User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2010/Dec

Links in stub templates

Howdy. I've recently partially undid one of your recent edits. I re-added the links in the qualifier parameter.--Rockfang (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for removing those links, and many others like them, is that they're redundant. That template will only appear at the bottom of an article about a defensive linebacker, and that term will of course already be linked already within the article. I proposed this change at WT:STUB some time ago, and noone objected. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not always the case. The template I linked to above has a link to American football and a link that redirects to Lineman (American football). Neither of those appear to had been linked elsewhere here. I'm guessing it is too late now, but I suggest in the future, that you check how the individual stub templates you change are actually used. For example, if the links you remove are actually redundant in a majority of the articles the stub templates are used on.--Rockfang (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article about an NFL player, an explicit link to American football is superfluous, I'd have thought, and if such a link were considered useful, it should be in the article, not in the stub template. I see you've (rightly) removed the stub template but not added either of those links to the article, so what on earth are you complaining about? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing stuff out, and making suggestions. If you'd rather not take my suggestions on board, it isn't a big deal. While the stub template was on that article, I think that the links it provided were valid and helpful but not required. Hence why I didn't add them to the article when I removed the stub template. I think the links were valid because they went to information not directly linked to elsewhere in the article. When I mentioned this article, I was giving what I thought was an example where the extra links could be useful.--Rockfang (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconding this query. This edit doesn't seem to be that helpful, to pick one of several at random. Nor is it "unlinking common words". N-HH talk/edits 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The link that I removed from that stub template was to government of Taiwan. If this link is useful (and why would it be useful in a stub template message?), it should be in the body of the article, where it will remain even if the article is later expanded and the stub template removed. I proposed removing links from stubs some time ago at WT:STUB and there were no objections. In any case, all these stubs are already in Category:Taiwanese politics stubs, which is a subcategory of Category:Politics of Taiwan, so an explicit link to government of Taiwan (also part of Category:Politics of Taiwan), would be superfluous. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're back to the stock answers whenever this issue comes up of simply making broad assertions that the links "have no value" or are "not useful", without offering any evidence of that and without any sense of how we'd define value/use or whatever anyway. While also saying that if people really want to go there, there are other routes still once we've denied them this one for no apparent reason. As to the specific case, the link is by definition relevant of course, being in a stub related to the topic/term at hand. Arguably - and I make no definitive statement one way or the other, since it is not possible to do so - it is also useful, since someone on a page with the stub notice is likely to have a broader interest in Taiwanese politics/government(and there's no guarantee it's already in the main text). Equally it can be seen as useful in that including the link in the stub notice offers someone who actually wants to edit and expand the page a direct link to a starting point for any wider research into context. Sure, I now see that you left a general note at wp:stub, but I didn't see it and I have no idea who did. Nor do you. How much traffic does that page see? The fact that no one said "don't do that" - or indeed replied at all - doesn't mean you can assume that everyone implicitly says "please go ahead" or even just a shrugged "why not?", and then start editing/removing content and WP functionality on thousands of stub templates. Big deal? No. But then why bother making all the changes in the first place? And, finally, I repeat the point that your edit summary was flat-out misleading. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ps: and, in any event, your note on the wp:stub talk page only talked about "dictionary" [sic] links etc. You made no mention of broad but nonetheless fairly focused/specific links like "Government of Taiwan", which you have now set about expunging

I have to disagree as well. Even if the links are redundant (which you can't establish without verifying the majority of transclusions, which you surely haven't done for each template), a bit of redundancy doesn't hurt. Better overlinked than underlinked; and in most cases, making a mass assumption isn't appropriate. Lastly, silence is not consent, and certainly not consensus. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take this discussion to WT:STUB. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, people are querying *your* edits to stub templates, which so far number in the hundreds, possibly thousands. This is absolutely the correct place to question you about what you think you are doing, especially since you garnered no support for your proposal at the section you started at wt:stub. None, zero. And, of those few who have commented here on your talk page, and also here, the (admittedly limited) response has been almost entirely negative, and at best ambivalent. However, I see that not only have you batted away the views of other editors, but you are now moving on to delinking terms in vast numbers of Category pages as well, eg with this utterly pointless edit. Please desist - per the provisions of wp:link and per apparent current consensus in this specific area, such as it is - or it seems a move to WP:AIV or WP:ANI would be more appropriate. You do not own this site. N-HH talk/edits 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I first raised these proposed changes at WT:STUB, where there were no objections. Another user subsequently raised the question at WT:WSS, and again no objections have been received. These are the two primary discussion pages for stub-related matters, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no more to be said. Do you propose to go forum shopping to obstruct these changes? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, these are ultimately pretty trivial issues one way or the other, even if they tend on balance towards degrading the usability and functionality of the site. But the arrogance seeping out of it is jaw-dropping. As I and at least one other person have pointed out, silence or lack or objection posted on barely-seen noticeboards is not consensus. And, in any event, contrary to your assertion above, there are plenty of objections to what you are doing. I'm objecting here, on your talk page (the only space where I've commented re stubs & templates). Two other editors have objected here - User:Rockfang said "I think that the links it provided were valid and helpful [albeit] not required". User:Bahamut0013 said "I have to disagree as well .. making a mass assumption isn't appropriate". At wt:wss, Grutness said "I would have thought that it was counterproductive". Four people have commented in various spots on what you are doing, and all have come out against it, or at least expressed concerns. As for "forum-shopping", 1) you're of course encouraging it by suggesting that you can ignore concerns, even those raised on your talk page, unless they're raised on the talk board you designate; and 2) ANI is on the cards, not because of the substantive nature of what you are doing - although I think it is wrong, or perhaps more accurately simply spectacularly pointless - but because you appear totally blind/deaf to what others are saying to you and are assuming the right to ignore what every other editor and reader has so far said on this topic, in the pursuit of what you, in your genius, know to be best. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• But you are making a "mass assumption" that they are useful, and appear to be disregarding their distracting and ultimately damaging effect—even though on a small scale individually. The styleguide is quite clear about the matter. Tony (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He Chriss

I am sure you agree with me the slow-burn edit war with an IP is a bit tiring. I suggested the IPs to discuss on talk Template talk:Currencies of the Americas and suggest you to do the same; so this can get solved... Rgds L.tak (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove the wikilinks from mature (non-stub) templates, and I think you should look for advice about the massive link removal you are performing, just because no one responded it means it will be okay, lastly, sometimes you are breaking the layout, so you should verify what you are doing: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Currencies_of_Asia&oldid=398418745, also, there is a note that you should discuss what you are attempting at WT:WSS. 200.77.0.177 (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::::In what way are you claiming the template is broken? I don't see any problem at the link you've provided. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you persist in edit-warring I will block your account. It is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you want to make a change and get reverted it is up to you to make the case for change on the talk page, and get a consensus for that change. Editing without a username is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia and it is inapppropriate to say "stop hiding behind an IP address". I will be monitoring your edits and hope to see a reoccurence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Those links were a distraction and dilution of useful links, and had about 0% chance of ever being clicked on. Tony (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::@Martin: I had already opened a discussion on the template talk page, before you became involved in this. I had also raised the entire issue myself at WT:STUB before starting, and it has also been raised at WT:WSS, in both cases without any objections. Please check your facts before making threats. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@Martin: I have struck out my previous comment as it was written in haste and confused two matters. To clarify, my comment about hiding behind an IP address was an expression of my frustration at not being able to discuss the whole thing in the normal way, on the editor's talk page, as this editor has no talk page nor even a consistent IP address and was only communicating via a repeated identical edit summary. At the suggestion of L.tak, and before you became involved, I had already opened a discussion on the template talk page, and communicated a request to discuss the matter through the only means available to me, an edit summary. A discussion is proceeding. There is no call for an admin to come barging in making threats. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but the "barging in" seemed necessary in light of your actions. I hope it won't be necessary again! In response to your points:

• Correct, the template talk page is the best place to discuss this. And I see the unregistered user has now started to discuss the issue.
• It was the second and third reverts that were problematic. If the edit is controversial then while it is being discussed, it must stay out of the template not in it. (Status quo reigns until there is consensus for change.)

On a separate note, can I request that you stop all de-linking in templates as this action is controversial and you do not have support for it yet. You have a valid point and your actions may gain consensus, but until they do, it is not appropriate to continue to do so. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin, why is an edit "controversial" if it merely brings a template into line with the style guides? I don't understand why one or two editors are able to belly-ache their way to undermining the community's consensus. Tony (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I make no judgement on the merit of delinking these templates. An action is controversial when editors express concern about it, which is clearly what is happening here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• It is up to those complaining to take it up at the appropriate style guide. If they objected to it, why didn't they do this some time ago? Tony (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Gleb Uspensky

Thanks for noticing the magazine mistake in the Uspensky article. I've fixed it.-- I NEVER CRY 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)