Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Bot archiving

Can anyone tell me why is the bot not archiving? It seems it is set to archive at 20 days, but there were threads dated as old as 20 July which were still unarchived. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote we keep it present. 20 days is far too short a period for archiving. And the content is pertinent. --Michael C. Price talk 16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to 30 days. If no one has commented on a topic in a month, it should be archived. -Rrius (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to examine another term we see bandied around, link "dilution". Assuming that it means that the occurence of neighbouring links reduces the incidence of clicking on an individual link, why do the delinkers think this means links should be removed? To use an analogy, the occurence of many flavours of ice-cream lowers the purchase of any individual flavour, but that is not a justification for only selling vanilla. Consumer choice is paramount here. Why does not the same principle apply to links? --Michael C. Price talk 06:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because there are thousands of flavors, not just 31. If there are too many flavors like "Crawling Caterpillar Delight", you might not even notice the chocolate. Art LaPella (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You'll notice it if you like it. Same with links. Choice is good, because it caters for variation in interests and background. --Michael C. Price talk 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Everyone else is against a "sea of blue", but if you would always notice a link you want, then a sea of blue would be ideal. But I don't think you would notice. Thus linking should only be done when its value exceeds its dilution effect. Art LaPella (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
We are not talking about a "sea of blue". Thanks for wasting our time.
My question was serious: why is link dilution bad? Isn't it just indicative of readers making disparate choices?
--Michael C. Price talk 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"You'll notice it if you like it? You don't go to an article with the aim of recognising your favourite link.
"Consumer choice is paramount here"? Which consumer? The ones who think it's worthwhile clicking United States, Japan, Marisa Tomei, drama, celebrities, or profit—which are all found (in increasing order of uselessness) in the current professional wrestling article. If we don't apply high standards to linking, how low do we go? No doubt there are readers (people with a foreign background, youngsters, poor readers, etc) who might not know the meaning of form, display, and strong (all of which are found in the first sentence in that article), so by the logic of "Consumer choice is paramount here", they would have to be linked. Well, I (and many others) say "no"—there's a search box for nebulous words and phrases.
Linking is now, and always has been, a question of limitation—to the ones that deepen the understanding of the article.
 HWV258.  04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The "form, display, and strong" point is silly, since we already know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The "how low do we go" point is just sea of blue (=contiguous links) recycled. More time wasting. As for "which consumer", offering choice caters for most or all readers. Same answer for deepening the understanding of the article. Deepening is relative to a reader's current understanding, which varies from reader to reader, and from time to time. The one-size-fits-all approach that the delinkers take just doesn't work - it fails to recognize the diversity of readers. --Michael C. Price talk 05:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's a silly point. It's a blatant straw man, a logical fallacy the deletionists in this discussion have been using as a crutch the entire time this "debate" has been ongoing (it's not really a debate, which requires logically sound arguments from both sides; it's just a bunch of chestbeating and pissing). This "form, display and strong" theme is a rationally bankrupt argument. No one has actually proposed dicdef linking like "strong", yet the deletionist argument, boiled down, is "we have to be more and more anti-linking otherwise everyone's going to link stuff like 'strong'". Well, the non-deletionists here agree that such linking is stupid. What they don't agree on is the slippery slope argument (another fallacy) that because noobs tend to make stupid links like this that more and more restrictive anti-linking language has to be adopted or the sky will fall down. The sky isn't falling down, and never will. Experienced editors undo the mistakes of noob editors, today just like last year just like in 2005, and life goes on. I'm amazed at the level of sheer frakking hysteria on this page. Everyone needs to calm down and go do something else for a while, like go outside or read a book, and quit obsessing over nitpicks in a guideline no one pays attention to anyway. People link, refrain from linking, and unlink based on common sense and experience, pure and simple. I doubt that even 1% of editors with over 5,000 edits have ever read this page. I did some WP:BRD editing on it to get the point across how screwed up this page is, and I hope that will conttribute in some way to this document eventually making sense, but my breath will not be held. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The time wasting occurs because you haven't distinguished consumer choice from the ultimate choice offered by the sea of blue. Whatever semantics we use, some links are more useful than others, and the least useful links should be delinked. When we get past that point, we can discuss why linking to China is seldom very useful. Art LaPella (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"Least useful" to who? We need to be careful about bandying such terms about, since usefulness is a relative concept. Do you understand that? --Michael C. Price talk 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Least useful to whom?? why, the man on the Clapham omnibus, of course. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 00:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
But you'll notice that those "dictionary" words are not red-links, so it is possible for editors to spiral into the depths of linkitis (and many do). What's worse is that there are always the tinkerers—who believe that they can squeeze one more link out of the tube (well, an article isn't really finished while there's something else to link, is it?). On the other hand, the current policy of only linking terms that deepen the understanding is elegantly simple.
I've had a good go now, so if you believe that the arguments presented are "time wasting", then we'll have to leave it at: enough editors believe the current wording to be effective, so I guess it stays.
 HWV258.  06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm asking why link dilution is bad, and not getting any answers. --Michael C. Price talk 07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no bloody idea 'bout who the hell Marisa Tomei is, so I wouldn't find a link to it useless. The only reason why I find that link unnecessary in the current professional wrestling article (but unnecessary ≠ harmful) is that I guess that The Wrestler will link to there anyway. IOW, never make too strong assumptions about the readers' knowledge: whereas we can assume that everyone knows (or knows where to look up) all these words and has heard about these languages, most of these cities, and the first few dozens of these countries, any further assumption is going to be wrong for a non-negligible fraction of readers. A. di M. (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
My incredulity about this debate has reached new heights with the thought that there is someone who has "no bloody idea 'bout who the hell Marisa Tomei is". :-)  HWV258.  09:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, my mother didn't know what Guinness is until I told her a couple of years ago. A. di M. (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone reads People magazine or watches E!, so be as incredulous as you like. Not everyone has eidetic memory for celebcruft. I'm even a movie buff (I have over 500 DVDs and Blu-rays, and probably at least as many films/shows on some 1.5TB hard drives reserved for media rips) and I cannot right now name a single Tomei film from memory, nor can I form a clear picture of her in my mind. I remember her being pretty and brunette and that's it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that a sense of humour is the first casualty in this. I was joking (didn't the smiley help you to detect that?). The point being that Marisa (lovely, and apparently anonymous, as she is) does nothing to deepen the understanding of an article on wrestling.  HWV258.  22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And yet someone reading about wrestling might want to read about her. As per MOS, hence the link. --Michael C. Price talk 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And someone reading that article might want to read about "profit"? How low do you go? Do you link "matches" in the second sentence just in case? She does not deepen the understanding of the wrestling article sufficiently to warrant a link. There's also the issue of chain-links (e.g. she would be found if someone follows The Wrestler movie link). Lastly, anyone who is really interested in her, can copy and paste her name into the search box. These are concepts well understood by most of the editors here, so we all need to move on with more concrete aspects of the debate.  HWV258.  06:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The old "use the search box" line. So let's remove all the links, eh? Why have have links at all? --Michael C. Price talk 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I know it's actually a rhetorical question, the answer to which you know full well. Rather disingenuous, from a physicist. You have been trying to blind us all with science about utility, you then failed to explain the utility curve for any useful good or commodity starts at a non-zero value; as x tends to infinity, y tends to zero – only for links, x does not need to tend to infinity, and I suspect x only needs to reach two before utility starts tending to zero in the vast majority of cases. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strange, I thought it was the delinkers who were trying to blind us with science, with all their talk of metrics, webmaster experience and degrees in psychology. Yet, upon examination, it is their arguments that are exposed as pitefully lacking. If my position is so obviously crap and bad science then it should be easy to rebut my last response in the Link "utility" section. Still waiting for any response there.--Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Quoting you: Strange, I thought it was the delinkers who were trying to blind us with science, with all their talk of metrics… Saaay. Were you going to follow up on that one with “When the universe was made by Him 7,000 years ago”? Blinding people with science? (I mean, WTF???) Are you trying to win arguments here? Stay on point. You seem to want to link the living crap out of articles and that’s considered by the community to be three daddy steps backwards. Give it up; come back when your position is somewhere remotely close to “middle ground.” If you keep badgering us on this, I’m might make a volcano rumble. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In this case, I saw someone who I thought was a scientist opposite me. I'm not thick, but were just not quite on the same wavelength – and I'm sure there are plenty others in a similar situation. You gave up trying to explain to me above, remember?? My repositioned argument is merely a response to you, as you appear to have started to make rather POINTY and sarcastic statements of positions you do not actually support or advocate – statements which are not conducive to a healthy debate. Please indulge me... how are my arguments "pitefully (sic) lacking"--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The question has been answered, by ALP, amongst others, to the extent that to do any more would be considered ad nauseum by the small number here who are not yet suffering from the WP:TLDR syndrome. Or perhaps you just don't like or accept the response(s)? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • MCP, did you come to the conclusion somewhere in your experience that not dropping an issue and setting your egg timer to remind you to pound away on your keyboard some more on this issue or that somehow pulls out a win? The most tendentious editor gets his way?? A lot of middle-of-the-roaders are just tuning this one out and letting you rant. I’m not sure there is a consensus to even discuss this matter any further, much less any stomach for making significant changes. Why don’t you just drop it? Greg L (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The whole approach adopted by Cavendish appears to be to discredit the guideline as one that nobody bothers to read, let alone follow. The assertion that the guideline somehow came into being through some equivalent of immaculate conception in a atheist world is making me laugh and cry at the same time. The tactic adopted by MCP seems to be to filibuster about his point(s) not being addressed, even when they patently have been, albeit not to his satisfaction. It seems his 'non-acceptance' more like denial. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What a lot of sound and fury. And no response at the Link "utility" section. Still waiting for any response there....--Michael C. Price talk 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
In this particular case, it's obvious from the context that Marisa Tomei is an actress who performed in The Wrestler; but in general, if you use a proper name and the reader doesn't know it they won't get whatever point there was in using it, so they will want to know whom or what that proper name refers to.[1] A. di M. (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Linking only the end of a chain is elegant (in this case the Tomei link is found via the movie link).  HWV258.  00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that too many links make it harder to notice each individual link (see this), but: 1) the threshold before this happens is much higher than some people here claim (I think it's about one link (excluding superscripted links to footnotes) per hundred visible characters, paragraph-wise); 2) the solution is not going to Special:WhatLinksHere/China and removing 'em all; rather, it's looking for the paragraphs which have the greatest number of links per hundred visible characters and thinking about which links are the least useful in that context. A. di M. (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
With respect A. di M., the solution is to keep the links that deepen the understanding of the article in question. I do agree with you that finding and removing all WhatLinksHere is not correct, but don't agree that some sort of localized density is the criteria for inclusion or removal. Sometimes a high density of links may help to deepen the understanding of the article, and other times it might be fine to remove a single link in a long paragraph—if it is nebulous to the topic.  HWV258.  11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the criterion is not just to "deepen understanding" but also link to "articles the reader might be interested in". The MOS says
Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"
--Michael C. Price talk 11:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. The guidelines do not reduce the purpose of linking to that single concept, which is then to be interpreted in the most limited way possible, so as to exclude *every* link to so-called "common terms" or things where "everyone knows what they are", however we would attempt to define those anyway. And they do not in fact mention the words "dilute" or "dilution" at all. They do however say, as common sense suggests they should -
  • Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole
  • When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information
  • Provide links that aid navigation and understanding
  • Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers
Excluding all links to some of the site's most commonly visited pages, even when they appear on pages for clearly related and directly relevant topics is not justified. Yet it happens. Nor is it clear that it helps otherwise inept readers focus on the "better" links - however, again, we would try to define what is better for everyone as a whole - and prevents them being distracted in some way that prevents them exercising their own choices. N-HH talk/edits 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And it is just unbelievable chutzpah to assume that we, the superhumanly intelligent magically empowered editors of this largely ignored guideline of supreme universal importance are in any position to decide what is a "better" link for any given reader. Some readers want extremely narrow links, and others want broader ones. We already lean toward being narrow, and that's good enough. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Pray tell: have you ever thought about just ignoring it?? --superhumanly intelligent magically empowered editor of this largely ignored guideline of supreme universal importance ¡digame! 23:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
While link density does indeed vary a lot according to the type of text, it's still a quite useful indicator. If you have a very high link density (say, over 3 links per hundred characters) but you find that all the links are vital and none of them has already been linked before, odds are that you're writing too densely and you'd better revise WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, especially points 5 and 7. Conversely, "it dilutes other links in the vicinity" is not a valid rationale for removing a link if there are no other links in the vicinity (though there might be different reasons to remove it, e.g. "it redirects back on this same page, as it should" or "it is so irrelevant to the topic of this article that most readers following it would mutter 'WTF?' and hit 'Back'/close the new browser tab within 500 milliseconds"). A. di M. (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This claim is far too over-generalized. Some text is link-dense on purpose, and has to be that way, such as glossary entries in stand-alone glossary lists, which are not usually read from top to bottom, but only referred to for clarification of a single term, linked to from its context in another article. Each entry in a glossary (or glossary style list of some other sort) is for practical purposes a stand-alone mini-article. I do get your point about link density in everyday WP prose, but part of this document's failure is that it is worded already in too blanket a fashion, such that too few editors know what sorts of exceptions can apply, or even believe that there are any exceptions.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
India is an example of a fairly densely linked article—much more than you'd normally want—but what overrides this is the fact that almost all of the links are highly specific targets; for example, "agriculture" goes not to the lame target you commonly see in country articles, but to "agriculture in India". "Corruption" is not the annoying dictionary link that is so irritating, where you really do mind that it dilutes high-value links; no, it's piped to "corruption in India". Nice one. The only problem with such piping is that the pipes are "deceptive", and likely to suppress clicks because readers are so used to the silly targets that WP can be littered with. You hope that if a reader bothers to try one of these links in this excellent article, they'll soon realise they're not being taken for a ride. Having said that, I just removed a few silly ones, such as "economic system" and "capitalism" and "private enterprise"—these are dictionary links, and spoil what is otherwise excellent practice. Tony (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a self-fixing problem. As more and more articles are written (as they obviously are - WP is growing, not shrinking), link quality will improve (articles like Agriculture in India will increasingly exist, and even become more fine-tuned - Traditional agriculture in India, Factory farming in India, etc.) As link quality inmproves, readers will make more use of the links. So, there's really no issue here. Wikpedia's not broken; we don't need to try to "fix" it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the India article is a good example (and thanks Tony1 for taking the time to improve it). "Dictionary links" is a good term to use as we move forward with the common goal of improving the quality of articles.  HWV258.  23:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I have to comment that using the Professional wrestling article as exemplary of, well, jack is totally absurd. The entire field the article is about is fraudulent nonsense, pandering to the lowest common denominator fanbase. The article, like any article about a pop-culture topic, is frequently if not mostly edited by its random fans, not by neutral parties much less experienced editor. Given the nature of that fanbase, anyone intelligent enough to not be a part of that audience should automatically expect that article to engage in overlinking (as well as bad grammar, spelling errors, original research, fancruft, unsourced statements, vandalism, violations of WP:BLP, and every other article flaw, often many at once), except when periodically cleaned up by experienced, non-fan editors. Using that of all articles as some kind of test case makes this entire thread as absurd as something from Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can all agree that the issue with country links is whether they are often clicked, not whether they are ever clicked, then we can stop bringing back examples like linking dog, which one person in a billion (in my superhumanly magical opinion) would click if they suddenly had an urge to read about getting a dog. Art LaPella (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
We're not debating how to handle only the "good" articles, and all readers have the right to encounter well-constructed articles. (I don't agree with the "lowest common denominator" value judgement comment—lots of the fans are awfully nice chaps).  HWV258.  23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The real dispute: Relevance (explanatory vs. navigational linkage)

I think we should really get down to where the real dispute lives and resolve it: "Relevance" and whether a link to x "is" "helpful" to "readers". I "scare-quote" all of those because definitional devils are in the details of all four words. While I think it is very clear the more "deletionist" or "anti-linking" subset of editors of WP:LINKING have unreasonably and fallaciously suggested both that the noob practice of linking just about everything will spread like wildfire and that the more moderate or "inclusionist" or "pro-linking" editors of WP:LINKING have actually advocated such linking – both of these are abject nonsense, they actually do have a valid point, especially with regard to places. And it's not just noobs that overlink in this case. Here's a passage I pulled from a billiards article largely written by a good and experienced editor (and admin), and also worked on by me and various other people for several years now:

This marked the demise of professional straight rail in the U.S., which only had a six year run from 1873 to 1879. Meanwhile, straight rail professional play continued in Europe, with high run counts consistently climbing. Frenchman Maurice Vignaux posted a 1,531 count in Paris in 1880, while American George Spears had a high run of 5,041 in 1890. Later runs of over 10,000, in addition to the one previously noted, have been accurately reported.

I think it can be reasonably argued that these links to French people and United States (they're not even a consistent type of target!) are not particularly useful. I know for a fact that some editors find them a "sea of blue" distraction and a devaluation of linkage, since they've said so. What I'm not seeing is their recognition that - whether they personally feel this way about lead links or not - they're outvoted on lead links. The vast majority of editors and readers apparently do feel that an opening line in an article lead like:

Maurice Vignaux was a French professional player of carom billiards...

certainly is an appropriate use of a country link. The astronomically overwhelming majority of such cases are linked. This is solid proof of consensus for this practice, and we all know very well that a handful of holdouts against a landslide in favor of what amounts to a defacto standard on WP does not indicate a change in consensus. On the other side, the perhaps increasing (certainly existent and certainly alleged to be increasing) frequency with which the former, in-middle-of-random-sentence country link is deleted without dispute (or never put there to begin with) is strong evidence that there is not consensus for performing such secondary links and that they do constitute over-linking in most cases. (An example of a case where this wouldn't be the case might be "John Smith, UK ambassador" - his country is intimately connected to his relevance as an ambassador in whatever context he's likely to be appearing in, so identified.) I think a clear compromise is in order here. If I remember correctly, even Tony1, who feels strongly about this stuff, didn't say that a WP:LEAD link to a country was harmful, only that he'd never bother clicking it himself. I also can't remember anyone on "my" side of the debate suggesting that WP would fall apart if we didn't always, always, always provide links to a country just because it's mentioned in passing. From countries we can generalize to other things, like occupations (note in the quoted billiards passage no "player" link), and so on.

If we could get consensus on this here, I think a lot of the debate would be settled. And it would probably take very little additional wording in the guideline text to explain the difference between these two kinds of links – as someone said elsewhere, they are explanatory vs. navigational. It is the very job of the lead to explain, summarize and put into context the article's topic, while this is not at all the purpose of the average sentence in the average article paragraph, which is to elucidate some detail. The point of most of the prose is to present information as a stream, and excessive linking does impede the flow (not as much as come claim, in my opinion, but I do not deny that the effect exists). The lead is nothing like this at all, but is something of a one-stop shop for the gist. (The fact that infoboxes are like this on steroids is why stuff should be linked in them as well).

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Better. I would have unlinked "Frenchman/French" in both those situations, but surely the lead is a more arguable case for linking it because it says the whole article is in some sense French, and we're no longer arguing in contradictory absolutes. To back up claims of consensus with some real (though quick) statistics: 7 out of 10 random articles with major countries in the lead linked them, and 4 out of 10 random articles with major countries further down linked them. Of course the statistics don't try to distinguish what data doesn't count because of alleged noob edits. Art LaPella (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Who is going to click "France" and the "United States" here? Who? You seem to cast our readers as leisured browsers who want to wander through the site at random. That is patently unfair to those who want to be pointed towards valuable links. Have you read the huge, encompassing articles on France and the US? How do they help the reader, and again, do you really think readers will want to divert to them just as they're getting into a topic? For that matter, at any stage of their reading of the article.
    They don't have to divert to them immediately; they could open them in new browser tabs and read them after finishing reading the Vignaux article. (That's quite unlikely for such links as "France" and "United States" in a bio, but it's something to keep in mind in general.) Note that (at least with Firefox) you can't do the "Open Link in New Tab" thing with the Search button, so for readers who like to do that (e.g. me) being able to use the Search button doesn't help. A. di M. (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    Seconded, as a fellow Firefox user. Also, "just use the search box" means navigating through any disambiguation page. All in all, a considerable downer on the Wikipedia experience. --Michael C. Price talk 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. The guideline resists the bunching of links that might well be seen as a single link. This is precisely what you've shown here. Why are the names red links? That seems deceptive, in this instance. Please replace them with blue-link names so we can see the effect.
    Because if the second link is red the "chain link" argument doesn't apply. In the Speed of Light article there's the phrase "gamma-ray burst GRB 090510"; right now the first link is vital, but when an article about GRB 090510 is created it'll have to be removed to avoid having two links looking like one and because the GRB 090510 article would link to gamma-ray burst in the first sentence anyway. A. di M. (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. "The vast majority of editors and readers apparently do feel that an opening line in an article lead [with a link to well-known countries] certainly is an appropriate use of a country link." You use the remnants of the pre-existing practice that grew for the first four years or so in WP's history—of linking without thinking about selectiveness—as evidence for your claim that editors, let alone readers, like them. Come now, you know this is not logical.
  4. Could you write shorter posts, please? Tony (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, the problem with your second example is that it rests on the premise that editors linked nationalities because they thought it was a good idea, which may not be true. Based on what happened with date autoformatting (piggybacked on date linking), it is equally likely that editors just see that other articles were written that way, and emulated that style without thinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm striking my words "back up claims of consensus" because that isn't what I meant. It has been argued that major country links throughout the article don't count because only noobs do that. But if that's so, then the same noobs presumably link major countries in the lede also. So if we ignore several statistical complications and simply subtract 4 out of 10 from 7 out of 10, we get 3 out of 6, which is no consensus at all. Art LaPella (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is the consensus that "The vast majority of editors and readers apparently do feel that an opening line in an article lead like: Maurice Vignaux was a French professional player of carom billiards...certainly is an appropriate use of a country link."? It looks rather lame to me and I might take out the mention of the country from the lede altogether when copyediting. Make it something like:

Maurice Vignaux (born in Lyon in 1905) was a professional player of carom billiards...

Wouldn't that be more interesting for the reader?--John (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with John, although if there's no other context to indicate where Lyon is, I don't mind "(born in Lyon, France, in 1905)". Also, SMcCandlish, I find instances where "professional" is also linked. It all ends up a jumble of links. We owe it to our readers to be specific in both our wording (as John has exemplified) and in our linking. Tony (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Dunno, the town of birth needn't be relevant to one's life. For example, after the age of a few months I've never lived in the city where I was born. (I think that's why the MoS discourages writing the place of birth in the first sentence, though I think that's too strong because there'll be many articles where it will be more relevant than the day and month of birth.) A. di M. (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've repeatedly argued, ever since I came across this issue, that relevance and navigability are the key issues for linking, rather than the idea of what is puportedly "useful". The guidelines say this. Common sense says this. Editor practice - even excluding the much-derided overenthusiastic linkers - says this. Yes there can be debates over how to apply this in each case, but there's a certain degree of objectivity there, and it's far easier than trying to assess what is "useful" or "deepens understanding" for people as a whole when we are dealing with millions of readers and editors, who have massively varying degrees of knowledge, who use WP for a hundred different reasons and in a hundred different ways, and who may be first time visitors to the site. With the examples raised, a link to France in an article about a French thing seems reasonable. A link to France when the country appears in passing mention, almost certainly not.
As for Tony's statement above - Who is going to click "France" and the "United States" here? Who? You seem to cast our readers as leisured browsers who want to wander through the site at random. That is patently unfair to those who want to be pointed towards valuable links. Have you read the huge, encompassing articles on France and the US? How do they help the reader, and again, do you really think readers will want to divert to them just as they're getting into a topic? - this also encapsulates the problems I've seen since I first looked at this. You know, to answer your question, people might. As noted, people come here from all sorts of different places and for all different sorts of reasons, and use the site in all sorts of different ways. I don't have to show that everyone will use a link to justify retention. I'm not sure how many would get there from any one specific link, but France and US are probably among the most viewed pages here. And I can pose some questions in return - why reduce the options for getting to them, from a related and relevant page? If the articles are so generally unhelpful, why have those pages at all? Where is your evidence that people want some higher minds to point them to certain pages and not others? N-HH talk/edits 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"You know, to answer your question, people might [want to follow a link to France or the US]]. Then link every single word, because people might want to follow them. I'm interested in "the". There's an article on it. A link would aid navigability, and it's certainly relevant to a topic. If you want to link every word, get the developers to make a system that does link every word (without colouring it); this is what my desktop Encarta dictionary does. I don't mind that on Encarta, and it would be preferable to undisciplined linking on WP; except that in WP articles, it would disable us from pointing up the important, useful links. But total linking is clearly what you are striving for. Tony (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. You're still doing this strawman crap and just making stuff up about what I have said or might even think, despite my being very clear about my view, and despite being asked not to about 1000 time. This is the other 50% of the problem. N-HH talk/edits 13:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is best not to order other editors around and make personal attacks in edit summaries, and not to use aggressive language in posts. I stand by what I said; I'm surprised it seems to upset you—that was certainly not my intention. If you want to link France in such contexts, then why not link "the"? It is a perfectly valid question, and enquires into why you draw a boundary where you do. Please take it seriously, and do not personalise. Tony (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony, it is best not to make things up and fling wild accusations about what other editors might want. You personalised this by suggesting, for oh, about the 98th time, in both your edit summary and your comment, that I "want to link every word", when you know full well that I'm not calling for that, and nor is anyone else. You've been asked politely to stop this and have ignored it again and again, so this time I was a bit more forceful. I don't claim that you want to "remove every link", because I read what you say, I understand what you say and I do not feel the need to misrepresent what you say. I explicitly said above that links should be to relevant and related pages. I said links to France where the country is mentioned in passing are, in my view, not needed. However, I've pointed out for example in the past articles about a BBC producer where every single link to "BBC" and "TV producer" were removed, even from the infobox. An article about a French Algerian, where the initial link to "France" was removed but that to "Algeria" retained. These are the things I am taking issue with, along with the exclusion of links to the article on the United States - a page that has 3m visits this month, which suggests at least that some readers here would like to see it - in, say pages about its neighbour Canada or things from the US, not efforts to remove supposed links to "the". Which, of course, in reality is virtually never linked, and which doesn't even have its own page anyway, which clarifies quite what a red herring it is anyway. Now, if you want to have a sensible discussion about the role that the general concept of relevance might play in the linking debate, and where the thresholds might lie for what is relevant and, indeed, for what constitute "common terms", feel free to enter that debate, although it will probably be with someone else. I've discovered again what a futile effort it is. As it is, oddly, to maintain any form of consistent talk page indenting with an MoS guru. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How is the relevant to champagne? There are languages with no word for the and you can talk about champagne in those languages just fine. A. di M. (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not link the? Answer: Editorial judgement - something that seems sadly lacking in some contributors here. --Michael C. Price talk 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Linking France: "Where is your evidence that people want some higher minds to point them to certain pages and not others?" Linking "the": "Editorial judgment". See why we're going in circles? Of course some links shouldn't be made, and some should. Phrasing OVERLINK is a hard question, but getting past the irrelevant argument that some people will want to click a link should be easy. Art LaPella (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
But no one's making that argument, ie that we should link simply because someone might use it. When I made the point that some people might use a link to the US or France or whatever, I was simply responding directly to Tony's question - "who would clink on such a link?". That specific response was not intended to answer the more general question "what is the criteria for linking?" nor was it phrased as such. The rest of my post was very, very explicit about where I stand on that. Nonetheless, as ever, my answer was twisted and thrown back, and my own questions went unanswered. As for example these ones have for months, despite being raised on many, mnay occasions. The point about editorial judgment is, as noted, key. And it needs to be applied in the context of each page, not by blanket assertions that "everybody knows what/where X is", therefore the links to that term are going to removed from thousands of articles at a time, often by scripts and seemingly without review. There has never been any cross-WP consensus mandating a small number of editors to do that, and make it look like some semi-official clean-up.
Now there are going to be disagreements on links in each case of course, and as to whether they are relevant or not. But those debates are manageable and can be part of normal copy-editing (and probably won't include discussions about whether the word "the" is a relevant/related topic that is ever worth linking). Also, basing decisions on relevance is far easier than trying to work out en masse what terms and/or detailed information is definitively "known" or "common" when we are talking about millions of readers. However, a) we need to get to the point of accepting the principle at least; b) we need to read and accept where the guidelines call for the inclusion of links to other relevant pages, whether common terms or not; and c) I would argue we should err on the side of retaining a link if it's a 50-50 case, since more "harm" arises from removing the options for navigability than from having the odd extra blue link (and we are usually talking only about one or two links). N-HH talk/edits 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation relieves my main objection, regardless of what you said or didn't say before. So if necessary, I will remind you of your own explanation in the future. Art LaPella (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean there. N-HH talk/edits 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, then you relieved my main objection. Did you get that part? Art LaPella (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what exactly your main objection was, or what exactly you mean by saying that I relieved it. Sorry, not being pedantic, just confused! Either way, we seem to be settled as far as I can tell, so probably no need to keep on. N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Break

  • SMcCandlish wrote as follows:

Maurice Vignaux was a French professional player of carom billiards...

…and then wrote “The astronomically overwhelming majority of such cases [the “French” part] are linked.
Just because a lot of editors do something doesn’t mean it is desirable; often people do things because they are simply following the other soldiers to the chow line.
In the above example, I wouldn’t bat an eye if I encountered that “French” link in the first paragraph in the lede of a biography. But at all times, I try mightily to avoid linking words and terms—particularly in the main body text—if they are in any way tangential to the *real* subject matter.
Our practice towards linking has certainly changed over the last two years and the general principle nowadays is to link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter of that particular article. I might add my own flavor in all technical writing, which is as follows:
Thou shalt not cause needless confusion in thy target readership nor induce *!* brain-interrupts in thy readership by doing odd, unconventional, or unusual things.
So if the article was Notable mistakes in the history of science, I would be tempted to link as follows:

• In 1966, an American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

But in this one…

• In 1966, a Ni-Vanuatu scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

…I’d link where the scientist came from because the demonym, which is for someone from Vanuatu, is oddly done and that country is much less familiar to the middle of the bell curve of our readership than is a country like the U.S.
And certainly, I would not link an entry in an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science” like this…

• In 1966, a American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

This latter example is rich with extraneous links that do not help our readership to understand the subject of “scientific goofs”. This assumes we define “the middle of the bell curve of our readership” with some common sense and that we are not writing for the lowest common denominator such as a 4th grader from somewhere in East Africa where they power the village computer from a solar cell. The vast majority of our readership that will be visiting this article already knows what “scientist,” “scientific paper,” and “U.S.A” are, and the “1966” article has precious little else to do with “scientific goofs.”
Three years ago, it used to be “I link, therefore I am.”
Today it is “Does this link really help the reader to understand this particular subject?”
Finally, if the article is short and/or is very linear in nature, I never re-link a word or term. But if the article is very long or has sections that tend to stand alone in their own right (like our Anwar al-Awlaki article, which tends to have a large portion of our readership doing parachute drops directly to certain sections), then I will often re-link key words.
Greg L (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Broadly I would agree with most of that, subject to previous comments about the problems inherent in focusing on what we think might help the reader understand the subject (eg how do we know? which reader? what about other criteria? etc etc). We don't need, usually, to repeat links or link things that are mentioned in passing and/or are not directly related to the topic at hand. The problem I have is that I often see de-linking that is pushed much harder than that, leaving inconsistencies, or taking out every single link to pages that are pretty clearly, by any standards, relevant and probably - or maybe just arguably - worth including. There are some examples here. N-HH talk/edits 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines are just that: guidelines. I didn’t see anything alarming in the first difference you provided. There was a lot of much-needed cleanup Ohconfucius addressed in that article and there is room for honest disagreement on some of them. Ohconfucius was educated in England so maybe he thought it blindingly obvious that the target readership ought to know what “BBC One” means. Or maybe he thought it is linked in the template and that’s enough. The article now has “BBC One” linked in the first occurrence in the lede of the body text and that makes the most sense to me.

More to the point, what I see in today’s version of the article seems to properly reflect the broad principle of “link to enhance the reader’s understanding of that particular subject.” The community managed to do the right thing using the existing guidelines for direction.

This seems more like a content dispute over different editors’ views on how best to adhere to the spirit of the guideline as it applies to a particular article than it is a dispute over how the guideline has any shortcomings. Am I missing something here? Is all of this an issue originating over how “BBC One” was linked in the template-based sidebar (which I seldom read) and that was the basis for his not having it linked in the body text? Do we really need to have atomic-level nuances spelled out in MOS to settle edit disputes? Common sense seems to have been sufficient in this case since the article seems to have come out all right after a consensus view on that article was achieved.

The distinction between sidebars and body text is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about when I wrote about readers parachuting directly to a section. IMO, even if it’s linked in a sidebar (or caption), the first occurrence of a key word or term in the body text should still be linked. And if the article is of a long, nonlinear nature with standalone sections to which readers often tend to directly skip (like Anwar al-Awlaki), important links to critical or unusual words or terms may be re-linked. Greg L (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah my position overall is that a lot of the mass de-linking is blatantly in breach of the guidelines, as currently written, quite apart from any debate about changing them. And just a bad edit, regardless of any guidelines (although the guidelines are, as it happens, usually invoked by those involved). Removal of text or functionality has to be justified in some way, whether by reference to guidelines, policy or whatever - the burden is that way round. And it is a mass de-linking - the example we're looking at here is just that, an example. Yes, I restored some of the links there because I happened to spot it. Those partial reverts stuck and so a resolution of some sort was reached. But we are talking about thousands of articles, and arguably problematic changes that are being made minute-by-minute across the site without consensus. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through them all and reinsert individual links or argue the toss over each of them. Why should I, or anyone else, have to? Wouldn't it be easier if people just held off making some of them in the first place? N-HH talk/edits 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Should we raise an RfC to address the breach of guidelines? --Michael C. Price talk 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Still more wikidrama is indicated over another dispute over linking? (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just don't think I would have anything to say to anyone who suggests that, where the BBC – the most well-known organisation in the world – is linked to many fold in an article about a sitcom, these multiple links should not be removed by "mass delinking" – such is this classic case or Overlinking, and the reason I see for the built-in search and replace tool. If anybody thinks that is a breach of the guidelines, I'd retort that you were talking out of your rear orifice (pardon my French). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm American and I recognize the BBC, although it might be better to link it anyway (I'm an editor, not a reader). I hadn't heard of BBC One before Wikipedia, so that should surely be linked. But just once. Well, at least not repeatedly in the same paragraph. (Oh, and you were the first to mention anybody's orifice, so I consider that an unnecessary escalation.) Art LaPella (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whilst I accept that I may err in unlinking some words, but when, as it appears, there are complaints about the entirety of an edit, then I would take issue that I was acting within the bounds of WP guidelines. If it's a case of someone believing one or two links were overzealously undone, I can also accept –depending on the word, of course– they would be replaced, per WP:BOLD, just as I removed them. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not if "BBC One" is linke in the same sentence, or thereabouts, please. It is a breach of the guidelines to plaster the readers with less focused links in the same area of text as more focused links. The more focused always have a link to the less focused at their opening. How many times would a reader want to divert from an article directly to both broad and focused topic? It is a textbook example of diluting a system that needs to applied with some care if readers are to click at all, on anything, in the first place. And the notion that then "BBC" should be linked again and again through the article is going to turn back the clock to the days when wikilinking was blue paint spattered through our text, and rightly ignored with irritation by readers. Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But. I. Am. Not. Asking. For. Repeat. Links. How. Many. Times. Do. I. Have. To. Say. That. JFHC. I am taking issue with the removal of every single link to so-called common terms, on the basis that "well I know what it is, and I guess maybe most others probably do as well, so we shan't be linking to that article at all. Even though it is relevant, related, and the page carries more information on that second thing than simply a dictionary definition". Also with the assertion that editors have the right to do this as of right, and that it's up to others to go around after them tidying up by occasional reinsertion. N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You raise the "why not link France at the top of the article on Champagne (that is, the wine)". Because "France" is just to broad to assume that it is useful. I keep asking why you wouldn't link to a more specific article (or even section), than "France". Like "Wine production in France", or less satisfactorily, "Agriculture in France". The guideline requires specificity. Tony (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're still going round in circles. Useful in what sense? Useful to whom? Who are we as one or two individuals to assume anything about how to define those concepts anyway, uniformly for millions of users here? As it happens, I wouldn't object to more specific links where appropriate. Having said all that, the guidelines a) discuss navigability as well as usefulness, narrowly defined; b) say more specific links should be "considered", not that they are "required"; and c) do not rail against "less focused" links being in the same area of text as "more focused" links, again, however we would define those anyway, (to respond to a point from your previous comment). I fully support people going through articles removing redundant, trivial or repetitive links, or links to things mentioned in passing, and improving links where necessary so they point to a more focused target. I occasionally do it myself. But I do not, for the fortieth time, support the removal of every single link to so-called "common terms", however defined, when they are relevant or related to the main topic. Please, remove 20 repeat links to "France", "BBC" or even "Hastings-Thompson syndrome", as part of a normal copy-editing process. But please, also leave just one of the former, where the term is plausibly relevant or related. They're likely to be useful to some people, and are not that distracting really to people who don't wish to use them. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MoS update

It is clear that the current version of the MoS does not reflect consensus. There are many areas that do not reflect practice, nor the views of the majority here. In order to develop a consensus, and in line with George Louis's suggestion, a proposal for the repeat link section has been developed, which I copy below.

Of course the repeat link section is not the only section that needs updating, but we have to start somewhere. Comments, please.

In general, link the first occurrence of an item in an article. In addition, consider linking again:

  • Where an unlinked occurrence of an item is a long way from a linked occurence
  • Where the first link is in transcluded content such as an infobox or sidebar template, in an image caption or a table, or otherwise outside the main article prose
  • In multiple table cells, if links are needed in the table, as each row must stand on its own (tables are re-sortable).
  • In a glossary (treat entries as if they were separate articles)
  • In a group of other linked items.
Rationale

Two types of links must be distinguished.

  1. Explanatory links to terms, concepts, places, etc., that many readers may not be knowledgeable about or familiar with at all are often helpfully linked more than once in an article (e.g. in the lead, and again when they appear in context in later sections).
  2. Navigational links, to things that most readers are at least somewhat familiar with, are typically repeated less. But even nagivational links may be helpful to repeat in particularly long or complicated articles, as readers often use the table of contents feature to jump from section to section and do not necessarily read articles in linear order or in their entirety.

Always bear in mind that content may be repurposed in ways not immediately envisioned by editors of linear articles (e.g. in a mobile computing version that displays only one entry at a time with no ability to present the full article at all). With restricted screen sizes (e.g. mobiles, again) some readers will find items to be a long way apart, that others would deem closer.

Stand-alone items should be linked independently, since they are often read in isolation. For example infoboxes, navboxes and other transcluded content. Items should be linked appropriately in main prose as if the infobox did not exist, and in a navbox or sidebar as if the main prose were not there, since they are all separate, stand-alone entities.

Readers can also re-sort tables in any order, so link items repeatedly in a table, since no occurrence can be assumed to always be the "first".

A stand-alone glossary article or similar stand-alone list with entries that are mostly linked to directly from other articles, and which is not principally intended to be read from start to finish, but referred to piecemeal, should use repeat links: Each entry should appropriately link to terms both within and outside the page as if entries were independent articles, as few readers ever find the first occurrences of the terms.

It is occasionally better to link a second rather than first occurrence of an item, when both are very close to each other, and linking the first would distract from readability or focus. Not linking "transclusion", "infobox" and "glossary" in this the above list but in the follow-on prose instead is an example; it is more important for readers of this guideline to absorb these points quickly than to provide explanatory links for these terms immediately. Linking a second, explantory appearance of an item is most common when the first occurrence is in a list, table, quotation, formula or complicated passage, or where it would result in two different links being side-by-side giving the misleading appearance of a single link.

--Michael C. Price talk 12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC) & --Michael C. Price talk 03:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I *get* what you’re driving at. But what you propose here seems too complex and wordy. It also seems to be a prescription for too much re-linking; maybe that is just an unfortunate side-effect of trying to be so detailed and definitive. I think the tweaks to the basic principle can be addressed with much less verbosity. All the community needs on this are the basic principles. Less is more for these sort of things. Greg L (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is more complex, but current simplistic approach (which I mean without prejudice) is not working, as this talk page testifies. Sometimes more, even just a bit more, is more.
  • Well, I didn’t mean “so simple that what we currently have suffices.” I meant “simpler than your proposed addition.” Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m editing on the road with a laptop, don’t have my standard macros or even a mouse, and everything is awkward. See my below green‑div. Greg L (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
When you say, "It is clear that the current version of the MoS does not reflect consensus.", it contradicts the fact that the current text is long-standing and is the result of carefully worked-through consensus. The fact that a few editors have been voicing objections to the current practices does not at all mean there is no consensus. Tony (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And people have been telling you that it is wrong ever since you and a few other editors rammed it through. The number of unanswered points on this talk page should shame you. I predict that my apples and oranges argument has joined the list.... --Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only is the text long-standing, but the effects of the text have been long-standing. This debate must consider article space. It has been the experience of the (experienced) editors involved in this arena (over the past year or two) that delinking nebulous and dictionary-type terms has overwhelmingly not led to reverts and wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth-type edits. Of course we're all happy to discuss change, but we must stay grounded and be careful how we introduce creep into the MOS wording in order to solve a "problem".  HWV258.  20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Prediction confirmed. --Michael C. Price talk 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Links, the whole links, and nothing but repeating links, so help me RfC (and other wikidrama)

IMHO, the entire principle of what we need for linking on the entire page could be captured with the following green‑div:

What and what not to link
Link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter of that particular article. Even if a word or term is linked in a sidebar (or caption), its first occurrence in the body text should be linked.

Imagine an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science”, linking as follows is good practice:

12. In 1966, an American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

However, if the bullet point in the same article was as follows:

12. In 1966, a Ni-Vanuatu scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

…it might be better to also link where the scientist came from because the demonym, which is for someone from Vanuatu, has an odd construction and Vanuatu is much less familiar to the majority of our readership than is a country like America.

Do not link an entry in an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science” like this…

12. In 1966, a American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as polywater.

This latter example is rich with extraneous links that do not help the vast majority of the readership to understand the subject of “scientific goofs”. The vast majority of our readership are coming to the article to learn about scientific goofs throughout history and they already know what a “scientist,” “scientific paper,” and “American” are. Moreover, the “1966” article has precious little else to do with “scientific goofs.”

Repeating links
The majority of Wikipedia’s articles are sufficiently short and linear that editors should not relink the same word or term in the main body text.

However, if the article is of a long, nonlinear nature featuring strongly standalone sections to which readers tend to directly skip or are often directly linked to from elsewhere in the project (like our “Anwar al-Awlaki” article), editors should consider relinking important, critical, or unusual words or terms.

There, how simple is that? Greg L (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the first sentence; specifically the word "only" :-) As we have already discussed, links are also to provide navigation to any pages the reader may be interested in. As the MoS says:
Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"
And at the end I would replace "important links to critical or unusual words or terms" with "terms" - even simpler! --Michael C. Price talk 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm… Well, if you have a problem with this sentence: “Link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter of that particular article.” …because it contains “only”, then I think your views are truly 180° out of synch with the modern view of linking, which is to avoid blue turds like “The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house”

    BTW, I consider the above green-div to be a live document. I just tweaked the section regarding re-linking (that whole concept ought to make you happy).

    I’ll let others weigh in and will no longer deal with you for a while since you just made your views abundantly clear and engaging you on this subject seems pointless. Moreover, your above call for an RfC (a rhetorical question that is in fact a solicitation of support of the proposal) shows to me that you exhibit a fondness for wikidrama and needless confrontation. It seems all my effort here at finding a middle ground was utterly pointless and a waste of my time. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Quite how you rationalise away the line I quoted from the MoS is beyond me.

    No matter, the principle is quite clear. If the article on "oranges" mentioned "apple", I would expect it to be linked, yet reading about apples doesn't "deepen my understanding" of oranges - but a reader of one might like to read about the other.

    --Michael C. Price talk 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the linking policy, I think there's another important exception, which is symmetry. If a sentence or a list contains links to a number of similar/related concepts or words, you shouldn't not link one of them just because it was linked earlier (say in the introduction). For example "The primary colors of light are red, green, and blue." looks really weird. Dcoetzee 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a very ugly result. --Michael C. Price talk 05:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "very ugly", but that one may be worth considering, along with table columns (but not where all items would normally be unlinked, such as years).

I am quite unconvinced of the calls for repeat linking based on "a long way down" or "nonlinearity"; these are nefarious concepts. Should we then call for acronyms and initialisms and all other abbreviations to be spelled out on a similar basis? This is not practical and defies standard practice. For a long time, WP articles have been treated as whole, integral entities WRT a number of major stylistic aspects. Suddenly changing tack just for wikilinking is a departure from this that would need the bigger picture examined. Tony (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm ignoring your strawman argument.
WP articles are not treated as a whole - that's why we can link to sections and subsections, for example.
--Michael C. Price talk 07:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tony1. "A long way down" is very difficult to define, and we would be taking a step backwards with such a phrase.
I'm against repeated links in table columns. I've had a lot of experience with table editing at WP, and the repeated linking of column entries (irrespective of sorting) is not desirable. There are almost always better ways to handle the problem of repeated links in tables—it just takes more time and skill to solve the problem. For an example, have a look at how I handled the problem here.
 HWV258.  07:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course "a long way down" is subjective and difficult to define - as are most terms in the MoS, which is why we leave them to editorial judgement. --Michael C. Price talk 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A MOS must set a reasonable framework to facilitate good judgement. In my opinion, the amateurish "a long way down" does not set a reasonable foundation.  HWV258.  20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Greg L's version also mentioned "long", as does the current MoS version. --Michael C. Price talk 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't link to "red" in "red, green and blue" if "red" has already been linked; this is akin to the standard practice of giving the full name for people being mentioned the first time and the last name only for people already mentioned, even in coordinations. What I wouldn't do is writing something like "Coventry, Leicester, Manchester and Wolverhampton" on the ground that Manchester happens to be on some list of cities the readers are presumed to already know: even though a reader actually had already heard of Manchester but not of Coventry, Leicester or Wolverhampton, they'll still wonder why Manchester is not linked, and maybe even suspect that there was a previous linked mention of Manchester in the article that they've somehow missed. A. di M. (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the currently existing "What should and what shouldn't be linked" section to the one in the box above, but I prefer the "Repeating links" section above to the currently existing one (though I'd rather use Glossary of cue sports terms than Anwar al-Awlaki as an example of an article where readers often skip sections). A. di M. (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:--Michael C. Price talk 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I'm posting here to inquire in greater depth into your views on the density of internal links in WP article text. Am I right in thinking that the differences in view might have something to do with the extent to which an individual (i) finds that every additional link signal is likely to dilute the effects of others in its vicinity, and (ii) regards densely linked text as more likely to suppress the likelihood that readers will click than to stimulate it?

I suppose it is with a balance-sheet mentality that I approach the decision as to whether to link or not to link, not unlike my attitude to the use of optional commas in prose. I'd be interested to discuss your perceptions of linking, visually and in terms of utility and "dilution". Perhaps I am overstating these issues? I've temporarily watchlisted your talk page. Tony (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Time prohibits a full answer, but I basically think your commercial metrics are inappropriate for wikipedia. Commercially it is the absolute rate of click-thrus (=money) that are significant. Naturally such rates decrease as we progress through an article because most people stop reading at some point before the end. Link density at WP should be governed by the utility of a link = absolute rate / probability of reading the linked term - i.e. a conditional, not absolute rate, which will necessarily be higher than your commercial metrics indicate. --Michael C. Price talk 10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really understand this. The commercial analogy eludes me. Do you mean the "absolute" rate of click-thrus for a single link in an article, or for the sum total of links in that article? You've introduced another issue, which is the probable fall-off in reading as you go through the article. What are the implications of this? When you say "link density at WP should be governed by the utility of a link, I mostly agree, although there may be a few other factors that are relevant. I'm trying to get my head around "the utility of a link = absolute rate / probability of reading the linked term".
Are you familiar with findings on signal-to-noise ratio (in the psychology of perception) and the amount of choice available (in supermarkets, I think)? Tony (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You often mentioned the metrics had a commercial basis or validation ; if not, the point doesn't matter. The important point still stands, which is
link density ~ conditional click-thru rate = absolute click-thru rate / probability of reading the linked term
The denominator has hitherto been ignored. The other issues are red herrings.
--Michael C. Price talk 15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Correction: it was Ohconfucius, not Tony, who said "the commercial world is well aware of potential problems caused by excessive linking." But the point I'm making still stands. --Michael C. Price talk 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely the utility of a link, if anything, should be the product of absolute rate and the probability of reading the linked term and not divided by the latter; the probability of reading the linked term is clearly related to how common-garden the linked term is, irrespective of how relevant. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Not the utility, but the link density. A link at the end of an article may have little overall utility since few readers get there, but to those that do it may as useful as a more-read link at the beginning. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a non-germane link would have any greater 'utility' if it is the first word linked in an article or the last. Yes, a word placed and linked earlier on would be more likely to be clicked on than if that word appeared and was linked later. This has more to do with being first in line (or forst in the consumer's mind) – a concept better understood by marketeers. Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero, much like for a second copy of any given newspaper. You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness, as would be measured by 'utility'. If you are suggesting that we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end, our current linking propensity already achieves that. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Taking your last point first we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end, I am suggesting the reverse - namely that link density should be more evenly distributed across an article - so there is obviously some major misunderstanding going on here. The metrics that Tony always cites skew the density towards the beginning of an article, because they don't take account of the fact (which no one disputes) that the beginning of an article is read more than the end. My point is that this is no reason to weight the link density towards the beginning of the article.
Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero ... rubbish. But I believe this has been rebutted often enough already.
You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness. No, my point is that this is the mistake that Tony's metric argument makes. I don't know how to make this clearer. Near the end of an article you are adrift in a monochrome sea - how can this be useful?
--Michael C. Price talk 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You are now suggesting that we somehow weight links towards the end of the article – is this to encourage readers to get to the end? I have often found it difficult, with the 'link only the first occurrence' rule, to lighten the load on the lede. For me, it sort of defines the 'natural link density'. Also, as you have been putting great importance into your notion of 'utility', it seems counter-intuitive that your suggestion would actually reduce the utility of links in the later sections of the article, so what's the point? Your notion of utility appears to be from the viewpoint of commercial sponsors, who would naturally like their links to be put earlier in any given article. My notion of utility is from the reader's viewpoint. It places importance on whether the link adds value to the reader, and its frequency/scarcity, and ignores where in the article any given link is. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood everything. I'll try again later. But I agree with utility is from the reader's viewpoint. It places importance on whether the link adds value to the reader, and its frequency/scarcity, and ignores where in the article any given link is.--Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
PS. And who might be a suitable/relevant authority on this utility of which you speak I can read up on? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
We are the authority. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Michael, what bothers me is the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that readers rarely click on links. User:Piano non troppo, with something like 50,000 edits here, is an ex-webmaster, and has interesting things to say about his professional experience of this matter. I can dig up some diffs to what he has said, if you like. (But off to bed now.) Tony (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I simply don't believe that, based on my own usage - and it is irrelevant to my point about maintaining constant link density through out an article. But anyway, I was responding to your claims, not someone else's. Time to return to the appropriate venue. Any objections to me moving this all there?Done --Michael C. Price talk 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion more concrete? Not having a degree in economics, I had to read it three times before getting everybody's points. :-) Anyway, we're not selling anything, so whether the readers just prints down a copy of the page and reads it without giving a damn about the links, or they open each and every linked article in a new browser tab until the browser crashes, that's their freakin' business. A. di M. (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's start again. The term utility is misleading here, so let's drop it. The delinking argument says, in part, links later in articles are clicked on less often and, therefore, they should be removed. My point is that, they may be clicked on less often, but that doesn't mean we should remove them because.... ...it is not the absolute rate of a link's selection that is relevant, but the selection rate / reading rate. Obviously if only one reader in a million reads as far as a link at the end of an article, but then always clicks on the link, then that link should be retained - even though it may be the least used link in the article. All the talk of metrics I've seen around here (including User:Piano non troppo's contribution) seems to talk about absolute click rates, which is simply not the relevant metric. --Michael C. Price talk 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"The delinking argument says, in part, links later in articles are clicked on less often and, therefore, they should be removed." Sorry, whose argument is that? I'm not sure I agree with the notion that links are less likely to be clicked on the later they occur in an article. I suspect there are a number of factors at play: one of them is likely to be that readers are less willing to divert at the top of an article, just as they're getting into the topic (unless there's a technical term they really need to know more about, and which isn't briefly glossed in the text—I actually believe technical terms should be glossed briefly, unless it can't be done without clutter/awkwardness). Tony (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Recognize this quote? "At any rate, some substantial number of readers do not scroll past the first screen, and most do not scroll to the bottom. This suggests: Links placed toward the bottom of an article are far less likely to be seen than ones at the top, and even more unlikely to be used." Note the non-sequitur at the end. --Michael C. Price talk 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware that with several popular browser one can open a link in a new browser tab while continuing to read the page they are reading? A. di M. (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bye

I thank you all for wasting my time. There have been more than two dozen edits to this page since my last one and hardly any of them did contain any useful idea to improve the guideline. I'm unwatching this page; if you need me (which I think you won't), you know where to find me. As for me, if I need more drama (which I think I won't), I know where to find it. A. di M. (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Ditto. Me too: Out of here. Adios. And thanks for giving your endorsement of sorts to my suggested guideline for re-linking. It’s actually a practice I and some other of the “de-link jihaders” do (or whatever the heck we’re referred to). I thought I’d throw out there as it seems to reflect the practical reality. The proposal went about as far as I could drool when I was asleep in 7th-grade history class. Greg L (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

After having seen many helpful "See also" and "External links" sections deleted by well intended editors, attempting to "tidy up" articles, I personally have often been frustrated by this.  Often in lengthy articles, these sections are life-savers (well actually huge time-savers) for me and I don't understand the need to delete them in so many articles, or to bar links found above from being repeated in them.  To me, the logic of keeping these sections and allowing them to have doubled links in them seems to weigh heavily in favor of this, rather than the apparent logic that we might possibly consume too many gigabytes for this, or possibly make an article 'look' overly long.

As such, I've gone ahead and added this exception for "doubled links" to the list of "Repeated links exceptions".  Any comments on this new exception would be much appreciated.   Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I've seen what you've done at Gary Renard. It seems to me that in this relatively short article, you'd be pushing the boat out saying that such links are 'life-savers'. These links are but repeat links of a secondary subject already very prominently linked in the lead, and I feel are strictly unnecessary. More specifically, I feel that the choice of links to be included in the 'See also' section ought to be those which are relevant but cannot be worked into the article, or which are inadequately piped, but whose inclusion would add value to the subject --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    Navboxes would be a great way to be used as time-savers for navigation, but hiding them below references, "further reading", and external links makes them nearly useless for this purpose. But putting them before references is something which the fellows at WP:LAYOUT will never allow you to do. A. di M. (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I also tend to disagree with Scott.  I am one of those editors who reduces or removes See Also sections when they do nothing but repeat links already included in body of article.  I have gone ahead and reverted your additions to the MOS until we reach consensus.TheRingess (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I also tend to remove or reduce See Also sections when they simply repeat links unless they are important major topics directly related to the primary subject but which have not been directly mentioned in the article.  It's also important to keep in mind that external links are governed by WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So far this looks like I lose.  One for, one neutral, and three opposed.  Argh!  Apparently I'm in a small minority on this.  My wife says I must have OCD, because I always like to have things in the same places where I can easily find them.  Perhaps she is right.  Now where were those slippers again???? Scott P. (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for minimising redundancy (in links and in words). I am very demanding of readers, expecting that they actually read an article, not just flash through it or treat it like bumping against a goal post. Tony (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I too like to read an article thoroughly once.  But when I remember that there was a certain link in an article I read yesterday, or last month, I feel a bit cheated when some well-intended cleaner-uper has removed or pared down a previously good "See also" section, just to assure that I must once again re-read the entire article each time I refer back when all I wanted was the link.  So much for the wonders of the speedy internet. Hah!  Scott P. (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You could just type it into the search box? :-) Tony (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • . I don't know how far I should go in Scott's edit history to find the sort of concrete example used to justify adding repeat links to the 'See also' section – a large article with a link so deeply embedded it would be difficult to find again. What he did at Georgina Lightning was IMHO another set of redundant linking of easy-to-find information which might make me more likely to ignore 'See also' sections in future when I see them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This is nuts....why are you making Wikipedia harder to use? If someone can't find a link because it's been tidied up, you've done a real disservice. Not all out readers are familiar with how best to use Wikipedia, and to be very demanding is nuts, flat out bonkers. Wikipedia should be easy to use, for everyone...and that includes easy to find links. Anyone reducing see also lists overly aggressively is imposing their personal reading style and usage habits on everyone reading Wikipedia...it's not up to you to train our readers, it's up to you to make Wikipedia easy for everyone to use regardless of their level of proficiency, good grief. RxS (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree,  And so obvious.  But still the insane crusade of stripping links continues, making Wikipedia harder to use. --Michael C. Price talk 06:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not as insane as you might care to suggest. People now (as opposed to two decades ago) realise that there can be noise pollution, light pollution, and there is such a thing as link pollution for web pages. Fortunately, we don't actually see much of a problem elsewhere in cyberspace, as the commercial world is well aware of potential problems caused by excessive linking. It's one important function of webmasters, who optimise linking among other things. Only here, at 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit'©™ are there still a significant minority which appears to be ignorant of that fact. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
And that is the problem: that you, and Tony, see this is a "fact", and that anyone who disagrees is merely ignorant and needs "educating". --Michael C. Price talk 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot 9 days old.  Well some like it hot, and obviously others like it cold, and since four like it cold and only three like it hot that apparently makes us three a bunch of orangutans, at least in one person's view.  Let them have their cold porridge, I've got other trees to swing from. Scott P. (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I have some room-temperature peas porridge? A. di M. (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you two avoid emotive, exaggerated statements and analogies? Accusing other editors of being "nuts, flat out bonkers", is not helping calm, rational debate. And Ohconfucius, I wouldn't use the word "ignorant" for a second. People have their own point of view. Please tone down the language. Tony (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you, Tony, avoid making statements such as You could just type it into the search box? :-) since, by that logic, we should remove all links? Of course you were told this sometime ago, but to no effect. :-) --Michael C. Price talk 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
My statement was not a breach of WP:CIVIL. It is not much to ask that people treat each other politely. Suggesting that the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links is a perfectly valid argument; I'd like you to consider it. There is the matter of diluting high-value links, which should be of concern to all of us. It is very difficult to get readers to click on any links at all. Part of the service we offer to readers is to select the most useful links. Otherwise they'll just ignore all of them. Tony (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said it was a breach of civility? You're getting paranoid. --Michael C. Price talk 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to the topic, I oppose the suggested (and reverted change), being one of those who find huge chunks of repeated links unhelpful, unnecessary, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons

I would like to see a clear listing of pros and cons of repeated links in see also sections, since the discussion above got a bit astray. I'll try to provide some below from the statements above and my own opinions. Please add more if I missed anything.

for
  1. Readers don't have to actually read the article to find them
    Some above say we should demand effort from readers; some say we should make it easy. Personally, I don't think we should be making judgments on the amount of effort readers should have, but rather on the practical usefulness of being able to skip reading the article. A previous proposal included this, stated as: The "See also" section may repeat very important links from the article's body, but only if it is judged likely that a reader may use the page solely to find the other link (and hence, may not read the entire article in order to find it).
    I personally don't think that, with the increasing problem of information overload (of which Wikipedia is part!), we shouldn't stand in readers' way to other articles if that's what they are seeking.
  2. It's what a random reader people might expect of a See also section
    The very expression "see also" conveys "relevant related links", not "relevant links that weren't used in the text" (especially since most of them will be included in the text).
against
  1. If a reader is searching for a different term, he might as well use the search box
    This was argued against, above, as being a rationale that would remove all links. Besides agreeing with that, I add that sometimes the reader might not remember (or even know) the precise title of the article they seek. A navbox would serve this purpose, but what about when there's only a handful (say, 5 or less) tightly related topics?
    "the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links", Tony says. But the point is to add high-value ones (if they're important enough to be mentioned in the article text, they certainly don't lose their importance by being repeated. They might become redundant, but not uninmportant -- and arguably still remain useful)
  2. It might amount to link pollution
    I'd say that this is another issue, one of too many links in the see also section, rather than redundant links. The amount of links ultimately boils down to common sense. There's even a {{too many see alsos}} already in use.

Also, I would like to point out some arguments from past discussions which I think describe well the need for discussing this exception:

  • (...) by looking at your counter-proposal, with its detailed exceptions and exceptions within the exceptions, I cannot help but think that what you wrote there is a bot. In other words, it's simply calling for somebody to say, "Hey, that's a nice functional specification, I'll write an AWB after it." Which is exactly what you don't want to happen. The counter-proposal boils down to: "Avoid linking to the same article twice within a single article and use common sense." Since the latter part is implied in any WP guideline, the present version is the one I support. (...) PizzaMargherita
  • the very fact that we haven't yet seen AWB-enabled changes tells me that in large part, the existing wording is working as designed and that readers do understand that this is a question of balance and judgment. Rossami
  • my formal training was in computational linguistics, so I've thought about these issues a lot—and that background makes me very conscious of the limitations of technology when dealing with natural language. I don't think my counterproposal is very amenable to a bot. You're right that it's a careful specification—I think we should strive for that when possible in style rules, as it cuts down on disputes. TreyHarris

These points, and the fact that the current rules are indeed being applied my many as hard-and-fast principles (and yes, made their way to AWB), make it clear, imo, that a specific exception is in order for cases where the benefit exceeds the drawbacks. --Waldir talk 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like see also sections. They are useful, irrespective of what links appear in the rest of the article and should be independent of it. --Michael C. Price talk 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but even though we agree on the issue, I must say that "I like X" is precisely the kind of language I was hoping to avoid with this subsection. You say that they are useful (which I agree with) but don't back your claim with specific examples/use cases. That unfortunately makes it easy for other people to dismiss your comments... --Waldir talk 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to cite specific example to make a generic point? I doubt citing specific examples would help, given how this article is just (widely divergent) opinions, not facts. I could have explained my reason in more detail, though. So.....
.... I like see also sections. It is useful to have the most pertinent or interesting links collected together in one place, without having to hunt through an article for links that only appear once, disparately.
--Michael C. Price talk 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The name says it all. It implies that other subjects which may be relevant to the article's subject, but are not dealt with or linked to, may be linked there. Using this as another place to bury repeat links is really stretching tde definition. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the name, what is your objection?--Michael C. Price talk 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The "See also" is of particular use where it is grammatically hard to insert a focused link in the main text without a deceptive pipe (Agriculture in France piped to "France", which I assure you no one will click on). I don't quite see your difficulty in "hunting down" links. Do you mean you've thought of the link target before you've come across it? My advice would be to read the article as a whole, or use the search box instantly if you wish. Tony (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic
You're welcome to your opinions, just as long as you realise they are just that, opinions. --Michael C. Price talk 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
And you yours. Thank you very much for expressing a view. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my views are just opinions. Are you able to say the same, or are you going to claim that they are backed up by "studies" or some such pseudoscience? --Michael C. Price talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well… since you don’t seem to be in a constructive mood today, Michael and apparently seem anxious to come here, make oodles of waves, insist on having things your way, and flippantly dismiss others’ opinions as being “just opinions”; you, sir, are welcome to be tendentious, as long as you realize that Wikipedia’s policies do not forbid us from just completely ignoring you. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Your "departure" didn't last long, did it? --Michael C. Price talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
My “departure” was in regard to the threads at the bottom of the page, on which no progress was being made because no one wanted to do what you insisted on: begin linking the holy crap out of articles again. I see that your nonsense springs eternal at old threads on this page.

The metrics make sense to me too, Michael. There is a clear trend among all the different-language Wikipedias to reduce the links in articles to just those required to enhance the readers’ understanding of the subject matter. After rising to absurd proportions, the proportion of words linked in articles has declined on en.Wikipedia by one-third in the last four years. The downward trend has been consistent as editors all across the project realized we had created articles that looked seas of blue turds. These statistics apparently don’t please you. As they say in the military: “So sad – Too bad.” Greg L (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are not the pseudoscientific claims I was referring to. If you're going to play dumb over claims made in the past here, that's your business. As for the claims you are now making, so what? If link density has gone down that is no argument that it should continue, or even that it was wise in the first place. --Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Playing dumb? Well, you sure are obnoxious, aren’t you? The link density is going down because the community wants it that way and doesn’t see things your way. This place is ruled by consensus. Period. Get that through your head. And “consensus” does not equate to “Whatever Michael wants ‘cause he hangs onto issues like a pit bull on someone’s throat.” You don’t get your way be being tendentious beyond all comprehension and flogging a dead horse until the heat death of the universe. You think the current practices on Wikipedia are unwise. Well, that’s all *extra special* but doesn’t matter since precious too-few people share your view that everyone should start re-linking the living snot out of articles. And why do they feel that way? Because doing so would be an unwise, lousy technical writing practice. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. Greg L (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Your carefully reasoned response did at least give me a good laugh. Thanks.
But if you're so sure consensus is with you, why the hysterical reaction and violation of AGF to the suggestion of an RfC? I'm not the only one to have pointed out that a small cabal of 4-5 editors here does not amount to a consensus. We shall see. --Michael C. Price talk 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know to whom you think is in violation of WP:AGF, but I hope you aren’t suggesting it is me. I know you mean well. But like any club with an open membership (Wikipedia so qualifies), it gets a small but regular stream of people convinced they have stumbled upon a better way to spin gold yarn and who can’t fathom why the natives here don’t start hoping up on down with our spears exclaiming how “The dude in the pith helmet has shown us the light.” All the other-language Wikipedias are experiencing a drop in the link percentage and en.Wikipedia’s rate of decline is right smack in the middle of the pack. You wanna change the world and are acting all frustrated. I can’t help that. A handful of us bother to give you the time of day; I guarantee you there is an ocean of others out there who quietly embrace the reasoning and aren’t suckers for coming to this talk page to get a belly full of witty banter with you. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
GregL has a point although I don't like the way he expresses it. If you want an RfC so much, you don't need anybody's permission, especially after this much discussion. Whether anyone wants to comment further at the RfC, is something else. Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that GregL (and others) regard linking as "spinning gold yarn". Until that attitude changes how can we make progress? --Michael C. Price talk 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose by gathering a consensus to overrule GregL (although that consensus might agree with him instead), in addition to dealing with the civility problem. What would you suggest? Art LaPella (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Michael, everything that drops from my lips is "my opinion". Tony (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
yes, but in the past your opinions were claimed to be supported by "research" and "metrics", which we now know to be groundless. --Michael C. Price talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The name says it all." -- that depends on whether you interpret the "also" as "apart from this topic" or as "apart from the text above". Both interpretations are valid, IMO, and there's no reason to cater to only one of them. I personally visit articles this way when I am looking for something I'm not sure what it's called but can find related topics -- incidentally, by saying that, it just occurred to me: how about separating "see also" sections from a "related topics" one? I think this might well mitigate the issue in discussion! (I, for one, wouldn't mind under which name these links were, as long as they're findable). What do you think? --Waldir talk 09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, does anyone oppose if I collapse the discussion above (starting at "You're welcome to your opinions")? They don't really contribute much to advance the topic in discussion, and again, I started this subsection precisely to avoid this kind of discussion. I mean no offense, of course, please mind that -- only making this section more practical for others to read and comment on. --Waldir talk 09:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and did so, feel free to revert if you think important points are being hidden --Waldir talk 08:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There was recently a discussion on Talk:WebP/Archive 1#JPEG 2000, JPEG XR about whether a See also section was necessary in the presence of navboxes. My rationale for including it was that while See also describes articles with immediate relevancy, navboxes provide context to articles in a category.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking words in quotations

Are there any special rules for linking in quotations (quoted passages)? Should they be avoided altogether? I give here a random example. In an article about, let's say, "Christian morals" would the links to sin and death in the following quotation be OK? "For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.—Ezek. 18:1-4, TNIV" -Mycomp (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I never use links in quotations. Instead, I may add what seems to be the relevant link in the "See also" section. Sometimes the link is to a disambiguation page. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed more broadly at MT:MOS in the last year, with an increasing number of editors leaning toward permitting links inside quotations when they will be very helpful for reader comprehension, and removing links where they don't add much. E.g. a link to Lilliput is generally reader-helpful in a quotation that include the word "lilliputian" because most readers have no idea what it means, while a link to "mathematics" is not likely to aid readers and will just distract from parsing the quotation in context. It's important that when such links are used they do not introduce any kind of bias or PoV pushing, per WP:NPOV, nor push readers toward a novel interpretation or synthesis per WP:NOR, but such problems are not very common and easy to spot and fix. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Links inside quotations are okay. Especially where the speaker is using allusion - links there can be very helpful. --Michael C. Price talk 03:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and arbitrary removal of relevant common terms. Again

Since no one has seen fit to respond to these very simple and specific questions in all the months this debate has rumbled on - and since one editor has now on three separate occasions shunted the thread into the archives, which acts as effective deletion, on the second occasion bizarrely claiming that there was "nothing productive here but diatribe and personal insults" - I'm going to ask them again, and give people another opportunity to answer.

  • Where is the consensus to delink common terms/countries in every instance, regardless of context; and
  • Where is the consensus as to which terms/countries fall within the definition of "common"?

.. and also add a couple of newer examples that highlight the problem here (disclaimer - I'm not necessarily rejecting these edits in their entirety, nor am I necessarily condoning those that I have not picked out)

  • Example 1 - Bolivia. This edit removed links to "Argentina" and "Brazil" from the lead. But left "Chile" and other neighbouring countries. It also removed a link in the infobox to "Spanish language", but left another - admittedly more obscure language - linked. Why? These are all relevant terms/topics to the subject of Bolivia. We can all argue theoretically about "utility", but the point is more simple than that - what benefit is there to removing them? Why leave an inconsistent and arbitrary hodge-podge of links?
  • Example 2 - Mayors in England. This edit removed links to "England" plus "town" and "city". Again, navigability is reduced as links to rather obviously relevant terms - when discussing local administration for *urban areas* in *England* (the clue's in the page title) - are removed. And, again, what benefit is there to this loss of functionality?

Now I may be repeating myself here, but that is because the problem repeats itself. Edits like this are still being made all the time by a small group of editors, marked as "minor" or "fixes", and justified by reference to wp:overlink. But I still can't see how edits like this - or that highlighted portion of them - make sense in any way, whether by reference to basic editorial judgment or to the guidelines we have here. I can only assume that were they put to the broad mass of editors, they'd be scratching their heads as well. N-HH talk/edits 16:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The choice of links to unlink in your two examples makes no sense, and if the examples are typical then there is a problem with the way these two editors go about it. I am guessing that they simply have a list of overlinked words, and that both are using a script that mechanically removes every single link to these words. That can make sense if you check what the script is doing and manually re-link everything that does make sense, or in some cases also remove other, related instances of overlinking. But these two examples show that it does not make sense if such a script is used sloppily or carelessly. Hans Adler 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You [N-HH] probably don't like my answers to those two old questions, but I did notice the questions (after I joined the discussion) better than you noticed my answers. OVERLINK says to unlink major countries. We don't define "major", but Argentina and Brazil are the most obvious choices in South America, because they have more population. Removing only two countries from a list is debatable, but there were only five countries, and in this context neither Argentina nor Peru will get jealous, so it doesn't seem worth going to war over. Similarly for languages. Given that this is a plausible interpretation of OVERLINK, what benefit is there? There's no obvious way to describe the benefit of OVERLINK without upsetting you over an azure body of water you don't believe in. How relevant are "city", "town" and "England" to "Mayors in England"? Oh, more than in most articles I suppose, though of course not as relevant as some other nearby links in the article like mayor and lord mayor. What I'm sure of is that removing two borderline links should be marked as minor, although I don't mark my edits as minor when they include as many subchanges as OhConfucius's edit. Art LaPella (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. “Link only what is required for the reader to understand that particular subject” means the context of the article is all-important in deciding whether countries should be linked at all.
First off, Americans are notoriously ignorant of other countries. At least for en.Wikipedia (where a large portion of our readership is American), many readers would not know any South American countries. But everyone who uses Wikipedia knows they can type something into the Search field if they want to know more about it. If the article is about countries, then I don’t see a problem linking the first occurrence of every country no matter how “well recognized” it supposedly is. But for most articles, if I’m reading up on Sucralose, I don’t need to see “Sucralose was first approved for use in Canada in 1991.” And in fact, the article currently does not have “Canada” linked. Good so far.
But I also note that the “Sucralose” article still has this:

Tate & Lyle manufactures sucralose at a plant in Jurong, Singapore. Formerly, production was completed at a plant in McIntosh, Alabama. It is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), which converts three of the hydroxyl groups to chlorides.

Only two terms or words are valuable ones that are necessary to help the reader understand the subject “sucralose” (hydroxyl groups and chlorides). Cluttering up an article with more blue so a reader can stop what they’re doing and go learn about McIntosh, Alabama is just not using the noggin. One in a ten thousand readers will want to stop reading about sucralose so they can take a tangent about some town in Alabama. So de-link it. It doesn’t matter if it is an *obscure* location; that just makes it even less likely it will be clicked on considering the subject matter of the article. Greg L (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Where is the consensus..." is the wrong question. It is on the MOS (and has been for ages) so consensus is deemed to exist. I recognize that you don't like that, but it's a fact. Also a fact is that the associated delinking, which has been happening for a long time now with many, many thousands of edits and no significant backlash, reinforces the current position. No one has stated that every single edit has been correct (this is a wiki so we fix the problems as they happen), but the wording of "links should be created to...relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...as long as the link is relevant to the article in question" has broad and deep support (time and edits have proven that). It is that wording that has lead dedicated and experienced editors to act to improve WP for our readers—and that is their right (and I thank and encourage them for their hard work). If you are unhappy about any of the edits, take it up on the particular talk pages affected. Have you considered that the edits (although appearing like a deep pruning) are designed to set a new baseline in an article, and to instil a paradigm (hopefully causing the localized editors to take note and think about their future linking)? No one denies the right of localised editors to relink on their favorite pages, but it must be observed that in an overwhelming number of cases, they don't. If any local issues do arise, my experience has been that the delinking editors have been more than happy to take the time to politely discuss the edits. I'm asking the community here to debate with the context of the entire project in mind, and not just the handful of editors that can bring no significant real-world examples of problems to support their attempt to change the wording of the MOS.
Put simply: one or two eggs may break in this process, but we're making an awfully big omelette (with a perfectly cooked main part, and just the right amount of tasty bits to make you want to come back for more).
Personally, I'm surprised that Example 2 was raised above as it is a sensible delinking that addresses a number of problems, and four days after that edit no one has blinked a revert-type eyelid at that page. If that's a counter-example demonstrating some type of "problem" then I can can rest easy and log off (which I now intend to do).
 HWV258.  23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No kidding with regard to “Where is the consensus?” It’s ludicrous to think that the current policy was just some “oopsy” or skullduggery pulled off at 2 AM by Evil De‑linkers©™® so that the *real* community just woke up one morning not realizing that a fast one had been pulled on them. Does N‑HH think the current guidelines were not the product of vigorous debate and compromise over an extended period and was the product of a general consensus? And now someone has to prove to N‑HH’s satisfaction that all that outcome was legitimate because he is experiencing a sense of wholesale dissatisfaction with it??? Puuuuhleeze.

    I don’t know about anyone else here, but I consider myself to be a volunteer on a hobby of mine, which is the collaborative writing project that is Wikipedia. I elect to contribute my time to the project in the manner of my choosing and certainly don’t intend to spend any of it taking N‑HH by the hand and guiding him through the months-long blow-by-blow that got us to where we are today.

    If he elects to add a bunch of extraneous links to articles just because they can be linked to even though they don’t have jack to do with helping the reader to understand the subject at hand, that is his prerogative. He shouldn’t act all surprised though when others de‑link all those extraneous links. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does diverting to town or city deepen a reader's understanding of that topic? Pillar: "WP is not a dictionary". Tony (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My Bolivia edit was the result of a fair amount of deliberate manual work – a good half hour, IIRC. Yes, I do have a list I work to. Many articles suffer from overlinking of the same group of terms, so it is no surprise that my systematic work may look automated. It did cross my mind, and I'm sorry that I didn't also unlink Paraguay, Chile and Peru when I unlinked Argentina and Brazil. I say this only half in jest, because the fact is it is simpler for me to delink them than to replace them with higher value pipes. What is more, even those I didn't unlink are low value links that are increasing link density in the lede; their value would only be marginally improved by piping to Geography of Argentina Geography of Brazil, Geography of Paraguay, Geography of Chile and Geography of Peru – readers are already numb to always seeing terms such as country names in blue that the probability of them being clicked on is minimal. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to portray this as a "broad and deep consensus" are, sorry to say, rubbish. In effect, someone did pull a fast one on the community by unilaterally changing the guideline to support a personal viewpoint about delinking two years ago. Said change was then vigorously defended by a small group on this page, and it is being implemented through an aggressive (and often careless) delinking script and a list of so-called "common terms" that allows no opportunity for input from the community. If the small group of people - and yes, it really is a very small group - who are responsible for the most problematic behaviour would simply demonstrate a willingness to compromise, then we might actually be able to move forward. No-one is questioning their concerns about blatant overlinking. The problem lies in the attitude that only they can decide what warrants a link. They are using the current wording, language that invites due care and attention when delinking, in a manner that demonstrates neither. --Ckatzchatspy 09:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this right: you've just been running around linking "Australia" in sentences such as this (I've underlined the item at issue):
"'''Perth''' is the [[List of Australian capital cities|capital]] and largest city of the Australian [[States and territories of Australia|state]] of [[Western Australia]] and the [[List of cities in Australia by population|fourth most populous city]] in Australia."
(1) This opening sentence is already fairly crowded with blue, so the reader is presented with an awful lot of choice within three seconds of starting the topic. (2) Why would we want to add yet another link to the most general article thinkable (unless Southern Hemisphere), when there is already a plethora of more specific links to the topic in terms of Australia? (3) Are you attempting to provide for readers who don't really want to read about Perth, but are more interested in wandering through a fairly unfocused, even random pathway, in en.WP? If so, it is at the expense of the wikilinking system as a whole—or at least in the specific place—where the link density is so high that readers are likely to ignore the whole facility and read on (which is why the article was written, actually). (4) What is it about the general article on Australia that the reader would so urgently seek to know, that isn't in the current article on Perth? I note that the reader hasn't gone to Australia to start with: clearly, they are interested in more specific information. It's not Tajikistan, either; even second-language speakers who consult Perth are likely to know where Australia is, and more. Let's not treat the readers as dummies, and debase the wikilinking system at the same time. Tony (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Not "running around linking", Tony, but rather fixing yet more mistakes made by script-based delinking. As mentioned over and over again, it is not the real "common term" delinking that is the problem, it is the insistence by a very small group that they know best. There's never even been a response to repeated requests for an explanation as to why the list should be secreted away, with no opportunity for the average editor to have any meaningful input. There are countless examples of delinking that lack any apparent rational thought, such as the removal of neighbouring states in the lead of the geographical article Bolivia. There has never been any consensus for the heavy-handed approach that this small group is using, as you are well aware. Again, this nasty affair would be much easier to resolve if only there were some willingness to compromise, rather than the current climate of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". --Ckatzchatspy 10:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Effective linking is not about doing it in a scattergun fashion. Does the example Tony cited above look like a mistake of script-based delinking? To me, it looks like a very carefully crafted, if overly so, attempt at giving four links which could be of interest to the reader should (s)he choose to click upon any of them, rather than the unfocussed 'Australia' article you appear to insist on linking to. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ckatz, you have not yet responded to my question: why did you insist on linking "Australia/n" in that sentence? It seems to degrade rather than improve the linking. I note also that "Australian" is jammed up with "state", yet they are two different links; the style guide has long before I ever posted here warned against such deceptive bunches. Also, could you be more careful when you add links, to avoid such glitches as [[ Western Australia]]? Tony (talk)
  • Ckatz, quoting you: no opportunity for the average editor to have any meaningful input. Tony is actually rather remarkable for a Wikipedian. Considering how exceedingly active he is, and for as long, and how he hasn’t ever shied away from controversial issues, I would have expected him to have a half dozen blocks by now if he were as close-minded as you make him out to be. In reality, he has two blocks, and they were both in error, by admins who had been hoodwinked by Daffy Ducks who ran somewhere, jumping up and down, screaming “Shoot him – SHOOT him,” hoping some Elmer Fudd of an admin would blow Tony’s beak off. After a few hours, the admins were directed to proof that there had indeed been a proper consensus (or ruling, whatever), and the blocks were immediately reversed.

    Tony knows what he is doing and is reasonable enough. If you have a concern, bring it up on his talk page. If you two can’t come to an understanding there, don’t jump to the conclusion that Tony’s full of shit and needs his beak blown onto the top of his head again; just bring the concern here. And if you don’t see a crowd flocking to your way of thinking, then just shrug it off as one of those *let’s celebrate diversity*-things. Greg L (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there's been quite some text since I last looked in. Trying to make sense of it and offering some rejoinders, in one place rather than scattering them throughout ..
@Art: I saw your answers at the time, but don't see how they answered the questions. Where is the consensus to link regardless of context? People are doing it, as my examples showed. You - despite saying people don't say it - say it yourself when you assert that "overlink says to unlink major countries". It doesn't, not without qualification at least. If Peru is relevant to Bolivia and worth linking, so is Argentina. Sorry, end of story by common sense editing principles or by wp:overlink as read properly.
@Greg 1: I agree with your points about the Sucralose article. Those places are mentioned in passing in an article unrelated to geography - I don't think it's wrong as such to link them, but I'd never argue with someone who took them out. My issues don't relate to those sorts of links, as I would have thought is clear.
@HWV/Greg 2: my point - as, again, should be clear - is as much that actions such as the ones I cited are in breach of overlink as written, especially its "relevance" qualifications. I'm not taking issue with any past changes to the guidelines, although I appreciate that is an issue - it's just not one that I've ever looked into or commented on. I don't know where you got that idea from Greg, or why you feel the need to then rave at me for it with words like "ludicrous" and "puuhleeze". What I am asking is where is the consensus to go even further than those - evidently disputed, at least by some - changes seem to allow. Nor am I going around adding links, as some kind of mirror to those going around removing them. People aren't delinking things I've added, they're delinking things 100s of other editors have added. And I'm sure that no one has re-linked in example 2, or often elsewhere, because no one ever looks at the page. And most of those who do wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other. Plus there's the broader point that many of these delinking edits are made to look semi-official.
@OhConfucius: I know you tend to do these things manually rather than by script, however, often the results exhibit the same issues in my view. One problem is that you spend a lot of time editing here, and, as you say, go through lots of articles one after the other, seeing the same terms linked over and over, which prompts you to think they are not worth linking. However, is it not worth bearing in mind that this is a very artificial way of looking at the site? Many or even most readers, especially those who do not edit, are as likely dip in and out of WP and have a very different perspective. The links that appear frequently are often those to the most viewed pages (eg United States). Per wp:link, we should be providing navigational aids to those pages where they are related and relevant. If I may, your comment about readers being "numb" to links is a) conjecture, as are a lot of claims about linking that are made; and b) probably says more about how regular busy editors see links rather than casual readers, if I may indulge in some conjecture myself here.
@Tony (and Art/HWV): "town" and "city" are related and relevant terms when looking at mayorships. For some people, they no doubt will aid understanding, in terms of providing details about the different status that different urban areas can acquire. And, as pointed out previously, that is not the sole criteria for linking anyway - see also the words "links bind the project together" and ".. help the reader find related information" and "navigability". Meanwhile, I've never understood the relevance of "WP is not a dictionary" to this issue, and I still don't.
No one has answered the two simple questions I asked clearly and concisely. Views seem 50-50 split on this page about issues with delinking (especially if you focus on the more occasional passers-by), and most times I check in on delinking editors talk pages, the comments that I see about delinking are 95-5 queries or complaints. That seems very far from consensus to me. N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Point of fact, Greg - I once went to Tony's talk page, for the first time ever, and he simply deleted my post without reading it, even though it was raising legitimate concerns of this sort and also directing him to outright delinking errors (ie those that buggered up formatting). That led, by a slightly tortuous route, which saw Tony shouting at others on their talk pages, to one of his blocks, which was not reverted once admins realised there was "consensus" or that he was right. I'm very over it, and discussing this is very off-topic and needless personalisation, but if we going to have hagiography, we can also have fact-checking. Cheers, and apologies to Tony. N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see. Tony deleted your post and didn’t give you the time of day. There is no chance your arguments didn’t reflect the consensus of the community and you were being tendentious beyond all comprehension, is there? Tony was simply being mean and bad and unreasonable and all that, right? Your behavior down in this thread isn’t so bad. So let’s cut to the chase without the flowery oratory of how “Links preserve Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way.” Why not post a green‑div below with a freaky-concise nucleus of a guideline you’d like to see. Or is this about how you fully agree with the current guidelines, but think Tony’s activities aren’t sufficiently adhering to them? Greg L (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the consensus of the community is that editors should wreck category lists and other formatting - ie introduce uncontroversial and outright errors to pages - and ignore attempts to bring that to their attention? That's what happened on that occasion. What on earth it has to do with being "tendentious" is beyond me. I suggest you go and look back at that issue, as well as the posts Tony left on various editors talk pages after he felt they had crossed him at ANI before rushing to judgment. Also, I thought your point was that Tony very much would give people the light of day if they went to his talk page, which you now seem to be contradicting. As for now, on the more subjective issues, yes, I believe a lot of the delinking - by Tony and two or three others - goes further than the current version of the guidelines suggests it should. I have said that five times now in this thread alone. Thanks for getting close to working that out, although, amid the overblown rhetoric, you still seem to be phrasing your understanding as a question. N-HH talk/edits 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Answering my own section: Now you say no one has answered you "clearly and concisely". Much better than just pretending nobody answered. I haven't seen anyone argue for delinking "regardless of context"; show me a diff if I'm wrong. Instead, we're arguing about which contexts are sufficient for delinking. As for my comment on Bolivia, you're right; as GregL put it, I missed the point. Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, we're going round in circles here - I've shown examples of delinking what are arguably "common terms" where is it self-evidently being done regardless of context, eg the removal of a link to Argentina in the article of a neighbouring country. Here's another - the removal of a link to "Australia" from an article which even has Australia in the title. You yourself said, as I pointed out, that "major countries" should be unlinked [full stop]. That's the very definition of an assertion that disregards the possibility of taking decisions according to the context in which those links are found. Equally, I can't recall any response where anyone on your "side" has offered a discussion on specific contexts or principles, or when they've given an explanation of when they would link such terms (possibly because they never would, QED) - although I can't provide links to a negative of course. By contrast, I've given examples of when, in my view, they should and when they shouldn't. Not that I assume I'm right, but at least I'm engaging with the issue and offering one opinion for discussion. N-HH talk/edits 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I said "OVERLINK says to unlink major countries", and I didn't say "except when particularly relevant to the topic". That was for the same reason I didn't mention religions, languages, and quote the rest of the rule verbatim. I didn't mean that was the full text of OVERLINK. Of course I know about the "particularly relevant" clause, even though I somehow didn't connect it to Bolivia; this has been a long debate. More importantly, I have occasionally undone major country unlinks that my own AWB software proposed to me, as part of the manual review AWB recommends. That is, I don't unlink all major countries in practice, regardless of how you interpret my words. And the link I'm pretty sure you can't provide is anyone saying anything like "Let's delink all major countries, regardless of context; the 'particularly relevant' clause doesn't matter." Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus/common terms - arbitrary break #1

  • This has gone way off track, it personalises in a way that is offensive to me, and most editors, fortunately will disregard it as WP:TLDR. One editor has already left in disgust (see section above). What is this emotive stuff doing on a style-guide talk page? I cannot participate here if it's going to be a hate page. Tony (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted, I agree. I did not wish to see comments about "daffy ducks" and somewhat inaccurate - by my experience at least - claims about talk page welcomes go unnoticed. I should have done, as I should have let go further, bizarre, claims that on that occasion I was acting "against consensus" by raising the issue of outright and continuing script errors. Unfortunately that dragged your name into it. N-HH talk/edits 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Very well, N-HH. Unlike Michael C. Price, who doesn’t like the current guidelines, your issue is simply a content dispute over how the De-Link Jihadists were overzealous. Let’s start out really simple. Please provide just one edit‑dif that has gone full-circle with the other editor (that is, the edit has been clearly communicated to the opposing editor and his views were clear and he stuck to his guns) and which was not resolved to your satisfaction. I assume you are going to chose a humdinger where the link is important for the reader to better understand the subject matter and this offending editor won’t budge. I wanna see that one. Greg L (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I see plenty of fairly pointless link additions. I also see plenty of pointless link removals, as well as quite a few link removals that are, in my view, outright detrimental and that go far beyond the requirement of wp:overlink. I don't comment on or revert each and every one of them, in fact I hardly do it at all. I did though provide two examples above (for one of them, the response from the editor in question was to go back to that page and remove even more links to neighbouring countries, before someone else, correctly, restored them). What are you asking for - evidence of an edit war over linking that I've lost? Or of interminable linking debates on individual article talk pages, which rightly irritates other editors? Why should I - or anyone - have to review each edit and each link removal, or even get involved at all in individual cases? The onus is of course on those trawling hundreds of pages removing links to think about and justify what they do on each occasion, not for others to follow them round page by page and delink by delink. All I am asking for, at a central discussion point, is the general application of a bit of common sense and for people to actually follow the guidelines they cite. N-HH talk/edits 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave you an opportunity to be specific so the community could see if we have a chronic edit-dispute problem because of incorrect interpretation of the guidelines by Tony, or by you. Rather than point to a single edit-diff that had been discussed with Tony and was unresolved, all you come back with is a metric butt-load of weapons-grade WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

    Now, I happen to be in the middle of an medical trial surrounded by people with Ph.D.s wearing white lab coats as we get some pills fired up that transmit pH, temperature, and pressure from inside the gastrointestinal tract. Any time there is a break, I was coming here. And this is what you come back with?? Greg L (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"What are you asking for - evidence of an edit war over linking that I've lost? Or of interminable linking debates on individual article talk pages, which rightly irritates other editors?" Well it seems that you are asking for that. I don't have any, fortunately. Why that should be a criticism, I don't know. As noted, I gave two examples above of pages that I have not touched, but where the delinking seemed crazy and in breach of guidelines. They were intended, as examples are, to illustrate the wider problem. I have also highlighted the specific points within wp:overlink - eg about related info, navigability - that are being ignored in a lot of the editing that goes on. Nothing to do with "I don't like it", which seems to apply more to others' wholly arbitrary attitude to links to certain terms. I'm not sure what your experiment has to do with anything either. N-HH talk/edits 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the central problems here is that there is a real pattern of behaviour that fails to meet what one would expect in a civilized discussion. We're all adults (at least I'm presuming most of us who bother to participate here are) so it is not a playground-argument "oh, he's not playing nice today" situation. However, the overwhelming attitude presented here by certain people is one of "we're right, you're wrong" - which is completely out of sync with Wikipedia's standards. It is ridiculous that we have this situation where editors who dare to question the scope of the delinking are inevitably dismissed, slapped down, or quite simply ignored. You ask for evidence of drawn-out disputes over links, but the simple fact is that they do not exist because it would be counterproductive to engage in such actions. Speaking for myself, I've got too much to do in real life - and far more things I'd rather be doing when online here - than to patrol the thousands of edits Tony, OC etc are doing. At best, it is work enough to try to catch the mistakes and "overdelinking" that pop up on one's watchlist. None of the editors - N-HH, myself, the others who have added their comments in recent months - are pushing to "link everything" in a "sea of blue", despite the outlandish claims that are used repeatedly in an attempt to shut down debate. What people are asking is for a more measured, reasonable approach, minus the obvious personal agenda. This is a guideline discussion page, so we are trying to keep it from being personal. That aside, I think it is clear (through actions and attitudes demonstrated here and on other Wikimedia projects) that there is a definite disconnect between what the guideline calls for and what certain people interpreting the guideline are calling for. If we can address that problem, and achieve a more consensus-based approach, then perhaps this matter can finally be put behind us. --Ckatzchatspy 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Having watched this debate, and while favoring the minimal approach taken by Tony et al for linking, I have to agree with Ckatz that this discussion is far from civilized - this is almost the date-delinking stuff all over again.

What we need is some type of pointers to past discuss that includes more than just the regular MOS members (as such would come from an RFC or the like) to show there is wide-scale consensus for minimal linking. There may be something already for this; I dunno. If the discussion of limiting links as being discussed above has only taken place here with no wider feedback, it is not necessarily a reflection of global consensus, which is what I believe N-HH is looking for. It might be a true reflection, it may be out in left field. There is fair argument that Tony, Greg and others provide that there is a lack of edit warring over link removals, but it's impossible to prove that the approach is accepted by the absence of dissent for it. The only really good way to assert that is through a larger call for input just like with date delinking, even if it is just a straw poll. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For info, here's a recent section from another discussion page, which I think highlights the usual reaction of most disinterested and uninvolved editors when they come across this sort of thing. I've seen many similar comments on other talk pages, although usually from individual editors rather than a group of them. Now maybe some of the editors there will be won round, but it's a further indication that consensus across the wider site - not to mention the guidelines themselves as currently drafted - is not with any over-zealous delinking of every single link to "common terms", regardless of context; equally that most people will broadly disagree with it, but will also more or less shrug their shoulders and not make as big a deal of it as perhaps I and a couple of others have. That is, do not take the relatively small number of editors commenting at length against the more radical delinking on this talk page - just as the numbers in favour are also small - as proving consent. It does not, by itself. N-HH talk/edits 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Your spots a clear, N-HH, when you attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the dispute as one of the relatively small number of editors commenting at length against the more radical delinking. Radical delinking??? The link you provided shows only that some editors were unfamiliar with the linking guidelines with regard to how a common place name like “British Isles” should not be linked. With 48,277,380 registered Wikipedians, there is no way—even via e-mail if it were desired—to educate them to proper linking practices. Quite understandably, there are going to be dozens of editors dropping a note wondering “Where’d my precious United States link go???”

Once again, N-HH, it is becoming increasingly clear that you keep on insisting that your problem with Tony’s edits is that he is radically departing from the guidelines but the real truth is that you clearly and simply disagree with the guideline and therefore would like to put a stop to a prolific editor who edits precisely as the guidelines require. That much is clear from your rhetorical question, above, about “Where’s the consensus?” I can’t help it if you weren’t active when the consensus was arrived at. Your railing against Tony for properly implementing the guidelines is a pure and simple case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and your personal attacks against Tony for implementing are a violation of WP:NPA. Period.

Oh, and Ckatz, please don’t ride in all tall, proud, and handsome on your whiter-than-white steed, it’s nostrils flaring in the morning air, and direct a post to me about “civilized discussion”; I haven’t done a personal attack against anyone here other than to point out the shortcomings in their logic. N-HH has been making outrageous personal attacks (via mischaracterizations of fact) against Tony no end here on this page. So your selecting me out for a facefull of humble pie on the “civilized discussion” front is laughably partisan. We all know where you stand on delinking. If you don’t want an unsound and non-factual post exposed for what it is in public, try leaving a sound and factual one here. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg, please actually read my post. If you had, it would be clear to you that I'm not singling you out for the aforementioned behaviour (although it would certainly be better for all if you avoided the snarky insults). My post doesn't even suggest anything about personal attacks, let alone accusing you personally. You made a post, I responded and rebutted. Deal with it, and perhaps please actually address the points raised. If you disagree with what I wrote, then explain why. Otherwise, claims of "unsound" and "non-factual" are meaningless distractions from the real issue. --Ckatzchatspy 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I read your post. It begins with this: Greg, one of the central problems is that there is a real pattern of behaviour that fails to meet what one would expect in a civilized discussion. It’s a classic technique to suggest the problem lies with the individual being addressed. I suggest you go back up and strike “Greg” if you don’t want to “single me out.” Greg L (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and the bit about your stunt of riding in all tall, proud and handsome on your steed was spot on, as was the bit about your being quite partisan on this issue. So I’d appreciate that you dismount from said stallion, sheath your saber, and spell out for the record if you think Tony delinking “British Isles” and “America” (like the average reader just fell off the turnip truck) is contrary to the guideline, or if like N-HH, you just don’t like the guideline. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You can interpret the use of your name any way you like, I suppose. For the record, though, your current guess is completely incorrect, however. My post followed from several comments you'd made, and was directed to you because it felt like the natural person to speak directly to. That, and only that, is why your name was used. Other than that, the post does not even mention you, let alone make any direct accusations against you. However, if it eases your concerns, I'm certainly amenable to removing it. --Ckatzchatspy 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As for your cutesy insults, again, it would help a lot if you could just avoid them. They add nothing at all to the debate, and serve only to muddy the waters. Enough about that, though. Yes, Tony (and OC and a few others) are taking far too much of a hard-line approach with the guideline; it does not endorse the militant manner in which they've chosen to operate. Many of their edits do serve some purpose; we don't necessarily need so many links to the actor article, after all. However, there is no good reason whatsoever to delink United States in a geographical article about a neighbouring country; there is no need to use a scattergun approach and selectively delink some countries while leaving others linked in the same sentence; and there is no certainly no reason to presume that their opinion as to what is a useful link is the only opinion that matters. It's a classic game that is being played; "our way is right, you're just wrong if you don't get it". Anyone who objects is misguided or simple; apparently, the entire French Wikipedia is a lost cause because they didn't accept the shiny new Gospel of Delinking, at least according to some here. That attitude has to go. --Ckatzchatspy 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your real message point gets lost through all your high-road posturing about “cutesy insults” and “muddy waters.” It is not an insult to expose fallacious arguments for what they are. And with regard to *muddying the waters*, you stole a page from my playbook because of N-HH constantly railing about Tony’s flagrant violations of the guidelines when all the evidence he provides shows Tony is editing precisely with the guidelines. In fact, N-HH is clearly opposed to the guidelines. Nothing more. Nothing less. That much is infinitely clear. So please don’t hop right atop your whiter-than-white stallion in a transparent attempt to seize the moral high ground here by talking about muddying the waters. I want to be exceedingly clear here with what your issue is with the current state of affairs. Is it because…

  1. Some of the *delinkers* edits don’t adhere to the guideline.
  2. The guideline sucks in your opinion.
  3. The guideline clearly got here somehow but did not enjoy a true consensus in the process.
  4. You hoped the guideline wouldn’t really matter but the delinkers prolific editing using a script to delink no-added-value words like “American“ exceeds your ability to add links to articles and you don’t like that.
  5. All the above.
  6. Other (succinctly specify please).

Once we have a clear understanding of precisely what each editor thinks the issues are, then we can logically address the issues. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, with regard to That attitude has to go, I assume you are once again not directing that towards me or any one particular partisan side to this debate? Because your post seems to not be very clear that you disapprove of how N-HH has been in breach of WP:NPA by mischaracterizing the facts surrounding what Tony supposedly has been doing and he had to strike a couple paragraphs above to bring his behavior here in compliance with Wikipedia’s rules. Yet your vitriol about conduct here seems to somehow not be directed at him. Was that just an unfortunate accident on your part? Greg L (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From a discussion standpoint, no one's attitude is above reproach right now from what I can see. And if it keeps up, history will repeat itself, likely with another Arbcom case over this. It can be avoided, let's assume both sides are working good faith to understand where this claimed "consensus" for limited linking came from, and not worry about who is right and wrong right now. And I'm going to point out again, I strongly favor the limited version (I still am working best how to insert my "tourist agency" analogy into this discussion), so this is not a matter of shutting out N-HH, Ckatz or others that question that approach, but as a means to make sure that WP-wide policy is not being set by only 5-6 people, the regulars on this page. There is a fair question of "where did this consensus come from" that either can be easily answered by pointing to a talk page discussion from the past, or otherwise we've just discovered that this just happened to gel without any real discussion - which certainly can happen but the calls of concern suggest we may want to revisit and clearly establish consensus on it. Linking, when and how much, are critical issues so it is better to caution on checking what the community wants than to play dictatorial games with one's personal opinion of how they should be handled. And just like date delinking - there is no rush to answer these questions; no one is about to sue WP for having a sea of blue or for methodological removal of links of common countries. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There still seems to be too much impressive oratory going on and insufficient laying out the cards as to where different editors’ opinions really lie. I would very much liked to have seen a succinct and honest declaration as to whether it was #1–6, above. But such a straightforward question is met only with stretch of silence followed by still more grand oratory by another editor who seems to want to be perceived as a middle-of-the-roader in search of the Truth.

    Reading between the lines, it appears Masem is suggesting his position is #3 (the guideline is there but somehow managed to get there without a proper consensus). But others here seem chronically incapable of flat laying their cards on the table and prefer instead to berate other editors for editing against the guidelines. Upon inspection, the *evidence* they offer for other editors’ editing contrary to the guidelines proves hollow and it becomes exceedingly clear that the problem is they simply disagree with the guidelines. So…

    I am profoundly disillusioned with the lack of candor and the tactics being used. Some editors seem to prefer evading discussing the central issues and instead specialize in criticizing other editors’ conduct—and quite selectively so in a highly biased fashion. It is a cheap tactic, useful for when things go to ANI where volunteer admins with limited time have to sort things out. This place reeks of bad cess and ill will. I want absolutely nothing more to do with this. Don’t leave messages on my talk page about it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby and I have free will and the right to say I want nothing more to do with this when things are like this. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would consider this overreaction to the simple starting point of working on good faith. I don't challenge this MOS at all, but realize that the basis of the complaints about it, is that no one that is defending this is pointing out where the discussion occurred about this. I would if I knew where to look; I only started following this MOS relatively recently where the language of minimal links was already present. A casual search of the archives don't clearly bring up results. It should not be that hard, if this was discussed, to point to that. If it wasn't discussed but simply mutually agreed on without comment, it's probably worth discussing. Very simple, straightforward, and the path of less aggression. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The delinkers have been asked repeatedly where the consensus was established. There was no consensus, just a rewrite of the MoS and a refusal to allow any changes.
Oh, and BTW, #1-3, Greg.
--Michael C. Price talk 02:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since my AWB edits make me a "delinker", I wasn't here when the guideline was written, so this post is just to say "I heard you." Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The "where is the consensus" question was asked and answered above.  HWV258.  07:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since this a claim of some importance you'd better be explicit. If you refer to the claim that the MoS is the consensus, that is of course tautologous and hence invalid. --Michael C. Price talk 08:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please link to where, in this thread or elsewhere, there was consensus to delink all "common terms", regardless of context. Despite the fact that wp:link explicitly mandates links to relevant common terms. And also says that links should help readers "find relevant information" and should "bind the project together". Or where, and on what basis, it is being decided that some terms are "common". These are the key questions that have been asked over and over, and just ignored I'm afraid. I would go straight to ArbCom with this, but that's an expensive waste of time and I know where it ends up. And Greg, to be quite frank, everything you've posted since I last looked in is fairly base invective or an utter falsehood - eg that I am "clearly opposed to the guidelines" and that I am making "outrageous personal attacks" - which shows you have not understood a word I've said, even though I've been very explicit, clear and detailed in what I've written. Repeating it all yet again obviously won't help. I'm used to seing my position completely mischaracterised and twisted, but it's still boring. Please stop lashing out with wild claims like that. By contrast, I have certainly not mischaracterised Tony or his actions. One error I will admit - and have already accepted - is that I was sidetracked into commenting on the ANI issue and the events that led to it (which simply corrected some misleading claims in respect of it), but I have struck my comments there. N-HH talk/edits 13:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
ps: by contrast, Greg, you have left for example your comment standing that I was being "tendentious beyond all comprehension" for, yes, deigning to attempt to point out a trail of formatting errors a couple of months ago on another editor's talk page. I struck out my bid to explain the facts of what happened in response to that egregious personal attack as a gesture and because it was an irrelevance to the point at hand, not in order to "comply with the rules"
pps: in your numbered list, I am at point 1. I have no opinion on the changes to the guidelines, because I was not involved in that issue and have not looked into it now. I'm just reading the guidelines as they are. If the changes didn't, on a true reading, go as far as some people had intended them to or assumed they had, it's too late now

Past discussions and clarity?

Having not been involved in the debates over changes to the wording of the guidelines a way back, as noted above, I did some research, which sheds some light on the current debate about common terms, especially geographic ones, and on the broader issues of "consensus". What I found was this change back in 2008, where a very specific list of deprecated or even proscribed links was added, along with the unqualified suggestion that they should pretty much never be linked at all. It was expanded by the same editor here. It now seems that some people are interpreting the guidelines as if that text, or some version of it, were still there. It is, of course, not there anymore. It was temporarily struck with a request for discussion - there appears to be have been no detailed discussion or consensus before it was added, other than the inconclusive debate here - with this edit and has not been seen since as far as I can tell. Nor, as far as I can tell, has any discussion about the contents of such a specific list, and certainly no consensus on it. The only discussion post-removal I could find was this one, that discussed the issue more generally and was split pretty evenly numbers-wise, and which seems to have led to the broad wording that we more or less have currently, subject to any later minor changes. The current wording of course has no proscribed list and also clearly excludes common terms that are "relevant to the topic of the article" from any non- or de-linking requirement.

All that might explain why both "sides" are arguing that the guidelines support their case: one is reading them as they found them as of a couple of months ago, the other is reading them as they wish them to be and as they tried - unsuccesfully - to make them two years ago. It also explains why it's been so hard to get straight and simple answers to the questions I asked above: the record indicates that despite vague assertions to the contrary there is no such consensus to delink all common terms, regardless of context, or that there is any consensus as to which terms are indeed "common" in the first place. If the links I found above had showed that consensus, wouldn't someone have rushed to point me and others to them? Now, of course anyone can continue to argue the toss over what the content of guidelines should be - anyone and everyone, whichever side they stand on and whether you want slightly more or slighty less delinking, is entitled to do that. It's not a criticism surely to accuse someone of disagreeing with them as they stand. As it happens, despite claims by others who presume to know others' minds better, I'm broadly happy with them; others are not so keen on every aspect. But, for now, we have to deal with them as they are and with the apparent consensus that got them there. If I've missed anything in the historical record or in my observations on it, I am happy to be corrected. N-HH talk/edits 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to track down those links, N-HH. Here's an interesting quote from the 2008 discussion:

"We don't want to encourage robo-delinking. Judgment is necessary to determine when almost any term should or should not be linked." (Spacepotato)

--Ckatzchatspy 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is "interpreting the guidelines as if that [list of countries], or some version of it, were still there". I have a list of countries, religions etc. in my AWB software, but I have never claimed that list is a guideline; it's just my own interpretation of the words "major countries ...". OhConfucius uses a longer list. That is to be expected when the guideline leaves the list undefined. Of course there is no consensus on what should be in the list; if that oft-repeated explanation isn't a "straight and simple answer", I can't imagine what would be.
As for robo-delinking, AWB allows and strongly encourages manual review of each change. If my manual review isn't considered sufficient judgment, that won't make me meditate for hours on each link. It would make me remove the unlinking section from my software, and assuming others do the same, OVERLINK would become as obscure and pointless as much of the rest of the Manual of Style.
None of this is to argue for or against a rewording of OVERLINK, or even whether the existing "particularly relevant" clause should be interpreted more broadly. Art LaPella (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the first two posts here: whoa, that's ancient history. Please check out the more recent encyclopedia of negotiations that made possible the merger of wp:context, wp:btw with MOSLINK. Tony (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hardly "ancient history", given that they are directly relevant to the principles involved in this dispute (and also central to the discussions you've highlighted). When you factor in that many of the same participants from those discussions are still here today, it emphasizes the importance of reviewing and understanding the entire history rather than just a selective portion of it. --Ckatzchatspy 05:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
So let me guess: you weren't selecting, but I was? This is not a US election full of spin. I've provided a diff of negotiations that went on over three months, early 09, involving many editors. You are pointing to discussions more than two years ago. We could go back further and ask where the consensus was for widely liking common terms. Could you point to that, please? Going now. Tony (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Tony, what exactly are you trying to prove? You're complaining about references to a unilateral fundamental change in the direction of the guideline from mid-to-late 2008 while simultaneously claiming that discussions from late 2008 to early 2009 to merge two linking guidelines are perfectly fine? --Ckatzchatspy 09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not claiming that anything is "fine" or "not fine", but that the subsequent extensive negotiations among many editors over a period of months in early 09 settled the wording well and truly. You seem to be claiming that there is no consensus for the current wording. I have limited time to go around in circles here. Tony (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Since we are told there is a consensus now, perhaps we don't trust your judgement on whether there was a consensus then. Put our minds at rest and point to the section in the archives, please? --Michael C. Price talk 14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The merger was a hard negotation by many editors, as you can see from the diff I provided. You will note that Kotniski merged the three pages, then there were objections, and they were unmerged. Negotiations continued, and I can't recall whether they were merged and unmerged again, or just merged once more. This process represented a complete overhaul and rewriting of the guide line. You can put your mind at rest by reading the diff. You are welcome to consult User:Kotniski if you wish. He ran the whole thing. To dig up diffs from a year before this claiming there is no consensus for the current page seems to be a little odd.

Please do not personalise the discussion, including the insulting of other editors ("we don't trust your judgement"). Tony (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to the 2009 discussion Tony. My request was a genuine one, as to whether I'd missed anything. As you know, I am more recent entrant into this dispute. However, I don't see what it actually shows - it's a very long discussion, and as Michael says you haven't highlighted any particular thread within it, or tried to explain what you are arguing it shows. I scanned it quickly, and can't see much specific discussion about the near-blanket exclusion of links to specific terms, let alone any consensus on that. OK, so it's a more recent example of wider discussions that got us, along with the 2008 threads that I pointed to, to where we are now with the overall wording of wp:link. But, as I keep saying, I accept broadly the current wording, which says - as well as that "links bind the project together" ... "include [links that] help the reader find related information" ... "think before removing a link - it may be useful to other readers" - that common and geographic locations can be linked when they are "relevant to the topic of the article". My point is that the current wording does not mandate the removal of pretty much all links to a set list of "major" countries, professions etc. You tried to insert that point in 2008, with support from one other editor as far as I can tell, and you did not get consensus for it. The 2009 discussions do not seem to contradict or supersede that discussion, and the guidelines still do not include that wording.
Hence, it is quite clear that consensus was then - and remains now - against such rules and actions. Yet a small number of editors - in my reading of what is happening, I accept you dispute that Art - argue and delink in thousands of articles across the site regardless as if it did and as if there was such consensus (note: Tony when you comment here, you seem to be conflating the issues of consensus for the guideline wording and consensus in respect of some aspects of delinking practice. The point being made is that there is no consensus for the latter, and that indeed those actions go against the actual consensus as formulated over the years in the guidelines - that's the *whole point* of my argument that opened this subsection. Nor do I read anyone else's comments as them saying this all proves there is "no consensus for the current page", as you suggest they are. Maybe they do mean that, but it's certainly not my point). I also have to say it is noticeable from the 2009 discussion that most of the names who are not familiar to me are asking for less rigidity in delinking and make uncannily similar points to the ones I and others have been making more recently, which gives me some confidence as to the views of the more disinterested editor and of other great minds. N-HH talk/edits 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

.. and while it is clear that there was - and still is - no consensus for certain aspects of delinking ..

.. people simply sign off from the discussion here with a comment that fails to address the actual issue (as noted above, the issue is primarily about whether there is consensus for certain actions and whether they follow the guidelines, not consensus about the content of the guidelines themselves), and then continue to for example take out links to "Catholic" and "Italy" from a page about an, er, Italian trade union with Catholic roots, marking those edits as "minor" and with an edit summary claiming that they are simply "fixing dashes, unifying date formats and removing date links." N-HH talk/edits 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the above

Per the section and sub-sections above and previous discussions, there is a long-running dispute about certain aspects of delinking, which is often done using scripts.
Question/issue: Does it make sense and is it in accord with wp:link as currently written for every individual link to "major" or "common" terms, countries, places, professions, nationalities etc - however those are to be defined exactly - to be removed from most articles, both main text and infoboxes? And, as a secondary question, is the use of scripts to do that across hundreds of articles appropriate? N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: The purpose is not to ask for comment on the removal of more obviously trivial, irrelevant or needlessly repetitive links, or links to major/common terms - eg "Italy" - where they are mentioned in passing in an article and have no immediate relation to the page/topic. N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments/response (no threaded discussion please)

  • No and Qualified Yes to the use of scripts for appropriate delinking. The push to reduce overlinking is a good idea that has gone too far. Relevant links that aid navigation for both casual readers and regular editors, and which bind related and often very popular pages together, are often being removed, seemingly on an arbitrary basis and regardless of context and of the relevance of the terms to the main topic. This reduces the core functionality of an online encyclopedia, and introduces random inconsistencies, especially to infoboxes and tables. The guidelines are to me quite clear that where a term is "relevant to the topic of the article", there is no requirement to remove a link to it. And scripts are fine as a tool, but they are a blunt tool, and their effects need to be reviewed on each occasion to take account of the context of each page. N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    As a clarification, I would highlight the note to the RfC question - this is *not* about linking to terms that crop up in passing, or frequent repeat linking in close proximity; or to much of the delinking that does happen, eg to trivial terms of dates etc. When talking about countries/geography, I am referring very specifically to, for example, whether it would be preferred to link to "France" in the following page leads - "Rouen is a town in France"; "Germany is a European country that borders France". Or, say, to World War II in the page lead "The T-34 was one of the main battle tanks used by the Soviet Union during World War II". On that point, I am thinking of edits such as this and this, cited in previous discussion, and there are many, many similar ones, where some of the delinking within each of those seems to have gone too far and to be more detrimental than it is in any way helpful, despite rationalisations. Nationalities & professions I am more agnostic about - at least in main text, although I see little point in removing them from infoboxes - eg "Michael Douglas is an American actor". But either way these issues need wider review and a genuine broader consensus, not just decisions made and enforced by the actions of a small number of editors who are - like myself, as of a couple of months now - regular contributors to this talk page or other MoS pages (note for clarity that this second para was added at the point when other comments had already been posted by Greg, Michael, Art, HWV258, OhConfucius and Tony - who all, also, fall within that definition). N-HH talk/edits 05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes This RfC was poorly crafted with a two-part question that the poster only answered with one “No.” Moreover, RfCs are ideally crafted by an uninvolved admin; either that, or a better job is done by the poster to achieve unbiased wording. The wording of this RfC was crafted in a slanted manner to advocate an outcome in the form of biased questions that have a rhetorical ring to them. Now…

    The guidelines on linking are well drafted and are a reasonable compromise that best serves our readership. There is always room for interpretation but the editors N-HH has a problem with are doing a good job of adhering to the spirit and word of the guideline. This is just a content dispute over the implementation of guidelines, where it is the guidelines themselves that N-HH has been outspokenly in opposition of. Unfortunately, his views are too extreme and are not shared by the majority of wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • No and no. Good to see you back, Greg. I never really believed you'd stay away long :-) --Michael C. Price talk 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes. Note the question specifies "most articles", not all. A randomly chosen example from Intelligence quotient#Genetic influences: "Various studies find the heritability of IQ between 0.4 and 0.8 in the United States ..." But I didn't find anything in the United States article about IQ. So that link is no more helpful than linking "helpful" would be in this sentence. Sure the IQ sentence is about the United States, but my sentence is about helpfulness; so what? Most any word could be linked by that logic. Another random example: History of Cuba links United States once down in the middle at History of Cuba#Bay of Pigs invasion, apparently because all the other references to the U.S. were unlinked, but they missed that one. A link to U.S. history in the lede would make sense, but not the way it is. Since most such links should be unlinked, scripts are a more efficient way to unlink them, even though some United States links should remain. A misconception is that the alternative to scripts, is careful consideration of each link that will come to the same conclusion you would have come to. No. The alternative to scripts is represented by my examples above. There are plenty of articles I haven't run my scripts on at all, so that would be a more efficient use of time than trying to guess what the consensus here would be for each link, beyond briefly glancing at each, especially in the lede and infoboxes. Art LaPella (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes. The current wp:Link wording has been in place for a considerable time, and has led to thousands and thousands of edits—the overwhelming majority of which have been well received in article space. Common and dictionary links "to be removed from most articles" is precisely the intention of the hard-working and skilled editors who have undertaken this task—solely with the aim of improving WP for all readers. The use of a script (note: not a bot) is the only practical way to identify and remove links that don't deepen the understand of the article in which they have been placed—as long as the result of running the script is checked manually (which the editors involved have given an undertaking that they do). Linking is a difficult skill to master, and the delinking in question serves two additional purposes: to prune an article to a new baseline (from which local editors can continue to evolve the article), and to remind local editors to carefully consider the value of links they add in the future.  HWV258.  23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes to both. Indeed, it makes perfect sense, and is in absolute accord with wp:link as currently written for every individual link to "major" or "common" terms, countries, places, professions, nationalities to be removed from most articles. There are many instances where linking to 'relevant' terms fails the 'germane' test. Links are often used by some, ostensibly for navigation, for purposes that can only be described as providing definition. This may be fair enough in specialised articles about technical subjects, but we should indeed draw the line at [not] linking 'Australian actress' in the Nicole Kidman article, 'billionaire American businessman' in the Warren Buffet article, or 'multi-instrumentalist British musician' in the one on Paul McCartney, relevant though the terms may be. The extent of linking in en.wp, although comparing favourably with our sister wikis, can still be improved. I don't quite understand this nebulous concept of 'navigation', and Nick's example of 'Italy' does not shed any light on how this dichotomy can be easily resolved.

    In my experience, there are a great number of non-overlinked articles; there are also a great number of extremely overlinked articles, most of which few editors care about. I have seen articles, where many proper nouns, including most dictionary terms, are linked and more than once. I have come across articles where The New York Times has been linked more than 30 times in the reference section alone! – go figure. At present, there is no way to identify overlinked articles; I wish there was. Removing the overlinking manually, or even by using the standard module of AWB, is painstakingly slow and inefficient. Use of scripts (but not bots) for this purpose is desirable, in line with wp:link, and with WP:BRD. Scripts must be supplemented by further manual effort, as purely mechanical link-removal is often inadequate, and links to some words can only be removed (or reinserted) through interpretation of relevance (read 'germane'); they reduce workload. Also, some articles have links which are so tortuously piped in order to squeeze in an extra link or three that manual unlinking is unavoidable (I believe Tony cited one about an Australian location the other day). Editors objecting to removal of certain of those links are always free to relink those instances they believe jeopardises the understanding of the article. In fact, that should be the acid test, rather than the insistence that where a link is "'relevant to the topic of the article', there is no requirement to remove a link to it". Even this way, we slowly undo the ratchet of overlinking because some editors fail to appreciate the need to balance quality with quantity when linking. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes and yes. Per Ohconfucius above, who puts it well; Masem, below, makes good points, too. Wikis (at least this one) have been evolving more sophisticated approaches to intralinking over the past five years, after the first four years in which no one really thought much about the issue. This has involved embracing more than just "navigation" in the decision-making process: now, the focus and likely usefulness of each link to an English-speaker, and the link-density (with its corollaries of diluting high-value links, adjacent "bunching", and unnecessary reader distraction) are widely accepted as balancing factors. The notion that article targets should be linked just because they are somehow similar to the current topic (e.g, Tent from House, and Dog from Cat, as suggested by Hans A.), works against efforts to optimise wikilinking by blurring its role with that of our Category system (not to mention the "See also" section).

    Nowhere is poor linking practice more obvious than when whole country articles are target-linked without thought. Show me one, and I'll usually suggest a more focused target to a daughter articles or a section—or that it should not be linked in the first place. It is damaging the wikilinking system as a whole to throw such generalised, vague links before the readers in the hope they will generate a click. Readers soon switch off our valuable links when we dish up distractions like that. Past linking practices have also led to carelessness in piping. These are reasons I developed a tutorial on linking skills (av. 80 visits a month, feedback welcome).

    All of this is born out in the wording of the style guide, while at the same time it extols the virtues of the system as a whole. Gnoming activity is essential if linking standards are to be improved, since we have a legacy of past poor practice to deal with. Matching the high standards of linking in featured content, standards that have become well-established (take a look), is a challenge for the whole project. Human-supervised automation is an important part of this, given the scale of the problem. Sometimes mistakes are made (not the examples above, I must say), but overall, this is the right way to go. It would be productive if editors who who have qualms about it engaged those who work to reduce overlinking not WRT obvious examples of overlinking, but WRT the occasional grey area. Skill, insight and hard work are the keys for all parties in collaborating to improve wikilinking system. Tony (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • No (and no to the abuse of scripts to strip away useful links). Wikipedia's guidelines are meant to better the project, and are not to be used as justification for implementing a personal vision to strip away a nonsensical "sea of blue". Most people who delink are addressing the real issue, that being actual overlinking of common terms. Scripts are useful for that purpose, when used by individuals who are making an effort to properly assess link value on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, there is a small group that is using the guideline in a manner far beyond what any reasonable individual would support, purely to serve their own purposes. It began with a heavy-handed attempt to rewrite the guideline without discussion, continued with a coordinated effort to swat down opposition, and is carried out in a manner that attempts to hide the excessive delinking behind misleading assertions of policy and patronizing dismissals whenever an opposing voice is raised. Even the list of so-called "common terms" is buried away in the depths of personal script pages. Terms are added (and then delinked from articles) with no discussion or consensus. There is no practical means in place for the average Wikipedian to even access these lists, let alone have any realistic opportunity to read and modify them. Despite untrue claims to the contrary, the people who are trying to rationalize this mess are not seeking to "link everything", but instead to stop the uncontrolled race to strip away valid links. --Ckatzchatspy 06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... and yes, but.... I have no problems with removing links to common terms from "most" (i.e. more than 50%) articles and using scripts if you carefully review each edit. But I do have problems with removing links to common terms from almost all articles (including obviously relevant ones such as from a country to its neighbours), and one's gotta be a bloody quick reader to actually review each of thirty-odd edits done in half an hour. (Argentina receives roughly the same number of visits as Pink Floyd, so the two should have the same number of incoming links to within one order of magnitude, though since there are roughly fourteen times as many articles mentioning Argentina than articles mentioning Pink Floyd, the fraction of times "Argentina" should be linked should be about one order of magnitude lower than for "Pink Floyd".) So if the questions read "from almost all articles" and "careless use of scripts" instead of "from most articles" and "use of scripts", my answers would be Heck, no! and Heck, no! A. di M. (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (amended at 11:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC))
  • Yes, but... and yes, but.... The problem is not in the words "most articles" and it is not primarily in the delinking scripts, or even in their careless use. Overlinking is a widespread problem and I support effective counter-measures even if they may cause obvious underlinking in some instances. What I do not support at all is when an editor misreads "most articles" as "almost all articles with practically no exceptions" and, based on this misunderstanding and a complete ignorance of linking context, does not simply remove a small percentage of perfectly appropriate links along with the silly ones, but insists that they stay removed. I am not going to wade through edit histories to check to what extent this problem exists. But the examples above, and the way some editors argue about them, together make it likely that the problem does exist. Hans Adler 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes When I'm examining the links in an article, I ask myself two questions: 1) Is a reader to likely to click on this link?, and 2) would it improve their understanding of the article if they did? A huge number of wikilinks fail one or both of these tests. Those generally include all the types of common terms that are described in the current guideline, as well as many dictionary words. I use AWB regexes to make these delinkings, but I'll some times reinstate a link because I judge it is in fact useful in its context, and I'll sometimes perform some further delinkings, as well as other gnoming on the article. The question of script usage is a total red herring - I take responsibility for my edits, as does every other editor; I've merely scripted them for convenience in handling such a large and repetitive task. There's no secret about the content of my AWB regexes - if anyone cared to ask (no-one has) I'd be happy to provide a copy of my current AWB regex file, built up over several years of gnoming (beware, it's very large). Very occasionally, another editor will question my judgment about whether a link is worthwhile, and then we discuss the issue. The RFC seems to be advancing the completely unrealistic proposition that no-one should ever perform a scripted edit that someone else might object to - no edit, scripted or not, can be guaranteed uncontroversial. It's how you handle the disagreement that matters, not how you made the edit. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes. Per Chris. He hits the nail on the noggin on both counts. One, it makes sense. Two, since it makes sense, the script answer is clear -- people should be encouraged to use scripts more to do intelligent edits. The time is approaching to question why we don't have bots doing this. Lots of good editors, as usual, in the discussions on this talk page. I wish we could free 100 per cent of you up to use your time to address the more substantive and POV issues which I see abounding on wikipedia -- that's where I see the real risks of your spending your time here, and where the rewards would IMHO be greatest from all redirecting attention elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and Yes. This RfC bears an eerie similarity to WP:DATEPOLL. One of the typical positions heavily supported was "Year articles ... should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year". I believe the same logic applies to common terms as it does to years, and I'd suggest that "germane and topical to the subject matter/not incidental" is the test to distinguish the minority of cases where a link to a common term could be judged appropriate. It would work even when the terms are not considered common as well; the location of sucralose manufacturing in Jurong or McIntosh is much more likely to be incidental than having an intrinsic relevance necessary to understand the production process. As for scripts, surely the usual conventions apply: the user takes no less responsibility for the edit than if no script were used; if the edit is poor, you blame the editor, not the use of a script. --RexxS (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comments/threaded discussion

I think RFC is too simplified for an encompassing discussion of linking. It definitely cannot be answered by a simple yes/no answer. We need to establish to exactly what degree interwiki links in prose, and separately in infoboxes, are to be doing for our readers. Only once that question is fairly answered by consensus can one make a determination of when it is appropriate delink the use of common english words. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But how would we do that? Surely the point is that different readers use links in many different ways at different times - for basic navigation, to move on to related topics of interest, to read into or "drill down" to a more specialised or technical page etc. I'm not sure we'd ever pin that down, and I think there's a risk of over-intellectualising and over-analysing the whole issue. Also I think there's a risk that people enter that debate saying how they think others ought to be using links, which surely isn't the point of WP unless we're all at school here. And even without any such agreement, I think people can still offer a general judgment or opinion as to whether, broadly, it is OK to have links to "England" or "China" on related pages. Anyway, let's see what happens here. N-HH talk/edits 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
But it is a very deep issues, not one that can be waived away by a yes/no question. And it affects the entire WP population; if you're calling for an RFC and wide discussion, we need to come to a wide consensus on the nature of linking. Effectively, there is a simple question: how "valuable" is an intrawiki link, being that they stand out from text and require readers to click-thru to learn more, possibly breaking reading flow or the like? If they are highly valuable - we want readers to be able to read w/o distraction, a subdued approach to linking where only essential terms make sense. If they are "cheap" in that it doesn't break flow, they we can allow for linking a lot more common terms. But I don't know the answer on a global scale (I know, however, that I prefer considering them valuable to avoid high link density, but that's just me), and if you're going to RFC anything, getting at the core of the issue makes more sense than a challenge to what some are currently practice; that is, addressing the cause and not the effect of it. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. The problem with the question, and the whole concept behind it, seems to be the nom's apparent preference for lowest common denominator linking, rather than one which is adapted to the man on the Clapham omnibus. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Can we please just address the issues, and stop speculating in a mildly insulting way about other people's motivations and views? The whole point of an RfC is the posing of a question, in order to get some wider input from uninvolved parties on the substantive issues, not just for people who've already said their piece to tell each other that their ideas are stupid or wrong. N-HH talk/edits 05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • <sigh>I do not believe I for one moment suggested or implied what you said was rubbish, just that it was terribly imprecise, and seemed to be aimed at the lowest common denominator (viz: "different readers use links in many different ways at different times - for basic navigation, to move on to related topics of interest, to read into or "drill down" to a more specialised or technical page etc"). Almost every link to another WP article is potentially 'navigational'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, are you really saying you don't know that the phrase "lowest common denominator" - which you have just thrown at me again - is not pejorative in everything but its most technical sense? As for the substantive point at issue, you've made a leap from my general comments in a meta-debate about why some people might sometimes use links to make somewhat over-simplified assertions about what I think should or shouldn't be linked in an ideal world, suggesting wrongly again that I want to link everything. As it happens, and as you surely know, what I am in favour of is relevant navigational links, which I believe are fairly easible identifiable by relatively objective standards in the context of each page. You and others favour what you call "better" or "more useful" links, whereas I don't see how you can objectively define that, for an encyclopedia with millions of different users, some regular, some passing by. That's not the "lowest common denominator", that's just being flexible and open-minded, while at least hopefully having some thresholds and standards. In any event, as noted, the point of the RfC is to ask *other people* what *they* think. Cheers. N-HH talk/edits 07:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Greg: per this comment in the section above. If you have issues with the wording of the RfC, feel free to say exactly where the problem is. I did answer my own supplementary question - which seems a fair one - just without a simple yes or no. And could you provide links, or evidence for the statements in your last sentence? Or, better still, avoid outright falsehoods ("outspokenly opposed to the guidelines"), cheap labels ("extremist") and prejudging an RfC ("not shared by the majority of Wikipedians")? Half your comment engages with the issues, the rest does not. N-HH talk/edits 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would be useful to broaden the scope of the RfC to include issues about repeat links.--Michael C. Price talk 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, isn't this one enough on its own?! N-HH talk/edits 05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's another intractable area in which no consensus, it appears, can reached by dialogue. Hence the need for the RfC. We might as well get everything wrapped up in one go. --Michael C. Price talk 05:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Most articles" vs "Nearly all"

When I drafted the RfC to suggest that terms were being removed from "most articles", I was being generous to those doing the delinking, in a bid to avoid misrepresenting their views or actions, since that's something that's afflicted this debate, mostly the other way round. On reflection, following some of the comments above, I should clarify that to "remove the terms in their entirety ... from pretty much every article". That *is* what we're talking about, as my examples show, often justified by very limited and subjective criteria as to what a link is for or what people might or even should be linking to. As noted I support 90% of the removals of US, France etc, eg where they are mentioned in passing and have often been linked casually. I suspect most other editors would too. There is too much overlinking, but we need a redline on too much delinking as well, and we need to know where other less involved editors stand on it. I note "delinkers" who have commented say they do review and restore sometimes. Not to say it doesn't happen, but I've never seen that - could anyone provide examples? More often than not I see people return to edit war if anyone else tries to review or amend one or two of those delinks. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For further examples, see edits like this (one of a series) - which removes a link to France from page about a French town; edits like this - which removes a link to World War 2 from a page about a gun apparently known primarily for its use in the conflict. Diffs to some previous cited examples here, for ease of reference. N-HH talk/edits 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the first such example I found. In the lede and infobox, I reviewed and restored links to Italy, which is on my list to be delinked. I also must have restored some links in the table, rather than leave it inconsistent. Looking at it now, I don't see why I came to those conclusions, but anyway you wanted an example. I haven't edit warred, so I am presumably not the target of this investigation. Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily prove or disprove my 'guilt' either, or that I don't restore links. As I said, I do have a list I work to, but I also often deviate from it by not delinking something which is on my list, or remove other linked terms not on my list where the situation warrants. I do occasionally have afterthoughts, but most of the changes take place before I hit the 'save' button. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually that did occur to me after I made that observation that I might not notice such examples, for precisely that reason (ie that they are restored pre-save). And it's not an investigation! I know some don't believe me, but I genuinely want an answer as to where broader consensus lies (and, yes, obviously like anyone else I'd prefer it if that agreed with my position), I've highlighted some editor actions simply to demonstrate the point/issue, not to single anyone out. N-HH talk/edits 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I’m counting 57 posts by you on this page. That is exceeded only by Michael C. Price, who has 66. If the rest of us grew fatigued of the high number of postings you two are making here on this issue and stopped responding to you, would you interpret that as indifferent acquiescence and a tacit invitation for you two to wade into the guideline to make changes? Or would you leave it alone?

    Because the above RfC is not just a !vote, it is a collection of statements of position accompanied by thoughtful reasoning. It is becoming increasingly clear that the consensus of the community is that the current guidelines need no major revisions, and perhaps only some tweaks to some details to sanction some real-life practices shared by many.

    Accordingly, the time is rapidly approaching to abandon your practice of railing daily on this issue and of trying a new tact the moment an RfC you just started appears stillborn. After the community declines a big hearty bowl of half-cooked tripe, half-cooked tripe with Caspian sea salt is equally unappealing. One does not accomplish one’s objective by arguing a point until the heat death of the universe. Please note that tendentiousness is officially a type of disruptive editing.

    I note also your expansion of your RfC vote (∆ here), after the RfC wasn’t producing the hoped-for outcome and looked like this a moment before your expansion. You wrote of a new-found epiphany that “But either way these issues need wider review and a genuine broader consensus.” Translation: I didn’t get what I wanted here so I’ll go fishing elsewhere.” It seems exceedingly likely that you would have seized upon a favorable outcome at the RfC as a basis for immediately wading into the guideline to make your revisions. This is known as forum shopping and spin-doctoring. It too is prohibited conduct.

    So when this is all over, both of you really do need to drop this for a reasonable period of time—at least six months—or until a genuinely new issue arrises, whichever comes first. Greg L (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg, stop impugning my motives and launching these bizarre tirades. It is getting to the point of being abusive. I quite openly added an extra paragraph to clarify my points that was entirely consistent with everything I have said all along in this debate, and my post included a note that I was doing that, and when I'd done it in relation to other posts. I am not an "extremist" or "tendentious" on this issue, nor am I fishing or forum-shopping for anything other than a genuine, agreed, broad consensus. That's the whole f##king point of this RfC, which, as they unfortunately often do, has simply seen the same old faces, myself included, appear and disagree. As you must know if you've read anything of my - admittedly somewhat voluminous postings - I have consistently said "I agree with most of the delinkings" - I've even agreed with some of the examples you yourself have cited. I've also always said that in some cases, eg nationalities and professions, I'm ambivalent. I make very few link-related edits either way. I have never touched or edited the guideline itself, and never would do without clear and explicit agreement for any change I tried to make. It's a very odd world you live in - possibly one without dictionaries - if that's what you think being "extreme" or "tendentious" is. Persistent and a bit verbose, maybe. But we need wider input than from the echo chamber in here. I'd have thought you'd be grateful for that attempt, especially if the result turns out to be that it confirms your assertions about where WP-wide consensus might lie, rather than mine on some points. Then, the next time someone like me pops up asking "hang on a second, where is the consensus for all this", you can point them to here rather than obfuscating and making bold assertions about what everyone supposedly thinks without any evidence to back them up. I'm as bored of this debate as I suspect you are. However, despite what you say above, we don't seem to have moved forward one way or the other yet. Nothing has become "rapidly clear" as a result of this RfC except that the same names still disagree, and that you and I seem to have developed the habit of having pointless arguments. N-HH talk/edits 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We're digressing. One of my edits seems to have been controversial—that involving "Bolivia". I'm not saying I'm absolutely right or wrong, but as I said in my vote earlier, I would expect the iterative process of WP:BRD would come into play in cases like this. I am extremely unlikely to editwar over an article and changes such as this, except to negotiate the most optimal solution for all concerned, above all the encyclopaedia. My talk page would have been infinitely more suitable venue than this page. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I have seen quite a few edit wars over this sort of thing. Also, I think it's harder to point to wp:brd when changes are being made to so many pages, as opposed to when people are looking at a specific edit on a specific page. No one's going to follow all those changes, and it might be a bit stalker-ish if they did. Say I took the view that this issue was so important to me and WP that I went around with a script that re-linked lots of words - would you think it was OK for me to say that someone else could always follow up and de-link some of them, I promise not to revert them? N-HH talk/edits 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Are you suggesting you have seen me frequently edit war over these things? I don't follow ANYONE around delinking relinkings. Most of my gnoming is done with me rarely revisiting an article, so with the exception of edits to the 400+ articles on my watchlist, I would not know if any of it had been reverted, or if someone left a message regarding an edit on the relevant talk page. It would be unlikely that I would care one way or another unless someone engaged me in discussion. Anyone seeing a gnoming pattern on my contributions list would know to make a bee-line for my talk page. Important point for the record – there are precious few such talk page messages about unlinking. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor and I are having a disagreement about the interpretation and application of WP:OVERLINK in the context of a specific article here. The views of other editors with an interest in linking could help move this discussion along. Thanks . Ground Zero | t 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble scrolling

Why is this page nearly 400 KB long? That is ridiculous. If anyone is concerned about archiving inactive threads that may need to be accessed, a link can easily be provided on this page. Tony (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Because questioned are not answered, which are therefore re-asked.--Michael C. Price talk 00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That is why we have an archive and the potential to directly link into it here. I still cannot scroll properly. It seems exclusive to make it hard for anyone without a super-fast connection. Tony (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Poodle/dog?

Someone has just added another sentence to it. I am still totally confused about what it means, so I suppose a lot of other users will be too. At the very least, the example of piping "poodle" to "dog" is unsuitable, since there is an article on "Poodle". Can we start by finding a better example? Then I might have a hope of understanding the principle involved. Tony (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So could someone paraphrase in simple English what the poodle section means? Tony (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN. A. di M. (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean the section isn't broken, or the guidance means don't fix something unless it's broken. I'm at a loss. Tony (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to clarify. The idea is that it's better to create a redirect from a more specific page to main one, and intentionally link to that redirect, than to link to the general page and use a pipe to have it appear as the desired word, as a)it's a misleading pipe, and b)the redirect can easily be changed into a full article later if needed without having to change all the links.
You're right that the poodle example is a lousy one, but the principle is sound. For a real example, I've done some work recently on the Mission: Impossible (film series) articles, prompted by the announcement of the fourth film. At that time, per our long-standing conventions to not have articles for films not yet in full production, it didn't have its own article. A redirect to the film series article, which did have a nascent section on the fourth film, was appropriate. I also intentionally linked to the redirect in the franchise's navbox, on the grounds that we wouldn't need to replace the link when filming started, just turn the redirect into a separate article. Sure enough, once filming was confirmed, such an article was created, and is properly linked from the navbox to other related articles.
The idea falls flat a bit when people use bots to bypass redirects, forgetting that redirects are cheap and not always wrongly placed. But that's a tangentially related topic more about the bots than the underlying links. that's what WP:NOTBROKEN, which A. di M. mentioned above, is about; redirects are not broken links and don't always need fixing.
Hope that helps.oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the example. It is better now? A. di M. (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think so. It certainly isn't an example where the redirect is already a separate article, so it works in that regard. It is a bit obscure, but I think that may be necessary at this point, considering that obvious examples probably already have their own articles. Like poodle.oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Usually they have their own articles, but how about Anacortes Ferry? It isn't obscure (it's a ferry). Art LaPella (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better example, I think; thanks, Art. Tony (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I came here after seeing Nations and intelligence#References, looking for some guidelines backup for saying that links in refs similar to

<ref name="Rindermann">Rindermann,H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 6 67−706 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract</ref>

Which renders in the expanded reference as

Rindermann,H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 6 67−706 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract

should instead be formatted similarly to

<ref name="Rindermann">Rindermann,H. (2007). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations]. ''European Journal of Personality'', 21, 6 67−706</ref>

which renders in the expanded ref as

Rindermann,H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 6 67−706

I did not find such support here because the guideline explicitly limits the relevant advice to the "External links section". I suggest that this be changed to read, "External links" and the wording modified as needed to make clear that the guideline applies to external links wherever located. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • We don't use ref tags in the 'External links' section because the tags will eject the entry into the footnotes/references section. We are not supposed to show the 'raw' url, whether in the refs or EL section. The rest of the format is correct, AFAICT, except for the unitalicised journal name (now corrected). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What I was looking for was guideline support for the assertion, "We are not supposed to show the 'raw' url, whether in the refs or EL section". AFAICS, this guideline only supports the "EL section" portion of that assertion. Also, I'd like to see guideline support for an assertion that 'raw' urls should not be used inline. There might be special cases for exceptions, of course (e.g., website= parameters in infoboxes). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find that. Instead, I found Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers: "If you have a URL (webpage) link, you can add it to the title part of the citation, so that when you add the citation to Wikipedia the URL becomes hidden and the title becomes clickable." So the question becomes whether to remove the word "can" from the guideline. (Actually, there are lots of guidelines that don't say what everybody means, and I complain regularly.) "inline" presumably means WP:LINK#Syntax, which also sounds too optional. Art LaPella (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it more directly: I propose that the section of this MOS guideline currently headed "External links section" be re-titled as "External links", so that the guidelines therein apply to all external links wherever located. Comments? Objections? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about how to link in an article

I am in a dispute with another editor over how to link to a specific page. The article in question is Smallville (season 10) and it involves the linking of the character "Lionel Luthor". I linked the character's name to his specific page (Lionel Luthor). The other editor wants to link to Characters of Smallville#Lionel Luthor because "other characters are linked that way". The other characters in question do not have their own page, and that is why they are linked that way. The editor says "it's to keep consistent", but I thought that we should be linking to the most directly relevant page. In this case, my assumption is that the individual page is the most relevant and not the small blurb that appears at "Characters of Smallville" before sending you to the individual page. Really appreciate other people's thoughts on this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to comment that we should link to the specific page, but it now seems to have resolved itself based on a post by the other editor. --Ckatzchatspy 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_10&oldid=1195557566"