Wikipedia talk:Avoid using wikilinks
- Note to confused people: this is a spinoff from Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avoid using wikilinks page.|
|WikiProject Department of Fun||(Rated Project-class, Bottom-importance)|
Move to guideline status
I'd like to move this piece to a guideline so that when people think it's a stupid idea and try to refute it, I have some muscle to back it up with. Who's with me? - Omegatron (User:Omegatron) 20:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Everyone who disagrees with Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is with you. But wouldn't you know it, I'm just not one of them. I do agree with it, even though it's (gulp) not even a guideline!
- "State your point; don't prove it experimentally." Yeah, we get it. It's very funny. The arguments for avoiding meta-templates are invalid because they look very silly when you apply them to wikilinks. Trying to push too hard for a proposal to become a guideline is silly too, as you so eloquently demonstrate. This analogy is allowed to be inaccurate in places because it's satire, so it's all valid in the end, and it gives us a chance to have a good laugh at the original proposal, which is constructive because it's funny.
- There, now that that's over with, let's proceed by not assuming that people you want to convince are obtuse and won't accept any argument unless you spoonfeed it through demonstration. How about it? JRM 22:54, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
- Oh, c'mon, it's not a disruption. People would actually take this seriously? Check out m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, m:How to deal with Poles, m:Uncreationism, etc. - Omegatron 00:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's why I tagged it as humor. And I do agree it's a very mild disruption at worst (people probably aren't too likely to come across this and take it for real). There's no RFC coming in the foreseeable future. :-) The fact remains that talking about the flaws of something it is more effective than using the Wikipedia namespace for private pranks. Had you used your userspace, I would have just shrugged my shoulders, but pages in here are intended to be a little more constructive to the project than that.
- The articles you cite are all satires intended purely to amuse people, and they were started or moved to Meta for good reason: they're comments on Wikipedia as a whole, not attempts at discrediting particular proposals or contributors. This one hit a little too close to people's homes for that, don't you think? JRM 01:18, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I find that analogies are much more effective in some instances, like this one. - Omegatron 01:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- You win. Looks like someone took it seriously. :-\ *Scolds self* - Omegatron 20:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
defense of laziness
Call me lazy but when I was reading this article i really wanted to know what spagetti_code was. I wished that there was some way of me clicking on the word that would easily tell me what that word meant, and then I could keep reading this article with more understanding. Instead, I stopped reading the article, came on this discussion to complain and will next go look up spagetti code the old fashioned way and probably never come back to this page. Wikilinks could have prevented the mild annoyance and subsequent distraction of this accidental reader. I (common un-initiated wiki browser) LIKE convenient meaningful wikilinks. If you have a problem with them, fix the problems. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Waste of a click
This is supposed to be humor? I would suggest that this be marked for deletion. Who agrees? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) This is worth keeping. Why do you not think this is funny? buffbills (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)