Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

WP:CONTEXT archives Support and opposition Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 – repeating links Archive 5 – links in quotations Archive 6 Archive 7 – final archive WP:BUILD archive Archive WP:MOSLINK archives Archive 1 Jul 2006 and earlier Archive 2 Archive 3 Sep 2006 – Jan 2009 Archive 4 Jan 2009 – May 2009 Archive 5 May 2009 – Jun 2009 Archive 6 Jul 2009 – Aug 2009 Archive 7 Sep 2009 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Greetings, my fellow Wikipedians. I hope I have not kept you waiting for too long; I admit that I had underestimated the difficulty of the task entrusted to me, as well as the demands of my other pursuits on my time. Here I am, however, and I bring you the results of the judging process: the five monthly winners of 2009 and the overall winner for that year. Ladies and gentlemen, here follow last year's silliest wikilink of the month awards!

(Drum roll, please.)

• Our first winner is Ohconfucius for his August nomination of "windows", from 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. There was a hard fight between it and "alcohol" (not in a bar, though), for they were equally useless; in the end, the Microsoft association that pops up in one's head on second reading won the day for the transparent-opening-in-a-wall camp.
• For September 2009, the winner is Tony1 for "disaster" from Elton John. ("Human" and "lid" came close.) The link is pretty much self-describing; "utterly redundant" and "completely irrelevant" are the first characterisations to spring to mind, but this one also happens to grace a quotation. One almost expects an Easter egg there, explaining the exact nature of the disaster. This would be fine for the Daily Mail, but it is hardly appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
• Many ridiculous links were nominated in October, but the difference in John Martin Scripps is that we have an entire collection of them. Nominated by Ohconfucius, who is this month's winner, the anatomy-themed links include such unknown concepts as "arms", "knees" and "torso". As only one link can actually be chosen, however, I have elected "head" to represent the group. Make of that what you will.
• As tempting as "toilet attendant" may have been for its comedy value, one cannot ignore the fact that pretty much every person in the world old enough to read knows what a dog is. And even if they don't remember that one of the most prized qualities in a dog is loyalty, the reader was helpfully reminded of this in the text. The canine was mentioned (and linked) in passing in Characters of Final Fantasy VI and the winner for November 2009 is (again) Ohconfucius.
• December 2009 was another month with worthy nominations, including the first two from non-mainspace pages. But the award can only go to one contender, and I have decided to bestow it upon Adrian J. Hunter for "Wikipedia" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). The assumption that anyone would be reading a Wikipedia project page (in the Manual of Style of all places!) without knowing what Wikipedia is simply cannot go unrecognised. "Computer-generated cartoon elephant" initially seemed to be a strong contender on pure-silliness grounds, but I could not accept it because it was actually a group of links.
• And now, for the great winner of 2009, we have five candidates (this being SILLIWILI's inaugural year): "window", "disaster", "head", "dog" and "Wikipedia". And the silliest wikilink of 2009 is... "window"! Congratulations, Ohconfucius; you get to hold the cup for one year.

And so ends the first awards ceremony of our competition. I hope to see more entrants in the following year, so that both the range of winners and the number of different examples to avoid can be increased. See you again in a few months, either as a returning judge or as a contestant. From Waltham Hall, I bid you a good day! Waltham, The Duke of 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would thank the Duke for his precious time and effort in judging the awards for 2009, and for bestowing same upon me for several of my entries. Oh, Malleus will be disappointed–I seriously thought he had an excellent contender! There are no shortage of 'silly wikilinks' out there, and I encourage a greater number of editors to submit entries in the future. I will not be upset if this means I no longer monopolise the awards. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations Ohconfucious. I was sure I had that one in the bag. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm shocked that my "toilet attendant" got nothing, nix, zilch, niente, zèro. Tony (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I choose to believe that surprising you is a good thing, dear colleagues. :-P In any case, "silliness" is a fairly subjective criterion, so this discrepancy between expectations and results ought to have been anticipated. (That is not to say that I didn't use some objective criteria as well, however. The concept of bad links was defined long before I wore the black cap and pronounced judgement on a few hapless specimens.) Waltham, The Duke of 00:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Duke, Ohconfucius and Tony for the award! ^_^ Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rats, I'm just a little too late. Today, I reverted a string of edits in which an editor managed to link "conflict", "frustration" and "actress". Amazing.  HWV258.  10:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, add to the January entries. Tony (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to take away too much from the humorous value of the above, but some of these beg the question: when should we ever link to words like "window" or "dog" or the like? WP is meant to be a web, with articles having incoming links in addition to outgoing ones. I understand the importance of avoiding seas of blue text, and avoiding links of words that should be clearly obvious if you've already found your way to en.wiki in the first place. But taking these to heart, articles like "window" or "dog", by this type of advice, would never have incoming links, it would seem, and that's harmful itself as well to the wiki.

So, the begged question is: all other factors the same, when should we be linking to articles that are common english terms that we would otherwise avoid (per the above)? --MASEM (t) 15:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good question, and lies at the heart of the over-linking issue. I think the short answer would be "link when the target article's contents would give the reader a better understanding of the subject they are reading about". In this sense there are many articles which ought to almost never be linked because their subjects are only mentioned in passing and we all know what they are; the link offers no benefits and contributes to over-linking. Window is one such article, as no user of Wikipedia is expected not to know what a window is. However, the article clearly exists, and has information on the history, types and construction of windows. All this is relevant to many architecture- and construction-related articles, not to mention the various types of windows which can link to the main article for background. Links in such cases are often not only useful but necessary.

Every article notable enough to be included in Wikipedia should have a range of other articles relevant enough to link to it (and theoretically well-developed enough to mention it). For the most notable ones this remains true, even if their subjects are mentioned far more often. "Mention" does not equal "content relevance", however, and therefore their respective treatments also differ with respect to linking. Waltham, The Duke of 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is hard to think of a context in which just "Window" is useful. The article is quite detailed and includes an historical section. A section-link could possibly be useful ("British architects tended to include more [[Window#Casement window|casement windows]] in the designs at the start of the 20th century." The article on "Dog" may be worth linking in the lead of "Bull mastiff" (indeed it is linked), but frankly dog gives no focused information for the likely reader of "Bull mastiff". Perhaps the section "History and evolution" from that article might be worth linking from Origin of the domestic dog. Again, the emphasis is on focus and utility. Tony (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these fall in line with how I think it should work , too. It seems the best way to describe this is to say, when included in an article that provides "parallel information" to the common english term, we should link it (per all other normal linking rules). Now, what I mean by "Parallel information" are concepts that fall in the same field or are of the same type of term for that field. Linking "window" in an article about history of construction of homes makes sense, but not in, for example, the description of a character being thrown out their window to their death, or the like. Linking "dog" in articles about specific species of dogs, or even other animal species, but not about the current Presidential pet, or cartoon or animated dogs. I don't know if there's a better way to word this, but I'm thinking that any advice towards this end is going to help improve WP:LINKING. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the current text, "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia", adeguate? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you are missing a point: people don't just follow links to find out the meaning of some phrase they had never heard before (indeed, it is a Bad Thing if a reader needs to do that; see WP:NOT PAPERS, point 5); they also do that in order to know more about something they already have a vague knowledge of. 615,173 people visited the article on Barack Obama last month; how many of them do you think didn't know who that guy was beforehand?

Of course most people reading the article 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake already roughly know what a earthquake is; but it is very likely that someone reading such an article will be interested in more details about the geophysics, the issues relating to, and/or the effects of earthquakes in general; the link to earthquake at the top serves for that. Likewise, someone reading the article Group 11 element very likely has already heard of copper, silver, and gold, but it is very likely to want to know more about the the natural occurrence, the chemico-physical properties, and/or the uses of each one of those metals; so there are links to their respective articles. Also, everybody roughly knows how long a second is, but on reading that the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 of a second, they might be curious to know how the second is in turn defined, so we link second.

Back to our example, someone reading the article Canidae might be interested in details about the zoology of the wolf, the coyote, and/or of the dog; the links at the top do that. It is somewhat less likely that a reader of Bullmastiff wants to do that, but still quite possible, and the lead of that article isn't so full of blue that blueing three more letters is going to be ipso facto a problem. On the other hand, the probability that someone reading about a fictional dog might become interested in the zoology of real dogs in general is negligible. (Similar examples with Window are left as an exercise for the reader.)

BTW, I think it is normally more useful to link to Casement window than to Window#Casement window; sections often start abruptly (i.e. assume the reader has already read the previous part of the article) and are less likely to be expanded. And I don't get the point of directly linking Dog#History and evolution from Origin of the domestic dog, as the former is (supposed to be) a summary of the latter. Linking to the top of the former article, where the reader can get to the TOC with one keystroke and decide themselves what particular aspect of dogs they are most interested in, is more useful.

The bottom line is that if the set of people potentially interested in reading a particular article is empty, there's little point in writing the article in the first place. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last point; is there a word missing?

Yes, sorry. Added. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"615,173 people visited the article on Barack Obama last month; how many of them do you think didn't know who that guy was beforehand?" Yes, but how many visited via a wikilink rather than a direct google or search-box action? (Rather a tiny proportion, I suspect, although it's impossible to tell.)

Yes, having the toolserver count the referring URLs as well as the total page visits would be interesting. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your rationale appears to mandate the linking of just about any item in text: that slippery slope will lead us down the WP.fr ugly blue-spattered text—unrestrained wikilinking that probably inhibits link-clicking, no doubt the opposite of editors' intentions, because they're not seeing it from readers' point of view. The advantages and disadvantages of adding each link should be skilfully weighed up, and we should avoid the assumption that not linking an item is somehow denying access to that article.

No, my rationale isn't that one. There are plenty of items which I do not think should be linked. And I am viewing it from the POV of the reader too– I am quite frustrated when I read an article and cannot find a link to an obviously closely related topic I become interested in. Not linking an item doesn't deny access to the article provided that, among other things, the reader knows that an article about that topic exists and is willing to bother to search for it. Removing all public transportation to a borough isn't going to be a good idea even if you aren't blocking people from accessing it by their own means. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Piano non troppo, a professional webmaster and programmer, has written of his experience and intuition WRT to the saturation of text with links and the surprisingly low level of link following by readers. This accords with what psychologists have learned by direct experiment theoretical analogy WRT signal-to-noise ratio, confirmed by User Holcombea, a US researcher in the field of visual perception. I can provide links if required. Tony (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing to saturate text with links. I completely agree that the blue in Irish phonology#History of the discipline, for example, makes it nearly unreadable. I'm saying that it makes little sense to remove a link from a sentence containing no other links on the sole ground that it is to a word everyone has heard before, no matter how strongly relevant to the article. As for the surprisingly low level of link following, that likely varies from person to person and from situation to situation. That might be true for most people, but removing links on that grounds would be like banishing photomultipliers because most people never or seldom use them. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely as a reader (I barely edit Wikipedia anymore), I have noticed I am growing in frustration when reading articles, when I am having to use my internet search engine to find Wikipedia articles which really I felt I should just have been linked to. Now, I know that overlinking is a problem - I recall that link saturation was pretty horrible on Wikipedia circa 2004. But I do wonder if people are being somewhat overzealous removing links that, to them, feel redundant - there is an underlying difficulty that the utility of a link will vary greatly from reader to reader, and some subgroups of users have different needs to others. Some subgroups are obvious and it should be relatively simple to take into consideration: readers with different levels of English, readers used to different varieties of English, readers who are inexpert on the topic of the article. Other subgroups of readers may be non-obvious: different groups of readers have arrived at the article in different ways, for instance (those landing from a search engine may be more likely to be searching around for links that would give greater context, while those who have got there from an internal link on a related article may already have a better sense of context) and readers who arrived via a section link (who are to some extent discriminated against if the "link only once in an article" rule is too strictly applied to, and a link that is important for general understanding only appears above the section they arrive at). Finding a way that balances the needs of all these groups, while not leading to a plague of unnecessary blue everywhere, is tricky.

I think the Obama example was not as helpful as it may first appear - I would suggest that, since Obama is a specific individual, his name should be linked at least the first time it appears in any article. The proportion of people who arrive at the Obama article from such links compared to external search engines is actually besides the point - a more interesting statistic would be, for any given article into which a link to the Obama article has been inserted, what proportion of users make use of it? Even if this proportion is fairly low, I suggest that in most cases it is worthwhile. (Although this isn't a cast iron test of a link's worth: in most such articles, I doubt any improvement would be created by removing the Obama link and creating another link elsewhere; so if we accept the current level of bluelinkage, the Obama link itself is not sub-optimal.) I have some suggestions - mostly these are "indisputably correct" in the sense that I know these suggestions would be useful to me, but are "controvertible" in the sense that my needs, and needs of other readers like myself, may not be easily incorporated into clearly defined rules that would be useful to apply for editing purposes, or would actively reduce the utility of Wikipedia for other readers if applied. I have included some examples of nominated "silly links" that actually I felt there was a case for.

• First off, there are several reasons why I might click on a link (or might want to, but find there isn't one given), so before removing a link or considering when to add one, it's worth thinking whether there are any readers who will have any of the following 5 thoughts:

1. I don't know who/what/where this is (commonly: people, technical terms, places; also WP:ENGVAR problems etc)
2. I know what/who this is, but I'm interested in some additional aspect of this new topic e.g. what it does/how it works etc because this will help my understanding of some specific detail of the current topic (commonly: links from a "specific" article to a "general" article; e.g. if reading about my local airport, I might want to find out about the purpose or functioning of runway, control tower etc and even the general article on the subject, "airport")
3. I know what/who this is, but I want to find out more about it, because this seems interesting in its own right/helps me to see the current article in some wider context (commonly: links from one "specific" article to another, e.g. from one biography to a mentioned contemporary, or one breed of dog to another)
4. I know what/who this is, but want to visit this new article because it may give more useful links to follow, and those may put my current article in better context (commonly: links to a "general" or "list of" article; for instance from an article about a particular type of window, to "window" itself, or from a breed of dog to an article about "dog", or "list of dog breeds")
5. I was told earlier what/who this is, but I've now forgotten (commonly: people - personal names convey less "sense" or meaning than even abstruse technical terms - mentioned towards the start of a long article, but who then only reappear several pages later; in fairness this could often be resolved by a more explanatory writing style when a subject is reintroduced after a long break rather than a wikilink)

• In general links of the type in point 1 (broadly construed to mean any time there is something/someone mentioned that a significant proportion of readers wouldn't be able to identify; bear in mind WP:ENGVAR issues), ought to be linked regardless of relevance. I saw a link to "parka" in the list of removed silly links, but I would have had to look it up had I read the article; even though it turned out that the topic of parka/anorak was not especially pertinent to the article about Korea, without knowing what a "parka" was I could not realise that, and would have been compelled to look it up. In the case of non-pertinent links such as this, it seems to me that a wiktionary entry would have sufficed, but it doesn't seem harmful to link to the wikipedia entry, since that too identifies the meaning of the word, and either way it requires a blue link.
• Some links are more essential to understanding than others. If there is an article which some readers enter via a section link, then it is worth repeating such high priority links if they were only previously linked above the relevant section link. Similarly for point 5, an "essential" link might in certain circumstances be more worth repeating than a non-essential link, if the previous time it was mentioned and link was several pages higher up in the article.
• One aspect of "pertinence" is whether the current article is a "basic" or "general" article, or a more specific one. In an article about "houses", I might expect to find a link to the general article about "windows". In an article about a very specific house, I wouldn't expect such a general link - although a link (possibly a section link) explaining the particular type of window used in this specific house would make sense.

Just my two cents, but I wanted to give a reader's viewpoint. I've perceived a genuinely irritating rise in frustrating "non-links" over the past couple of years. TheGrappler (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your points, but case 1 should be avoided as often as possible. If in an article "parka" is used in a way such that one cannot figure out from the context that it is a heavy garment, adding the link makes things only marginally better, as it requires readers to jump to another article to understand the sentence, they are lost in hardcopy, etc. It is unavoidable to do that in articles over über-technical topics such as de Rham cohomology, but most articles aren't. See WP:NOT PAPERS. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I would have tended to agree with you. But the widespread adoption of tabbed browsing, and also the availability of WP:POPUPS (particularly if it's only for the basic definition of something), make checking out a link far easier than reaching for my OED or having to do a googlesearch for the uncomprehended word or phrase. Of course it would be far better to address the issue by better wording: including of regional English variations where necessary, or giving a paranthetic explanation for terms the reader may not be familiar with (perhaps in a similar model to the way The Economist always carefully introduces each corporation mentioned in an article), or better still to avoid the use of words or phrases that readers may need to look up, if there are alternative ways to phrase them or if they can be left out altogether if essentially irrelevant to the article. TheGrappler (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a problem recently where an article contained red links to persons. However, one of the persons had a blue link. I clicked on it, and it turned out to be the wrong person. I think what happened is the link was originally red, but later someone wrote an article about an entirely different person with the same name. This makes me think that red links to persons are a bad idea. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users are advised that a template has been created for use at that top of articles that have significant compliance problems. It can be inserted simply as:

{{Linkaudit}} or {{Overlinked}}

However, the date of posting should normally be included, thus:

{{Linkaudit|date=January 2010}} or {{Overlinked|date=January 2010}}

to render this:

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected this new template to {{Overlinked}}, as it has the same function Template:Overlinked has been fullfilling so far. I have notified the author and he has agreed. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User James B Watson has added the last bullet to the guideline:

I took the liberty of weeding out some redundant wording in this section while thinking about the addition:

What do people think about the addition? PS Anyone know how to align both boxes to the margin? It's misbehaving. Tony (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The last point still risks clogging up the 'see also' section, as people continue to demonstrate remarkable lack of understanding as to what is 'important' or 'germane'. However, it can be useful in large articles (say, over 90kb) which are linked strictly according to the current version.

  On a separate point, I have qualified the line about tables. In my travels, I often see tables of twenty or thirty or so lines where there are a small number of (maybe three or four) rubrics where every line is linked. I feel that this can be very distracting and dilutive to higher value links in adjacent columns, and I often have little hesitation in removing the duplicates when I see the entire table is a sea of blue links. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's define the size of a table by the screen display. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking about it some more, bullet 4 has the same effect as bullet 1, thus is repetitive/redundant. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit was made on the pretext of wanting to leave linking of tables to editors' descretion. However, as it is currently worded, this is not achieved–this is no discretion, but a mandate for multiple low value links to dilute potentially valuable ones. I have therefore amended it to read linking to be at editors' discretion, as was likely intended. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems sensible to make it optional. Tony (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is written now:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

I disagree with these OPINIONS 100%. The BIOGRAPHY of a person fits within the context and parameters of the years of birth and death. Having a link makes it easy to compare the world the person was born in with the world they grew up in and the year they died in.

I note that publications, even when writing abbreviated bios, almost always include the essential birth and death years, such as Columbia Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, for a time, rightly had links to years. The recent "delinking" craze has forgotten that one of the two most important features of Wikipedia is the wikilink (the other is that "anyone can edit").Ryoung122 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that linking is essential to the idea of WP, which is why it's important not to add too many. When an article is a sea of blue, each link is practically meaningless, which is why there's been a push to persuade editors to use them judiciously. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here is the third of three recent RFCs showing that consensus is firmly against routine links to years of birth and death. Sssoul (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that all biographies at WP mention the essential birth and death years so we are at least as "good" as the Columbia Encyclopedia in that regard. :-)

I will take exception to the "rightly" part of "Wikipedia, for a time, rightly had links to years". The decision not to link dates of birth and death was a consensus-driven process commented-on by hundreds of editors. The use of the pejorative "craze" firmly plants the above observation in the personal point-of-view category (and, as the debate showed, a tiny minority view at that).

I will also take exception to the use of the (shouted) word "OPINION", as no statement could be further from the facts. The wording of Option 1 came about after a tortuous process involving editors from all points-of-view. The fact that 208 editors supported the wording further removes it from the domain of "opinion".

I'm curious, so a direct question to Ryoung122: During the period of the poll (March 30, 2009 to April 13, 2009) you made 60 edits, however your username doesn't appear anywhere on the polling page. Did you not know the poll was occurring? If you did know, why didn't you inject the arguments that you now feel are so important? I ask of course because you have to appreciate how frustrating it is to go through the entire datelinking debate, only to have to relive it now that one editor doesn't like the result to which so many editors agreed.

 HWV258.  00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

While I had thought it was obvious that I was employing an "exception to the rule" argument rather than arguing against consensus (the fact that I wasn't editing non-longevous biographies for year links should be a clue), apparently I was mistaken.

Therefore, I am requesting that we have:

1. a period of discussion (say, two weeks) allowing for discussion of whether a very few articles concerned with "links to the past" should have an exception

2. Articles should be maintained at the status quo as of January 26 (before the current debate began)

3. That discussion on various pages (Jeanne Calment, Jiroemon Kimura, Marie Bremont, etc be brought here.

4. This discussion should focus ONLY on whether persons noted for extreme longevity (where "links to the past" is considered important by many, many multiple outside sources which existed long before Wikipedia did) should have a link in the article to the year of birth

I am leaving for now, more later.Ryoung122 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deplore the lack of year-links generally,for a long time it was an understood default Wikipedia style that of course all calendar years were linked on first appearance in any article.In this particular case it is of even greater importance.The births of the most particularly aged persons (perhaps the longest-lived and/or last survivor of each calendar year) should always be noted in the article about the year itself,so there is an element of recursion in the link from the biographical article.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please register and sign in: it takes about three minutes. Without signing in, it is difficult to verify your comments. If you need more information, please buzz me at my talk page. Tony (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encouraged Ryoung122 to promote the discussion of this topic to this page (previously, the majority of the debate was at Talk:Jiroemon_Kimura#Year_link). The issue of linking particular dates has been brought to a head recently as Ryoung122 believes it is appropriate to link the date of birth of "persons noted for extreme longevity". Reverting (linking/unlinking of dates) has occurred on the pages listed above (in point 3)—although that has recently diminished.

Following much debate and comment, a 2009 poll was conducted in which four options were presented to editors. The wording of Option 1 (which received the overwhelming support of 208 editors) is:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

Following this consensus, a date-delinking bot was authorised and has been moving through article space to remove date links (in accordance with community consensus). In an attempt to justify the linking of some dates, Ryoung122 recently removed the final sentence of Option 1. That action can be seen as an attempt to weaken the (consensus) policy, and demonstrates a willingness to circumvent community process in an attempt to achieve a goal. Ryoung122 has also made a large number of edits that relink the birth year of a person—all with an edit comment similar to "year links appropriate for oldest persons". Each of those edits followed the (consensus-driven and authorised) edit by a bot (or user) to delink dates. Each bot edit was made with an edit summary that provided a link back to a guideline page (for explanation). Ryoung122 is experienced enough to know that bots don't get authorised that perform actions that go against consensus. I therefore believe those edits to be disruptive. There is evidence that Ryoung122 desires other dates to be linked. For example this reversion re-established links for "2001", "2006", "2008" and "2009" (a non-revert edit could have been made to leave these dates unlinked). This indicates Ryoung122's sympathy in linking dates other than the birth year of "persons noted for extreme longevity". A personal observation is that Ryoung122 is simply not happy with the consensus decision to not link dates in general, and has now undertaken what appears to be a one-man crusade to buck the guideline.

The following points indicate why I don't believe the linking of dates policy should be altered in accordance with Ryoung122's stated wishes:

1. The policy to not link dates of birth and death was decided by a large number of editors, and the debate that led to consensus occurred over a long period of time. The final sentence in the consensus-driven wording to indicate that birth or death years should not be linked is particularly clear, and does not contain a caveat as to the nature of the link (e.g. a person's age).
2. The wording of Option 1 begins "Year articles should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter". As has been pointed out to Ryoung122, there is little or nothing of relevance in the list of trivia that is reached upon clicking a year link. In the example given, there is nothing at 1897 that relates to either "Japan" or "Asia", and even if there was, there can be no relevance to someone who could only have been aged up to 12 months in 1897.
3. A list of trivia in a particular year is not an effective mechanism in providing "a link to the past" (as has been given as a reason for establishing links on birth years). The events listed at a year page (e.g. 1897) are not even particularly good at establishing a setting or era for the birth of a person. To believe so is like saying that the 2000s can be defined by what happened in 2004. I'm more sympathetic to the linking of a decade (e.g. 1890s) from a biography article as at least the decade page attempts to define an era (and can therefore provide some sort of background into what may have influenced the person in the biography).
4. It could be argued that the year a person was born does not make them famous. In the case of "extreme old age", it is the year they died (or the current year if they haven't) that makes them "famous". I don't believe the "fame" associated with having lived all the way up until 2010 is enough of a reason to justify the link of 1897 (in the example given above).
5. The trivial number of readers who visit a biography page and wish to find out more about the events that occurred in the year of birth can easily get to the relevant year page by entering the four digits of the year into the WP search box and then clicking the "Go" button. This is an issue that was discussed during the date-linking debate, and it was thought that the small price paid for this process was considered worth it so as to not clutter the page with unnecessary links.
6. The addition of year links adds clutter to a page and dilutes the more valuable links on a page.
7. It should not be up to one editor to decide on exceptions to a guideline that evolved from a significant community-driven process. Ryoung122 writes about "exception to the rule" argument, however I don't believe that that argument can apply in this case. If the result of this discussion is to add a caveat to the guideline that says "years of birth may be linked in biographies of people who have reached extreme old age", then so be it. However until that consensus change has been reached, it is not appropriate for Ryoung122 (and others) to edit in contrary to the established guideline. Doing so goes way beyond "being bold".
8. There has so far been very little support for Ryoung122's stance on this issue. This should be contrasted with the large number of editors who voted for Option 1 (the last sentence of which did not refine which years of birth should be linked). On the "Jiroemon Kimura" talk page there has been only one other (non-IP) editor who has supported Ryoung122's stance (that is User:SiameseTurtle). (Personally I don't mind IP edits in article space, but I disregard them in talk space as it is impossible to determine if the IP edit is simply an established editor trying to add weight to an argument. I know that veers away from AGF, but that's what experience has lead me to believe.)
9. Ryoung122 has given a reason for his stance as "If you don't think the link is meaningful for you...DON'T CLICK ON IT!". Unfortunately, this is not an argument that carries much weight on WP, as we are a consensus-driven project, and accordingly we have derived guidelines to benefit our readers. Like it or not, consensus has indicated that years of birth and death should not be linked. Example reasons include: over-linking devalues higher quality links, and that WP is not a collection of trivia. The "don't click on it" argument is also the reason why just about anything can be linked (because the reader need not click on it, right?).
10. This change would be the "thin end of the wedge" as far as the year linking guideline is concerned. Ryoung122 has provided the "extreme old age" argument, but what is to say that someone else won't take the relaxing of the guideline to be an invitation to further dilute it for other reasons? In this particular case, what does "extreme old age" mean anyway? I'm sure Ryoung122 has some sort of definition in mind (perhaps supercentenarian?), but whatever the definition is, there will always be scope for creep. For example, if the supercentenarian definition is used, I'm having a lot of trouble finding the reasonable reason for not linking the year of birth of someone who is currently 108 years old. After all, doesn't that birth year link provide a window into the past for a 108-year-old just as well as a link does for someone who is 110? For that matter, why not link 1897 for someone who was born in that year and died in 1967 (as that would also provide a link)? Sorry, once this guideline is relaxed for this proposal, it might as well be removed altogether which would open the floodgates for a return to the days of overlinking (something the community has made very clear it doesn't want).

Lastly, I would request that should Ryoung122's request to change the guideline be unsuccessful, then all of his "year links appropriate for oldest persons" date-linking edits be reverted.

What Robert Young has proposed is an example of an exception to the rule, not an argument against the consensus of editors. I agree that in this case, year links are appropriate, and I further suggest that the consensus in the form of Option 1 describes a case where a birth year is of trivial interest where the birth year in the cases Robert Young discusses are crucial elements to very existence of the pages of the individuals in question. Indeed, the pages in almost all cases would not exist if this crucial detail was lacking. The inclusion of the years, therefore, are not "trivial," and, therefore, neither is their link to year pages.

My responses to HWV's comments:

1. The final sentence in the consensus-driven wording to indicate that birth or death years should not be linked is particularly clear, and does not contain a caveat as to the nature of the link (e.g. a person's age).

But the problem with what Option 1 actually says is that the example given is of a person whose connection to that year is trivial, and there is no particular connection to architecture per se. In the case of people who are noted for their extreme age, the year of birth is a central element to their inclusion on wikipedia. So, just as we expect links for Phillip Johnson to various architectural subjects, we should also expect links to the dates that some of these individuals are associated with.

To extend the analogy further, look at the case of Harry Patch, the so-called "Last Tommy" who fought in the trenches for Britain in WWI. Is Mr Patch a noted warrior? Someone whose valour in his day brought him accolades? Or someone who led a crucial charge? Or led the British forces? I'd think that beyond the general acknowledgment of valour due to all veterans, the answer would be "no." So then, why link this person to World War I when his contribution was non-notable, even trivial? Yet no one seriously argues that there should not be a link.

In his case, I would not argue for a year-link as no specific claim about his year of birth is to be found, and would be "trivial" - last British man alive from that year, or whatever.

However, in some cases, such as the one I saw on the last man alive from 1897, the fact that he is the last man for that year on the planet is in the lede, and part of what makes his entry into wikipedia relevant. Therefore, the lack of a "caveat" is irrelevant as the example provided is of an individual whose year of birth is trivial to his inclusion to wikipedia. In the cases Robert Young cites, the year of birth is central and crucial.

2. The wording of Option 1 begins "Year articles should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter".

The year itself is what is germane and topical to the subject matter. It therefore warrants a link. And what happened in that particular year is what people in general would use to refer to when it is noted that an individual is the last co-hort of that particular year.

As I stated earlier, knowing that for the last person alive for, say, 1896, that that was the year the first Olympic Games were held, the year Wilfrid Laurier became prime minister of Canada, are items which are of interest to link from a page where the subject of longevity is discussed as it directly contextualizes how long a person lived. Indeed, a common journalistic approach to stories of extremely old people is to describe the world the year that person was born, even if that person was a) not involved in any of these events or b) wasn't even in the same country.

3. The events listed at a year page (e.g. 1897) are not even particularly good at establishing a setting or era for the birth of a person.

True, to a point, but that's where links to World War I, as in the case of Harry Patch come in. And, more to the point, a lack of a page providing "context" presupposes that a list of prominent events etc are irrelevant or trivial in and of themselves. Which is POV. I hardly believe that reading that the first Olympic Games was in the year an elder was born is not relevant as the proper "context" is not provided is a real argument against inclusion.

4. It could be argued that the year a person was born does not make them famous. In the case of "extreme old age", it is the year they died (or the current year if they haven't) that makes them "famous".

On the contrary, the fact that the person is alive from that particular year, if they are the last, is what makes them famous, though the link to the specific year, say 1897, isn't per se what makes them famous. But the fact that there is a sole living link to a particular year is noteworthy.

5. The trivial number of readers who visit a biography page and wish to find out more about the events that occurred in the year of birth can easily get to the relevant year page by entering the four digits

Since news sources routinely describe events of a year an extremely old person was born, it would seem your presumption that a "trivial number of readers" would be curious about the events of a particular year is incorrect. And we aren't arguing about linking all old people's year of birth, just those who are the last in a very few instances.

6. The addition of year links adds clutter to a page and dilutes the more valuable links on a page.

I would call that a trivial objection.

7. It should not be up to one editor to decide on exceptions to a guideline that evolved from a significant community-driven process. Ryoung122 writes about "exception to the rule" argument, however I don't believe that that argument can apply in this case. If the result of this discussion is to add a caveat to the guideline that says "years of birth may be linked in biographies of people who have reached extreme old age", then so be it.

But it isn't a true exception to the rule as the consensus was based on an example which trivially linked a birth year to a year page. In the cases we discuss, the year of birth is crucial, not trivial. The only amendment to the guideline, if one should insist on one, is to clarify that year links are appropriate when something notable about the birth or death year is stated in the lede. Such as "x is the last living person from year y." Which is notable.

8. There has so far been very little support for Ryoung122's stance on this issue. This should be contrasted with the large number of editors who voted for Option 1 (the last sentence of which did not refine which years of birth should be linked).

The "support" was for an instance for which the year of birth was trivial. In many of the cases Robert Young refers to, the year of birth is not trivial, it is crucial.

9. (O)ver-linking devalues higher quality links, and that WP is not a collection of trivia.

Year-of-birth in these cases is not "trivia." In 99 per cent of other cases, I agree, it is trivia.

10. This change would be the "thin end of the wedge" as far as the year linking guideline is concerned. Ryoung122 has provided the "extreme old age" argument, but what is to say that someone else won't take the relaxing of the guideline to be an invitation to further dilute it for other reasons?

Strawman argument. He's not suggesting we link all years of old people, and if he is somewhere I have missed, I would not agree. We are talking about cases, such as Kimura's which says, in the lede: "...and the last known living man from the year 1897." In that case, and in other similar cases, a link is entirely relevant, non-trivial, and does not violate the consensus of Option 1 which cites a case where a link would be trivial and non-germane as the individual is not noted for his year of birth. Kimura and some others are. Canada Jack (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Jack:

"So then, why link this person to World War I when his contribution was non-notable, even trivial? Yet no one seriously argues that there should not be a link." A link to a section or daughter article or related list is usually better than a link to the whole of this huge, complex topic. Ask what the reader is to do when clicking to WW1 whole article; would it not be better that we use our skills as editors and specialists in the topic to direct them more specifically (or not at all). It partly depends on the density of linking in the anchor text, too, of course. Dilution is always a concern in optimising wikilinking. It's a simple signal-to-noise ratio consideration, and knowledge of how too much choice is a turn-off for shoppers, readers, anyone.

"the fact that he is the last man for that year on the planet is in the lede, and part of what makes his entry into wikipedia relevant." I found this argument initially interesting, until I though it through properly. The notion is that we provide a link to a whole-year article (presumably a huge and all-embracing one) to show what kind of world this last survivor for that year was born into. But the problem is that the subject did not know that year; he was in a cradle. The year did not know him, either, except in a tiny familial way. The argument could be improved ad adsurdiam by suggesting that 1902, as the first time he probably would have been exposed to a world larger than that of the family home, is a more appropriate target. But even then, a five year old's purview is normally rather narrow and cossetted. Perhaps we could do every 10th anniversary year for the subject; that would be 1907, 1917, 1927, etc, so the readers could travel their way through the world as it was at equal stages through their long lives. You'd have to work those years into the prose, of course. It would be rather like the Seven Up film (is that the right title?), where they filmed a group of kids at age 0, 7, 14, 21, etc. Cute, but stretching the bounds of applicability in a serious information source.

But the elephant in the living room is that readers almost certainly don't read WP articles like that, stopping mid-sentence to click on huge year articles. Blue years also, just a little, have a dilutionary effect on the worthy links in the vicinity. A less weak argument could be made for packing year-links into the "See also" section at the bottom, where readers might be more prepared to divert, having actually read the article through uninterrupted. In the "See also" section, there's opportunity to append further information that may entice the reader to click.

However, I don't see long-livedness as a special qualification for exception from the overwhelming community consensus reached last year that dates of birth and death should not be linked. Anderson came up with one vaguely half-decent example last year (Kennedy's death year), and an argument could be put for its linking. I would argue against on the basis that anything in 1961 that relates sufficiently to Kennedy to help the reader understand Kennedy's life and achievements should probably be included in the article and/or more specifically linked to. Tony (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One short comment on Tony's response: True, he does not know the year 1897, and the year does not know him. But Kimura's association with that particular year - not 1902, not 1917, not 1927 - is stated in the article, and noted as special, specific and noteworthy. The problem with your argument ad absurdum is no one is suggesting links to other years, and I have suggested the link is justified by the fact the individual is identified as the last male co-hort of the specific year, not that the said individual's life experience should also thus be linked to year pages.

The difference between, say, Kennedy's death date (an obvious note-worthy event in 1963 which would appear on the year page) and this is the fact that Kimura's birth in that year is a unique superlative identified only with a single person. Kennedy's death, while certainly noteworthy, is not an intrinsically unique event associated only with the year 1963. Canada Jack (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As some have noted, the link is created to "gloss" the item. If someone needs more info or context with which to better understand a term, it would properly be linked. I think this holds true of the birth year of en extremely old person. Giving the year some context provides a better understanding of the rapidity of change mankind has experienced in the last century, and may provide some with a curiosity or sense of wonder about the future. This will likely always be so.robdashu (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Robdashu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This is the same argument as wanting to link to articles where years are 'not within living memory', but that idea was also rejected in WP:DATEPOLL (or the RfC before), as I recall. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Before spending valuable time on this issue (and the two sections above—which seem eerily similar), I'd like to know with whom I'm dealing. User:Robdashu seems an unlikely editor to be suddenly interested in date linking. Note that Robdashu has made four contributions at WP (ever). The first two were on 13 February 2007; the next on 24 March 2009; and lastly is the one above. None of the prior edits have to do with date linking or with "extremely aged folk". Okay, I'll be the one to ask: is the account Robdashu being operated by someone else who has an interest here?  HWV258.  20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am perplexed. Why is it that the majority of "outside" commenters here are anons or newish users? If it were one or two I could understand, but the frequency of these editors popping up here belies the possibility of mere coincidence. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, robdashu, am an independent, real live person. I am not a frequent editor, but this topic is of interest to me as I follow the status of extremely old folk and the study thereof. My grandmother lived to 111 years old, so I have a personal interest in the subject, and think it significant.robdashu (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)robdashu[reply]

"I, robdashu, am an independent, real live person"—well that clears that up. Just out of interest robdashu, how did you discover this debate was occurring?  HWV258.  23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and My name is Michael Caine. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across Template:City-region, which seems to go against the grain of linking articles in an intelligent manner to add value to the project. I don't quite see what the point of creating two links where one will suffice. I guess someone at some point must have thought it a good idea, as it is used in over 15,000 articles,. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be useful in rare cases where the town is small and not particularly noteworthy so that it's unlikely to ever have an article of a decent size, and the region is relatively obscure. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it useful in that circumstance? Tony (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and how often do you think that occurs? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the sentence "Pablo was born in Altamirano, Guanajuato". The first link provides no more information than anybody would be able to figure out from the context; most people would likely find the second link more helpful. In cases where the town has no article yet, that would be even worse: Ahuatlán, Puebla is going to be much less useful than Ahuatlán, Puebla. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume there'd be a space after the comma. "Gaunajuato" is linked in the article on Altamirano. Why link it at the original anchor? The fact that there's an article on Altamirano is going to necessitate a click there anyway by the reader, to find it's a total stub, whether they go there first, funnelled from the anchor, or via the state, another possibility you're suggesting justifies the linking of all states in all such circumstances. It's fair enough when the article is a red link, though. So again, I still don't see the advantage of this city, region template: what more does it do that can't be achieved by controlling the linking manually for the benefit of our readers? Tony (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "it" I meant "creating two links" not "Template:City-region". I'm not sure I understand you correctly when you say "via the state": the article about Guanajuato never mentions Altamirano... (Was there supposed to be a "which" before "justifies"?) As for "all states in all such circumstances", my point doesn't apply to well-known states such as England, California, or New South Wales. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a "that" (cf. CMOS), but it's not essential. This is a rare case that does not justify the use of this template, nor of the practice of blindly linking all states (and even a third element, the country), where it's totally unnecessary. Tony (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever what prescriptivists say, both "that" and "which" are OK in such sentences. (A Student's Introduction to English Grammar cites "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" from the KJB and "a date which will live in infamy" from a speech by Roosevelt; Pullum once wrote an extensive post about that on Language Log.) I guess one of them is needed anyway when it's the subject of the relative clause; at first, I took the comma after state to be a splice, except that the result didn't make much sense. That said, I agree that cases when that's useful are likely so rare that it's unnecessary to have a template for them in the first place. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{English}} expands to:

[[English language|English]]

for use in the "Language" entry of any article infoboxes. Under what circumstances would such a link add value? Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

I know I appreciate links to other languages in, say, country infoboxes. Perhaps there are non-native readers of the English Wikipedia that want to read about Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. when visiting the England article. Or even native speakers of the language. But perhaps linking to Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. in film and TV infoboxes is overdoing it. That's not the template's fault. People should just type "English", no link.--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, linking our readers to English language almost anywhere is overlinking. I shoot them on sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone with AWB can quickly run through and remove the curly brackets aroud "English" in said infoboxes, if possible? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you suggesting that country infoboxes should not have links to the native/official languages? Seems highly relevant in that case, even when it happens to be English.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it it would be acceptable to have the language links in country infoboxes, though I personally would never click on them. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose: why should the English language be linked in an infobox when you are reading the English WP? It is a textbook example of overlinking. No, the template needs to allow editors the control to link or not to link, so that "Mongolian" can be linked, and "English" (and many other languages) not. I agree strongly that this language template should be zapped by AWB. What purpose it serves no one has ever revealed. Seems like a case of geek-speak gone mad. Tony (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would similarly advocate that English language should not be linked anywhere within the England article. We don't link to other articles solely on the basis of whether people know what that other topic is; we also link on the basis of how strongly related they are. A country's official language(s) have a very plausible relevance to that country.

Linking to Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. from movie pages is a classic case of overlinking; removing links to Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. from country pages (including infoboxes) is a classic case of over-de-linking. I have to marvel at cases where linking seems to have become almost reflexively hated, regardless of whether there's a justification.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, if somebody is redirected here to en.WP, this must surely have enough of an inkling what 'English language' is to no want to be distracted from a subject they want information on. Fine, if it's linked in the infoboxes of the UK, IRL, ANZ, SA, HK, MCO, SGP, India as official languages, but being transcluded in nearly two thousand articles, most of which appear to be about films, is overlinking beyond imagine. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is further proof that there are many severely overlinked articles in Media, Music categories. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "not knowing what the English language is", it's a question of how strongly related it is to the article in which it appears. That justifies removing links to Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. from movie pages/infoboxes -- I would support that. But if for some reason I'm reading about a country that speaks English, there's a not-insignificant chance I, or someone else, would also want to read up on the English language as well.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. There's an interesting and related discussion I'm involved in at Talk:Terry Gilliam; what do you think? --John (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No no no: there's something basic wrong here, Father Goose. It's not how related a link-target is; it's whether it would be useful to the reader in the circumstances, in understanding the topic at hand. Answer for English language: hardly ever, at least as a whole (i.e., not section-linked) article. Certainly not when cited as the official language of a country. You may as well start linking country, too. Tony (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO it's the probability that, given that someone is reading article A, they will want to read article B. I can think of several articles which should link to English language (though not so many as to justify creating such a template in the first place); for example, West Germanic languages and English grammar. England is more borderline; whether I'd link it would depend (among other things) on the surrounding link density, with the threshold being higher in infoboxes (as they aren't typically read as prose). (Personally, I seldom read a country article without taking at least a quik skim at the article about its language, but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I recall an old print encyclopaedia having no separate article about e.g. the Japanese language, which was discussed within the article about Japan.) For publications which just happen to be in English (as opposed to be about English), such a link is almost surely useless. (Even if they are indeed about English, if they are about a particular aspect of the English language rather than a general overview of it, a daughter-article link to e.g. English grammar– which will in turn link to English language– would be better.) ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that the above template links words such as 'Area', 'Water', '%', and have asked for these terms to be delinked. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological_items has contained a critical word, "germane": "Month-day articles (February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject." The same word is used analogously WRT links to year articles. The wording of these subsections was inserted by the Clerk for the ArbCom Dates Case after a set of RfCs overwhelmingly endorsed this wording over others.

Two editors have recently changed this word to "relevant", which significantly weakens the ambit of the two guidelines. I have reverted this pending consensus here that the change would be desirable. Tony (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three editors, actually, as I also supported the change made by the first two. These editors made the change based on their belief that "relevant" is more accessible to a general audience, which makes sense in terms of a goal for these guidelines. From what I have found in researching the matter, changing the terms would not constitute a "major change". "Relevant" and "germane" appear (according to several dictionary and thesaurus definitions) to be equal in meaning in this context, and either would thus suffice to convey the point. While it is true that there was specific wording in the RfC last year that incorporated "germane", it is important to note that the term was used interchangeably with "relevant" throughout the voting section, the displayed options, and even in the heading of the winning choice ("link only relevant dates"). ArbCom did not select or mandate the specific use of "germane", and the differences between the selected text and the other choices did not revolve around the use of "germane" versus "relevant", but instead about other more fundamental changes. If we have the opportunity to make a guideline more understandable to a wider audience, it makes sense to take advantage of it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can't count. Who's the third? But it hardly matters. The RfC text agreed to by a huge majority with very large participation and prominent notification in the project used "germane", not "relevant". The time to object to the word was when it was framed (you played a major role in the preparation of the RfCs). If you want to link "germane" to wiktionary, go ahead, but English-speakers should know what it means if they don't know already: it's a standard, useful word in the language. Tony (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer to see "germane". It's a little stronger than "relevant". "Germane" carries a further connotation of "to the point," "appropriate," "what this is about."SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 11:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "germane" too. I think the people who read this page will be sufficiently literate to understand it, and as Slim says, it carries useful connotations.--Kotniski (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]