintly irrelevant. If the infobox is blue-carpeted, many visitors will not realise that the items are linked. The reason to be selective is partly to show them the way to high-value links that might be more useful to them. If you want blue throughout the infobox for aesthetic reasons, why not use the syntax to create blue coloured font? The same goes for the supernatural industry: "christianity" is the establishment religion in all seven ancestral native-speaking countries and is known to any non-native who knows enough English to consult en.WP. Is it that a reader might want to divert from the infobox to the whole article on christianity? I wouldn't link any of the religions in the infobox, actually, since linking straight to hinduism without the context of the article text is rather meaningless: it is totally not what wikilinking is about. Tony (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I ask - what is the harm, especially in an infobox? Also this constant talk of "high value" links, of the need to "show" people what is useful for them (whether they know it or not), and assertions of what wikilinking is all about, acording to one person's view, is somewhat arrogant. It also needs a bit more of a thinking through in terms of the underlying argument/assumptions. Let's imagine that someone comes across the page and sees from the infobox that English is/was one of the languages commonly spoken in Burma. They might then decide to link on it, to see what that WP page actually says. Now what you are implicitly saying is that they will go to that page, and suddenly say "jeez, I'm a klutz. I know what English is. I speak it! I wish someone had removed that link, to stop me making that silly mistake and going to look at the page. And because I was seduced and waylaid by that blue font, I've missed the opportunity to look at the page on the Burmese language, which is the one I really should have looked at. I see that now. If only someone smarter than me had taken the first link out, this would never have happened". This is, of course, preposterous, that's my point. Also, the logical conclusion of any assertion that we shouldn't ever link to pages on things that supposedly everyone (or 90% of people, 80%? Where do we draw the line? How would we measure anyway? Should we allow the 90% to trump the 10% anyway?) already knows about, is to argue that we shouldn't have pages on those topics at all. Again, there is surely no obvious problem with linking to relevant and/or related topics, especially in an infobox. What actual advantage or benefit is there in removing them? Simply responding that "I don't think they should be there" or "people shouldn't be clicking them", and imposing that view on everyone else, isn't good enough. N-HH talk/edits 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we are going to make the presumption that our readers know the general English language (and thus no need to link to uncommon-but-not-rare terms), we should be able to presume they also know what blue-colored text means, and how to use their browser to identify links. We can also improve infobox presentation to avoid multiple blue-links in a row on the same link without intermediate text to be clear about it. One of the things to remember is that WP has an implicit bi-direction web of link system set up; the hard coded blue links are one direction, while "What Links Here" on the left menu is the reverse, and just equally as useful as a research tool to dive backwards from a topic. In the NYC Subway example, I totally agree that linking the city in the prose is unnecessary (NYC would be one of those geographic terms I would never link unless specifically talking about geography in the first place), but linking it in infobox is appropriate and would provide that link backwards from the New York City article.
- The other way of thinking about infobox links is that they present a loose category-like scheme without actually employing categories, presuming that we are linking back to the right terms when we do it; this is present at the top of the article as opposed to the bottom as thus to allow faster navigation and discovery if one is trying to browse for a topic quickly that they don't know enough to directly search for it. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to me that there are a series of assumptions in play with regards to links; that readers will be "confused" by links; that they cannot use their own judgement as to what they want to see (and thus need our "guidance"); and that an awareness of a topic implies an exhaustive understanding of said topic, or a lack of interest or curiousity in learning more about it. There's this idea, for example, that "New York City" is well-known. Well, yes, of course it is - but that does not mean that readers know the subject in great detail, nor does it preclude the possibility that they might want to learn more about it. For example, most readers would probably be aware of NYC's status as one of the word's largest cities. They might not, however, be aware of the specifics of the city's geography or density, information that would certainly help to put the structure and development of the transit system in context. They might also have come to the NYC subway article from another transit article, and (in the process) become curious about the city itself. As an encyclopedia project, our goal should include inspiring and enabling the reader's desire to learn more, and making it as easy as possible for them to act on that curiosity. I can't help but feel that the arguments about link density are more appropriate to a commercial site rather than an educational site; if I'm looking for a book on Amazon, excessive links complicate the path to a quick and easy purchase. If I'm trying to learn something, I appreciate the ability to quickly and easily move to relevant topics. We need to see some data that speaks to effective use of linking in an educational setting, rather than for general-purpose web sites, before we get ourselves further trapped in this "sea of blue" mentality. The delink-at-all-costs approach also ignores several realities of the web, key among them being the need to position pages for the average reader, not the typical editor who cares enough to get involved in these sorts of discussions. The frequently-stated claim is that people interested in a "common" topic can just use the search function. That assumption, however, presumes that they are comfortable doing so and that they are able to do so in an effective manner through the use of appropriate search terms. Many readers who are less-than-comfortable with technology can easily be put off by the need to use a search function. Another claim used to support the delinking campaign asserts that links cause the reader to "click away" from the main article, thus interupting their reading experience. That assertion appears to conveniently ignore the modern-day browsing experience in which most popular browsers use tabs. I, for one, rarely "click through" these days but instead just open interesting links in a new tab so that I can read them once I'm finished the main article. Now, before anyone claims that I'm arguing for us to link everything, clearly that is not the case. (Hopefully we can avoid getting side-tracked with erroneous assertions.) It does mean, though, that we need to stop this frantic script-based delinking that only benefits certain personal preferences. Instead, we need to focus on finding a consensus as to what is appropriate - and only then proceed to implement it - so that we avoid seriously compromising our primary goal to educate our readers. --Ckatzchatspy 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, what you say applies equally well to content as to links. This is an encyclopaedia, whose mission is to educate and inform. We exercise editorial judgements every day in deciding what content to have in any given article, we add or remove content depending on its direct relevance to the given article. Therefore, deriding the execution of delinking on those grounds cited directly above, arguing 'subjectivity' is IMHO completely specious. While I am not saying that we must reduce linking of any article to ten or fifteen or twenty occurrences, I believe it will focus the mind no end for us to prioritise in our minds when going through an article, to list the five or ten or fifteen 'most important' links. It's easy, but fallacious, to say that if you don't want to click on a link you should ignore it. Psychologically, I find that any propensity to consciously ignore a mass of bright blue links will lead to greater fatigue, or a dampening down of my sensitivity to links in general. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is it fallacious to suggest you simply ignore a link if you don't wish to click on it? People have been doing that for time eternal, whether they are skipping over a newspaper article that they're not interested in, flipping past a channel they don't want to watch, or skipping tracks on their music player. Look, I'll accept that you may not like the idea, but you seem to be denying the reality that there are many people who do not mind having the very same links you are deleting. After all, and despite the tedious "sea of blue" nonsense, the reality is that we are arguing over "blue" text that makes up a very, very small percentage of the content in most articles. I could better accept your rationale if we were faced with articles that really were a "mass of bright blue links" - but the fact is that most articles simply are not that way at all. If you review the objections that have been filed against the delinking script, it is clear that the problem lies not with the material that is clearly overlinked -- repeats, extremely simple terms and so on - but in the material that is subjectively perceived as "overlinked", such as geographical terms. When I look through articles and see "History of" pages that have no links to the primary subject, or articles about city infrastructure that have no links to the city they are actually in, and the article's history shows they were stripped away by the delinking script, it is clear that there is a real problem to be addressed. --Ckatzchatspy 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hello???!!! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Linking in infoboxes and tables
Following from the above, I propose that we establish that linking in infoboxes and tables should be treated completely differently, in that linking to what are otherwise common terms but used for identification or classification, and/or repeating what is stated in prose, should be considered appropriate.
- For infoboxes, this is because this is the "quick view" that people may seen, and thus should be considered a stand-alone, independent part of the article. Thus, links that are normally used for identification, location, classification, or the like should be present regardless if the term is common. Mind you, the term should only be linked the first time (so if you have a movie where a director also starred in the movie, he'd only be linked the first time).
- In tables, every row (particularly sortable tables) or columns need to be treated as independent elements, so linking should be used as much as possible, including repeating links if they happened to be in the same row. This advice is already sort of there, but as this is connected with the concept of independence from the prose like infoboxes, it needs to be reiterated.
Once in prose, that all changes, but if we start with the establishment that it is nearly impossible to consider overlinking in infoboxes and tables, that's a start to something. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this proposal, as tables and infoboxes are a separate breed really. They're all about formatting after all, and the "interrupted prose" argument of course doesn't apply. The detail about duplication - or otherwise - within each of them seems eminently sensible as well. N-HH talk/edits 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- ps: note, not that I'm endorsing the interrupted prose argument necessarily when it comes to the intro and main body. I'm not sure that reducing a paragraph of text from having, say, five links to four makes a huge difference either way. The downside far outweighs any possible upside, assuming the link removed was a serious and relevant one. But, as suggested, that's another debate ..
- Strongly oppose this WP:POINTY attempt to undermine the styleguides. There is no reasonable case for suddenly exempting infoboxes. In addition, community support in the first place for infoboxes is very wobbly: I can link you to a few recent discussions if you want. This is not the time to go around asking that infoboxes be treated like little tin gods: that would be pushing your luck. Tony (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't be assuming bad faith; this is an attempt to dissect the problem just like there was the issue with date delinking. Furthermore, I have seen nothing suggesting we (as a whole) get rid of infoboxes; standardization and improvements instead of every little detail, yes, but not wholesale removal. Ignoring that aspect, there is zero harm with linking in the infobox, compared with the problems of linking in prose that we do need to worry about (eg issues of link density, multiple links in a row, inappropriately-named piped links, etc.) --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose; Counter-proposal. First, let me say I do agree w/nom that in some instances infoboxes are viewed as stand-alone summaries. An example -- we can reflect the date of birth of a person in an infobox, even though it is also reflected in the text of the article.
But I see nothing in the proposal that supports the proposition that, consequently, we should link more in the infobox than we do in the article. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case.
As the guideline states:
Some editors feel that the lead section is a special case. On the one hand it might be desirable to have fewer links in the lead section than in the body of the text; while some links make it easier to scan a longer lead by highlighting key terms, too many make it harder. On the other hand, in technical articles that use many uncommon terms in the introduction, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary to facilitate understanding; but, if possible, try giving an informal explanation in the lead, avoiding using too many technical terms until later in the article: see point 5 of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, and WP:Make technical articles accessible.
My take-away from that is that is as follows. As with the lead, the purpose the purpose of the infobox is to provide a stand-alone summary of the article. Consequently, as with the lead, the above guidance should provide. In the infobox we should generally have fewer links than would appear in the text of most article. And in the case of technical articles, we should seek to have more informal language in the infobox (which of course would require fewer links than formal language would require).
I therefore have a counter-proposal --that the guidance be modified to change, in the above block quote, "the lead section" in each instance to "the lead section and the infobox", with corresponding grammatical revisions.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The lede and the infobox are two completely separate entities, often duplicating information. However, they serve two difference purposes; the infobox if someone needs to quickly establish certain facts, while the lede is to set the stage for the rest of the article, and, if needed, summarize details that cannot be quantized into an infobox section. Linking within the lede needs to be handled like linking the rest of prose (link density, etc.) but the infobox is not meant to be read like prose, and thus the requirements or limitations on linking are quite different. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that they are distinct. But for our purposes here, it is a distinction without a difference. Their purposes and goals are similar.
- I'm unclear what the basis is for what you assert are their respective purposes. Or whether you came up with those descriptions yourself. But I think looking at the WP descriptions of the purposes of the two may be illuminating.
- Per WP:LEAD, "The lead ... lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Per WP:IBT, "An infobox template is ... commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." Their relevant purposes as the same -- to present certain summary information. I therefore see the rationale that supports de-linking especially in the lede as one that sensibly applies to the infobox as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- They are not the same. Again - one is meant to quickly summarize details in a single glance, the other is to establish what the article and the framework of the article is about. They may share information but how it is presented and why it is presented that way serves two very different purposes. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll just direct you to my prior post. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- They are not the same. Again - one is meant to quickly summarize details in a single glance, the other is to establish what the article and the framework of the article is about. They may share information but how it is presented and why it is presented that way serves two very different purposes. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAD, "The lead ... lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Per WP:IBT, "An infobox template is ... commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." Their relevant purposes as the same -- to present certain summary information. I therefore see the rationale that supports de-linking especially in the lede as one that sensibly applies to the infobox as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)