User talk:Mandruss/sandbox

Scope of the changes

We've been thinking in terms of just replacing existing wikilinks. I'm not sure it makes sense to lblink those items while not lblinking everything else that could be lblinked. But lblinking everything would result in a sea of lblinks, with far more words dotted-underscored than not. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

One possible answer: Lblink everything, but dramatically shorten the linktext wherever practical.

• Trump received a Bachelor of Science in economics
• he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice
• Trump ordered a travel ban
• He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court
• He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic
• Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history

Don't know that I'd go as far as "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements".

If everything is lblinked, this would make blue letters a lot more palatable, part of the reason I'm suggesting it.―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It was easier using the ampersands.

• In some cases, we could add the heading of the next-higher section level and lblink to it, e.g., "In foreign policy" for "Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal."

• Travel ban, wall, and family separation are subsections of "Immigration" but I can't think of a way to add it to "Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border."

• Why lblink Bachelor of Science? names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Hmmm. Not sure about most of that. Don't link Hillary Clinton; as I said in an earlier editsum, we should add a wikilink in the target section and omit it from the lead. As for the BS, the purpose of the link is not to define the term, but to direct the reader to more detail in the body. There's not a lot more detail about that in the body, but there's enough to justify an lblink; for example Wharton. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It was easier using the ampersands. Section sign, not ampersand. Silcrow sounds cool too. Perhaps, but the disadvantages outweigh any ease-of-use issues. Only starting with the fact that the silcrows were shot down previously. Nobody can accuse us of resurrecting a settled issue. Also this. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't do it

Don't do it. We're better off not trying fix something, that isn't broken. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Define "broken". We're trying to improve something, not "fix" something. But you're free to Oppose in the article discussion; this is not the place for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to push for this 'new' idea. Then I recommend you propose it for all biographies on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be making 'one' biography different from the rest, in linkage styles. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but we need a trial to see how it works. If it works nicely, then we make it part of our MOS and apply it site-wide.

IIRC, my original idea (found here) of using section signs squigglies/ampersands was to emphasize the primacy of sourcing for the lead, and that is the content in the body, and only the body. Content in the lead must have a source, and that is found in the body. My rule of thumb is "If a subject is worth a whole section, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." The body determines the content in the lead. Therefore, sourcing in the lead should point to the body as the source. That's why "the squiggly is analogous to an inline citation" (Mandruss). The body has all the blue links and references. The lead has few or no blue links, and is clean, and the reader can hop directly to the content backing the wording in the lead. They will know that the blue "things" are hyperlinks and will click on them. They don't need to be explained.

They won't have to search for the sourcing for the content and wonder "Why isn't this sourced?" We constantly have to deal with this legitimate objection from readers. This approach solves that problem and saves us time. It's a great service to readers.

I agree that "It was easier using the ampersands." I agree with this: "The ampersands are the same size as the numerals in the superscript cites. We could have added square brackets to make the targets larger. Space4Time3Continuum2x" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That's why "the squiggly is analogous to an inline citation" (Mandruss) That's what I initially said, but I quickly added "in appearance" following "analogous". It occurred to me that it could be interpreted just as you interpreted it. I said its behavior is very different from that of a citation. That's about user interface, and I strongly feel that's more important than your more abstract theory. Besides, there's the political consideration that I mentioned in the preceding section, which may be most important of all. Would you prefer the dotted-underscores or nothing at all? There is a very real possibility that those are our choices. This will be hard enough to pass without that reason for opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but we need a trial to see how it works. If it works nicely, then we make it part of our MOS and apply it site-wide. I think we just let it grow organically, and apply it to guidelines (not necessarily MoS, as it's not a style issue) if and when it reaches some critical mass. If it never does, that's fine. It would probably never be more than an option at editor discretion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. Happy New Year! I'm a bit tired, but I'll try anyway to see if I can get some clarity over what's being tried here. I have my original thoughts about this idea, but it seems you may be trying something else. Is that right? Are you trying to turn the lead into a sea of blue, but with links that point to the body, and not to other articles? I don't like the "dotted-underscores". They have a sort of strobe effect on my eyes.

My original idea was to get rid of all, or nearly all, blue links and only use the ampersand signs as links to the body. That leaves a clean lead and a direct connection between all content in the lead and the exact section in the body which backs up that content in the lead. The simplest is to not even use a template, but a simple hyperlink like this [§] ([[#target section|[§]]] The placement and function would be the same as an inline citation, but to the body, not an external source. Readers know how inline citations work and they'll click on them.

So what's up? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We share the ultimate goal, which is what has been called reader steering. We differ on the best way to go about it. Cessaune has demonstrated that there are a lot of options as to the appearance of the underscores, and I doubt we've explored all the possibilities. This solution does get rid of all, or nearly all, blue links (the sandboxing is not finished yet). So what's up? Assuming you mean my real life, my older sister died three days ago. Thanks for asking. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

OMG! Did that come as a shock? That makes for a rather "different" New Year. Not much to celebrate. Were you close?

So are you leaning toward underscoring, IOW blue links, but pointing to the body and not other articles? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Did that come as a shock? You mean was it expected? Yes and no. She battled MS for decades and had been having increasing trouble in the past few years. We didn't necessarily expect it now. Her son found her in bed and it looked like she died peacefully in her sleep.

We're leaning toward what's in the sandbox article, but we haven't necessarily settled on the appearance of the underscores. If you click on those links, you'll see that they all go to the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. Can't keep my eyes open. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard to edit Wikipedia with your eyes closed, though a few blind people do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but we need a trial to see how it works. I don't see this as a trial at all. I see it as a local change with a local prior consensus, which is perfectly "legal" under policy. Treating it as a mere trial was what allowed it to be so easily killed the first time.

This is no different from any other local consensus. If this passes, I would expect a new consensus item for it, which means we need a strong enough consensus to justify one. This should be "clear", but it needn't be "overwhelming" (I'd be happy with 60% Support, which is 1.5 Supports for every Oppose). In that case, it's not so easily reverted. No editor could swoop in and revert because it's different, and if one tried to and re-reverted we'd be at AE in short order. Consensus is consensus, regardless of the issue at hand. Their only recourse would be to try to reverse the consensus, and we'd cross that bridge when and if we came to it.

This is what prior consensus buys us. I don't recall whether we had anything like that the last time this was attempted, but it didn't get as far as the consensus list. You gotta formalize it.

In other words, we don't need any more "approval" than a clear consensus in the article discussion. If we get that, the change will stick until the consensus is reversed, no matter what anybody thinks of it otherwise.

As for "see how it works", that's what the sandboxing is for. Makes a lot more sense than "trialing" in a live article, no? That's disruptive from a reader perspective. Don't touch the article unless there's a fairly high probability it won't be changed back. If someone reverses the consensus, that added disruption is on them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree. Go for it. I'm a "Yes" for this attempt. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have created an example of how it looks with brackets here. Search for it near the top after "inspire them to read the whole article." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Which looks better, one.^[§] or two.^§ ? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed to both versions. But, bringing all these proposals to the appropriate MOS, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop with all the get-community-approval-first comments. See this. Oppose or not in the article discussion, but let the proposers handle the strategy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Link appearance

Hey Cessaune, those are pretty bold dashes, creating a visual distraction that will get much worse as we add more lblinks. Any way it can be dialed back a bit, without returning to what we had before? Happy medium? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now added more lblinks, and I think we've got probably 90-95% of the lblinks that we'll need. It doesn't look as bad as I expected, provided the linktexts are kept short. Still a topic for discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Cessaune, I see your change. How is that substantially different from "what we had before"? With my imperfect vision, I have to stare directly at it to see that there's anything there at all. Surely there's a step (or more) in between the two. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a one pixel difference (2px --> 1px), so no. Cessaune [talk] 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Wow, what a difference one pixel makes. In that case, I much prefer the other unless we can find some better third alternative. At least then I could see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a champ. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoa! Still disturbing, and even with our differing eyes, we both noticed some disturbance. Eyes do not function identically. Just imagine how there are going to be lots of other people experiencing discomfort in many different ways. I really think we should drop this "change the underlining" idea.

We need to approach this using psychology. All humans resist change, so the less change from the status quo, the greater the chance of acceptance, and that is ultimately our goal. Getting a local consensus here is good. Getting a global change would be awesome. In either case, the least noticeable change, the better.

Most readers instinctively know what to do with our existing refs. They click them. Our L2B (Lead 2 Body) section links work the same way. The difference is invisible... and profound. We are making practical, and recognizing, the sourcing of the lead. The lead gets its authority from the body of the article, not from anything outside of the article. The body has the content, the wikilinks, and all the sourcing. So we are pointing to the body. THAT is the radical idea here, and the only noticeable change is a retargeting of those little reflinks, which we call L2B. They aren't numbered, and in that way they subtly show they are different from the numbered ones in the body, but the visual effect in the lead isn't much different than when we had the refs in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

To see this in practice, I have changed the lead at How to create and manage a good lead section and used bolded ones in the second paragraph. That's where this all started. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, people did notice the section signs, very quickly, in fact. Remember this discussion? You claimed that [t]he squigglies are much less distracting than ordinary numbered refs—agree to disagree. They are equally as distracting as ordinary numbered refs, if not more so. I don't get why this^[§] is any less distracting than this,^[1] and you never really explain why you thought that. If adding citations in the lead creates clutter, and there is a widespread consensus to avoid refs in the lead because they are visually disturbing and make it seem messy, I don't imagine that anyone will be too keen on adding symbols that are so visually similar to the typical inline citation.

My preferred design is this. The current design is

this. Your preferred design is this.^[§] There are many more designs, such as this, this, this, this^§... the list goes on. However, I am fairly confident that any design that incorporates section signs is going to be shot down. We can always hold a straw poll or something, though. Cessaune [talk] 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Good points. I can understand the arguments from all sides, so this will be our local consensus decision, and I'll respect that. I am just one voice and won't be offended, so keep up the good work. Everyone here is working in good faith, and ultimately we all hope this will improve the project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Now that most of the lblinks are in place, I'd like to see the sandbox article using your preference. But how can we save the current state for comparison? Other than substitution, which is a big hassle. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For purpose of evaluating appearance, the lblinks don't need to be functional. We could take screenshots and upload them to WP or Commons. Just one shot per sample, centered on paragraph 3, which has the highest lblink density. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune:, could you please try to tone down the boldness factor? It seems too bold to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Cessaune already informed us that the width difference between this and "so small that it would require almost perfect vision" is a single pixel. Thus there is nothing available between the two. I wonder if a slightly lighter blue could be used. As I said above, I would also like to see it using Cessaune's "preferred design", which uses a far-less-bold underscoring with blue letters. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I just came across a slightly different option. Look here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I assumed you'd notice it. It's the underlining in the sig. Here it is bolded Sig replaced and unbolded Sig replaced, although that doesn't seem to affect the underlining. It's just another option that Cessaune can play with. I find it more pleasing to the eye than our current options. Try playing with different colors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that underscoring until you pointed it out. That's the problem with anything that small (1 px). Per MOS:ACCESS, Wikipedia tries to accommodate readers with vision even worse than mine. That's why I'm still waiting to see Cessaune's "preferred design" (1 px underscore with blue letters in the standard typeface) in the sandboxed article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see a lighter blue like this light green. Is it the size that's the problem for you? That too can be tweaked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's already been said multiple times that the smallest step larger (2 px) creates what you said was too much. I didn't disagree that it was too much using standard blue, but suggested trying a lighter blue. Haven't seen that either. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'd like to see a numbered comparison list of all the options so far. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Experiment: Look at the lead in the sandbox. Forget where the lblinks are. Force your eyes out of focus (requires a bit of practice if you've never done it before). Go just enough out of focus that you can barely read the text without difficulty, no more and no less. Now you're approximating bad vision that is still within what WP tries to accommodate per MOS:SMALLTEXT etc. Can you see where the lblinks are? If not, the lblinks are too subtle. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Status update?

Cessaune has stopped responding to requests for new samples in link appearance, and I feel the need to nail that down as a suboptimal appearance could be part of one's reasons for opposition (conscious or otherwise). S/he has commented in the Survey but has not !voted. Space4T is AWOL both here and in the Survey. Valjean has not !voted. I'm left wondering what's going on. Are people occupied by real life or losing enthusiasm for the proposal?

On a related note: I wasn't expecting such low participation in the Survey over all. I'd be interested in comments as to strategy if that doesn't improve dramatically in the coming week or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Mostly occupied by real life. Started drafting my support !vote two days ago but not satisfied with it yet. Strategy — last year participation in the discussion was also fairly limited until I went live with the "squigglies". That brought out the never-done-this-before no-other-article-does-it lot pretty quickly. We didn't take it to an RfC back then but maybe we should this time around. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to reading a Support !vote so thoroughly considered that it requires drafting!

last year participation in the discussion was also fairly limited until I went live with the "squigglies". Right, that's why I advocated for the prior consensus approach this time. I'm grappling with the possibility that no strategy will work any better than any other, including RfC; resistance to change may be too deeply entrenched in Wikipedia editing culture. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Busy with this. Sorry. I'll get to it sometime today. Cessaune [talk] 14:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still interested, but just get busy with other stuff. I do see your pings. I think this "private" workshopping is important as any imperfect proposal will just get shot down again. The resistance to change is indeed strong here. We need to prepare the best suggestions and options possible. There is no rush, so let's keep working here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Re:[1] Since you're the one with the keys to the template, it seems to me any "shelving" is up to you. The rest of us have gone quiet, but only because there aren't a variety of link-appearance examples to compare "side-by-side". I could be wrong, but I don't get the vibe that Space4T and Valjean are on board with said shelving. I certainly am not. Sure, There is no rush, but three months?? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Now is a good a time to start the RfC. The Talk page is relatively calm right now, and several discussions should be auto-archived soon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather start a discussion and post it to noticeboards than an RfC. What question would we even ask? It'll get shut down before it even starts. And people will claim that RFCBEFORE hasn't been satisfied; if anything, there was a consensus to exclude in the previous discussion. Cessaune [talk] 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: These are the previous discussions: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_149#Discussion_of_section_references_in_the_lead, Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_149#Squigglies,_throughout_the_page, Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_149#Leadrefs, Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_150#Discussion_of_section_references_in_the_lead, Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_164#Lead-to-body_links?. See next section for RfC proposal. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know about the idea of starting an RfC. I don't want to spend a month arguing over a proposal that the community is going to say no to (because, yes, the community is going to say no). People act off of impulse and as soon as people get to the question at the bottom and realize that one of the most-viewed articles on the site wants to make themselves different in a noticeable way, it's over. I'm just envisioning it in my head. Single-sentence Oppose comments, all saying the same thing—why should one article be made different from the rest? No amount of explanation, reasoning, evidence will ever get the majority view to shift over to the side of lead to body links, simply because their implementation requires something never before seen. And we will spend hours arguing that people are being close-minded, that meaningful change starts small, that all innovation on Wikipedia was born out of a drive to improve, whatever—it won't work. We'll be screaming into the air. I've already drafted the consensus item: 66. There is a consensus against the inclusion of underlined section links in the lead.

What I do think has a chance to work is a locally-hosted discussion, broadcasted on noticeboards. We would also make it clear that we are testing it out, by setting time limits on its implementation and gathering data. Two weeks of implementation, two weeks without, or something. Something clearly defined, in a way that shows that we are trying to improve the wiki for the better, and not just making one article look different from the rest.

If an RfC is to be started, I will be there. But I strongly dislike the idea. Cessaune [talk] 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the village pumps? Idea lab, policy, proposals? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Idea lab to flesh out the technical aspect and to agree on a design worthy of testing on the Donald Trump page, and policy to alter WP:SECTIONLINK (and any other relevant guidelines/policies) to account for its use. Who knows, if that is successful, maybe {{section link}} will be phased out/deprecated. Maybe section link formulations such as this will be considered too EGGy and will be banned. Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If the wider community is too short-sighted, too resistant to change, too inclined to prioritize site-wide consistency over innovation, I don't see how it makes any difference whether we go RfC or some other route. It's the same wider community regardless. One difference is that RfC has a time limit of sorts, so it can't get bogged down in interminable discussion that ultimately goes nowhere. It can still go nowhere, but with far less time wasted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe section link formulations such as this will be considered too EGGy and will be banned. Least of my worries. In my experience, editors don't care about EGG (or understand it) as much as we do at Trump. And, FWIW, I've noticed that respected professional communicators such as New York Times routinely use exactly that kind of EGGiness. Sure, we're NOTNEWS, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this issue. And EGG is only an MoS guideline, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I was speaking about some potential future when I talked about EGG. It's not anyone's current goal.

A discussion that leads to an A/B test? That has a chance. But a simple should we implement RfC is doomed from the outset. Yes, the idea lab is where ideas go to die, but the RfC system isn't meant to handle novel ideas at all. We would be proposing an idea in a forum that isn't equipped to handle that. Cessaune [talk] 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Aren't all proposals novel ideas? I guess it depends on one's precise definition of "novel". See the RfC here, which is working just fine.

Ultimately, I don't care as long as this moves forward in one form or another. I still think the sandbox should illustrate our best shot, which is yet to be established. Otherwise people will use easily fixable "problems" as excuses to oppose. You can fix the "problems", but their opposition remains because they've moved on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Valjean: Ok, enough. If no one has proceeded with a different route by the end of the month, I'll start the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump using the current sandbox state (blue letters with subtle dotted underscoring) and the one-sentence RfC question shown at the bottom of the following section. If it fails, it fails; that's preferable to the indefinite limbo that we have now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've got it. Give me like two weeks, tops. I'll draft something and share it here. Cessaune [talk] 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If it fails, we can look at the arguments of the editors opposing the proposal and adjust the proposal for the next RfC aka wear'em down . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Haha no. That's just bludgeoning at that point. Cessaune [talk] 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC?

Since the idea of RfC has been brought up, I went ahead and crafted a proposed RfC "question". Comments welcome.

This RfC proposes a new technique for steering readers of the lead to the related body content, using "lead-to-body links" (sandboxed here). Wikilinks to other articles would be mostly confined to the body content; this would provide a path to the far greater level of detail only after giving the reader the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the body. The principle is that readers should not be encouraged to bypass the body content, which is what wikilinks in the lead do even with a ToC below it.

Should this article be allowed to introduce this technique, which could then be adopted at other articles at editor discretion?

―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Valjean: Ok, the article discussion is going nowhere fast. Editors are avoiding it in droves, and I had to pin it to keep it from falling off into the archive. WP:RFCBEFORE has been satisfied, and I now suggest an RfC at the Trump talk page. I say we nail down the link appearance and the RfC question, and then I'll start the RfC. You can save your !votes for that. (If we still get very low participation, we'll be forced to go to WP:VPR, but that seems somewhat unlikely if we list the RfC in several categories.) I still want to see Cessaune's stated link-appearance preference in the sandbox. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the blue dashed underlines in sandbox#Scope_of_the_changes. I'm not sure that I agree with everything you lblinked and didn't lblink at User:Mandruss/sandbox — I hope to have more time after next week, too much to concentrate on right now. We should get that nailed down as well before starting the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I could be mistaken, but that link ( sandbox#Scope_of_the_changes ) seems to point to the wrong location. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: He meant #Scope of the changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe word the RfC question like this and put the longer explanation on the Talk page? Should this article be allowed to introduce a new "lead-to-body link" technique, which could then be adopted at other articles at editor discretion? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That would work, too. Concise and to the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)