Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 24 February 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:REDLINK

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Cursor message off track?

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? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I am not really a fan of having the tooltip reading "article needed", because it implies that all redlinks, such as Red link example, are appropriate. Maybe "This article does not exist — you can create one!" or something similar. Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposal) is probably gonna be in your best interest. GeraldWL 06:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll try that - thanx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Red links vs Deleted articles

It seems strange to me that the page doesn't even bring up the connection to deleted pages.

Imagine the following scenario:

1) A red link is created

2) Someone creates its article

3) That article is deleted for not being notable (etc)

4) The link turns back to red

At this stage logic dictates that the red link should be removed. if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article is no longer true. And indeed there is text to this effect The link is broken and no longer leads to an article.

But I can't interpret this any other way than this: if you think a particular red link just isn't notable enough, you can't just remove it - somebody else could revert and oppose.

You need to actually go through the trouble of creating the article. Only after article has been demonstrably struck down as not notable (through DEPROD or AfD) can you delete the red link, and resist reverters by pointing to the delete log.

It seems there needs to be a better way of doing this.

The section on deleting existing red links should discuss the connection to AfD. If you believe the red link just isn't notable you should be able to delete it without first having to waste effort on creating an article you suspect will be deleted as not notable.

CapnZapp (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No objections to rephrasing the guideline to allow you to remove red links you feel confident would not survive an AfD? Currently the guideline basically says "just leave red links in" (unless they meet specific criteria). This means your only resort when contesting a red link is to go through (what I'd like to call) "wiki theatrics" of actually creating a stub article and then AfD'ing it, even though you would arguably act in "bad" faith by creating something for the sole purpose of trialing its deletion. As I read the current guideline, just about the only way to get a proper discussion going that ends with a "permanent record" you can point to in order to say "no this red link has no place on Misplaced Pages", is to have a deletion discussion, because our guideline allows you to delete a red link when The link is broken and no longer leads to an article. I feel this is entirely unnecessary and if the guideline only would not stop BOLD red link deletions a regular talk page discussion could resolve the issue. (Of course, if a consensus can't be reached the only way would be to proceed with article creation and AfD, but I would like this guideline not to offer that as the only resort, only the last resort) CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Done - see recent edits for details. CapnZapp (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit1: Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the lede.

Draft articles are not redlinks, they could be added to the wikipedia articles as blue links with piping or even without it.

Rationale: This will enhance the clarity and will appropriately guide the editors, especially for the IPs and registered occasional editors who comprise over 99% of the editors and create majority of the content. Editors with registered accounts who are heavy users of wikipedia likely account less than 0.1% of all the editors and likely contribute less than 5% (at best 10%) of all valid content as major chunk of their time is consumed by the maintenance and bureaucratic issues such as anti-vandalism patrolling, enforcement of policies and regulations, responding to noticeboard and projects issues. Only these small number of editors engage in the lengthy and heated debates, most IPs and occasional editors usually walk away from the topic or from the wikipedia itself. Guidelines and policies must be geared towards the core stakeholder, "non-heavy editors" (i.e. IPs and occasional editors) are the core and most important editors are they create and consume the majority of valid content. Inclusion of the phrase above will eliminate the subjectivity related to the grey area within which draft article exist. This will reduce any discussions related to removal of "wikipedia links to draft articles" from the wikipedia articles by the over enthusiastic "heavy editors" many of whom love to get entangled in heavy debates, which usually drives IPs and non-heavy editors away from the wikipedia.

Clearly defining wikipedia links to draft article within wikipedia articles as "not the redlink" is a good practice. In that case, draft articles could be included in the "see also" sections too, and those will be considered valid edits (not treated as MOS:NOTSEEALSO. This way IPs and occasional editors, who made the edit and walked away for a long gap, their edits will remain within wikipedia without being removed. This will also alert readers to the existence of the draft who could benefit by reading the draft and they can also enhance the draft. Also, removal of links to draft articles by zealous "heavy-user editors" takes an effort, those draft articles kind of become lost to most other readers, and in future it needs more rework to add those links back to the articles once the draft has been approved. This wastes too much time and effort. Treating even un-piped links to drafts as valid edits will make the edits future-proof, eliminate time wasted in removal and re-adding, enhances the chances of drafts being noticed by more readers and editors who could benefit form the additional knowledge and they will be more likely to add value to wikipedia by enhancing the drafts. Just use commonsense. There have been instances where zealous "heavy-use editors" have removed such links to "see also", thus antagonising/driving away IPs and occasional editors, leading to waste of effort and time due to work and rework, and this also leaves wikipedia linkage-poor and content-poor.

Misplaced Pages links to draft article within wikipedia articles might appear as red in color but once someone clicks on them, it takes the reader to a blue link draft, hence it is not a read link in the "spirit" of the word. The word redlink must be interpreted in a way which does not negate the work of occasional editors and IP, so that those are not removed from the article or "see also" as redlink by the heavy editors. Alternatively, to satisfy the very pedantic "heavy-user editors" the links to draft articles can be included with piping.

Alternative solution: In case, someone strongly feels against the inclusion of this edit, then at least add it as a "note" to the end of first paragraph of the lede so that this explanation will still appear in the notes of this article.

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK and established procedure, an article should not link to a draft article. Drafts and sandboxes are not subject to the same scrutiny as articles and they may be hoaxes or otherwise totally wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Main purpose of this edit was to amend the MOS:DRAFTNOLINK itself. The "MOS:DRAFTNOLINK" and "WP:Red link" articles form a circular reference to justify each other's deficiencies, hence need to be amended. That is why, I have also left an "edit request at MOS talkpage".

The "submitted draft" articles (available for the same public scrutiny as the articles in the main namespace and awaiting a move to the main namespace) are not in same category as the "sandbox articles" (private work-in-progress of an individual editor which is not yet available and complete enough for the scrutiny and the move to main namespace). If there is a redlink with a link to the "existing submitted draft article" which has not been "rejected", then the redlink must be retained. Redlink could be removed only if the draft has been rejected. Hoaxes or otherwise totally wrong articles must be "immediately" removed. Retaining the red links with draft articles will improve the likelihood of hoaxes etc being spotted/removed faster by a largest pool of readers/editors. Removing the "red links with draft articles" will harm the wikipedia more by keeping the hoax articles longer on wikipedia with lesser chances of those being spotted. Additionally, as highlighted previously, retaining the red links to the submitted draft articles will minimize rework, etc.

I remind again, think from the perspective of those 99% "non-heavy editors" (who create majority of the wikipedia content and want pragmatic future-proof policies, and they usually get turned off and walk away from the wikipedia/time-wasting pedantic arguments), not from the perspective of the "heavy-use editors" (many of whom tend to monopolize wikipedia, love to indulge in the pedantic legalese which wastes too much time and turns occasional editors away). People can always find ways to justify/oppose what they want to. If we try to find a pragmatic solution which favors the most important contributors (non-heavy-use editors), we will find it.

Even bigger problem is that the "non-heavy-use editors" quietly walk off the wikipedia (they rarely make suggestion as this one and usually do not stay back to deal with the headache of debating these changes), and those who oppose these suggestions/edits are usually the "heavy-use editors" (they are the part of the problem this suggestion/edit is trying to preempt/fix).

Please apply this edit. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, afaics this proposes a currently inappropriate mixing of namespaces, with the IP not demonstrating in any way that there would be consensus regarding such rather fundamental change. Find consensus first! --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• The place to argue for a change would be at WP:VPR or the talk of MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, I take it to be relatively a minor change which eliminates the subjective grey area and abuse by the argumentative alpha editors. This should be done with minimal fuss. The whole point of my edit was to minimize those kind of discussions/arguments. I understand the unstated nuances very well. With this proposed edit, since I am challenging the alpha mindset and informal privileges, there will be push back. My concerns have been already documented by numerous other editors Misplaced Pages:Why Misplaced Pages is not so great.

Johnuniq, thanks for showing the WP:VPR, I might leave a short note there, but I am not too sure yet if I want to do that yet. Let me read first how VPR works. If it is just a short message, I will leave a note there and then permanently walk away from there. I am weary of starting another fire/debate there and then get dragged into it. I come to wikipedia to de-stress by reading and editing. I really hate the pedantic debates on wikipedia which stress me out. I then usually walk away from those debates to take a break from wikipedia for few weeks, i.e. loss of pleasure and my contribution/productivity to wikipedia. Meanwhile, I like your second suggestion regarding MOS. I will leave it to editors on MOS:DRAFTNOLINK talk page to apply that edit there. If they decide to apply the edit there, then it is still good enough for me even if the edit is not applied here. I will not be monitoring that talk page any more. In case they decide to not apply the edit, and instead want to nitpick, debate, etc, so be it. I think time for me to just leave it to other editors. I must stop investing more time in this discussion and walk away from the all talkpages/discussion related to this. Que sera sera. Thanks once again for the VPR and especially the 2nd suggestion, because your suggestions helped me make up my mind. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Draft articles are of unknown quality/truthfulness/notability/neutrality and linking to them has been repeatedly used as a way of adding PoV content, trivia and blatant vandalism to Misplaced Pages. As a review can take 3 months, or longer. this proposal would allow unvetted "information" to be linked to directly from our articles for a very considerable period of time. Very few readers will notice the "Draft" in the title of the linked article, and of those that do, many will not understand the implications of it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay, current system you want to retain favors very tiny number of editors who like to live on wikipedia day in and day out, unfortunately they control the guidelines, policies, voting on those. Not very user friendly system to the majority of the editors, who are not here as frequently, they make edits and submit draft and link the other article and gone. They do not come back to re do the work and link the articles months later. That is how "majority" of the editors behave. System must cater to them. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Since you provided the suggestions, I feel out of courtesy I owed you an update. I took both your suggestions, left a "specific proposal" at MOS:DRAFTNOLINK talk page here, and also a more general concern with wider audience at the Village Pump here. I will not be monitoring any of these talkpages, here or those other places. I feel I have done enough to highlight the concern, now time for me to leave it to the community to decide whatever they want to do with it. Thanks again. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

To provide a resolution to this should links break: The Manual of Style/Linking discussion ended with Not done for now and was furthermore Opposed by every participating editor. The Village Pump discussion was met with the response You can link to the article without the Draft: prefix. Once the draft is accepted, the red link will become blue. The Manual of Style/Layout discussion was also Not done for now citing lack of consensus. I have left a talk message with this effect on 58.182.176.169's talk page since they specifically do not monitor this page. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

manual archiving

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:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

If you are dissatisfied with the pace of archiving User:Gerald Waldo Luis for some reason, discuss here on talk. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for Francis Schonken reversions?

Francis Schonken reverted a group of edits and gave the following edit summary: "reverting the entire change, per Walter Görlitz's suggestion."
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."
Francis Schonken reverted again, saying "reverting a number of non-consensus changes to the guideline, take to talk."
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. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 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 ] changed to Help space, which seems fair enough. What's the problem? CapnZapp (talk) 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 this edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Care to provide any further rationale for your revert? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 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

  In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in the body 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.

  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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• You refer to this edit. In that edit I not only removed the text you quote above but I also added this text to the same effect:

  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.

  In short, there is no change to the substance of the guideline. Does that resolve your "deterioration" concern? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk)
  • 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Please reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It has been recommended that I make sure you are aware of this conversation. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The formatting in this discussion is atrocious. As for the text in the current guideline, there are MOS:ITALIC problems. Use <em></em> 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@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? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suppose Walter refers to this edit (16 January 2021). Yeah, missed that, think it should be reverted too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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. With all the changes since 2020-11-26. Walter Görlitz (talk) 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@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. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at cumulative changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 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. --Francis Schonken (talk) 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. CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit re nomenclature

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 article content of an article" to (a) conform to MOS:SECTIONORDER nomenclature and (b) provide an explanatory link. Any objections or improvements? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Completely unnecessary. Makes the sentence longer without improving it. Also, completely unrelated to MOS:ORDER, which makes ] a WP:EGG link, which is a no-no too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I find the argument "Makes the sentence longer" overly harsh and not useful here. CapnZapp (talk) 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. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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". CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)