| Revision as of 17:43, 27 March 2021 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →Resuming "be allowed to" discussion: misreading silence...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:47, 5 January 2025 edit undoLee Vilenski (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators75,216 edits →Micromanaging red links: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| (144 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive=2 | |minthreadstoarchive=2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}} | |||
| == |
== BLP rules == | ||
| If a red link is supposed to indicate that an article on that subject is needed, and is not supposed to be used for anything else, why is the only thing you see when you place the cursor over that word "the article does not exist". Why doesn't it say "article needed"? Imagine being a living person whose name is red-linked and all you see is "the article does not exist"! Misplaced Pages can be so confusing when it comes to living people. Sometimes we really care about how they are treated. How could we get that cursor message changed? --] (]) 08:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|SergeWoodzing}}, I am not really a fan of having the tooltip reading "article needed", because it implies that all redlinks, such as ], are appropriate. Maybe "This article does not exist {{emdash}} you can create one!" or something similar. ] is probably gonna be in your best interest. ''']]''' 06:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll try that - thanx. --] (]) 17:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| @] the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a ] in which we ] the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now). | |||
| == manual archiving == | |||
| Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of ]" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on ] or ]". ] (]) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your good faith actions but there is no need for manual archiving. This page uses automatic archiving, as notified by the following banner you will find in the talk page header: | |||
| :I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote ] to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for ] apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section ] discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? ] (]) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links. | |||
| ::Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or ]); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will ''correctly'' link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates ] when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick ] as to pick ]. ] (]) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it <s>less</s> '''more''' likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".<br> | |||
| :::However, condition #2 in ] says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "''{{tq|How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link.}}''" To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. ] (]) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, I meant ''less'' likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it ''less'' likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to ]. Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article. | |||
| ::::For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the <u>non-BLP</u> subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? ] (]) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Note:''' I have reverted the ] section to the previous version that was available on {{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Red link|1210073703|24 February 2024 }}. ] (]) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Red user name == | |||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}} | |||
| I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. ] (]) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If you are dissatisfied with the pace of archiving ] for some reason, discuss here on talk. Thank you ] (]) 09:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps the user in question was using a custom signature. If you can point to a specific example, I could look at it an confirm. -- ] (]) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Rationale for Francis Schonken reversions? == | |||
| == Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-) == | |||
| Francis Schonken reverted a group of edits and gave the following edit summary: "''reverting the entire change, per Walter Görlitz's suggestion''." | |||
| <br>I reverted in turn with the this edit summary: "''Where did Walter Görlitz make the suggestion? What were his reasons? Why didn't he do the revert himself? Please elaborate on talk.''" | |||
| <br>Francis Schonken , saying "''reverting a number of non-consensus changes to the guideline, take to talk.''" | |||
| <br>Okay, Francis Schonken, here we are at talk. I provided substantive explanations for each of my edits in their edit summaries. Please provide your substantive objection to each of those edits. ] (]) 07:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Made a quick diff between the current version and my latest edit (08:48, 16 January 2021). Only change <nowiki>]</nowiki> changed to Help space, which seems fair enough. What's the problem? ] (]) 11:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not sure whether you're asking Francis Schonken or me. ''My'' concern is the lack of any meaningful explanation for . ] (]) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: {{ping|Francis Schonken}} Care to provide any further rationale for your revert? ] (]) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * In general I didn't see your changes realising any improvement. To give only one out of many examples, you removed<blockquote>In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in ] of an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name.</blockquote>from the lead paragraph, which is a clear deterioration, lacking any form of consensus, of the guideline. We've been there before on another guidance page: messing with guidance text without sound rationale, resulting in an impoverished version of the guidance, all of it reverted by other members of the editing community. --] (]) 05:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* You refer to . In that edit I not only removed the text you quote above but I also added this text to the same effect:<blockquote>''Appropriate link targets.'' Links should point to a title that could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name. </blockquote>In short, there is no change to the substance of the guideline. Does that resolve your "deterioration" concern? - ] (]) | |||
| :**Sorry, you '''removed''' an essential part. Which, apparently, you don't see. Hence, I think all your edits to guidance pages can be reverted on sight, unless there's a strong preliminary talk page consensus for them. --] (]) 06:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::* You're right, I don't see any "essential part" that I left out. Would you please educate me? ] (]) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: {{ping|Francis Schonken}} Please reply. ] (]) 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: {{ping|Walter Görlitz}} It has been recommended that I make sure you are aware of this conversation. ] (]) 02:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::::::::::::}} The formatting in this discussion is atrocious. As for the text in the current guideline, there are ] problems. Use <nowiki><em></em></nowiki> instead. Text in references that should be notes. AS for the content itself, it now places too much emphasis on allowing redlinks to continue to exist and increases the level of certainty required for removing them. As such, it is a shift in our guidance and it was done without seeking or gaining consensus. ] (]) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|Walter Görlitz}} I want to make sure I understand your concerns. You refer to problems with the "current guideline." Do you mean the article as it appears today? ] (]) 06:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{edit conflict}} I suppose Walter refers to (16 January 2021). Yeah, missed that, think it should be reverted too. --] (]) 07:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Somewhat. The guideline as it stands now: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Red_link&oldid=1006860634. . ] (]) 08:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ah, I see, a lot going on before the diff I mentioned, none of which appears opportune: some verbosity added, other sentences shortened, several of these changes leading to awkward phrasing (so that the result is effectively an inadvertent modification of the actual guidance), putting guidance in references, etc. Yeah, the sequence should be reverted as unhelpful. --] (]) 12:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Walter Görlitz}} Francis Schonken restored the text changes I made starting on January 16. If you're comparing the current version with the November 26 version then you're not looking at any of my changes. ] (]) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am looking at cumulative changes. ] (]) 16:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Also, again, I didn't revert your January 16 edit yet, but will do so shortly (as support for it is insufficient, and for the reasons explained above), together with a number of edits between 2020-11-26 and the first 2021-01-16 edit. Again, there was no talk page consensus on these changes to the guidance, and over-all they appear counterproductive and/or suboptimal, as explained above. --] (]) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Comment:''' My advice to you Butwhatdoiknow is to start a new talk section where you present one single edit (or connected edits), and your reasons for them. Then, after that discussion is resolved, bring up the next one in its own new talk section. This seems to be the only way to get focused discussion on that edit (those edits) specifically, so you can avoid getting reverted made with vague or general rationales. ] (]) 10:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good idea. Will do. ] (]) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ping|CapnZapp}} the same goes for you too. --] (]) 05:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC) See also my latest comment in the ] subsection below. --] (]) 05:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You appear to think I have made any of the edits you object to. I have not. But since you are taking upon yourself to lecture other users, here's a lecture for you: don't revert changes with sweeping general edit summaries. You reverted user Butwhatdoiknow repeatedly, not caring he did not understand your reasoning, just repeating "you don't have consensus" over and over. That is not useful. Your edit summaries comes across as saying "reverting edit because I'm reverting". Yes, the edit lacks consensus - we get that because you reverted it. He then asked several times for you to explain your rationale without success. You and Walther merely repeated "because you lack consensus" as if that's a good substitute for ''why'' that consensus is lacking - only after I stepped in to advise him to discuss each change individually does it seem like it's working. You being forced to actually detail your objections, that is, so some semblance of constructive progress can be detected. Have a good discussion and a good day. ] (]) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your have no consensus. And, for clarity, after Walter drew my attention to them (see above), I object to them too: above I gave an analysis why I object to them. Stating that I don't object to them (in contrast to reality...), instead of giving an explanation which may me help change my view, is of course rather unhelpful at this point. --] (]) 09:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The current text says: | |||
| === Proposed edit re nomenclature === | |||
| :''In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject.'' | |||
| I propose to change the phrase "should be allowed to remain in the body of an article" in the second sentence of the lede to "should be allowed to remain in the ] of an article" to (a) conform to ] nomenclature and (b) provide an explanatory link. Any objections or improvements? ] (]) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Completely unnecessary. Makes the sentence longer without improving it. Also, completely unrelated to ], which makes <nowiki>]</nowiki> a ] link, which is a no-no too. --] (]) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I find the argument "Makes the sentence longer" overly harsh and not useful here. ] (]) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] First off everybody '''stop editing and reverting while a discussion is taking place'''. We need a stable version if discussion is to be worthwhile. ] (]) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|CapnZapp}} re. "stable version" – I've reverted to the stable version, that is the version that has been in the lead section – your (or was it ?) version (with the "body" phrasing) has been "stable" for eight days, , thus basically unstable, after which Butwhatdoiknow's "topic content" version was "stable" for three days (), so even more unstable, after which instability only further increased. No consensus exists for any of the new versions ("body", "topic content", "article content"), so I reverted to the version that was stable for over half a decade. --] (]) 07:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ec}} I really don't think anyone needs an explanation of "body of an article". Also "body" is not equal to "article content", which also includes the lead and the TOC. If what you're saying is "REDLINK should apply to the whole article, not just the body", that's a valid argument. I would then suggest the much simpler "should be allowed to remain in the body of an article" --> "should be allowed to remain in an article". ] (]) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Anyhow, the confusing "body" phrasing has been removed from the guidance: it had been introduced without consensus. The "body" concept of ] (# 2.3 in the numbered list) is unuseable, so linking to that guideline is only confusing. Also "article content" per the MOS:ORDER guideline (# 2 in the numbered list) is not what is intended in the REDLINK guidance (e.g. a TOC, linking to article sections, part of the "article content" according to MOS:ORDER guidance, should *not* have a red link to a "non-existing ... article section"). This route is anyhow going nowhere. --] (]) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have restored the version of the article under discussion (a version you created). Until the discussion concludes, if you have further changes please raise them here on talk rather than by edits. ] (]) 19:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's my thought: redlinks are discouraged outside of what ] calls "article content." So "in an article" would be misleadingly broad. So how do we communicate where redlinks are not discouraged? As Francis Schonken points out, "body" is confusing - does it include the lede or not? ] resolves this issue by calling the substantive sections below the ToC the "body" and the substantive sections plus the lede the "article content." I am proposing we do the same here. ] (]) 19:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} no, that amounts to nonsense. A term should be linked on first occurrence. If that first occurrence is in the lead section, then (if it is a legit redlink) the red link is in the lead section. <u>Similar when a term first occurs in one of the appendices or end matter (# 3 and 4 of MOS:ORDER): if linked there and being a redlink, either it is a legit redlink, and then it can be included there, or it isn't and then moving the redlink to the "article content" is not anywhere near an acceptable solution.</u> It does not depend on where in the article the redlink is to be allowed or disallowed. That's what the long-standing guidance is, and you can't change that without consensus. --] (]) 05:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC) expanded 07:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow|CapnZapp}} seems you both misunderstand. Neither the "body" wording, nor the "]" phrasing has currently consensus. Each of these phrasings has currently exactly one proponent. Both have apparently at least two editors (me, Walter) who oppose. Thus the article should go back to the long-standing phrasing, which BTW appears unproblematic (at least no actual problem has been demonstrated), while the new version variants are both a problematic unapproved change to the guidance. Both versions are problematic, as explained. You need consensus before either change is made. Since either change is problematic this is not something where a majority of one or two editors suffices, you need consensus, which there is not. --] (]) 05:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Comment: '''Stop''' repeating "you lack consensus" as a valid explanation for your objections, Francis. The mere fact you're reverting makes it abundantly clear consensus is lacking. More importantly, it doesn't explain ''why'' you object to his changes. (Explaining that red links can and do occur in lead sections is an example of a much more informative revert reason and so I'd like to thank you for that) By the way, I'm not saying I agree with Butwhatdoiknow, but he has clearly demonstrated his "actual problem" as an explanation for his changes, so {{tq|at least no actual problem has been demonstrated}} is either just wrong or worse, dismissive. ] (]) 09:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I explained above *why* these changes are inopportune, that is, why, *on content* they are inopportune (that is, apart from explaining the procedural matter, which is just to have a stable version during discussions). --] (]) 09:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Do we agree on what guideline intends? === | |||
| Stepping back, do we agree that the general intent of this guideline is to (a) support redlinks in what ] calls the "Article content"* and (b) discourage redlinks everywhere else. (*As Francis notes, redlinkss do not appear in a table of contents, which is automatically generated and points only to existing sections in the article in which the ToC appears.) ] (]) 14:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :As I already pointed out above redlinks can (and may) appear in the other sections listed at ], I'll expand a bit: | |||
| :* In a "Before the article content" section (# 1 of the MOS:ORDER list) they may for instance appear in hatnotes, tag boxes, infoboxes, image captions, sidebar boxes,... For instance,<blockquote>{{Split portions|Early baroque music|Middle baroque music|Late baroque music|date=February 2021|discuss=Talk:Middle baroque music}}</blockquote>(which could be placed in the "Before the article content" section of the ] article) would create a few legit redlinks. | |||
| :* Similar, in an "Appendices" section (# 3 of the MOS:ORDER list), e.g.,<blockquote>{{cite book |last1=Yearsley |first1=David |author-link1=David Yearsley |date=2019 |title=Sex, Death, and Minuets: Anna Magdalena Bach and Her Musical Notebooks |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a7GhDwAAQBAJ |publisher=] |isbn=9780226617701 }}</blockquote>could be an entry with a legit redlink in a "Further reading" section (one of the "Appendices" listed at MOS:ORDER) | |||
| :* Similar for the "End matter" section (# 4 of the MOS:ORDER list),{{S-start}} | |||
| {{s-lit| Fantasias for piano four-hands by ]'' }} | |||
| {{s-break}} | |||
| {{s-bef | before = ]}} | |||
| {{s-ttl | title = Fantasia in F minor | years = D 940 }} | |||
| {{S-end}} | |||
| ::Could be a valid succession box with redlink in the "End matter" section at the ] article. | |||
| :In sum, no, we don't agree on (a) and (b): this would change the guideline, and such change would be completely undesirable. --] (]) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs. | |||
| ::: Thank you for this clear and substantive response. I now see that I was operating on an erroneous assumption. I'll move on to my next proposed change. ] (]) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --] (]) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposed copy edit re plausibly sustain sentence === | |||
| :Add after that sentence something like: ''Red links should follow the same ] as blue links with a term being linked no more than ] and with care ].'' ] (]) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I propose changing | |||
| ::Is this a significant problem? Do we have people seriously arguing that this sentence overrules ] or other rules? If not, then adding anything is ]. ] (]) 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of ifexist series template == | |||
| :<blockquote>In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name.</blockquote> | |||
| In , {{u|JPxG}} added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how ''not'' to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create ], the page would then read | |||
| to | |||
| :{{xt|An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, since an article on Corruption in Northern Ireland exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world",...}} | |||
| Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page ] encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. ''']'''] 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Micromanaging red links == | |||
| :<blockquote>Red links should point to a title that could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name.</blockquote> | |||
| ] (]) <small>The preceding signature lacked a datestamp</small> ] (]) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Can I ask you why? What is lacking in the current version and/or what is made better by your suggestion? Cheers, ] (]) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I offered it as a copy edit to make the sentence more succinct. But, now you've made me look closer, I see that my wording is a bit broader than the original: The current version speaks only to red links already in an article. The proposed text also applies to red links being added to an article. <s>My guess is that my proposal is closer to intent of the current version.</s> ] (]) 19:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' – "... closer to intent of the current version" is of course abject nonsense: only the *current* wording is closest to the intent of the *current* version. Where would you get the "intent" of the current version other than by its *exact* wording? From your own imagination perhaps? No, the current version seems quite adequate, & quite clear in its intent. No need to change that intent, or make it less clear, unless it can be demonstrated that the intent would, for some reason or another, need to be changed, and then you need a consensus for that change of intent. --] (]) 07:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Comment:''' This line of reasoning does not do. With your arguments there can never be any change! Please stop talking about intent, as if there is some kind of objective solution behind the scenes! It is simply not constructive to try to divine some nebulous intent, and no editor can claim to know the "intent" better than any other. In actual fact, "intent" is what consensus arrives at, nothing more. Now then, if you want to keep Butwhatdoiknow from improving the article you should ''address his actual arguments'' Francis. Here's a couple of example approaches: Why do you feel the current version to be adequate? A more specific approach for the current discussion might be: Please explain why the article does not need to address red links being added in addition red links already in the article? More generally, I watch with concerns as you inch closer and closer to stonewalling Butwhatdoiknow here. The last talk section ended with you stating {{tq|In sum, no, we don't agree on (a) and (b): this would change the guideline, and such change would be completely undesirable.}} This basically says "I don't agree" without any substantiation. You never explain why you don't agree. You never provide any constructive criticism. You never meet the other editor half-way. You're edging precariously close to ] at this point, Francis, and I'd like to ask you to change tack. (I don't necessarily agree with Butwhatdoiknow. I'm concerned these discussions don't meet the standards of Misplaced Pages.) ] (]) 08:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{ping|Francis Schonken}} I agree 98% with CapnZapp's comment above and I encourage you to try to find a way to view bold and proposed edits without a presumption against change. One possible step in that direction: Try banning the word "consensus" from your Misplaced Pages vocabulary. | |||
| ::::: With regard to the 2%, I found your final entry in the last talk section to be on point (answering the question I asked) and supported by substance. More of that please! ] (]) 17:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''' – my line of reasoning is perfectly valid. It only says that if one wants a change of '''intent''' one needs to be honest about it and not try to sell it as "closer to the (existing) intent" which is abject nonsense. Butwhatdoiknow apparently either wants a change of intent (in which case they need to explain why the intent should be changed, or at least find consensus for it), or an improved wording for the same intent (in which case there's likely going to be little support if it isn't clear whether it does or does not change intent). --] (]) 08:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I now directly ask you to please stop talking about intent when you oppose or revert change. You're hiding your opinions behind it, and are worse off for it. Instead of saying "I oppose this change because it's against intent" (as if there was some invisible truth against which we measure changes to policy), try say something like "I oppose this change because I feel this specific aspect is lost or because to me that specific nuance was better enforced before. Here is a counterproposal that incorporates the gist of what I think you're trying to say." Try to be specific and try to be constructive. I would not have posted these comments if I didn't think you were straying significantly and repeatedly, Francis. ] (]) 09:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} please retract your above "... closer to intent of the current version" – I don't agree to it, and {{u|CapnZapp}} doesn't want to talk about intent. Said otherwise, if "intent" is the only rationale we have, then we really have got nothing, and I continue to oppose. So provide a decent rationale, not in any way or guise based on "intent" of whatever. --] (]) 09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ping|Francis Schonken}} I have removed "intent" per your request. What do you think about the "current version of the sentence only applies to existing red links and the new version expands that to include adding red links" change? Should we stick to the current version which, by silence, allows adding red links to titles that would ''not'' plausibly sustain an article (only then to not "be allowed to remain")? ] (]) 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::IMHO "only applies to existing red links" is OK for the sentence. I don't want to lose a sentence that specifically speaks about not removing redlinks if certain conditions are met. Creating new redlinks is a different topic, and I see no reason why this should be expressed in the same sentence, because it is a different topic. --] (]) 20:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: How about changing the sentence to this: "Red links should remain in an article if they could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name." ] (]) 21:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Why? --] (]) 05:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Because it eliminates the awkward and unnecessary "be allowed to" phrase. ] (]) 06:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}I don't think it is a good idea to lose the nuance: | |||
| * The "In general, ..." points to exceptions: | |||
| ** Some of these exceptions are detailed in the body of the guideline, e.g., a {{tl|see also}} template with a redlink is discouraged (mentioned in the ] section of the guideline, and in one of the bullets of ]) – that is not the kind of detail that should be in the lead section of the guideline, but "... should remain ..." is too absolute, and not a correct summary of the guideline: "In general, ... should be allowed to ..." is, while it indicates exceptions are possible without detailing them. | |||
| ** Other exceptions are detailed elsewhere, e.g. ] is a long discussion about redlinks in navigational templates: the nuance is that red links are not entirely forbidden in navigational templates, but are only sustainable as a short term interim solution when building a series of articles. Again, not something that should be detailed in the lead section of the guideline: in this case a short summary (which already loses a part of the nuance of the talk Archive 4 discussion outcome) is in the ] section of the guideline, but the full detail is elsewhere. | |||
| ** The "In general, ..." nuance also makes possible to have exceptions based on article-level local consensus (meaning, that for this guidance a local consensus to do otherwise is not seen as a local consensus outdoing a broad consensus, while the broad consensus is that exceptions may have a reasonable ground). E.g. ] adheres to a rather strict "no red links" restriction, and I think rightly so. Anyway, if you would like to change the red link approach of that list, this is not something to be discussed on the talk page of this guideline, but on the talk page of the list, while there is some leeway to have specific redlink-related rule-sets for particular pages. | |||
| :In sum, for the reasons explained in detail above, the "In general, ... should be allowed to ..." phrasing is *necessary* nuance: it is a part of the guideline that has a sound rationale. | |||
| * Re. qualifying the "be allowed to" phrase as awkward: I see that as a ]-like qualification. If you think a less awkward phrasing, without losing nuance, is possible, then propose one, but I'd oppose any rephrasing that undermines necessary nuance. | |||
| --] (]) 07:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Fair enough, let's make the proposal "''In general'', red links should remain in an article if they could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name." | |||
| :: I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any difference at all between the meaning of "should remain in" and "should be allowed to remain in." (Except, perhaps, that the latter phrase suggests red links are sentient.) Would you please help me understand the nuance that "be allowed to" adds in this context? ] (]) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research? | |||
| '''Comment:''' to all editors. Please do not edit previous material without clearly indicating such edits. Also, do so in separate edits (don't mix old and new). This helps other editors to clearly follow the discussion afterwards, and it avoids making diffs come across as garbled. Please see and follow ]. Thank you. ] (]) 10:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : While you courteously direct this message to all editors, it was my edit that prompted you to write so I'll apologize. It was mostly the result laziness on my part and in the future I'll buck up and do two separate edits in similar situations. Thanks for the reminder. ] (]) 15:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've undone the refactoring. Butwhatdoiknow, above you already received criticism for your messy talk page arrangements. I propose you abstain from any kind of talk page refactoring from now on: you're not helping in this way. --] (]) 16:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No problem, Butwhatdoiknow. I concur with Francis - unless you have a clear reason to refactor a talk page, that is, editing or changing existing talk content, my advice to you is to simply let it stand unchanged. As WP:TALK#REVISE explains, the main acceptable use for refactoring is the simple case when you just made an edit and you think of something new to add, or you find a typo (etc). But once others have responded, or time have passed (we do not have a fixed "edit window" so whether you do this within minutes or hours is up to each editor) it is better to simply add a '''new''' comment. And if you do feel compelled to change an "old" comment, use the formatting advice where you don't actually delete anything (i.e. you <s>strike out</s> rather than delete). And finally, even then, only do this for your own comments. I hope you see how these best practices aren't stifling discussion, but have evolved to avoid needless drama that can easily occur even after entirely good-faith changes. Have a nice day ] (]) 10:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: To be fair to me, the edit that drew your comment did not change existing "content." It changed formatting, modifying indents and adding a heading, with the purpose of highlighting a topic change. The problem, as I understood your comment to point out, was combining that reformatting with the addition of new - not refactored - content. I will, as I did when adding the collapse to this discussion, make that a two step process going forward. ] (]) 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} just after you've been told no to refactor on this page, you do it again. I've undone the refactoring. Besides, once a portion has been collapsed, no new edits (including additional replies) should be added to it any more, and that was your second strike of a "no-no" in as many edits. --] (]) 16:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} Maybe it's best you're given the following advice: <u>never change any existing talk content at all. Always just add new comments.</u> I hope this will give you a nice time here on Misplaced Pages, and that as you gain experience with the particular culture around here, you gain an understanding of when and where to break this rule of thumb. Cheers! ] (]) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::CapnZapp, again you get it wrong: refactoring is about changing layout, which can be done (even usually *is* done) without adding or removing "content". --] (]) 16:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Are you sure you meant to refer to me? I was talking to Butwhatdoiknow in layman's terms (avoiding specific terminology like "refactoring") to make it very simple: until you're sure of how things work around here, only add new talk comments. It was posted in a direct response to Butwhatdoiknow and how he seemed to think changing existing formatting was okay (it is not). Cheers ] (]) 17:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I removed {{tl|hat}}/{{tl|hab}} tags "added" by Butwhatdoiknow. Then saying that "adding" content (are tags content?) is OK makes it less clear instead of clearer. --] (]) 17:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: For the record, I added and you removed {{tl|Collapse top}}/{{tl|Collapse bottom}} tags. ] (]) 18:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Oops, yes, you are correct. --] (]) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::For clarity, see ]; see also ] for the broader ] guideline treatment of the topic, including: "... normally you should stop if there is any objection", which is good rule of thumb. The objection has been voiced sufficiently clear now, I hope. --] (]) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The full quote from ] is (emphasis added): "Cautiously editing or removing '''another editor's comments''' is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." ] (]) 18:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: First, I have no intention of doing any further format refactoring in this discussion. Once bitten, twice shy. | |||
| :::: Second, we're all on the same page regarding refactoring content: it should be a ''very'' rare event. I don't believe I have refactored any content in this discussion with the exception of, at Francis' request, striking through part of one of my own posts. | |||
| :::: Finally, and in contrast to content, ] specifically provides for format changes with language such as "Improving the clarity and readability of a page," "Restructuring of discussions for clarity," and making "poorly structured" pages more "productive." In short, there is no general rule against format refactoring. ] (]) 18:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}& for clarity, I still don't think omitting the "be allowed to" part in any way an improvement. I explained why. I don't think it awkward. So I would suggest to stop this time drain, and leave a guideline that appears unproblematic in daily practice the way it is. --] (]) 16:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Francis, you have stated the conclusion that "be allowed to" contains a "necessary nuance" and have invited me to propose alternative language that preserves that nuance. I cannot do that until I know what the nuance is. Again, please help me understand the nuance that "be allowed to" adds to the text proposed by me above (15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)). ] (]) 20:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is a difference but it is a bit difficult to explain precisely. I'll try with an example, so please bear with me. Suppose you're preparing an article for ] or ]: it is not uncommon that during such preparation a few redlinks are removed from the article (some editors really don't like them in an article that is supposed to exemplify Misplaced Pages's better work). Suppose that during the GAN or FAC assessment process another editor objects to the removal of legitimate redlinks (i.e. "...links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name"): | |||
| ::# in the case of the proposed text, the redlinks should have been kept: the GAN or FAC reviewer's opinion to keep the redlinks is paramount. | |||
| ::# the current guideline text gives more leeway to the ''editor'' (as opposed to GAN or FAC reviewers): the redlink "is allowed" to stay, but it is ultimately an editor discretion whether it is (and since that leeway is part and parcel of the guidance on the matter, the GAN or FAC assessment is not, or at least should not be, affected by the option chosen by the editor). | |||
| ::This is not about whether you (or I) personally prefer #1 or #2 (as it happens, I prefer #2, that is the current version), but whether or not it is a change of the guidance (which would need consensus): what I think I illustrated with the above example is that the two phrasings are not the same, that is, on the *content* of the guidance. So, shouldn't be changed without consensus; and apart from my personal preference I'd additionally argue that the current phrasing has proven to be stable and operational for long enough to not need to open a potential proverbial can of worms with a phrasing that has not been tested in Misplaced Pages mainspace editing reality. Unless you can demonstrate that the current phrasing has led to intractable discussions over redlinks in mainspace. --] (]) 10:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: '''Comment:''' Francis, while I thank you for your efforts to explain, '''this''' is where such consensus is established or changed. This talk page, that is. It is specifically provided for precisely the type of discussion you are having, where changes to red link policy content are debated. Unless you feel the change is substantial enough for a venue such as the village pump (]), of course. I am afraid I still find your arguments to lack in substance: | |||
| ::: * {{tq|whether or not it is a change of the guidance (which would need consensus)}}: Yes, this is exactly what you and Butwhatdoiknow are discussing. This consensus is not generated anywhere else. It's generated here, between you and Butwhatdoiknow (and any other involved editors). | |||
| ::: * {{tq|"it changes the content"}}: I'm afraid that is a non-argument | |||
| ::: * {{tq|"the current phrasing has proven to be stable and operational for long enough"}} is not a valid argument against change. If it were, there could be no change and no progress. | |||
| ::: * {{tq|open a potential proverbial can of worms with a phrasing that has not been tested in Misplaced Pages mainspace editing reality}}. Sorry, but how exactly are policy changes going to come into effect if you insist they must be tested "in Misplaced Pages mainspace editing reality" before actually becoming policy? (And the answer is, of course they don't.) | |||
| ::: * {{tq|Unless you can demonstrate that the current phrasing has led to intractable discussions over redlinks in mainspace.}} Nope. Don't do that. Again, if editors must first somehow "prove" changes are necessary, how is anything ever changed? (And again, the answer is of course they don't need to). | |||
| ::: Again I ask you to consider that unless you have actual arguments against change, Francis, maybe it would be better to simply step aside and allow the change? (Of course, you have several other options as well, such as asking for a third opinion, just to mention one thing). Regards, ] (]) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re. "'''this''' is where such consensus is established or changed" – indeed it is (at least for the time being). But consensus there is none. I've not been convinced to change my view on the point. But weren't we going to stop talking about procedural matters? And with a lot of verbosity you're in fact hiding that you have no actual arguments in favor of a change on this point. It's not up to me to give arguments for a status quo (which, by the way, I have done, profusely), it's up to those wanting change of guidance to give arguments for a change. "Change is good" (the only argument you seem to have) is not even a real argument: some changes are good, others are evidently not. You don't explain why, in your view, *this* change would be good (or not). --] (]) 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: CapnZapp rightly points out that your "difficult to explain" explanation is stuffed with process arguments having nothing to do with "be allowed to." I made the effort to dig through all that and found your hidden substantive point, which I will respond to in a separate post. For now, I'll just renew my suggestion that you '''try banning the word "consensus" from your Misplaced Pages revert vocabulary'''. If you are opposed to a change then give the substantive reason for your opposition and stop. If your point is persuasive it will prevail on its own merits. ] (]) 06:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. ] (]) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Resuming "be allowed to" discussion=== | |||
| '''Status:''' As a result of discussion, the current proposal is to change | |||
| :::''In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name.'' | |||
| to | |||
| :::''In general, red links should remain in an article if they could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name.'' | |||
| '''Objection:''' As fully set forth above (Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)), one editor believes the "be allowed to" phrase provides more leeway for editors to remove red links in the event of a dispute. In short, the phrase means removal of red links is ultimately a matter of editor discretion.<br> | |||
| '''Response to objection:''' If whether to retain proper red links is a matter of editor discretion then we should say that. How about this revision: | |||
| ::: ''Red links should point to a title that could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name. Whether a proper red link remains in an article is ultimately a matter of editorial discretion.'' | |||
| :If you see someone removing a red link for an article you think should be created, it's probably best to revert the remove with a polite edit summary, or start a discussion with them on the article talk page or their user talk page. Or you could create a stub article and make a blue link. -- ] (]) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! I am going to try to write an article on ]. He has a bibliography of significant translations, well-received by critics, from Russian, including works by Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, Merezhkovsky, Bunin etc. published by Knopf and other reputable publishers. ] (]) 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' – the default position is to keep the redlink (if it complies to "links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name") – that is not properly expressed in the new proposal. The current text is also more compact. No need for the more wordy version, which, as guidance, is less adequate. --] (]) 05:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Basically all of our policies boil down to us having links to notable subjects. We don't simply remove them because that article doesn't yet exist. | |||
| :: With regard to compactness, I hope you will agree with that meaning implied by terse text is "often ... less understood" than meaning explicitly stated in more verbose text. | |||
| :::A polite revert is usually sensible (provided they are clearly notable). '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: So, what ''is'' the meaning of the current sentence? Putting aside specific wording for the moment, from the discussion so far it appears to be that a proper red link, once placed, should remain in place unless there is a good reason to remove it. Do I have that right? ] (]) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Glad you're finally admitting you didn't understand the current guidance to begin with. That should have been your first question (i.e., asking to explain the guidance to you), before trying to rewrite the guideline, and before posting multiple rewrite proposals on this talk page. | |||
| :::Answering your question: | |||
| :::* As you may have noticed, the ] section (shortcut: ]) is mainly a detailed explanation of what "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name" means in practice, so I refer you to that guideline section for an answer to your question; | |||
| :::* Further, in all what has been written above, starting from ], there's a lot of detailed explanation about this particular piece of guidance too, so I refer you to that too. | |||
| :::If after all of that you're still unclear on what it actually means, it's maybe time to ask someone else to explain it to you, I think I have given you quite enough of my time over this matter. --] (]) 05:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Francis Schonken}} I remain confused about the meaning of "be allowed to" because the phrase makes the decision regarding whether to keep or remove a red link "ultimately an editor discretion." Based on that explanation I took out "In general" and added "is ultimately a matter of editorial discretion." Now you're saying it's too broad. | |||
| :::: Okay, let's go back to this: ''In general, red links should remain in an article if they could plausibly sustain an article or article section, but for which there is no existing article or section under any name.'' Doesn't "In general," solve the GAN/FAC problem ? And, if it doesn't, shouldn't the GAN/FAC discretion exception be set forth in ]? ] (]) 06:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Not exactly. I explained why above. --] (]) 07:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Are you referring to ? That post provides an example of an exception to the general rule. However, it does not show that the exception disappears if we remove "be allowed to" from the sentence (that is, you did not show that "In general" isn't sufficient on its own). Can you link to a discussion where someone objected to removal of a red link from a Good or Featured article candidate and another editor cited "be allowed to" as support for removing thelink? ] (]) 15:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry, my explanations should've been clear enough. Please find someone else to explain, as I already suggested above. --] (]) 15:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@], I've read that comment, and I think the distinction you're proposing is not actually in the text. There is no semantic difference between "should remain" and "should be allowed to remain", and that change definitely does not change the person who is in charge of the decision. I think you have imagined a distinction (e.g., from whether a FAC reviewer vs the main authors must "allow" the link) that does not exist in the written guideline. ] (]) 00:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Francis Schonken}} So far, you are the only editor in support of retaining "be allowed to." In response to , one editor found it , one found it , and one (me) found it . While consensus does not require unanimity, I'd like to give you a fair chance to reconsider your objection to removing the phrase. Or perhaps you can propose alternative wording that would more clearly express the nuance you see in "be allowed to." ] (]) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re. "So far, you are the only editor ..." – incorrect. The change "increases the level of certainty required for removing ". Exactly what also WhatamIdoing seems to support below (this editor apparently would even go further in increasing that level of certainty). So no, these are only different views: some would make it easier to retain redlinks, others would like to make it easier to remove them. It is not surprising that the current wording has been stable for so long: it apparently struck the middle ground between those wanting to make it more strict and those who want it less so, quite exactly where that middle ground is. --] (]) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: 1. The "increases the level" comment was made when the proposed text was "Appropriate red links may remain in the ] portion of an article." That proposal did not have the "In general" modifier found in the current proposal. The editor who made the "increases" comment has not participated in this discussion focusing on the "be allowed to" clause. | |||
| :::::: 2. Whatever change (if any) ] seems to support below, in this conversation she is saying that "be allowed to" is meaningless. In other words, removing it doesn't change the guidance. | |||
| :::::: 3. You have not linked to a prior discussion of "be allowed to" on this page. You have not linked to a GAN or FAC discussion that referenced the phrase. In short, your objection seems to be based solely on your fear that removing the phrase will make it more difficult to remove a red link in the future. | |||
| :::::: 4. '''How about this:''' Let's take "be allowed to" out of the current text as a test. If you find that removing red links becomes more difficult then you can report back and we can revisit this discussion. (As you consider your reply to this suggestion please keep in mind ] comments regarding . ] (]) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{ping|Francis Schonken}} I assume from your silence that you have no substantive objection to the proposed test. If I am wrong, please advise and explain. ] (]) 16:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've regrouped all the talk about the same. --] (]) 15:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Rationale for this change provided in "Refactoring" discussion below at Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC). ] (]) 15:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder whether re-writing that sentence to be more blunt would help: "Do not remove a red link if..." ] (]) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think you're on to something. But maybe "Do not remove a red link ''unless'' ..."? Regardless, the hard work will be to figure out what the "if"/"unless" conditions are. ] (]) 05:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In this case, "if" is more relevant, as it states a positive condition, namely "if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article". | |||
| ::::To use "unless", we'd have to recast the sentence. ] (]) 01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Ah, I see. The problem is that the current sentence has qualifiers ("In general," "should" (not must), and "be allowed to") suggesting even "could sustain an article" red links may be removed under certain circumstances. But what are those circumstances? It's not clear to me. ] (]) 02:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Changing to ''unless'' would result in the sentence saying "Do not remove a red link ''unless'' (it points to a valid article subject)", which is the opposite of the rule. | |||
| ::::::I don't think you will ever get a clear list of criteria or circumstances. This guideline seems to have been written to maximize ambiguity. If we had a clear, reasonably objective list of criteria, then each individual editor wouldn't be able to claim that the official guideline always supports "my" own personal view, no matter how extreme my view might be, compared to the median editor's. ] (]) 00:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I think I've been clear before and/or elsewhere in conversation with Butwhatdoiknow that my silence does not mean I would have changed view against all odds. On the contrary: it usually means that afaics there are no substantive new arguments brought forward by others since I last explained my view, so that there is no reason whatsoever to change my view. --] (]) 17:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Refactoring === | |||
| {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} I've asked you before not to refactor anything on this talk page, while it is time and again disruptive, or at least not in accordance with ]. Tx. --] (]) 16:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Please explain to me how (1) was disruptive or (2) violated either the letter or the spirit of ]. ] (]) 16:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Seems like we're about done here, and afaik this is best kept together in the archive. --] (]) 08:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : I renew my request that you support your allegation that (1) was disruptive or (2) violated either the letter or the spirit of ] (which states "If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings."). In particular, I am wondering how my addition of a heading for a side discussion was any more objectionable than . | |||
| : P,S, - If the only problem with my section heading was that it was level two rather than three then ] would have been a fix, not a revert. ] (]) 16:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I was summoned here (I think?) but not sure why or what to say. Francis Schonken's edit referenced as above is not a refactoring. It is a straight-up addition of a subheader and an accompanying comment. It is therefore entirely unproblematic. As for your own refactorings ], as far as I can see you labor under the misunderstanding the editing cycle bold-revert-discuss (]) applies to talk pages. It does not. Don't do refactoring at all unless you know what you're doing and you are reasonably certain nobody will mind. In this case, none of this is true, and you have been asked - repeatedly - to simply never refactor anything. Therefore no "allegations" or discussions are necessary. Your refactorings will simply be reverted on sight. You will eventually earn back the trust but I don't see it happening on *this* page, so if you need to hear it from someone else than Francis Schonken: Do not refactor, full stop. To be safe, just don't edit ''anything'' once you have posted it. This is the way to leave the refactoring discussion behind. Thank you ] (]) 20:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:47, 5 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
BLP rules
@Up the Walls changed the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a telephone game in which we oversimplify and misstate the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).
Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of WP:BLP1E" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station or Right-handed blue-green widgets". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote WP:REDBIO to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for WP:BLP apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section WP:REDBIO discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? Up the Walls (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
- Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or MOS:BIO); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates Tom Mueller when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick Tom Mueller (author) as to pick Tom Mueller (writer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it
lessmore likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article". - However, condition #2 in WP:REDBIO says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "
How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link.
" To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. Up the Walls (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- No, I meant less likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it less likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to Alice (expert). Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
- For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the non-BLP subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have reverted the WP:REDBIO section to the previous version that was available on 24 February 2024 . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it
Red user name
I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. 49.185.89.67 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps the user in question was using a custom signature. If you can point to a specific example, I could look at it an confirm. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-)
The current text says:
- In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject.
I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.
I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Add after that sentence something like: Red links should follow the same general rules as blue links with a term being linked no more than once per major section and with care in the lead section. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a significant problem? Do we have people seriously arguing that this sentence overrules WP:OVERLINKING or other rules? If not, then adding anything is WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Use of ifexist series template
In this edit, JPxG added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how not to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create Corruption in Wales, the page would then read
- An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, since an article on Corruption in Northern Ireland exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world",...
Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page like this encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. AviationFreak💬 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Micromanaging red links
Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research?
I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. Pascalulu88 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you see someone removing a red link for an article you think should be created, it's probably best to revert the remove with a polite edit summary, or start a discussion with them on the article talk page or their user talk page. Or you could create a stub article and make a blue link. -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am going to try to write an article on B. G. Guerney. He has a bibliography of significant translations, well-received by critics, from Russian, including works by Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, Merezhkovsky, Bunin etc. published by Knopf and other reputable publishers. Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically all of our policies boil down to us having links to notable subjects. We don't simply remove them because that article doesn't yet exist.
- A polite revert is usually sensible (provided they are clearly notable). Lee Vilenski 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am going to try to write an article on B. G. Guerney. He has a bibliography of significant translations, well-received by critics, from Russian, including works by Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, Merezhkovsky, Bunin etc. published by Knopf and other reputable publishers. Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)