Wikipedia talk:Build the web/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Support and opposition

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

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

Opponents include:

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

---

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

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

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

Allwiki

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

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

One line summary

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

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

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

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

What links here comment

Could someone explain the sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

Allwiki periodically re-evaluated

I'm referring to:

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

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

"The Wikipedia community evaluated and eventually rejected the allwiki concept."

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

FYI: Quotations should not contain wikilinks proposal

Resolved

 – This proposal now part of the Manual of Style.

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

What Allwiki is not

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

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

Query over guideline status

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

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

Intention to remove the semiguideline status of this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shortcut

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

Disputed policy tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essay not guideline

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before you shoot me

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

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

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

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

Remove the Allwiki section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Build the Web" dismissed?

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

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

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

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

Moved from User talk:Aervanath#BTW: end

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC currently open on linking dates of birth and death

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

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

Specific merge proposal

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

MERGE DONE per general agreement. --Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resurrect this guideline?

Entire section moved here so more people will see it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Y Done I've also added a link to where this page is being discussed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Be bold, says I! The WT:MOSLINK crowd can make do with a hyperlink. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to discussion to remove this guideline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

Y Done Seems fair. Hope this helps show that my restoration of the text was made in good faith. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed action

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

Well, no substantial comment over there, so let's bring the discussion back here. Rather than use {{historical}} or {{essay}}, let's use a new template I've just created, {{former guideline}}. [example of template removed. DexDor ^(talk) 21:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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