Template talk:Underlinked

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dates on {{Wikify}} replacements[edit]

Should articles tagged with {{Wikify}} before September 2012 be replaced with {{Underlinked}} tags with the same date? Or should all replacements be dated September 2012? Thanks, Guoguo12 (Talk)  22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

I've been dating them to September 2012. No good reason, it just seemed like the most intuitive way of doing it. The date on a tag doesn't necessarily indicate how long the problem has existed, just how long the article's been tagged. I know some people like to tackle the articles with the earliest-dated tags first, but it doesn't make much difference in the long run. We'll get through them all eventually (I'm an eternal optimist). DoctorKubla (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Food?[edit]

I don't understand the following example in the documentation: {{Underlinked|Food|date=October 2012}}. I would understand a parameter of "section" or "list", but how would "Food" be useful? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I copied the documentation from {{dead end}}, but I didn't notice the "food" bit. I don't understand it either, so I've replaced it with "section". DoctorKubla (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This template is a bad idea[edit]

This template should appear on the talk page not in article space as it is an editor to editor message and does not improve the content of the article. If an editor was to add in plain text "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." at the top of an article it would be removed a vandalism, but if placed on the talk page of an article it would be treated as an editorial comment worthy of comment or action. Wrapping such comments in a graphics box does not change that.

See also:

-- PBS (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of many cleanup templates. Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, they are to be added at the top of the article page. Hopefully, it encourages existing editors to improve the content of the article and remove the template. Hopefully it also encourages readers to become editors and improve the content of the article and remove the template.
However, I can understand your point of view. Since your idea would impact many templates, I suggest you start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages for some good reasons against and links to previous discussions. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on the good doctor's link, I withdraw my suggestion. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times before but it is not a Perennial proposal that has been rejected, (there has never been enough interest one way or another for a project wide consensus to emerge) and whoever wrote WP:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages has only presented one side of the argument. Each template is decided upon independently. Where is the consensus to create this template? There is a specific guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid)) what policy and/or guideline is being used to justify the creation of this template? -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#No more wikify template led to another discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 24#Category:Articles that need to be wikified.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) seems to be about references, while this template identifies articles that do not have a sufficient number of wikilinks per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. GoingBatty (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
No this MOS guidance it is not about references (as described in WP:CITE). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) states in the lead "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided. These take several forms" and goes on in the first section to say "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible." (my bolding). What justification is there for placing this template in article space on not on the talk page which is designed for statements such as
  • "[I think that t]his article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into [Wikipedia]"
I could not find one mention in the sections listed above of any questioning of where this template should be placed, only about the issue of whether a page carried enough links or whether there were some other issues involved. Talk pages are designed for such editorial issues and mention of them should be restricted to the talk page, unless --as in cases of {{unreferenced}} and {{Expand list}} -- the template also serves as a useful and immediate warning to the readers of articles about the information contain within the article. AFAICT the message contained in this template banner serves no such warning purpose but is as an editor to editor message about the current state of the article's format. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why your focus is on this one template; there are many, many cleanup templates that serve only as "editor to editor messages". You'll find most of them listed at WP:TC — some examples are {{dead end}}, {{copyedit}}, {{sections}}, {{cleanup-link rot}}, {{list to table}}, etc, etc. Consensus is that these templates belong in article-space. Consensus can change, so there's nothing wrong with raising the issue again, but it has to be somewhere more public than the talkpage of one randomly-chosen template. Why don't you start an RfC at WP:Village pump (proposals)? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a new template in which less than 20 people were involved in discussing its creation and it currently resides on 4300+ pages. In those discussions no one person seems to have raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to place this template in article space instead of on the talk page (which is designed for editor to editor correspondence), hence my reason for focusing on it. What do you think are the specific advantages of placing this template in article space instead of placing the same information on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi PBS - sorry for not reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid clearly before my previous response. I do see now that it says "The templates that render self-referencing graphics for the maintenance needs of developing articles, like {{stub}}, {{npov}}, and {{refimprove}} are unavoidable, but articles should normally avoid self-referencing templates such as {{shortcut}} and the others." It seems that {{underlinked}} is another template for the maintenance needs of developing articles. In the discussions I quoted above, I'm guessing the placement of the template was not discussed because people assumed it would be placed in the same place as {{wikify}} - at the top of the article. I hope you take DoctorKubla's advice. Good luck, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The three examples given are for messages that are immediately useful for someone reading the article. For example {{refimprove}} warns the reader that the article needs "additional citations for verification" (its content can not be trusted to accurately reflect the best third party sources on the subject). However the message in this new template "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." provides the reader with no such information. It is an editor to editor message and such messages are more appropriate for the talk page. As I asked above: what is the specific advantage of including the line "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." in article space and not placing it on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, this is not the place to make your argument. Placing maintenance tags in article space is a long-standing practice, and you'll need project-wide consensus to change that. Stop directing your ire at this specific template, and go to the Village Pump. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a new template and it seems reasonable to ask the question about this specific template because it is a new template and as such there needs to be a broad consensus for its creation. I have pointed out to you that the guidance such as it is (and is therefore part of the broad consensus) is against the placement of such templates in article space. There have been plenty of general discussions, which have been inconclusive, so another valid way to approach this is to question the creation and use of specific template. To date no one on this talk page has explained why this template is better placed in article space rather than on a article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you think that it is better placed in article space to justify why that is so given that it is contrary to the MOS guidance. For example do you know of any other guidance which supports the placement of this template in article space? -- PBS (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know exactly where it's written down, if it is, but I'm aware that maintenance templates are traditionally placed in article-space, and that this convention isn't contrary to any MOS guidelines (you know that too, which is why you're trying to reword MOS:SELF to make it support your argument). There are many reasons for placing these tags in article-space; for me, the most compelling is that it encourages readers to become editors. I know you're going to disagree with that, but there's really no point us arguing about it here. I created this template with the expectation that it would be placed in article-space, because that's how all the other templates work and because I agree with the rationale behind that. There's no consensus on this talk page to make any changes to this template, so your only recourse, as I've said repeatedly, is to start an RfC and establish a wider consensus to place tags on talk pages. I suspect the reason you haven't started such an RfC is because you know it will fail. In which case, just drop the stick and move on. Please. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug in Underlinked section[edit]

I just added the section tag to the article Mfecane.
That caused the entire section to vanish.
Sweet. Varlaam (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that stumped me for a while, but I've fixed it now. It was nothing to do with the template; that section vanished a long time ago (it was this edit that broke it). DoctorKubla (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm an idiot. I noticed that bit of vandalism there, but with all the other ongoing issues, I did not notice that that guy had broken the ref.
Thanks for getting it straightened out. Varlaam (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a definition of underlinked[edit]

Is there a strict definition of 'underlinked' i.e. a specific number of links? Or is it on an article by article basis. I was considering writing a bot to help maintain the tags and category but naturally that is had if there is no set rule. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While there is no strict definition, AWB's general fixes use the following rule:
  • Appends {{Underlinked}} if article has 1–3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise (comments, categories, {{Persondata}}, infoboxes, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} are excluded from wikilink and size count).
Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think that determining whether an article is underlinked requires editorial judgement, and AWB's attempt to reduce it to a simple equation does more harm than good. There are plenty of stubs that only contain one wikilink, and that's fine; conversely, there are plenty of longer articles which contain lots of wikilinks, but still need lots more. Repeated conversations with the AWB people have made it clear that they won't reconsider their stance, so I can only beseech you not to create another bot and further compound the problem. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the Doctor's statement above. I have used AWB for many thousands of typo edits, but stopped letting it tag. Recently for change of pace I began working on the underlink backlog and wondered how many links an article needed to avoid being retagged. Often short articles can't justify more wikilinks. I thought it was 3, but it appears to be 4. Are there bots tagging articles as well?--LilHelpa (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are bots tagging articles as well, such as BattyBot, Yobot, and Addbot. GoingBatty (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have added a feature to my bot which does add under linked, but this will only be added if the bot is removing the deadend tag and there is only 1 link. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles with navboxes underlinked?[edit]

Could someone kindly explain to me exactly what interpretation is being placed in the documentation here on internal links? Because people using AWB seem to be placing this template on articles that contain many wikilinks, such as Sarda (cattle), a stub I created last night for future expansion. It has two sentences and links to about 25 articles, but is apparently regarded as underlinked. Most of those wikilinks are contained in a navbox; but that doesn't in my view make them any less internal. Could the documentation here perhaps be modified to suggest that the template not be placed on articles that contain many wikilinks, even if those are not within running text? And AWB be asked to count all the internal links in the article? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser automatically appends {{Underlinked}} if an article has 1–3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size, and removes it tag otherwise; comments, categories, {{Persondata}}, infoboxes, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} however are excluded from wikilink and size count (see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#Tagger (Tagger)).
On another note, I have added 2 links to the article and removed the template. benzband (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for replying. I'd read that before posting, of course. What I'd like to know is why AWB doesn't recognise links in navboxes, given that they are not on its list of things it doesn't take account of. And, given the above, why it doesn't then go round removing the {{underlinked}} tags it has placed in error. Please note that I don't really care too much, I can remove the tag next time I edit those articles (I think there are about six or seven of them that I made last night; thanks for doing one of them, anyway). It just seems remarkably pointless to have editors spending time making edits that consist only of fiddling with spaces and tagging well-linked articles as under-linked. Of course, those editors should probably try to exercise some kind of judgement instead of blindly following the recommendations of a robot, but maybe that is too much to hope for? It would probably be more effective to just fix the robot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
My guess is because AWB is processing Sarda (cattle), it doesn't visit each template such as {{Cattle breeds of Italy}} to count how many article links it contains. Instead, it follows the guidance in the {{Underlinked}} text: "Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text." (emphasis added) GoingBatty (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds right (as an analysis). And it looks like a bug in the bot, so I suppose I'd better go and report it as one. I'd suggest updating the documentation here, or indeed the template itself, though, perhaps by removing exactly the bit you've emphasised? Navboxes are a common way of linking between related articles without having to monotonously find an excuse for mentioning each in the text, or adding a laundry-list of See-alsos. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI - AWB is not a bot, it's a piece of software used by humans (as in the edit you're referring to) of by bots to edit wikis. In my opinion, this issue will only become a bug if the community agrees that {{underlinked}} should not be applied to articles with navboxes. GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Move the Orphan tags to the talk page[edit]

The clear outcome of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page was that this template should be depreciated. As a first step I suggest that it is redirected to Template:Orphan as it fulfils the same function. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This template is first mentioned (by you) in that discussion 4/5th towards the end under "Self-references to avoid". I don't see any "clear outcome" in that very limited discussion with regard to this template; the closing remarks only mention {{Orphan}} and could even be understood to exclude any other templates explicitly, contrary to your claim. Would you mind pointing to that part of the discussion there that demonstrates the "clear outcome [...] that this template should be deprecated"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the Underlinked and Orphan templates are redundant:
  • {{Orphan}}: "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles"
  • {{Underlinked}}: "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text"
In fact don't they fulfill rather opposite functions? -- benzband (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)