Wikipedia talk:Linking

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

The previous reasons for not using self-links to conform to title reiteration style are now shown to be extremely weak, and there are good efficiency reasons for using them. More people with a good background in CSS and markup would inform the discussion, and help technical appraisal. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion above. I've listed the disadvantages & advantages from my essay on this. Navbox CSS is not a problem, see the Essay.

There can be no doubt from W3's advocation as a general principle of Separate structure and presentation;

HTML has its roots in SGML which has always been a language for the specification of structural markup.

or any general reading[1] that statements such as "if you want bold then mark it up as bold", goes against this paradigm. The W3 think the best approach is structure. Mark the first mention by a structural command, not by a display format command. In fact do anything but markup with display formatting! You might not want to markup with link syntax, but to markup with display format commands is the antithesis of the paradigm, it is anathema.

If you are marking something bold, ask yourself, why do I want it bold? The answer for article title reiteration is NOT so it looks bold. Marking it looking bold is a way of indicating that it is a first mention. The structural paradigm would recommend that you markup first mention as a first mention, then allow CSS to make it appear (or be screen-read) as appropriate. Wikimarkup syntax for wikilinks achieves this through the Wikimedia built in feature.

Wiki markup is a similar, if simpler, HTML, structural markup. It would seem common sense to follow such a reliable source as the W3 in it's recommendation of this paradigm which is virtually universally accepted. To use any personal experience on the subset/version of HTML which is wikimarkup as a counter source to this is simply not credible. If the articles in Wikipeadia must show reliable sources for data and conclusions, then please, apply the same standard to this debate. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

HTML logic (never mind XML) doesn't apply to wikimarkup. Wikimarkup tries to be as easy and intuitive as possible; there's a reason that (like HTML originally) it mixes display and structure - because it's a lot easier for amateurs. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No one mentioned XML, did you throw that irrelavance in to make your point seem more weighty? Anyway;

Wikitext language or wiki markup is a markup language that offers a simplified alternative to HTML and is used to write pages in wiki websites such as Wikipedia.

Your claims of fact and your conclusions are equally bogus. Your denial of logic beggars belief. Simplified does not mean illogical. The original HTML had zero display tags, not even italics or bold[2], these contaminated it later. This original omission was a deliberate design goal - not an over site. Your implication that simple markup cannot be used in a creative way because it is too complicated is bogus, you know full well that this use was prominent in the past. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the policy on reliable sources applies to articles, not policy. And what you're implying is a major, major change in the nature/philosophy of wikimarkup; that's not going to happen on this page. If you think it's a good idea, try WP:VPR. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is that no matter how conclusive any argument might be made in favour of this from any source, your not changing your mind, ever. You have just defined yourself as utterly unreasonable. You have demonstrated your analysis of the nature/philosophy of wikimarup to be faulty, so no one can place any reliance on any conclusions you might make. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that. Also I understand you're frustrated, but being so aggressively dismissive, not for the first time, doesn't help your cause. I'm not going to get into a debate about these issues here, because they are totally inappropriate for this page. Again, if you think wikimarkup needs changing, go to WP:VPR or somewhere. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To suggest this is a major change to wikimarkup is dishonest, you know this use was widespread at one time. "not changing your mind, ever", is the inescapable logical conclusion from your ridiculous statement about reliable sources. Where was I being aggressive? Dismissing your claims and conclusions with succinct argument is not being dismissive in the way you are using it. The purpose of argument in debate is to dismiss contrary agruments, don't take it personally. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, and then, since you're so big on logic, employ some. No need to apologise. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

At 11:23 today I said "If the articles in Wikipeadia must show reliable sources for data and conclusions, then...", showing you had no need to "inform me" that it doesn't apply to policy. So WP:RS,

This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

So? Why does this negate using reliable sources for guidelines/policy? Why would you want to NOT use reliable sources for anything? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS you managed not to address my point that this way is easier for amateurs - something I don't want to discuss here (it's not like it's going to make any difference to this RFC), but bear it in mind in future if you do propose changes in this area. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, re-read. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask, but at this point I don't care. You've lost the argument, judging by the RFC. I will add that if you'd considered working with WP:PROJPOL you might have hashed out some of these issues more clearly before tipping people into the This Is A Bad Idea column. I'd have helped you develop and present the proposal there. Probably wouldn't have made any difference in this case, but still. Rd232 ^talk 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I've won the argument, just not the vote :) Not yet. There's time for people to change their minds, if they read the essay! Besides there has only been about a dozen views expressed out of the thousands that edit Wikipedia. Surely that's too small a number to be reliable? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it you'd heard of sampling? (If you think the sample here unrepresentative, how do you propose to find one that is?) Rd232 ^talk 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you mean Sampling (statistics), the sample so far is self selecting, so will have a natural bias to those with stronger motivations; the knee-jerk against, it seems mostly. A representative sampling will accrue over time, and will have a lesser percentage of those whose natural leaning is toward negativity. Active users: 158,060. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidence whatsoever that the current sample is biased in the way you suggest. Or that waiting the full 30 days for the RFC will make any difference to the sampling. And yes RFC samples are self-selecting; so's the whole of WP. What do you suggest - you do the selection, by WP:CANVASsing? Good luck with that. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You agree with me that it is self-selecting, I said it seems to me... I wsan't claiming evidence for, nor would I suggest you are implying you have evidence against. I was arriving at logical conclusions on the passage of time. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier about moving this to WP:PROJPOL, the debate had started, it was in midflow - too late for a move. Somehow I think you would have been a hindrance, not a help. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"too late for a move" - that's weak. It was a perfect time, given the initial responses, to move it somewhere else, draw breath, and try to collaboratively, in a non-judgemental way, develop the proposal as well as possible. Despite all the effort you put in, I'm convinced that your approach didn't give the idea its best possible hearing. Rd232 ^talk 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean no one's actually given much thought to the arguments I've put forward? When you first suggested WP:PROJPOL I said;

It may well be the sort of thing, but keep it here for now, the pros and cons have been well laid out - yes?. You may like to bring people here with a more technical slant on the way the wiki-software works, if you know any. I think I've done not to badly in explaining the principles, and some specifics, of the technical side of it, but someone with first hand technical knowledge of the Wikipedia configuration would be very useful to verify or vilify my technical appraisal.

If you were keen on a dispassionate evaluation on this, then you would have brought some people of the sort to the party, and then would have convinced me that ProjPol was worth something, and had resources. As it is, given your opposition to this, it looks now like it was a ploy to sideline it without any discussion. Quite frankly given your comments on reliable sources (which I see you didn't answer) I don't think you'd be much aide to anyone thinking through a proposal. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm done talking to you, because it's getting too unpleasant and unproductive (a bad combination). The projpol suggestion was entirely in good faith and not an attempt to sideline anything, even though it's obvious from looking at WP:PROJPOL that it's in the early stages and doesn't "have resources" (it's a Catch-22 - if no-one wants to use it until it works, how is it ever going to work?). And unfortunately I don't have a pool of tech people in my pocket; one objective of projpol is to develop a list of people with specialist knowledge for just this kind of situation. Finally you persist in misunderstanding the WP:RS issue, which is simply that that policy applies to article space. That doesn't mean that authorities like W3C can't reasonably be invoked sometimes in policy discussion, but to call them "reliable sources" is to confuse things. Rd232 ^talk 11:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad of your assurance that it was made in good faith, and I believe you. So I offer my apologies for my suggesting that it was otherwise, sorry. My initial quick look at WP:PROJPOL was as you describe it above, and another part of my reluctance to use it. It was a simple If Then statement I made. If reliable source^correction for articles THEN something similar for debate. ie. if your going to claim something, then a reliable source is a nice idea - or as you say, reasonably invoked. I had called the W3C a world authority before, and reliable source seemed a nice, wiki-vernacular way to emphasise this. I have some thought on projPol, which I will give there. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List more disadvantages to using self-links here

Please read the Essay! HarryAlffa (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is inefficient for editors who move a page; they have to re-jig the wiki-code.
2. If the page-mover doesn't tidy up, it is inefficient for the user; they're left with a link which loops back.
3. If the article name is not exactly the same as the bold text (as it very often is not), then it means more typing when creating an article, due to the need to create a piped "link".
4. More?

[edit] List more advantages for self-links here

Please read the Essay! HarryAlffa (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It guarantees, by dint of the configuration of Wikipedia, that the article will conform to Wikipedia's style convention, for first mention, even if that convention changes.
2. When copying the lead first sentence to a talk page to explain the obvious, editors don't have to edit the code to get rid of the bold-face; more efficient.
3. When copying the lead first sentence to a talk page to explain the obvious, editors don't have to edit the code to link back to the original; more efficient.
4. When copying the lead first sentence to a talk page to explain the obvious, it automatically has a link back to the original article; more efficient.
5. When copying the lead first sentence to a talk page to explain the obvious, it eliminates errors when linking back; more efficient.
6. When copying the lead for summary articles, editors don't have to edit the code to get rid of the bold-face; more efficient.
7. When copying the lead for summary articles, editors don't have to edit the code to link back to the original; more efficient.
8. When copying the lead for summary articles, it automatically has a link back to the original article; more efficient.
9. When copying the lead for summary articles, it eliminates errors when linking back; more efficient.
10. When copying the lead first sentence to explain first use of a term in another article, editors don't have to edit the code to get rid of the bold-face; more efficient.
11. When copying the lead first sentence to explain first use of a term in another article, editors don't have to edit the code to link back to the original; more efficient.
12. When copying the lead first sentence to explain first use of a term in another article, it automatically has a link back to the original article; more efficient.
13. When copying the lead first sentence to explain first use of a term in another article, it eliminates errors when linking back; more efficient.
14. More?

[edit] Comments

1. The lead can be almost never copied verbatim into a summary article. As the experience shows, it will always need a substantial copy-edit. In addition, wiki-linking back is in many case undesirable. Therefore this proposal provides no advantages to the current situation (if you need to copy-edit the lead in any case, it will not be very difficult to unbold the title and wiki-link it if necessary). Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   1. It's a good start though, every little helps. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
2. That the current style of selflinks uses bold font is merely accidental. If there is a consensus that selflinks should be displayed using the italic font and green color, then we will need to remove all links from leads of many articles, because they will not be bold as required by MOS. Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   1. It is no accident. A bit of a mistake there! You mentioned the MediaWiki:common.css file before, got it? The MoS change problem you outline, only applies to the current practice! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
3. My opinion is that selflinks class should not be used for any purpose other than defining the style of selflinks themselves. So, if the MOS says something should be bold it ought to be made bold explicitly. Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   1. I'm sorry, but you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical aspects that you need to spend a few hours studying HTML & CSS (w3schools is a good start) before you get it. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   2. Ruslik's position seems quite clear and logical to me, and seems independent of any knowledge or lack thereof about technical aspects of HTML/CSS.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   3. You may think so, but it is not. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
   4. i.e. "What you say is your opinion, what I say is the objective truth." Constructive? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      1. Ah, a quick negative comment without reading any of the previous discussion? Constructive? I'm only guessing, but am I right? ie. read the previous discussion and the technical aspects will become clear, about which I have demonstrated correctness. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The "advantages" seem very weak to me, despite their having been listed in a way that makes it seem that there are a lot of them. The disadvantages, although not earth-shattering, seem clearly to outweigh them. I would also dispute the premise (on which this whole proposal is based) that copyings of lead sentences are more common than page moves. My experience is quite the reverse (and note anyway that self-links are more of a problem with page moves than they are a boon with copyings, since they necessitate an extra edit which you might not have been going to make otherwise). --Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

These are not weak and are the advantages in each situation. Just because they have the same advantage in different situations makes it a greater advantage, not a lesser. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Our personal experiences of this are different, I have never moved/renamed an article page, but have copied first lines into talk pages often. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• This change seems to make editing less intuitive for everyday, non-technical users. Saying the title reiteration should be bold is something everyone can connect with. The vast majority of users are not interested in the vagaries of wikicode and CSS. They are Word users, and they know highlighting text and clicking the bold "B" in their toolbar creates the desired effect. We don't need to add complexity to their lives by saying, "Oh, make the title reiteration a link back to the same article, because then, through the magic of CSS, you've also made it bold. Unless they change it, that is." You just lost 75% of the people editing here. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikicode isn't intuitive. There are everyday users, and these are technical editors. If you're non-technical, you're non-editing. If the editor doesn't know how to link he's not everyday. If he knows how to link, he'll easily get self-link. There is no need "to tell them" about CSS. Greater editors will come along and correct their markup. I'm trying hard to resist making a joke about 60watt bulb-brain :) HarryAlffa (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, was that supposed to pass for an insult? At any rate, you're not getting my point. Telling someone to bold something to make it bold is always more intuitive than telling them to do something else to make it bold. Thus, you're adding complexity. Judging from your rhetoric, you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless—an attitude that's not really compatible with a wiki. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• No insult, just a little pun on your name - the clue was in the word "joke", here's a link so you can look it up. Of course I get your point, read my clear & concise response, it's obvious I understand perfectly what you are saying, there is no need to reiterate it, but judging by it you seem to think that I am absurdly clueless. I regard your rhetoric as basically dishonest. Bad faith misrepresentation of my attitude, which is clearly discernible through the discussion, as 'viewing anyone who disagrees with me as absurdly clueless', makes me want to puke. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I don't get your joke. Anyway, you have my reason for disagreeing with your proposal. To preempt any "silence indicates assent" claims I've seen you make above, you may assume I continue to disagree with your proposal unless I post otherwise. --Laser brain (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry's having a hard time with the fact that nobody agrees with his well-thought-out proposal, which he's put some effort into. I sympathise, but in this case, I think he's creating a change that would work for him, but if enforced would confuse many and annoy most of the rest (and it isn't enforceable anyway, if nobody else likes it - a point I'm not sure he's fully appreciated). Rd232 ^talk 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So a well thought out proposal, and well laid out, numerous advantages. Sounds like a good idea - tell me more about it. :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• As stated before, my opinion is to keep it simple. Bold markup should be used when boldface is intended, and link syntax should be used where linking is intended. Using link syntax to achieve boldface is not a good idea. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • To expand, yes I have read the essay and all the other write-ups. I just disagree with the conclusion that it is advantageous to use self-links. That is my well thought-out opinion – an opinion that differs from yours. Can you accept that we disagree? As for the separation of structure from presentation, you do have a point there. Rather than marking the reiteration as boldface it would be better if marked using a class indicating that it is reiteration and allow the CSS to define the desired rendering – boldface or other. However, if this were done, I would disagree with using the self-link class as an equivalent to a reiteration class. Reiteration is not the same as self-link, and need not be rendered the same. Implementing a new class would require either that the reiteration be templated ("{{Reit|Color}} or {{Reit|colour}} is the ...") or that a new wiki-markup syntax be defined ("^^Color^^ or ^^colour^^ is the ..."). I do not like the former, but the latter has possibilities (although I am not committing myself as a supporter at this time). -- Tcncv (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • My apologies if I accused you of not reading the essay, plus I made changes to it and forgot to tell everyone - see below! I'm glad you agree with the W3C, and I'm glad I agree with you on the general principle of separating structure and presentation. I also think you are completely right when you say that rather than have display formatting markup, it would be better to have semantic markup of the reiteration by CSS class, then a CSS file could display it any desired way. My thoughts were identical to yours in the way this could be implemented. So we find ourselves agreeing on much! Can I say that we both agree that a semantic markup for the reiteration is a nice idea? But we still disagree that using the self-link syntax is desirable? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that is a fair summary. But I would like to be clear that, even though I've thrown a few ideas into the discussion, this does not mean that I am ready to co-sponsor a proposal to add new constructs to wiki-markup syntax. I like to see consistency, and where practical prefer following standards, but I am not an idealist. If we open the door to new syntax constructs to support separation of structure from presentation, we should probably look at the bigger picture to see where else this would apply. For example, italics may be used for emphasis, for titles, for foreign language words and phrases, and likely for other purposes. Should we define and promote new wiki-markups for each? Ideally – yes, but from a practical standpoint – maybe not. As long as most editors are still hand coding markup, I lean heavily to the practical side. If the accessibility project comes up with a fancy new editing interface which relieves the novice editor of having to learn wiki-markup syntax, I would then lean more towards the idealist view. For now, although I would be interested in listening to what others think of such proposals, I cannot be counted on as an advocate at this time. It might be best to see what the accessibility project yields. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I too think it would be a little extravagant to define new wiki-markup, but a handy, logical way of semantic markup which means "this text is the title of the article", is a link to itself - which fits the same description. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Just when I thought there was a hint of two way communication, you show that you are all talk and no listen. If you insist on demonstrating your compulsion for pissing into the wind, I shall stand clear. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
            • ??!! I was saying that I am also not pushing for new wiki-markup, then attempting to give a new, succinct description of what self-links are in terms of semantics. ??!! HarryAlffa (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• i agree that using linking markup for purposes other than creating links is a bad idea. when boldface is wanted, there's markup for that specific purpose. Sssoul (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm with Sssoul. Just look at the problems created when trying to unwind the unholy mess created because some people thought using the links mechanism to autoformat dates... Let's keep it simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Laser Brain, Tcncv and Sssoul. Tony (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with most other stated reasons to not change from the current: leads are rarely used word for word in summary articles, editors that learn wikicode by example rather than help pages will become confused, fails for articles where title repetition is not used, and probably the most important reason (as exemplified by the date delinking issues) relying on the function of one aspect of the Mediawiki code to perform another (which already has its own independent function) is about as bad as operator overloading and will lead to significant problems in the future should the self-link display feature be changed. We know we want the title part bold, lets just use bold. (And we're talking replacing 6 characters with 4 if copy/paste is being done - that is certain a tiny tiny tiny advantage compared to all the problems). --MASEM (t) 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• All what problems? Add them to the list of three disadvantages at the top. Compared to the thirteen advantages - how can they be tiny, tiny, tiny?. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• From operator overloading, "Operator overloading is useful". You are using Fear, uncertainty and doubt about MediaWiki - a stable software product. There is every reason to believe that MediaWiki can be relied on for this function, as much as any other. It actually CSS marks the HTML with "selflink", therefore the programmers know of this!! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• People weren't confused before when this use was widespread. As was pointed out before piped links are used for non-title repitition. Surely you know this? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• When copying the lead it's a good start to copy everything, and having the link-back error free already there - every little helps. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have demonstrated that this use is not problematic, so keep your FUD from dates out of here! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just like many have been saying in the dates discussions, "what you see is what you get" is always best. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Should not be changed, per the reasons above and to avoid breaking the principle of least surprise: Changing an article title should not have completely unrelated consequences that need fixing. And renaming happens often enough, especially (but not only) in move wars. I doubt that copying lede content happens more often. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• What completely unrelated consequences? Are they not listed at the top of this RfC? Or was that just empty rhetoric? You want to make move-wars easier? Rather than make it easier for everyday editors? Get your priorities sorted!! Anyway use [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}|article title]] to give a page-move proof method. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• *plonk*. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hah! HarryAlffa (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, that would break the whole "copying the lede sentence" thing which is the only suggested advantage of this idea.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You think I didn't know that?!?! You obviously didn't have time to read my essay, the very last sentence. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So in response to a problem with your proposal you suggest a substantially different solution you've already rejected? OK, whatever. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a knee-jerk there. So you regard making page-move wars more difficult as a problem? Any good faith reading of my response would conclude I was making a comment on the exception of a page-move war, ie. a temporary emergency measure. Now your just trying to put the boot in werever possible - not cool man. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than try to answer all the points raised individually, I've expanded somewhat the start of this RfC. Which of course I hope will change your mind! HarryAlffa (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for not posting that I had made a few substantial additions to my essay - I was sure I had - I made later postings thinking I had, don't know the timeline. Sorry! HarryAlffa (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest silence

Since the nominator is disruptively reopening this RfC in spite of the obvious rejection of the proposal, I suggest we adopt the WP:DNFT treatment and stop responding to him. At least that is what I shall be doing. Or as Hans put it more succinctly above, *plonk*.--Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very exemplary of you.

If you'd bothered to check, if you weren't in a temper, you'd have seen that Tcncv and I were coming to some agreement on some fundamentals.

You disruptively, rudely and abruptly removed the RfC tag^*, which was a bit much, it would have been polite to ask me to remove it - then I would have said Tcncv and I were in the middle of discussion. I was on the point of going to WP:ANI. Cool it - please.

From WP:SNOW;

• when in doubt allow discussions to take place
• The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.

HarryAlffa (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt—the proposal was soundly rejected. I, therefore, endorse the statement of Kotniski. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is being soundly rejected, it's not over yet :) HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Given HarryAlffa's obvious unwillingness to accept the current RFC outcome, closing it was unwise. Just let it run the 30 days and die when the bot kills it automatically. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unwise & rude. An outcome can only be that at the end, therefore there cannot be a current outcome. There is a current consensus against, but I live in hope, and for more user comments - lots with a good background in CSS and markup. I am perfectly willing to accept the outcome, when it comes, in 30 days. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yees, but all the time it's advertised on the RfC page, people are going to be distracted into coming here and wasting time on a hopeless proposal, instead of perhaps going to a genuinely important RfC discussion somewhere else...--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were shutting your face? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Rd232 ^talk 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Very selective. This whole section's purpose is to be uncivil, yet you didn't comment on that, in fact you joined in. Isn't that hypocrisy? And isn't it dishonesty to describe my question on someone's proclaimed intention as uncivil? It is in fact willful misinterpretation, which I regard as dishonesty, no equivocations. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up. *plonk*. Rd232 ^talk 11:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summary for RFC of current !votes

(since people didn't use bold !votes above):

• 1 support (HarryAlffa, proposer)
• 12 oppose (Rd232, Ruslik, Laserbrain, Kotniski, Tcncv, masem, Sssoul, Tony1, Hans Adler, Dabomb87, Ohconfucius, Ckatz (per previous discussions w/proposer))
  • 1 confused, Ruslik listed disadvantages that only apply to the current explicit bold method, even though he was against the selflink use. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• see also Jan 09 discussion on this (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_107#Using_self_links_as_bold_reiteration) where 1 proposer (TedPavlic) met 4 opposes (xeno, andrewsc, matisse, DGG)
  • From 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) TedPavlic (talk)

    I don't view the self links as a method for bolding. I view the Wikipedia convention of wikifying relevant words the first time they are used as implying that the subject of an article should be wikified as well. I don't view double square brackets purely as a link; I view them as an identifier of a word that is so relevant and important that it deserves its own page. Hence, if that relevant keywords is on its own page, it gets bolded, and if it's on a different page, it gets linked. The wikification isn't a link itself; it's an identification of an important word.

    Now that is well informed, intelligent comment. HarryAlffa (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • From 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) TedPavlic (talk) (in response to Harry's request for support)

    "I think you may need to let this dead dog lie."

    Now that is well informed, intelligent comment. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RFC

RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.

HarryAlffa (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz. And here, the discussion has been encapsulated by the !votes. Tony (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence

In the question of self-link usage you need a degree of technical knowledge, competence, or even expertise, in HTML or similar markup (but not simpler) and CSS, before you are competent to make a good analysis of it. Knowing this, I've given a lot of good information on what's involved in this - a good technical appraisal.

And who could argue against a good analysis as a basis for any decision?

Everyone who is against this idea has reacted reflexively, and only one has demonstrated an intellectual engagement with the W3C's approach to this, and he agreed on the fundamentals which prompted my suggestion, if not on the actual proposal. Do any of you actually believe the WP:Consensus?

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

Surely part of honest debate is to recognise when something is beyond your own competence, then try to get to grips with the subject matter, generating your own system of good reasons. It is clear to me that all the respondents have some degree of FUD in there own minds about this, because they don't really understand how it works and therefore fear phantom repercussions. Others directly oppose the W3C's approach to structural markup and want hard-coded display formatting. If you fall into either of these categories, then I would respectfully suggest you're not on firm intellectual foundations, you have no system of good reasons. Other FUD comes from date-formatting uses of wikilinks and the problems that threw up - and that's the whole argument! There is no follow-up explaining how the one problem area transfers to another, nobody has said anything like, and therefore this will lead to X, Y & Z in this use - it's a simple transference of FUD. If you fall into this category then you too do not have a system of good reasons. One even tried to sow FUD about Mediawiki itself.

I think the only objection made with even a hint of good reason is the problem of novice users, and using markup for the first time can be confusing. No matter which way you cut it, there is a learning curve involved. Someone called them everyday, non-technical users, but Wikicode isn't intuitive. There are everyday users and these are editors, but if you're non-technical you're non-editing. If an editor doesn't know how to link he's not everyday, and if he knows how to link, he'll easily get self-link. So in the end this argument is also FUD - it might be really bad for someone who doesn't know what they're doing. This use was widespread in the beginning, novices are no more confused today than they were when you were a novice, in fact there is less of a learning curve now than at the start.

Then there's the combination; just use bold because that's simpler, and novices will find it confusing otherwise. This is just FUD on FUD, and not a system of good reasons.

Nav-boxes were brought up, but I've shown that these are not a problem, and if the CSS file Ruslik advertised is typical (I suspect there is one source for this, and others have copied it), then that will work as it is if self links were universally used for first mention reiteration - there are no "side-effects" either way; on first mention appearance or nav-boxes. I think previous "problems" were because users didn't have competence in CSS, but if they all copied off one competent user, the problem was solved at that point - there was no need to "ban" self linking.

Page-moves are mostly an admin concern, and it's a slippery-slope for admin convenience to decide a Wiki-wide guideline of any sort. Although page-moves might be considered a sensible argument against this use on an unstable article, but, even for those of you with this as the basis for your evaluation, it falls away for a stable, Good or Featured article, while all the advantages I've listed stand tall, because by their very definition these articles are not only unlikely to page-move, but they are more likely to be quoted in other articles and discussions.

So at the least, for a stable, Good or Featured article there is simply no system of good reasons to recommend against this use as the MoS footnote does just now.

There is "pedantic lawyering" by some users, who will follow you around and revert you - quoting the MoS, and that's the only contribution to a page they make. If the recommendation against self-links were removed, it would do no harm, and it would stop such petty minded bureaucrats who think the MoS is legislation.

At the very least self-link usage should be left to individual editors, with my expert-eye judging it a preferred use. Common sense can over-rule the MoS. What's yours telling you about your own objections? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You sound like a computer programmer who tries to push through an unpopular code formatting convention at his workplace and, having failed, wants to abolish formatting conventions altogether. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody is responsible for every bit of code. People get irritated when confronted with a convention they are not used to, and making one (1) of our 150,000 active editors happy is not a good reason to reduce uniformity.

As to your assertions that one needs to have a background in certain web technologies to be worthy of discussing with you – I do, I don't see the relevance at all (it's like arguing that you need to have a detailed understanding of the target platform to be taken seriously about indentation of C code), and I can easily counter it with the assertion that a good grasp of the theory of formal languages is even more vital since we are talking about strings over an alphabet. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making a Straw man argument, which I regard as a form of dishonesty, particularly the way you have employed it here. What is it I'm trying to abolish exactly? It is you (you can take that as plural if you like) who have succeeded in abolishing the self-link use, specially created for the purpose by the programmers of Mediawiki, in wiki-markup - with zero good reasons. It is false to describe this as a "code formatting convention", to know this and yet to proclaim it is a lie. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody assumes good faith. The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on.

Your second paragraph - Straw man again, like a politician. You have given an entirely dishonest description of the spirit and fact of my position and how I expressed it in my previous contribution here. I clearly and respectfully suggested to any reader who came our way that it would be a good idea to have good knowledge of relevant fields of knowledge before they expressed an opinion on the self-link subject. For you to say that I said anyone is unworthy to debate with me is another lie. You are clearly operating in bad faith, so I cannot trust anything you say, even your proclaimed inability to see any relevance - I am not going to waste any more time countering your arguments given in bad faith. Shame on you. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finally ending this silly thread.--Hans Adler (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame you still haven't taken the advice of one of the few people to agree with you: "I think you may need to let this dead dog lie." This is a tool used by x thousands of people who are just fine with how it currently is. It's not going to be changed to suit you. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More straw men! This is not a proposal to "suit me". To suggest this is a misrepresentation of my position, and you know it to be a misrepresentation. Can you actually answer any of the points I've made in "Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence"?

You can't even be accurate or self consistent! The "few people who agree with me" doesn't equate to just me! HarryAlffa (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a proposal which suits your logic and priorities. Others have agreed to drop it, so it leaves 1 (one) editor. WP:DEADHORSE applies now not merely to you, but also to those who have sought to engage you and to close a discussion which you have successfully poisoned with your arrogant and argumentative obstreperousness (see eg this section title), to the point where it is unlikely to ever have a chance of being resurrected again. Disembrangler (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame this discussion has gone the way it has. For my part, Harry, I don't feel that you ever sufficiently answered my concern that your proposal is adding complexity for everyday users. I don't agree with your assertion that if someone is non-technical, they are non-editing. I'm not sure what circles you travel when you're not in here, but glance at any random article and you will see definite evidence that non-technical people have edited. You remarked that "Greater editors will come along and correct their markup." More work, more complexity. You also never answered my remark that most users are Word users. They click the B in their Word toolbar for bold, so they click the B in their Wiki toolbar to make something bold. Are you going convince the Mediawiki developers to change the function of that button to wikilink? I don't think so. I wish you would have accepted the closure of the RfC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hard not to agree. Harry, please take a step back and think about what these expert editors are saying. Perhaps we can move on and benefit from your contributions on other matters? Tony (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you regard me as not an expert editor? HarryAlffa (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Tony meant to say other expert editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Laser Brain, I feel that I did answer your concern for everyday users. You talked about the B button, I talked about editors making wiki links - which can be done by pressing the Wiki-link button. So that means it's as easy to make a self-link as it is to make something bold. So "even" Word users can do it. It depends on your definition of technical - let's not go there. Of course there are random editors of random articles - that's the whole point of Wikipedia. These editors will always need tidied up after. And you are another to use the detestable straw man argument. When did I say I wanted to change the function of the bold button? Never, that's when, a damn ridiculous thing to say. I regard straw man arguments as dishonest - it means you can be viewed as operating in bad faith - that's my experience with those who persistently use it anyway, but I do not know you well enough to make that sort of judgement, just keep it in mind please. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if there had been more intellectual engagement the discussion would not have "gone this way". Why not answer my question of good reasons in consensus? That might actually be productive. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it was a mistake to try engaging you. It's a mistake I won't make again. --Laser brain (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before this was an argument which showed some good reasons. I'm not suggesting that ALL users MUST switch over to self-link use. The common sense get-out clause would obviously apply to new articles or users, but for stable articles there is no sense in being explicitly against it. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.