Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 4 March 2009

Support and opposition

Supporters of the "build the web" rule include: LA2, sjc (strongly), Mike Dill, GWO, tbc, AxelBoldt, Koyaanis Qatsi, 24 (strongly), Enchanter, Eclecticology, Tarquin, llywrch, Patrick, till we *), Toytoy

I always add too many links in articles that deal with imaginary topics: SF, TV, movies, urban legends. This possibly helps people to go back to the reality. It's usually next to impossible for a SF movie to link to another one, unless filmmakers wanted to do so. But all fictional subjects link to the shared human knowledge base. -- Toytoy 02:57, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Opponents include:

This is an unfair request to vote. I might as well say I'm opposed to motherhood and apple pie as list my name as an "opponent" of the "Build the web" rule. Of course we should build the web. Yet, I also believe that there is a cost to over-linking - potentially, quite a high cost. The hard part of our job as editor/contributors is finding the right balance. The discussion at wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context and its related archive page(s) is more balanced and detailed than the discussion here. Rossami 17:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note: the appearance need not be like shown above; if all words are links, there is no need for underlining, a different color, etc. These could be reserved for the more important links, so that the appearance would remain the same as it is now. (comment by Patrick moved off the main policy page)

• Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Make only links relevant to the context where this topic comes up several different times in the discussion thread. Rossami 13:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• What Rossami said; this dubious "guideline" is in direct conflict with WP:MOS, WP:MOSLINK and WP:MOSNUM. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• SupportOn the contrary: this guideline is fundamental to the very concept of Misplaced Pages. The point of this page is that "articles should have wikilinks to other articles", no more, no less. The other guidelines limit the extent of the linking, but the mindset represented by this guideline is the reason that we have the {{deadend}} and {{wikify}} templates: sometimes we just don't wikilink enough.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Allwiki

While I don't support the idea of wikipedia articles having hyperlinks for every word, I'd support a function where you could input a piece of text and see which words/phrases have entries in wikipedia (and/or wiktionary), and which ones would be redlinks. Andjam 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It exists, it is the #ifexists function. See WP:PF. 72.139.119.165 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One line summary

There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. Please don't remove it simply because you think the summary is inaccurate for this guideline. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 03:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You start with the premise "There being a need for concise one line summaries...". I question that premise. I do not see a need for a one line summary. The only possible summary which is that concise is already on the page - the page title. The next layer of detail is the introductory paragraph. Our introductory paragraphs are not always perfectly written but creating an eye-blurring template with a redundant sentence adds nothing of obvious value to the page. I'm removing the template and pasting it below pending further discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Link articles sideways to neighbours, and upwards to categories and contexts to create a useful web of information

Thanks for copying it here. The discussion is taking place at Template:Guideline one liner. Stevage 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: See {{Nutshell}}. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What links here comment

Could someone explain the sentence:

Remember that a link can also be useful when applying the "What links here" feature from the target page.

I know what the "What links here" tool does, but still don't understand how extra wikilinks help it.--Commander Keane 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if linking makes an article more useful, it follows that an increased number of backwards links is also a Good Thing. - BanyanTree 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does "If you are not happy with a link, improve the link or improve the linked article. Only in rare cases is it better to remove the link altogether (apart from the case of a duplicate link)" have to do with dead "red links"? All too often I see links that didn't need to be links in the first place that are red, but this guideline seems to imply that the red-links shouldn't be touched. Twocs 15:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you should use common sense and remove ridiculous red links. In many regards, this guideline is rubbish (ie is in dynamic tension with Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context)--Commander Keane 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Allwiki periodically re-evaluated

I'm referring to:

"The wikipedia community evaluated and eventually rejected the allwiki concept. It is periodically proposed for re-evaluation"

I have been here for over a year and have never seen allwiki re-evaluated. So can the statement be reduced to:

"The Misplaced Pages community evaluated and eventually rejected the allwiki concept."

--Commander Keane 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Quotations should not contain wikilinks proposal

A proposal relating to this policy has been created at Misplaced Pages:Quotations should not contain wikilinks, please discuss on that proposal's discussion page. Hollow are the Ori 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What Allwiki is not

Allwiki is not the idea that articles of Misplaced Pages or Wiktionary are linked to text elements of articles in order to assert relevant context. Frank W ~@) R 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The converse, namely that links by which to assert relevant context are not plainly links of all given words, sentences or expressions in a page, is currently discussed elsewhere. Frank W ~@) R 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Query over guideline status

Can someone advise me of the circumstances in which the tag was added to the top of the page, particular, the nature of the consensus that was achieved? The content doesn't look like a guideline, and to claim that it "is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow" appears to be a stretch. The status of the information about "allwiki" is unclear in relation to this "guideline". There's none of the detail and precision that is typical of guidelines, but rather a series of instructions unsupported by logic or other reasoning. Tony 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There appears to have been no discussion or consensus concerning the change from semipolicy to policy. Thus, I intend to change the tag back to semi tomorrow as an opening measure, unless a convincing case is made for retaining it. Tony 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Intention to remove the semiguideline status of this page

There is no sign that consensus was gained on the addition of the guideline or semiguideline status of this page.

The text is full of vague statements, and the page lacks cohesion, coherence and focus. It is not in an appropriate register for a guideline.

I intend to take steps to remove the guideline status in two weeks' time (13 September 2007) unless a good argument is put here to retain it. Tony 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not do so. This page has existed since long before we started making the artificial distinctions between "policy pages", "guidelines", et al. Consensus is demonstrated by the mere fact that it's been around so long and has no significant disputes in it's history. It's also a remarkably accurate description of the way the project functions. Within limits, articles are improved by hyperlinking.

By the way, this page can also be found in Meta where it is equally well supported and applies to all the WikiMedia projects.

The text is vague because it's a guideline. That means there are lots of exceptions, considerations and nuance. If it could be reduced to absolute rules, we'd call it something else. That's not to say that the wording can't be improved, though. If you think you can improve it, be bold. Rossami (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to point to where this so-called consensus is. It needs to be discussed. The page, as I've pointed out, lacks key aspects of a guideline and is in dynamic tension with another MOS submanual. This is an unsatisfactory situation.
Where, for example, is the original consensus for making this a semiguideline, and then a full guideline? I've searched for it, and came away with the impression that this is POV-pushing page for just one or two people. Tony 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep reading the archives - not just of this page, though. You'll have to check out the Village Pump archives and the other common discussion pages used back in 2002. Some of those discussions were moved to Meta and others were simply archived into the page histories. (We were not in the habit back then of creating special archive pages for every discussion.) You'll have to do some real digging if you really want to read it for yourself. This is one of the foundational pages from the very start of the project.
If you look at the pagehistory, you'll see that the page was tagged as "semi-policy" in Dec 2004. The concept of "semi-policy" was changed to "guideline" in the spring of 2005. The tag was applied without dispute as soon as the category was created and upgraded when they changed the designation. The age of the page also serves as evidence of consensus because at Misplaced Pages, silence generally implies consensus, especially on well-read and well-linked pages. Many people have read this page and you are the first person to contest it.
As to the principle behind the page, it's a fundamental expression of the way that a hypertext-powered reference is supposed to work. It explains to those new to the concept that the organization of information is not bound by hierarchy - it can expand across multiple dimensions simultaneously in ways that paper-based references never can. Effective use of hyperlinks can bring readers to new information - knowledge that they might not have thought to look for themselves.
At the same time, there can certainly be too much of a good thing. Any policy can render absurd results when taken to absurd extremes. That is the very principle behind the concept of dynamic tension - being asked to balance two competing priorities almost always gives better results than measuring on only one factor. WP:CONTEXT is the counter-balance.
Finally, you've said twice now that you think this is POV-pushing. I'm not sure what POV you think is being pushed here. How do you think that changing the header on this page will change any behavior of editors? Why do you think this guideline is a bad thing for the project? Rossami (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am again removing the "debate" line from this page because the debate was never about this side of the balance. The debate at the time was whether WP:CONTEXT was necessary or healthy for the project. That debate is long ended. If you want to flag the current page as disputed, do so directly using {{disputedpolicy}}. The link to the talk page of WP:CONTEXT is inappropriate for your stated goal. Rossami (talk)

• Tony, I'm afraid you are mistaken in your assumptions on how Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines work. As Rossami points out, the fact that this page has been around uncontroversially for a very long time demonstrates its consensual acceptance. Pages aren't "made" a guideline through some kind of process or vote or whatnot. And I have no idea where you came across the idea of "semiguideline" because such things do not exist on Misplaced Pages. >Radiant< 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here remotely supports your contention that the status of the page ever received consensus. It has, in fact, no consensus at all, and I believe that to claim this is fraudulent. Now listen SunShinesOutOfYour..., you've acquired a nasty habit of telling people, or is it just me, that they're "wrong", plain "wrong", or mistaken. I find you offensive. Tony 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant has a few good technical points, but I have to concur that this is not a Misplaced Pages guideline. The fact that it has existed for a long time as a page on Meta is utterly irrelevant; m:Deletionism and m:Inclusionism have too, but they are not only not WP guidelines they do not exist on WP at all. I've tried to improve the text of this thing some, but it is mostly a lost cause, because it is an unfocused (albeit short) ramble, provides no guidance at all, just a summary of history and differing viewpoints, conflicts with three guidelines, and is diametrically opposed by WP:CONTEXT which has far more buy-in in Misplaced Pages of 2007. I.e. both WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT are necessarily essays, not guidelines. No one is arguing for this page's deletion; it is simply confusing to editors to present them with competing essays one of which claims without consensus to be a Misplaced Pages guideline (as opposed to a well-liked Meta braindump). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

shortcut

New shortcut: WP:BUILD. Not sure how to edit the above template on the page. ⇒ SWATJester 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed policy tag

Now, let me get this right: you are allowed to dispute policy on WP, aren't you? Rossami has suggested the tag, and I've added it.

Or is it that case that you're not allowed to dispute Radiant's view?

Reverting the tag will be a serious breach of accepted behaviour, and will result in a complaint. Tony 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Read the documentation for {{disputedpolicy}} - "It is not intended for ... indicating a personal dislike of the document." Furthermore, a single user's objection does not mean that the "status" of a long-standing guideline is disputed, not by a long shot. If you object to the wording, {{sofixit}}. Handwaving that "this page wasn't approved by the official guideline building process" is irrelevant since such a process doesn't exist. >Radiant< 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're not acting like a Nazi. No one is allowed to dispute this article, because you say they shouldn't: that's what it comes down to. You're also in defiance of the other user on this page who suggested that the tag be added. You're crazy. Tony 11:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's law. You've just lost the discussion. >Radiant< 11:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So you operate on a win/lose thing, do you? I really don't care what your link to some law says; not interested. Looks as though you and I are in for a protracted, nasty struggle. Tony 11:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you get yourself in trouble for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, Tony1, I suggest you go read those policies and make sure you're willing to abide by them. Also, you might want to be aware that a Wikiquette Alert has been filed regarding your behavior. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Essay not guideline

This should clearly be designated an {{Essay}} not {{Guideline}}. It wanders, does not actually advise much about anything, is written in an informal tone like an essay, does not appear to have consensus to be designated a guideline, directly conflicts with the Manual of Style (and well as WP:MOSLIST and WP:MOSNUM, which is one of the most widely and strongly accepted guidelines on the system, and just overall seems dreadfully out of focus, wandering here and there as it does into historical "allwiki" curiousities that no one but wikihistorians care about, and so forth. Has some interesting points, but this is so not guideline material. The fact that it was considered interesting (in both positive and negative senses of that word) and appealed to some but by no means all editors (the competing WP:CONTEXT is far more heavily relied upon today) all the way back to 2004 or 2002 or whatever is of no consequence; there is no clear consensus that this document is a 2007 Misplaced Pages guideline. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think it could be better worded, Misplaced Pages:be bold and fix it. But summarily downgrading this from guideline will be vigorously opposed. This is a fundamental explanation of the way a hypertexted reference work functions (which may now seem obvious to you but is still a new idea to many of our readers/editors). I will also dispute the assertions that this guideline directly conflicts with the Manual of Style (though a few of the examples could probably use updating based on the new standards for numbers, etc). I see this page as an integral part of our style guidelines - a clear description of the essential balance that we need to strike between this guideline and WP:CONTEXT.
I will concede that it is informal and has some asides. That's how all our policy and guideline pages used to be written. Frankly, I prefer that style but if you think it should be more formal, propose some changes.
I will also concede that right now we have more trouble with people over-linking than underlinking, hence the current focus on WP:CONTEXT. But removing the page will lead us to equal but opposite imbalance. We need both measures in order to maintain the dynamic tension. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, perhaps both this and WP:CONTEXT would be improved if we merged them into a single page which explained both sides of the balance on one page... Rossami (talk)

I don't think so. This page would have to be reconceived and rewritten completely to qualify as a guideline or even to justify appearing on the same page as "Context". Tony (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'd been taking it for granted that the page might need updating based on the changes that have been made to WP:MOSLIST and WP:MOSNUM since this page was originally drafted. I finally had some time to re-read those pages and I'll tell you that I don't see anything in either page that is inconsistent with the guidance on the WP:BUILD page. Nor can I find any conflicts with the Manual of Style. Show me what I'm missing, please. Rossami (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not even talking about the inconsistency in fact; just the inconsistency in tone, tenor, texture and style. This is just vague musings that come over as a personal, pet obsession. Try to rewrite it if you can, but until it's completely redone, it's a laughing stock. Tony (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you shoot me

...for boldly de-guidelinifying, I do have my arguments handy and I do have a plan. I'm heavily involved in patrolling style guidelines, but it's a real chore. One thing that would make it a lot easier would be for some of the 67 style guidelines to get promoted to editing guidelines, which would mean that theoretically, more people will be interested in keeping an eye on them. Anything that makes editing guidelines look silly will thwart this plan, and this stubby-stub of a page is an example of a silly editing guideline. It has one or two nice ideas which could easily slide into other guidelines, IMO. WP:Writing better articles has some content in common. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the earliest guidelines the project had. Demoting it to "essay" status demeans a lot of its value. It also creates a strong possibility of confusion over the precedent between this page and WP:CONTEXT. Having one as guideline and one as essay sends the message that they are to be weighed differently. In fact, they are in dynamic tension and only work if both factors are considered.

That's not to say that this page couldn't be improved or merged somewhere. But I don't think the fact that the page is short is inherently bad. It says what it has to and no more. Rossami (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if there's a long-time sense that this is the way to balance this issue, I have no problem keeping it as is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Allwiki section

I think the Allwiki section is sort of unnecessary. It's not saying anything that WP:CONTEXT doesn't say, while having no continuity from the top of the page. It's not a necessary part of the guideline. This would be far more appropriate over on WP:CONTEXT, or, probably, on its own page, which both of these guidelines would then link to. I really don't care which, but I definitely think it doesn't belong here. Thoughts, anyone? --Aervanath's signature is boring 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in there because the proposal to switch the MediaWiki software to an allwiki concept is a perennial question. Whenever we've removed it, new editors again start to argue that we should link everything automatically, without realizing all the reasons why doing so would be a huge disservice to our readers. If you can improve the wording, be bold, but I'd be hesitant to remove it altogether. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating deleting it entirely. I'm saying it should be moved somewhere else, and then linked to from here. Like, the guideline should include the sentence "Misplaced Pages does not use Allwiki", with a link to the WP:Allwiki page, or the Allwiki section in WP:CONTEXT. Either way, I'm going to be bold and rewrite that section as you suggested.--Aervanath's signature is boring 07:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That section is necessary, even essential, to put this page in context. Sooner or later, you'll need to come to the realisation that your aims are thwarted by the technical inflexibility of the MediaWiki system: bright-blue and underlined links by default, rather than a less in-your-face colour and no underlining as default with options for brighter colours in user preferences. The purist BTW idea of linking just about everything would be served best by having links not show at all until you hang the cursor over linked items; then the reading experience and look of the page won't be so actively degraded by linking and autoformatting.

The technical facts and the resistance of the MediaWiki developers to doing anything about linking and autoformatting, have increasingly forced people into a minimalist position on linking and autoformatting. These people are not necessarily antagonistic to the BTW principle; rather, we believe that the technical limitations of the system, until fixed, place severe limits on the wisdom of undisicplined linking. Please see the current debate at MOSNUM. TONY (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my "aims": I don't disagree with the current policy at all. I was just disagreeing with the placement and wording of the Allwiki section. I still think that section would be better placed in WP:CONTEXT, but I don't care about it enough to push against consensus at the moment.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• CONTEXT would be better integrated into MOSLINK, and this page made into an essay; that's my angle. TONY (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Build the Web" dismissed?

Moved from User talk:Aervanath#BTW: begin
I was taking my cue from "Don't overdo it" on the BTW page, which seems to be saying that the community has dismissed the basic idea. TONY (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I originally wanted to remove that section entirely, see Wikipedia_talk:Build_the_web#Remove_the_Allwiki_section. I think that particular section is superfluous precisely because we already have WP:CONTEXT. There didn't appear to be consensus to remove it completely, so I re-wrote it here] to make it flow better. I can see from the talk page that you are not a big fan of WP:Build the web, but it is one of the fundamental building blocks of Misplaced Pages.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite is a considerable improvement. Frankly, the extreme BTW concept will work only if linking is made more flexible (i.e., no blue splash and underline—then I don't care if every single word is linked). It's the obstruction to the reading experience that I don't like. Actually, on second thought, linking everything is a problem in that it takes from editors the ability to highlight valuable links. But I don't want to get into a big debate about this; suffice it to say that we need to remove trivial links under the current technical regime. TONY (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you misunderstand the point of the Build the Web guideline. (It is possible that the wording has changed since you last read it. I have a feeling it will change again as the result of our discussion here.) The point is not that everything should be linked. The point is that we should HAVE links, period. There are plenty of articles marked with {{wikify}} and {{deadend}}, precisely because this guideline is so fundamental. If you think that the current version of the guideline is not clear on that point, then feel free to re-write it so that it is clear, or give me an idea of what would make it clearer so I can make the change. I will emphasize again that I do fully support the limits on WP:BUILD that are listed in WP:CONTEXT and the Manual of Style, but I feel that WP:BUILD is necessary to serve as a constant reminder that we shouldn't underlink, either.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Aervanath#BTW: end

No problem, then. If BTW is no longer pushing for extremely high and undisciplined linking policies, it and CONTEXT don't need to be on separate pages. But I'm concerned that there are still people hanging around this page who want to encourage WPians to make "trivial" links all over the place. Ultimately, it would be better not to have three pages, but one: MOSLINK. But merging is not a high priority for me at the moment—perhaps a medium-term goal. TONY (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that those people you are referring to are either long gone or have accepted the consensus that WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK represent. Either way, until I see what form a merged page would take, I'm going to be skeptical of it, to tell you frankly. I like the idea of having the three pages in dynamic tension.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I re-read the three guidelines closely, they are all talking about exactly the same subject, and it really doesn't make sense to have them all in different places.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My take is that there are some contentious subjects where the outcome is better when you split them into two or three pages and let people with different viewpoints concentrate on the pages they like, because it reduces the number of fights, but I don't see anything like that issue on this page at this time. Maybe it was contentious back in the day, I don't know. I support a merge. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I don't see much dynamic tension, frankly. And this page appears to have been a one- or two-man band from the start. I think the BTW philosophy might get a look-in at a new, merged MOSLINK in its own section, but until the linking system becomes more technically sophisticated (don't hold your breathe), I don't think it will ever go beyond a hypothetical frame. TONY (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this page had a lot more support when it started, or it wouldn't have stayed as a guideline for so long, I am thinking of writing a proposed document that would merge WP:BUILD,WP:CONTEXT, and WP:MOSLINK. Right now, WP:BUILD is just a general exhortation to do our job as editors of a wiki and make wikilinks. WP:CONTEXT provides some common-sense rules on how to prevent overlinking. WP:MOSLINK tells us what the links should look like. I propose this merger because it doesn't make sense to have these in seeming contradiction with each other, when they're really not. I will start it at WP:Build the web/MOSLINK merge (feel free to jump the gun and start before I do). We can work on a limited consensus first before we start pushing it out for community evaluation.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some history. Yes, this was a very contentious debate once upon a time with some users taking rhetorical stances at either extreme of the debate. Once we realized that the two goals could be held in dynamic tension, the debate cleared up. The decision to document that debate in two competing pages is more an artifact of history than anything else. I would agree that a merger is now feasible in theory, though I'd worry if the page ends up too long to be easily readable. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When I first discovered this page, I was perplexed as to why it had attained "semi-policy", and then "policy" status, when it didn't look or sound like policy. By researching the history, I found that one person had slipped it into both of those statuses, one after the other, without any semblance of consensus (there was, as I recall, no debate). I'm relieved to see that it's back at guideline status. Aervanath, your proposal sounds like a good idea. I'm just concerned that none of the text that supports a move towards a more disciplined culture of linking in the project be watered down or challenged. In general, rationalising styleguides is a damned good idea. I know that Lightmouse supports it in principle. TONY (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Para just edited that is totally at odds with WP's aims

Think carefully before you remove a link altogether (apart from the case of a duplicate link). Remember that what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may actually be useful to other readers.

This seems to ignore the need to avoid catering for diversionary browsing on WP, and the notion of disciplined linking that has been increasingly embraced as a way of highlighting our high-value links rather than the previous scattergun approach of linking anything you can; the latter simply dilutes the links that we want our readers to click on.

I suggest that this para be deleted altogether. Tony (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BUILD is meant to be interpreted in light of WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK. Just as WP:CONTEXT is meant to limit indiscriminate overlinking, WP:BUILD acts to limit indiscriminate underlinking. This is the point of this paragraph, and so I have to oppose it's deletion. However, I'd be interested in exactly what you mean by diversionary browsing, since that sounds like exactly how I use Misplaced Pages: just browsing from one article to another, finding info that I'd never known before about topics I hadn't even known existed. But you possibly mean something else.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)]

By the way, this would become moot if we could get WP:BUILD and WP:CONTEXT merged into WP:MOSLINK. I've got a draft going at WP:EMP, but at the moment it's basically just a copy-and-paste job. It's not really ready for widespread viewing yet, but I know that this is a goal that we share, so I'd appreciate your input. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

After some consideration, I've speedied the draft I was working on. It was getting to be too large and unwieldy, and I think that the current setup of dynamic tension works better, by providing guideposts that limit the extremes, as opposed to a single document dictating what should and should not be linked.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think people just ignore this BTW pages as being an eccentric, bizarre vestige of the past. Tony (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? We're banning wikilinks entirely, then? (yes, that's sarcasm.) But I have to say, if WP:BTW is such an "eccentric, bizarre vestige of the past", does that mean that {{deadend}}, {{orphan}}, and their associated categories are useless as well? P.S. Also, you never answered my question above regarding what you mean by diversionary browsing.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here's a statistic for you to mull over: as of this writing, there are a total of FIVE (5) articles in Category:Articles with too many wikilinks, and yet there are 32,315 articles in Category:Orphaned articles, and 515 in Category:Dead-end pages. Looking at that, I have to wonder why you seem to think that there is such an epidemic of overlinking, when it looks to me as if the pendulum has in fact swung too far towards underlinking.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC currently open on linking dates of birth and death

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it so far, there's an RFC currently open at WT:MOSNUM on whether dates of birth and death in the first sentence of a biography article should be linked or not.

This is an issue that has recently come to a head, with the new deprecation of date auto-formatting, and recent bot-driven de-linking sprees. Jheald (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific merge proposal

I've hacked out a merged version of WP:MOSLINK, WP:OVERLINK (aka WP:CONTEXT) and WP:BUILD, as we agreed was desirable. It's at WP:Manual of Style (links)/merged. Please comment on that talk page. I know it still needs brushing up, but let me know if I've left out anything major. If there are no objections, I'm planning on substituting it for the current version of MOSLINK. This page (BUILD) contains virtually nothing that isn't there - once the merged version is in place I would suggest either simply redirecting this page to there, or incorporating the existing text of this page into some other more visible page that new editors are likely to read.--Kotniski (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) MERGE DONE per general agreement. --Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No such actual "merge" seems to have occurred. A 40 hour discussion on another talk page is insufficient for destroying a five year old guideline, hence I have restored it. -- Kendrick7 06:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

This page should not be merged into WP:MOSLINK. This page doesn't deal with the style issue of linking, but rather with the consensus view of how Misplaced Pages should operate in more general terms. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time I suggested renaming WP:MOSLINK to WP:Linking so it wouldn't be merely a style guideline. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember you commented negatively. Anyway, would it settle this new dispute if we did such a rename?--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have mentioned this issue (without any names) at WP:AN/I. I was hoping it would prove to have been unnecessary, as we could continue the discussion amicably, but we must stop making uni/bilateral changes to the long-agreed stauts quo - and certainly avoid things like "vandalism" in edit summaries.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as Kendrick7 notes above this guideline has existed for five years. I have no problem merging WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK as they are heavily related, but this guideline is a fundamental part of Misplaced Pages (not a mere style issue) and part of the reason most of us are here. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were fundamental, there would have been objections as soon as it was merged. It was just one more of the vast number of unneeded page in guideline space which make finding proper useful guidance more difficult to find. The fact that it existed it this form for many years doesn't change the fact that there was consensus to merge it. Now if you want to bring it back, please do as other civilized editors do and respect BRD, make a proposal, make your case, discuss and help reach a conclusion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You've got the steps in BRD messed up: your merge was Bold, the Revert occurred today, the next step was Discussion. Not a revert war. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, the merge was not B because it was preceded by (and supported by) D.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Cole: did exist. You were in on the merger, and compromises were made at MOSLINK to secure your support. Some people were most unhappy at those compromises, but endured them for the sake of peace. Your tense is full of spin at the top, too. You meant: "... should not have been merged", did you? Your spin will convince no one. You're free to start your own BTW page as an essay. Nothing stopping you. Tony (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were with the language of chronological item links. I was unaware of your longstanding attempts to water this guideline down because of your objections to it or I would have opposed the merger of this guideline into a style guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, you're not still on about date linking are you? This page had nothing of substance on that or any other issue, so there was nothing to water down. And the fact that the target is a "style guideline" is irrelevant - it could just as easily be rechristened as I've already suggested.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a proposal at one time to bring back BTW as a "historical page" (but not as the target of any shortcuts) - maybe that solution would help satisfy those with a sentiment for this piece of prose?--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Um ... you stood by at the time, and now suddenly claim that you weren't aware of the merged contents? Why do you raise issues within an hour of Kendrick's atttempts to re-fragment this style guide? Could it be ... somehow related? The reasons for merging are for the sake of our editors—those who rely on the style guides. They do not want guidance on linking in three separate locations. To return to that would be utter madness. Tony (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I bring it up because of WP:BRD. The merge of WP:BTW was reverted, and the time was for discussion. Instead you (and Kotniski) chose to engage in edit warring. Stop it. You won't "win this game" by trying to force your view over everyone else. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read my response above? It's utterly absurd to suggest that the merge was the "bold" step in the BRD cycle. The merge was done after discussion. It's your/Kendrick's sudden undiscussed restoration that's bold and should not be repeated until consensus is reached.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one was unaware of the merger until today and am disappointed to have discovered that Misplaced Pages:Build the web has simply disappeared. Yes, some of the ideas from that guideline have been transferred to this one, but as a page outlining the philosophy of interconnectedness, BTW did a far better job of it than the merged page now does. Among other things, the very phrase "build the web" was evocative and compelling; what we have now is dry and lost in a mound of rules, rules, rules about how to use links.

I appreciate the desire to streamline and consolidate our guidance (and I support the merger of WP:CONTEXT and WP:LINKS), but in folding a guideline about principles into a guideline about formatting, you've dessicated the principles.

Bring back BTW. It's not a style guideline, it never was, and the merger, while well-meant, was erroneous.--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So what purpose does a separate page serve? What principles are not reflected clearly in the merged page? We aren't here to espouse philosophies with emotional language, but to give editors (whether in disagreement with other editors or simply unsure for themselves) solid guidance to solve real problems. If the guidance on a subject is all on one page, that not only makes it easier to find, but also prevents people from "guideline shopping" when looking for arguments to back up their position. Clearly we want to have lots of links - this page says that in various places, in language not dissimilar to that of BTW - but that's balanced by a desire not to have too many links, and putting all the guidance on one page makes it easier for people to find the right balance.

Maybe you would be happier if we renamed this page WP:Linking like I always assumed we would - then we would be clearer that it's not just part of the style manual?--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FG completely. I also note Tony1 is again being disruptive by splitting off conversations from their original talk page. Tony, do not do this again. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was one of you two who resurrected this talk page without discussion, knowing that many interested people wouldn't be watching it since it was merged. Let's have the conversation here now if you must, but less of the accusations of others being disruptive - this is another in a series of quite unnecessary incidents caused by failure on the part of you and a few others to discuss before making changes against consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "many people wouldn't be watching it". I think more people concerned with this page will be watching it, and so any discussion of merging it elsewhere should occur here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the merger into MOSLINK, few users will have this page watchlisted. I am moving the discussion, thus far, to the MOSLINK talk page. Do not remove it from that page, Cole. Tony (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's faulty logic Tony. In actuality, more people concerned with this page will have this page watchlisted than will have MOSLINK watchlisted. This page has also existed far longer than the other page. Stop moving talk page discussions it's disruptive and inappropriate for you to decide this unilaterally. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke, while this is still being worked out, I moved the section below to the other page, so at least it'll be near where Tony moved the other section to. I agree that there are probably two different groups of people watchlisting the two pages; it's a dilemma. -- Earle Martin 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resurrect this guideline?

Entire section moved here so more people will see it. -- Earle Martin 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Bit out of order of Earle to support restoring it so strongly and then to restore it himself - but please put it right by removing or {{tl}}ing the "guideline" notice from the top.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with the conflict of interest here—we should have asked an uninvolved admin to do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I've also added a link to where this page is being discussed. -- Earle Martin 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page being discussed on another page? If there's actually strong support to downgrade this to an essay, I'll file an RfC, but let's please discuss this in the correct forum per WP:TALK. -- Kendrick7 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony claims that "more people will see it there". I personally think that this is a more appropriate place, but I'm holding off from moving discussion back here without more support for the idea, lest we get another Tony-tantrum. -- Earle Martin 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any discussion on the wrong page is moot, in my opinion. -- Kendrick7 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Be bold, says I! The WT:MOSLINK crowd can make do with a hyperlink. -- Earle Martin 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Kendrick7 reverted Kotniski's restorations of the BTW redirects with an "rvv" (= revert of vandalism) edit summary. I have undone both of Kendrick7's reverts as being highly improper, (1) due to the false allegation in the edit summary, (2) because it is uncollegial to Tony, who is currently unable to spend more than a tiny amount of time on Misplaced Pages, (3) because there has been nowhere near enough preparatory discussion beforehand, (4) the arguments are weak, (5) there is no consensus for what Kendrick7 wants, and (6) there is no hurry.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I will revert vandalism as I see fit, thankyou. Clearly, the target of those shortcuts is this page. -- Kendrick7 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. You are wrong.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be acting deliberately and repeatedly to direct those redirects to the wrong page. I suggest you stop. -- Kendrick7 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They go to the current guideline - the right page. Please stop trying to imply that you have the right to undo anything that was agreed without your personal participation.--Kotniski (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If the merged page really contains all the details the original page did, why are you revert warring to have it link to that (allegedly same) content here? It just seems odd to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not the same, over there there is much more detail, obviously, and it is the currently maintained guideline on the subject, which is what people expect to link to when they use these shortcuts.--Kotniski (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is hardly out of date, it's barely a month old. Again, why are you revert warring over those shortcuts? Those shortcuts originally pointed to this page, not that page, so 99.95% of all incoming links should be to this page. And why is it every time there's some disagreement with MOS I feel like we're trying for newer levels of WP:LAME? Edit warring over a shortcut: has it really come to that, that you must gang up on another editor to force him to nearly violate 3RR? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As the children say: he started it. But "this page" is now AT that page - or it would be, if you and your oppressed other editor hadn't quite bizarrely begun undoing without discussion what you KNOW was agreed before. This page only has any current content in order to display it for discussion purposes.--Kotniski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, a situation we wouldn't be in if you and Tony hadn't engaged in revert warring to keep it a redirect. Mergers (and unmerging) should generally be uncontroversial unless something was lost or changed during the merge that people are trying to protect. And I don't see that here. So I again: why are you revert warring over a merge? Seriously, why? Wouldn't it be simpler to just let this be than to think you'll "win" by revert warring? And ditto for the shortcuts. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't see that I've been revert warring any more than you have. I've just been trying to protect the work that I did and that everyone supported and praised as a great improvement. Anyway, discussion's on the other page, so no point continuing this here.--Kotniski (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on another page doesn't apply here, per WP:TALK. -- Kendrick7 03:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, discussions concerning several pages should take place in one place and be advertised on all of them. Per common sense. And that was done here. Don't wikilawyer.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7 you have broken 3RR on both redirects. Please self revert immediately or I will report you to WP:AN3.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. You don't like my edit summaries, OK, I get it. -- Kendrick7 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be using "rvv" in edit summaries, which apparently stands for "revert vandalism". Please don't do this unless you really are reverting vandalism, or you'll upset people.--Kotniski (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to discussion to remove this guideline

Can someone please provide a link to where removing this guideline last month was "extensively" discussed? It certainly wasn't on this page or a subpage that I can see. -- Kendrick7 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was linked to from here - the link is still there above (#Specific merge proposal) (though it's probably all been archived now). To repeat - the guideline wasn't removed, it was merged. Everything of substance (not very much in fact, as you will see if you analyse the text of this page objectively) was included in the merged guideline. If you think anything's been omitted (apart from nonsense), then please say so, but be specific.--Kotniski (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. It was removed under the guise of being "merged" as decided by editors working somewhere else (although, again, I still don't know where, as I still can't find this "extensive" discussion). Building the web isn't even a style issue to begin with -- this looks like simply empire building. -- Kendrick7 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You can look in the archives of WT:MOSLINK - it was a couple of months ago, and not just one discussion. I don't have a clue what you mean by empire building. I keep suggesting that MOSLINK should be renamed WP:Linking to make clear that it's not just (or even principally) a style guidline. Would that satisfy your concerns?--Kotniski (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See here], here and here; there may be others (Kotniski may know). The first of these three links points to the closed RfC on the merge proposal: this issue is settled already. Kendrick7, you realize, don't you, that you are doing things bass-ackwards? Before making bold reverts, you should have come here first to ask.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

None of which was on the talk page here. This clearly enjoys has enough support as an essay, which does not require consensus. Once the lock expires I will tag it as such. -- Kendrick7 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, as long as it is not connected with MOS or editing guidelines in any way. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Would someone comment out the {{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}} while this page's status is in limbo? Dabomb87 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Seems fair. Hope this helps show that my restoration of the text was made in good faith. -- Earle Martin 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed action

Please see my suggestions for action at WT:MOSLINK#Proposed actions, and comment either there or here as appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no substantial comment over there, so let's bring the discussion back here. Rather than use {{historical}} or {{essay}}, let's use a new template I've just created, {{former guideline}}. With appropriate parameters, it would look like this:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) BTW

Sums the situation up nicely? --Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think I'd prefer to use {{Guideline}}. From memory we've deleted templates like {{former guideline}} in the past, preferring {{historical}}, but that's certainly open to change. Hiding T 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we obviously can't use {{guideline}} at present, since consensus has determined (for the second time) that this page should not be marked as such. I'd be perfectly happy to use {{historical}}, but I thought this graphic and more informative description might be more appropriate than the red cross for a page that has been merged rather than rejected or overturned. --Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not prepared at the present time to state that such a consensus emerged, if it is all the same to you. I'd rather allow this discussion be allowed to remain open a bit longer than you've allowed so far, and see where it takes us. I'd also like to avoid declaring things like consensus was determined "for the second time". We're not in a pissing contest, we're having a collegiate debate which can run its course as and when. Looking over this page and the page this discussion was previously on, I'm not finding myself as moved as you are to declare any strong consensus, to be honest. I'd rather just let people comment and see what develops. If no-one else has commented after a couple of weeks or more, I'd imagine the issue will have resolved itself, but I don't find the need to make any declarations at present. Hope you can accommodate some tortoise paced thinking for me. Hiding T 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The main discussion was at WT:MOSLINK. Both the numbers and - more importantly - the strength of argument clearly showed that this page should not be marked as a guideline. If that changes in the future, then it's easy enough to change the label on this page accordingly. But in the meantime people arriving at this page have a right to know what its status is.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My only comment on this before going back to my self-enforced break from this: Kotniski unilaterally decided discussion has ended, so I wouldn't count on getting any more input. Further, Kotniski misrepresents the state of things: note he says this is the "second time" consensus has been reached to demote this guideline; this is factually incorrect of course. This is (if anything!) the first time. The other time he refers to wasn't a discussion on demoting this page from guideline but merging it with MOSLINK. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to the same thing. One of the consequences (and major benefits) of merging two guidelines is that you end up with only one page marked as a guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• "But in the meantime people arriving at this page have a right to know what its status is." They know what the status is. It's a page in the Misplaced Pages namespace. It doesn't need a template at the top of it, there isn't a law which says it does, and until there is a general consensus on what tag should go on it, we might as well leave it bare as anything else, to save edit wars and arguments over side issues. I appreciate the time everyone will allow to let the matter settle itself out. Personally, I don't think you are the best person to determine where the strength of argument lies, given that it was mostly your argument that you have decided was strongest. That's not intended as a slight, just my personal feeling on the separation of the roles of judge, jury and executioner. Kotniski, I think you've made your views known and understood, and I think maybe you just need to leave the issue time to settle itself down. You don't need to have the last word here, agreed? Hiding T 11:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's wait another week. Though I find this all very disruptive - once we've had a discussion with as clear a result as this, I would have thought those who originally took the viewpoint that ended up being rejected could have the decency to accept it and move on to other things. That's what I do on the (frequent) occasions it happens to me. (And this is the same reason the date linking debate is still going on and on.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking for another week. I'm not acting with a lack of decency. I'm just trying to move this on, and I think your efforts are starting to become counter-productive. People are arguing with you because you keep responding. Like I said above, you don't need to have the last word here, agreed? Trust other people. Have good faith. Hiding T 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Hiding: good faith is a two-way thing, too. As far as I can see, Kotniski has been a model for us all in his forging of consensus and his skilful incorporation of the two guidelines into MOSLINK. Please calm down and be reasonable. Tony (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, if you'll forgive me, I happen to disagree ever so slightly. First off, I don't think I am being unreasonable, or in any sense anything other than calm. I'm simply asking for people to take the time to allow the dust to settle, and trying to amicably point out to Kotniski that the person who initiates something and carries most of the argument forwards, isn't the best person to decide the outcome. Now if you think that's unreasonable behaviour, I'm at a loss. If you can show me where I've tag warred or edit warred or done anything other than say that I would prefer this to be a guideline, then maybe you've got a leg to stand on. But I'm quite happy to stand on my editing record. I haven't engaged in edit warring, I don't wish to, and I'm not going to. Now, if you think I'm the person you really need to be calling into question throughout this discussion, I suggest you review the whole debate again and have another look at which editor's behaviour got this page protected. You won't see my name in there. I just want to make sure the right decision is reached in the right way. And I'm sure you'd agree that I'm the sort of person that knows that the right decision is not always the decision I would prefer. Yes I would prefer this page to be a guideline. But if in a week or a month or a year's time I'm the only one here and there's tumbleweed blowing, you can rest assured I'll add the essay tag myself with the edit summary per talk. There's no deadline, is there? Let's try and take the heat out of all of this, yes? Or do I need my big brother, too? ;) Hiding T 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be straying... Let's get back on topic with a new thread, which we can link to from the hatnote on the page.

How to label this page

As far as I can see (and I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that the outcome of the recent discussion at WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline? is compatible with this page's being marked a current guideline, though if someone wants to make that argument then go ahead), there are three possibilities:

1. {{essay}}:

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

2. {{historical}}

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

3.{{former guideline|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)}}

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcut Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)

For me, the third is simply the most helpful and factually accurate. Are there any reasons to prefer either of the others, or something else?--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Um, excuse me? Could you perhaps re-factor this to avoid the statement in brackets which is unhelpful, in breach of etiquette and counter-productive? And could we also recognise the other possibilities:

4. {{guideline}}:

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

5. No template.

For me the fourth option is the more preferable, but I would not be opposed if a consensus formed behind the first option or the fifth. I reject the third option, since in the past we have deleted such templates, and I feel it just adds another unnecessary template to the many we have. I'd also prefer it if we avoid any attempt to place a time limit on this discussion, and simply let it run its course. Hiding T 15:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But please, give arguments if you're supporting the fourth version, since we had a detailed discussion which rejected that option. It's no help to just say "I like this" - you must address the arguments which appeared to show that it was wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm arguing for guideline status since this page is a concise, actionable expression of what we are in part attempting to achieve, and it is extremely useful to new editors to have things in a short form to avoid confusion. I still recall my first time here as a Misplaced Pages editor, when I found the overly long pages with their very confusing tags incredibly daunting. This was back when things weren't even policy pages but rules to consider and the like. The shorter pages were much more helpful, and there are a number of editors who still find shorter guidance incredibly helpful. I'm also concerned that the drive towards longer, more complicated guidance is occurring at the same time as the trend for fewer contributions and fewer contributors, and the anecdotal evidence that the two are linked. I'd like Misplaced Pages to remain as accessible and open to as many people as possible, and to allow us to remain as adaptive to and considerate of as many people's needs as possible. Hiding T 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So how is a new editor supposed to chance on this page among the hundreds or possibly thousands of pages we have hanging around project space? And surely you're not suggesting that this page in its present form is useful for that purpose - it would need to be rewritten, firstly to make sense to ordinary human beings, and secondly to present both sides of the issue. I certainly agree about making the documentation on Misplaced Pages accessible, and how to do that is a much larger issue than just this page. (Too long pages is one problem; too many pages is another; lack of overall logical structure is another.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

well, see back when I came here, there was an introduction to Misplaced Pages that took you through all these pages. Lately we seem to have templatised all that, so we have a template that lists policies, and another that lists guidelines, so I assume they would find it like that. I mean, forgive me if I am being silly, but wouldn't that particular problem be faced by any guideline, no matter what it was? Hiding T 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohm and I agree with regards the fact that too many pages is another problem and a lack of overall logical structure is another. I'd certainly like to see the last one addressed; it would probably take care of the first one. My only fear is that it would lead to too long pages as a result. I think there has become a tendency on Misplaced Pages to attempt to bolt every single possible door a horse might escape from, inclusive of cat flaps. Hiding T 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So if we were to introduce "baby" guidelines aimed specifically at new editors, then there ought to be a special template directing them to those. But then "Build the web" is a rather opaque title to put on such a template. Are there any other cases like this? I'm thinking maybe about WP:Categorization, which is another long guideline, but works in conjunction with other pages: Help:Category (which, like most Help: pages, is not particularly helpful) and WP:FAQ/Categorization (which is more of an entry point perhaps). Perhaps a rewritten, neutrally worded BTW could stand in the same relation to WP:Linking as the FAQ does to Categorization. But the whole system needs to be reorganized so that both new and old editors can find the information they need. At the moment it's a total mess, as I think we all know from practical experience.--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have gone off topic. I'm finding I'm not understanding the main arguments against this page at the minute. Either it has been merged into another page, which means it can't conflict with that page, or it hasn't been merged, which means it shouldn't have been deprecated? Hiding T 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, you're missing the point that this page disagrees with the new linking standard at WP:MOSLINKS, which is that articles can "be linked to other Misplaced Pages articles which are likely to add significantly to readers' understanding of the topic." The new standard would preclude most of our traditional links. For example, in the article on Ben Franklin, we would no longer link to Philadelphia, or electricity, or kite, or United States one hundred-dollar bill because none of those links are likely to "deepen" a reader's understanding of the topic of Ben Franklin. This page suggests, even encourages, those links. -- Kendrick7 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A reason to make MOSLINKS, and the rest of the MOScruft, not guidelines; they do not represent consensus, but the latest round of editwarring; they do not represent what Misplaced Pages does, but what one or another gang demands Misplaced Pages do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Anderson has been conducting a one-person crusade against the status of the style guides for some time; few people listen. It has not changed in substance. Kendrick, MOSLINK hasn't suddenly, or even recently, advised against such trivial links (although the dollar-bill one might be appropriate in some articles, and Philadelphia perhaps in a few). The recommendation against trivial blue has been well-established for a long time. Tony (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC) PS, under no circumstances is BTW framed as a guide line, either in scope or language. It seems to be pushing a marginalised one-horse cause. It is best framed as an essay, or a historical page. Tony (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Tony, however, has been nice enough to respond to all of my posts on the subject; some might think he had something to defend, besides the specious "authority" of MOS and its innumerable subpages.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• BTW was a guideline since 2002 up until a month ago. I would think that kite should be linked from the most famous person to ever fly a kite, myself. We can quibble over examples, and maybe Old Ben isn't the best, but we're still talking about a fundamental change over what is or is not linked. -- Kendrick7 09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so - BTW was too vaguely written to be considered to give any guidance about any specific situations. MOSLINK is now more detailed but still leaves a lot to the editor's judgement. I don't think anything has changed, certainly not fundamentally - or if it has, then it's changed in people's behaviour already, and the current MOSLINK reflects that. If you think that MOSLINK is wrong about something, then the best thing to do is to formulate and propose a change to that page. --Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was advice. Nothing we can say on this subject, here or elsewhere, can be more, and this was at least coherent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a different definition of "coherent" than I do. It certainly didn't address the topic fully, and we now have a page that does, so we don't need to distract and mislead people with this one any more.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm getting a little confused. In what way does this page mislead people? Hiding T 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly that the meaning of most of its sentences is unclear (read it, imagining you're a new editor, and you'll see); secondly that it seems to say "all links are good" (at least, it mentions nothing about the links which should not be made).--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For a long period of its existence, the page did contain pointers regarding links which should not be made. And I don't have to imagine being a new editor, I was one once, and I read it back then, and it didn't seem very confusing at all. It still doesn't. Where does the confusion lie? What do you think is the central message of this page? Hiding T 10:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, I don't know. "Make lots of links" seems to be the only message, though the reasons given are weird (it talks of abstract things like webs and nodes, when the real reason we create links is to help real readers). The "make links" message is certainly something that needs to be conveyed to very new editors somehow, but preferably with the accompanying message that we don't link everything just because we can. Then once people get used to the basics of editing and want more detail, they can come to MOSLINK and get the full lowdown on the topic. We should certainly have a summary page or section on linking for new editors, but (1) it has to be placed within the context of the pages that new editors read, to make sure that they see it; (2) it has to be written in clear explicit language; (3) it ought to mention that it's not always right to link; (4) it probably shouldn't be called "Build the web"; (5) it wouldn't be classed as a guideline in the WP sense. --Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have made a lot of assumptions there, based on a statement in which you indicate that you don't know what is wrong with this page. Let's track it back a little. How do the reasons given on this page conflict with the idea that we create links to help readers? Hiding T 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what's wrong with the page; I meant that I don't know what the message is. And there's no conflict between those things, but if you want to say something, say it clearly without introducing needless abstractions that many people will not understand.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I've just tried editing a page as a logged-out user and following some of the links. Obviously there are a lot of paths - perhaps they need to be cut down so that a new editor is taken to the information that we know is most likely to be helpful (such people themselves are in little position to know what links to click). One page I found myself on where the linking message seemed to be absent was Misplaced Pages:Your first article. Perhaps we should be thinking about adding to that page and others like it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Have we moved to the point where maybe that should be Misplaced Pages:Your first edit? regarding this page, though, and getting back to your point that you don't know what the message of this page is, I'd like to probe at that a little further. I don;t quite believe a person of your capabilities has no grasp of what the message of this page is. You seem to have danced around it a little, but I think you know what it is saying. So if all we are arguing about with regards this page is that it is badly written, that's a solvable problem, isn't it? Unless you're indicating that you don't want people to build the web, which would sort of defeat us being a hypertextual encyclopedia, wouldn't it? Hiding T 12:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a solvable problem, and it has been solved, by merging it into a well-written (he said immodestly) page that conveys the same message with much more detail available for those who want it. The only remaining problem seems to be making sure that new editors get the basic message(s) about linking without having to explore our appallingly ill-structured jungle of WP:/Help: pages. Do you see any other problem?--Kotniski (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm at a loss. If you don't understand what the message is, how do can you state you've merged it? Hiding T 12:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've merged what appeared to be the message. I kept asking people during the recent discussion to tell me what I'd left out, and no-one had anything to say (except Earle's complaint that I'd changed "the" to "a", which seems to be at about the same level of pedantry as "w" vs. "W"). Do you think I've missed something out?--Kotniski (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• At this point I think the page needs to be tagged as an essay or redirected to MOSLINK. Hiding T 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• I personally like number 3. This page, I believe was part of policy and it should be kept because if its large historical reference, but it appears to have been superseded. Foxy Loxy 11:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think BTW is still a very good guideline and one of the main things we should be doing here at wikip. Tom B (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'll go with door number three, thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• If I didn't say so above, yes, door no. 3. There's the procedural issue (already had consensus), the inappropriate angle and tone for a guideline, the almost total lack of distinctive content (it's said at WP:LINKING, and the fact that it's poorly written. Tony (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"the web"

Did I miss the definition of "the web" in the draft guideline? --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which draft guideline? I don't think "the web" was ever defined, as is evidenced by the confusion as to whether it means "the Web" (i.e. the WWW) or the Misplaced Pages internal "web" (which is the meaning implied by the text. Just one of the reasons why this page was incoherent, and was probably largely ignored for that reason.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing a trick, how is the Misplaced Pages internal web ringfenced from the WWW? Hiding T 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not. But the text of BTW mentioned only internal links, and the title spelt "web" with a small "W", giving the impression that it was about some internal web. --Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't follow. In what sense is the internal web we are speaking of not part of the WWW? In what sense, when we build the web on Misplaced Pages, is that not building the web on the WWW? Hiding T 10:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but BTW doesn't go into this. Our practice with regard to internal links is quite different to that with regard to external links. Yet BTW (despite referring to "the Web" as if it meant the WWW) fails to address external links at all. All these ideas are now addressed at MOSLINK, hopefully more clearly (though improvements are obviously still possible).--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you at all. In what sense is the internal web we are speaking of not part of the WWW? Hiding T 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that BTW (among its many other faults) fails to make clear what web it is talking about or how the internal web relates to the wider Web.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Um,, I can't relate your statements. Given you indicate you agree the internal web is a part of the WWW, how do the following two statements you make apply? Or are you saying this page is wrong in assuming everyone will be aware that Misplaced Pages is a part of the WWW? Hiding T 12:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's wrong in assuming that people will correctly read the minds of the people who wrote it. Indeed I think the different people who wrote it (and titled it) probably didn't read each other's minds correctly. If it talks about a "Web" without once mentioning the World Wide Web or any way of creating links to/from it, then people will be forgiven for assuming that the Web in question is not the WWW. Particularly since there is no capital W in the page title.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This page was created back when you couldn't have a capital w in the page title. And it sprang from a time and a place where its meaning was more readily understood, and was contextualised by being within stuff that talked about the WWW. Sadly, a lot of the history has been lost when the databases went down way back when, though. Hiding T 12:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you mean, it's ironic that it's not wikilinked. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I was going to stay out of this discussion, but I have to say that this is pedantry taken to the extreme. There's only one eb, and you're using it right now. Some people don't bother to capitalize the W. It's not an issue. Anyway, I severely doubt that anyone who read BTW took away the impression that it was referring to some kind of "internal web". The word you're looking for there is site, and this guideline wasn't called Build the site. -- Earle Martin 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the impression that I took away from it. Because that's what it talks about. If it meant something else, it should have said something else. Or as Dweller points out, at least linked to the World Wide Web. --Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't talk about an internal web. The word internal is not found once in the page. But this is a side issue which can be fixed with rewriting the page to better indicate what it means. Hiding T 12:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above, this has already been done (the result is MOSLINK).--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't linked web there, either. I made two changes, see where we go from there I guess. Hiding T 12:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this reversion unacceptable; if it continues, I will make Kotniski a party to the current arbitration. The way to clean up MOS is to throw pointless rules out of it, not to roll this in.

There is plainly no consensus to merge this page; it should therefore retain its status until there is consensus to change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I've reverted the guideline tag because quite clearly there is discussion here and elsewhere that demonstrates the community is unsure of how to move forwards. I think it is best if the page remains untagged for the time being and we allow time for all interested parties to express an opinion. I've also edited your comments because I've found some of your comments unhelpful to moving the debate forwards, which in my opinion is the only thing that matters. Misplaced Pages policy is to comment on content, not on the contributor. As we say round my way, play the ball, not the man. Hiding T 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's not the way consensus works. If there's no consensus to change the status, the status does not return to "undecided", it returns to the prior status. {{Disputedtag}} has been added, which notes that there is an active dispute over this, but the guideline tag should not be removed until a consensus to do so has emerged. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus works any way we want it to. But I'm not interested in partisan combat. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. I'm bowing out, because this sort of tag warring is precisely what I wanted to avoid. I was far more interested in discussing the underlying issues to an amicable solution. I've taken my concerns to MOSLINK. Hiding T 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Traditionally this is how Misplaced Pages works: until consensus to change something emerges, it remains as it was (this is how disputes in articles and deletion are handled, for example). I'm sorry you view this as a "battleground", but I've tried to stay away from this for the past week (with pretty good success). I'm also sorry that expressing an opinion appears to result in this now being a "battleground". I have no idea how to voice an opinion then without things falling apart. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise if I have offended you. I'm fairly well versed in how Misplaced Pages works, I've been an admin here for over three years now. I have no objection to people voicing their opinion, but I don't tend to engage in edit warring. I am a firm believer in trying to find a compromise, and it had seemed to be a perfectly acceptable compromise to just leave the page without a tag on it, if only to save tag warring. This page doesn't need a special tag to say what it says, when all is said and done. It wasn't the voicing of an opinion that caused me to declare the page a battleground, it's more my general feeling that there isn't going to be a middle ground found in this debate, and I don't want to get sucked into that. I hadn't meant to put it all on your shoulders; from reading and engaging with the debate it appears as if no-one is prepared to shift ground on what to do with this page. I'm practising good old fashioned dispute resolution and taking the long view. Regards, Hiding T 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Overruling consensus

We were having a civil and productive discussion here, and yet it has been derailed by the usual clique coming along and awarding itself the right to overrule established consensus. The merge of this page had consensus, when it was proposed that it be restored as a guideline there was consensus not to (or certainly there was no consensus to do so). I find it totally unacceptable and disruptive for certain individuals to take it upon themselves to throw out what people have agreed in detailed and thoughtful discussion, awarding themselves the right to declare an absence of consensus and to decree unilaterally how things are to be in the absence of consensus. There is clearly no point arguing with you lot, since your well-established tactic is simply to deny any assertion of consensus regardless of the objective evidence, citing the noise you yourselves are curretly making as evidence that consensus doesn't exist or never existed, and to further edit war as a means of creating more of that noise and disrupting reasoned discussion. I've had to report this again at WP:AN/I - I hope that we'll get the attention of an admin perceptive enough to see through what's been happening here. If not, then OK, you win; WP will no longer be ruled by the good sense to come out of community discussion, but by those most willing to waste their and others' time fighting. --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been over this with you further above, at MOSLINK and on your own talk page. I'm sorry you'd rather treat Misplaced Pages like a battleground than understand the reasons I've given you. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, a number of editors have objected to the "consensus" consisting of Kotniski and Tony1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, because you were part of the discussion (at least the more recent one) at WP:MOSLINK, that the consensus consisted of far more people than that. Locke knows (because he was part of the original discussion about the merger) that there was wide ranging support then (including him), and no opposition (apart from a brief outbreak of handbags that was quickly settled). You usually seem such a reasonable and sensible editor; I don't know why you are inventing your own version of reality over this issue (and then accusing me of lying).--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Particularly as Cole seems to have "changed his mind" over the consensus he was part of, just at the same time Kendrick decided to make a fuss here. It's not reasonable, and not the way things are done on WP. I agree entirely with Kotniski's complaint above.

What information, exactly, does this page contain that is somehow lacking in the merged MOSLINK? What is the actual substance of this page? It looks like an essay stub. It is not of the style or substance of a guideline, and there was consensus to merge it, after the merge sign had been there for months, to remove an historical absurdity. MOS needs to be rationalised, not fragmented. Tony (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And see what two editors show up to complain. I acknowledge that the two of them are in consensus on this; but is anybody else?

Tony asks, as usual, the wrong question: what is MOSLINK that it should justify swallowing up this page, which has never been part of MOS? since it really deals with a content, not a style, question.

Rationalizing MOS should begin with abolishing the large portion of it which has neither justification nor source, not making it longer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support MOS containing only questions about style, not about content in general. That's the first step in rationalizing it. DGG (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But links are neither a matter of style, i.e. spelling and punctuation, nor content, i.e. whether content is or is not linked doesn't inherently change the actual content. So it's its own matter entirely, more a matter of "accessibility" than anything else. -- Kendrick7 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So we have a guideline page about linking. It's now at WP:Linking - anyone can decide for themselves whether the issues addressed are about style, content or whatever: it doesn't matter. What matters is that it's a page that treats the issue in full and has come about through reasoned, long-term, constructive, good-faithed discussion, so as to be useful both for guiding new editors and for resolving (some) disagreements. There is no longer any need for this separate page (at least, not for it to be marked as a guideline), and since it is so manifestly incomplete it is most definitely not desirable. Anyway, we've been through that discussion, consensus has been reached as you all know by now, so please, people, accept that consensus like good Wikipedians, quit the against-consensus reverts (especially those based on untrue claims), and let's move on. --Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If consensus had been reached, we would not be having this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How does that follow? Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity.--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wandered over here from AN/I....I'd never heard of this page before now. But looking this page over and a few of the links above (including a poll that hardly ran past a day and didn't draw much input) I don't see any of the consensus you're talking about. I think you should start over, in a single place and try again. But I think that just claiming consensus where none exists is counter productive. If I'm wrong, please provide a link to a page that more clearly show consensus on this issue. RxS (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just added the relevant links to the AN/I thread. WT:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive 7 seems to be the major one. There was certainly much, much more than just a one-day poll. And we did recently start again, and got the same result. Clear consensus must be respected - if someone wants to change it, it's up to them to start a new discussion and achieve change. We can't have a situation where whenever a vociferous group decides it doesn't like something, they can go back to whatever version they feel like and insist on their opponents once again demonstrating consensus. That goes on forever and is what happened (and is still happening) over date linking. --Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear consensus doesn't need to be "respected"; it can enforce itself (although it rarely needs to, because almost everybody agrees with it). Kotniski's claim of consensus is: Tony and I agreed once upon a time, so the discussion is over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary states "reply to liar". I assume that means me. What "lie" am I alleged to have told? Indeed, what is your claim about only Tony and me supporting this position if not a demonstrable and deliberate lie? --Kotniski (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That you have "clear consensus". It's clear to you, and to nobody else; it isn't even clear to the unfortunate RxS, who wandered in here as a neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume it is now, if (s)he's looked at the links to the relevant discussions. You obviously have your own definition of consensus, which means something approaching unanimity, without requiring that the filibusterers engage in good-faithed discussion. Talking of which, can we get back to that? Is there any remaining reasoned opposition to removing the "guideline" tag from this page?--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is your presumption supported by any evidence, or is more I'm Kotniski, and therefore everybody agrees with me? Of course this should stay a guideline; the only objections to the substance are by those who claim, by the same post, not to understand it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, if we don't understand it, that isn't a great advertisement for a guideline, is it? If you understand it, can you explain in more dumbed-down language what it's supposed to mean, and explain how it is not redundant to WP:Linking?--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since it seems to me, as to most people, clear, concise, and substantive, it is difficult to paraphrase without cutting and pasting. I'll see what I can do; to cut down several sentences to a phrase or two would be unfair to the original.
• But the version in MOSLINK differs in both tone and emphasis, as may be expected after butchery by editors who do not understand it. I would not include this there, even if it were identical; this is not a mere "style guideline", those crutches put forward by the half-educated for the illiterate, it is the second grade of WP principle, and repeating it elsewhere is no reason to get rid of it, any more than repeating one of the Five Pillars elsewhere would justify a merge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines are no more "mere" than other guidelines. This never had any higher status than the MoS pages, and can never have had anything comparable to the status of the 5 pillars, otherwise at least someone would have tried to edit it up to normal standards of clarity and cohesion over all these years. Indeed it (or at least its title) seems at odds with one of the pillars - namely WP:NOT, which tells us that WP is not a collection of links, particularly external ones. We specifically refrain from too much "building of the Web".--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• My definition of consensus is WP:Consensus (as a whole, but these sentences seem particularly apt: Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two.) What definition can possibly justify Kotniski's claims of "clear consensus"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I still can't see what on earth this guideline has that WP:LINK doesn't. This makes me suspect that it's being treated as a private castle. I'd like to hear substantive arguments. Another matter I'd like explained is why the tone and poor prose qualifies as a guideline. I mean, the opening sentence is a hoot. The logic of the causality, resting on "since" escapes me. Comma would be nice, too. It's full of that kind of idle musing. What are you defending, Anderson? I thought you were on the side of high standards? Tony (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Substance

Setting aside the question of whether it should have been merged, does anyone actually disagree with what this page says? And if so, could they be specific about what is wrong? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Go back to the original discussion (the recent one at WT:MOSLINK) and read through the "arguments against resurrection", which no one has disputed. --Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be here.

• I see lots of arguments that this page can be merged, as redundant; that's the position that this page is right, but doesn't need to be repeated.
• GregL said it was incomplete, in that it omits his own motion in an RFC; but even that's not disagreeing with it; all our guidelines are incomplete.
• LaserBrain said, in full I've been monitoring this process and it's been going in the right direction; reinstating BTW is a step entirely in the wrong direction. That is a claim that this page is wrong, but lacks all specifics; indeed, it's another WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, omit all the pertinent arguments and attack the straw men. It's redundant (because anything it says is said elsewhere) and misleading (because it omits important relevant information). Why anyone's arguing for this except out of pique or sentiment is beyond me - I've certainly seen no explanation.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I omit all the procedural arguments on whether this page should be merged, because they have their own section. To me, that's not the most interesting question (and enough people are pained by it above that it's unlikely to be a peaceful consensus). Before we discuss where to put this, does anybody disagree with what it says, which is rather more important? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't say anything concrete, so it's hard to say. I certainly disagree with its being stated without qualification and then marked as a guideline (which would imply only "occasional exceptions"). --Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alive/dead/alive/dead/alive/dead/alive...

Unfortunately the rollback feature doesn't let you add an edit summary, which is a bit daft. What I would have said just now was that so far I count at least five separate editors challenging the "consensus" to demote this guideline. So I've returned it to disputed guideline status. -- Earle Martin 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (giving up all attempts to not participate in this)

But you and I know that they are unware of the facts or being simply disnhonest. You know that consensus has been properly established - why are you, an admin, playing along with their cynical game?--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know no such thing. -- Earle Martin 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, deny the consensus. That's the game plan. Whether it's date linking, this, whatever else. No-one can enforce consensus, so if you don't like it, just ignore it. You know we had a discussion, you know all the arguments came down on one side, you know a clear majority supported that viewpoint, but of course, no-one can prove that you know it, so just claim it's not so. I expect this sort of behaviour from mad POV-pushers, but as an admin, you should be very ashamed. (By the way, rollback is for edits that don't require a summary; to add a summary you should use undo instead.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rollback should only be used for vandalism; this was a misuse of rollback by Earle. For future reference, there are scripts that allow users to use their own edit summaries. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How soon we forget

Earle, remember writing this? Or was that your good twin?

WT:Linking#Resurrect this guideline?

Namely WP:Build the web. Note: for the time being, I have restored the text of the guideline, as it is unfair to expect that people can argue for the life of someone when then have already been executed. This is for discussion purposes, not edit warring, and I will adhere to the eventual result of the discussion. -- Earle Martin 12:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis added by me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion's not over. Do you have a point to make? -- Earle Martin 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, there must be some uncounted ballots still floating around from the November 2008 presidential elections. In your mind, is Dubya still the prez?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What a silly comment. -- Earle Martin 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion does seem to be long over (back at WT:MOSLINK#Resurrect this guideline, which was the discussion in question). Please abide by the result and remove the guideline tag. If some new discussion here leads to the conclusion that the tag should be restored, then it can be done.--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is clearly not over. Unless you're contending that all the talk right here on this page is a mirage, which would undoubtedly come as a great surprise to everyone participating in it. -- Earle Martin 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of it is off-topic. The only person who seems to be making any attempt to justify the guideline tag is Sept, and he seems to have gone strangely silent when asked for specifics. Can anyone else help him? We'd like to know what this page is actually trying to say, why it needs to be said on a page separate from WP:Linking, and why that separate page should be marked as a guideline. --Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• "What a silly comment. -- Earle Martin"—Earle Martin, could I remind you of your obligation as an admin to uphold NPA and standards of civility by example? Have you read WP:ADMIN? Tony (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought of half a dozen different ways to reply to you here, and will go with the most efficient and succinct of all of them, which is simply LOL. -- Earle Martin 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• How soon you forget: remember this one, Earle Martin?

Oppose. As said above, candidate is condescending and contemptuous,

rude and snippy and plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed. Such things are a big deal.

Would recommend not returning to RfA in future.

Tony (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the public seemed to have forgotten that, and he got through on the third pass. However, I seem to recollect Earle standing on the 'common sense' ticket. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have my own opinions on Earle Martin's RfA and administrative capabilities. However, they are not relevant to this discussion; can we all try to stay focused on content and not individual contributors? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That'll be the day. -- Earle Martin 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Silly comment"? Not at all. You see Earle, last I checked, the discussion had ground to a halt more than two weeks ago. At that point, six editors had spoken in favor of umerging "Build the Web" into a separate page and twelve editors were against. Not only were the opponents of an unmerge in a 2-to-1 majority, their arguments were more detailed as well. To any rational observer, the discussion is over. Apparently, when you gave the undertaking that I quoted above, what you really meant was, "The discussion will be over when I, Earle Martin, am good and ready to declare it so, be that next week, next year, or never."--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this over the last couple days and have a couple comments. First of all, the debate here has gotten a little heated and it might be a good thing to step back for a bit. Secondly, to the point I've not seen compelling evidence that a consensus exists here. The strongest case seems to be here , and for something like this I think it's borderline. At this point I myself would say the the discussion still needs to continue and that no consensus has been achived. I think you'd be doing yourself a favor by making sure many more editors are involved...RxS (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

a comment about the merge/revert war/thing

Im sure I read somewhere that if a guideline is in dispute a very senior member of the community has to get involved.  rdunnPLIB  10:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably also read somewhere that decisions on WP are taken by consensus, and that when consensus has been reached editors accept that decision. We're all learning fast here.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

to Kotniski=(yes i do know look at when i created my account please dont write at me as though im only new)

as far as I can see there was no proper concensus on the matter even some time ago (the summeries say it was just done) and as its a guideline set out by the head, surely mere editors cant just be the ones to diside what happens with something fundamentle (yes I know its a "guideline" but we must do things properly).  rdunnPLIB  11:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that to be in any way patronizing. But I agree this sort of thing should be decided by an admin; unfortunately admins are loathe to intervene in anything that is in any way complicated, they prefer to just block and go. So we have to operate on the basis of consensus, which we did undoubtedly have in this case (as I keep saying, the discussion was not on this page, but it was well advertised here, in case anyone was watching). However as you see, a certain clique has discovered that consensus needn't be a barrier to anything - it's how determinedly you can edit-war and stir up trouble that actually decides things. I've started a thread about this, now at WP:VPP#Is edit-warring the way we establish consensus?.--Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Please avoid insults and comments on personal traits of wikipedians. Statements like this: admins are loathe to intervene in anything that is in any way complicated do not contribute to cooperation, not to say it is false and misleading. Please discuss the subject, not the editors. Calling names is not only uncivil, it is merely waste of people's time and delay of the solution. - 7-bubёn >t 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just where are Kotniski's "insults", and why is the comment about admins (technical, as far as I can see) a problem? Tony (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement, technical or not, falsely portrays "admins" en masse as lazy or reckless ones, willing to deal with simple cases only. It is a problem because it may be perceived as an insult, even it was not intended as such. - 7-bubёn >t 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you asked and I am here, I'd like to mention that I have an impression that this phrase expresses a misconception that admins possess some kind of supersmartness to sole any problems quickly. They are not. They have certain tools, only because they have a degree of credibility they will not abuse these tools, since they are powerful. In all other respects they are not supposed to be better or smarter or faster than you. Quite a few very experienced editors do not want to have admin privileges. And opposite way, quite a few admins were desysopped despite all their smartness: they are human and may err, sometimes badly. - 7-bubёn >t 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, I picked the phrase in question at random. This talk page is abound of other examples of treading on personalities. It does not matter whether the person is good or bad. If he is good, then accusations are bad. If he is bad, he will just laugh. In both cases you gain nothing, only waste the bandwidth. The basic behavior policy, WP:NPA states is simply and plainly: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I understand that sometimes a person for some reason appears to defy any logic. There are venues of community dispute resolution barring personal confrontation. - 7-bubёn >t 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure to what level of detail I have to explain you wikipedia policies. If you still feel unconvinced, please answer my question first: what exactly is unclear in the rule "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? - 7-bubёn >t 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned or even implied any specific individuals, so I don't think I was being in any way uncivil. It was meant as a criticism of the system and the behaviours that the system encourages, not of admins as people. --Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statment unfortunatly does not read like that. rdunnPLIB  12:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Now that I have time to read K's statement at normal speed, yes, he might have avoided the criticism of admins. However, I believe there is over-reaction here. Admins' time would be better spent convincing a few of their colleagues not to block as a first rather than a last resort, and to communicate properly before and after the blocking. These are both policy requirements, and an incident only last week exposed wanton disregard of these rules. Kotniski's statement may have been slightly out of place here, but needs to be made in quite a few places on WP. Tony (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  "Slightly out of place" is a slightly correct statement. Any postfactum out-of-context whining will not change the system. If you think that the actions of certain admins are improper, you must discuss them in appropriate venues. This particular page is about improvement of a particular article. Once again, my remark is not limited to the comment about the admin. I stumbled upon this talk page by a sheer acccident, and I was quite surprized that such an abstract topic generated so much heat. It is not, like, Palestinian-Israel conflict here. I suggest to forget all "yes, but", apologize to each other (even if you feel you should not), and keep on. Please notice I am not threatening nobody with blocks, so I don't accept the accusation in "over-reaction". Don't you know that mutual incivility has an ugly tendency to escalate? I understand that sometimes a person just has to vent their frustration. But is this topic really worth anger? - 7-bubёn >t 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would merely add the observation, as a fact and not intended as a criticism of anyone, that my report at AN/I was archived before any admin responded (either positively or negatively) to the substantial evidence I provided. This does indeed indicate to me that "difficult" matters are less likely to attract admin attention. Only natural I suppose - if I were an admin, I'd prefer the quick and easy jobs as well - but I think part of the problem is that admins are expected just to act on the basis of what they see without talking to the parties first, which (if it were me) would discourage me from acting in those cases where I'd feel a need to discuss the parties' positions with them before judging.--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, sentence by sentence: why is MOS fragmentation required?

Further to Kotniski's point above, I've listed all of the text on the page here, with comments below.

BTW sentences

1. Build the Web is the idea of connecting relevant topics throughout an article since all articles in the encyclopedia are nodes in a hypertext system. Do not just write the article, but also consider its place in the web.
2. Make upward links to categories and contexts (Charles Darwin was a biologist; Sahara is a desert in Africa; the Enlightenment happened in the 18th century). Make sideways links to neighboring articles (for proton see also electron, Oregon borders on California). Introduce links from related articles to avoid orphaning the article.
3. Do not build category trees too deep and narrow, or too flat. Writing category directories first (top-down) will help ensure that subcategory articles get useful names.
4. Think carefully before you remove a link altogether (apart from the case of a duplicate link). Remember that what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may actually be useful to other readers.
5. Don't be afraid to create links to articles which don't exist yet. If you think there should be an article with that title, then be bold and make the link. Of course, the best way to build the web is to then go ahead and write that article.
6. Remember that a link can also be useful when applying the "What links here" feature from the target page.
7. If you feel that a certain link does not belong in the body of the text, consider moving it to a "See also" section at the bottom of the article. This keeps the web intact while removing overlinking.

Comments by Tony1

1. This appears to be so close in meaning to the opening of WP:LINKING as to be redundant.
2. The "upward", "downward" and "sideways" concepts are probably worth a mention at LINKING. The examples, aside from "desert" in most contexts, are covered at LINKING, I'd have thought. In any case, it would be more useful to show editors examples of where, say, "desert" might be an appropriate link (perhaps a pipe to the flora and fauna section of "Desert" from an article on the kangaroo rat or the prickly pear), rather than implying that "desert" should normally be linked.
3. Can someone explain what a "category tree" is (for less experienced editors), and what it is to build them "too deep and narrow, or too flat"? An example is needed for "top–down"—I'm ignorant of what it could mean. This could easily be included somewhere in LINKING, if it's useful (convince us).
4. Perhaps this could be noted at LINKING explicitly; however, I think it's already implied, isn't it?
5. Is there disagreement between this and "Red links" at LINKING, or the article on Red links? If so, could we resolve it?
6. This feature is discussed at Link maintenance in LINKING. Is it in conflict? If so, it must be very subtle.
7. This should definitely be included in LINKING.

So what is the problem? Can we agree which little bits might be added to LINKING, please, and then all get back to improving WP? Tony (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by ...

• Inactive project pages