Template talk:Redlink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Usage 2 Rewrite 3 The real issue

[edit] Documentation

Vandalism: {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}, {{uw-vandalism4im}}

Content removal: {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-delete4}}

Testing: {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}}, {{uw-test3}}, {{uw-test4}}

Spam linking: {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}}

Other behavior: see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

Warning templates should always be used with the "subst:" keyword, as strongly suggested on Wikipedia:Template substitution. They are shown without subst here to reduce the display space occupied by this table, not to encourage their use without subst. For example, type {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}~~~~ (not {{uw-vandalism1}}) to warn common first-time vandals.

The levels of templates are:

1. Assumes good faith
2. No faith assumption
3. Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
4. Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning

[edit] Usage

Usage	Output
{{subst:Redlink}}	Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.
{{subst:Redlink|Article}}*	Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Article, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.

*You can use {{subst:Redlink|Article|subst=subst:}} to substitute the contained ParserFunctions.

[edit] Rewrite

So thoughts on the rewrite? A few people expressed interest in having it as a general over-linking template which would likely reference WP:CONTEXT. What sort of wording do people have in mind for this?

Thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. During one of your recent edits I noticed that you were linking to pages which didn't add anything(hrm maybe something else here?) to the article or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see wikipedia's guideline on links at WP:CONTEXT

Just a quick bit, obviously needs some work, but I think its a start.--Crossmr 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How about {{manylinks}}:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In recent edits you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.

...with "an article" being an optional parameter for the name of the article mentioned? -- nae'blis 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that, and the name is good. I think its critical to include the article name, and preferably at least 1 diff if possible, through an optional url= in the use. There has been talk lately of making sure warnings and other such things like that include links to diffs to help clarify the warning and put it in context. Do you happen to know how to go about putting that in?--Crossmr 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's tougher to teach people to use them, but the named parameter is the usual way to avoid confusion in that manner. I can do that if that's the consensus for how this template should work, yes. -- nae'blis 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is fine, but from what I've seen it can be hidden in the template which means if they don't use, it just doesn't get displayed. Building it with the ability to tie a diff into it shouldn't hamper those who don't want to include a diff, or forget for whatever reason, would it?--Crossmr 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, they'd both be optional, like the "|Article" parameter above. -- nae'blis 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the name is to be "manylinks", then the text should also say "you added many links". — Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not tied to the name; {{toomanylinks}} seemed too long, and {{overlinked}} is taken. Other ideas? -- nae'blis 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with changing the text? Anyway, here's another idea for the name: "overlinked1" or "overlink1". We should have a number for the level anyway, and 1 is appropriate because it's a general note. A case could be made for 0, too, but then the wording would need to be a bit nicer IMO. — Sebastian 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"you added many links to an article... or repeated the same link" looks funny to me somehow (I'm sure my English teacher could tell me why). But if I'm crazy and it looks fine to most other people, let's go with that. It's a template, it can be tweaked later. :) -- nae'blis 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I have rewritten the template based on the discussion above, but have not moved it to a new name yet as there seems to be some discussion left to hold on that subject. Likewise, I did not removed the red header bar. -- nae'blis 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'm okay with manylinks or if overlinked is taken, what about overlink, or excesslink--Crossmr 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The real issue

The real issue here is irrelevant linking, which is completely independent of the color of the link, or how many times the link is repeated, or how many other links there are. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I think this is something that has to be phrased carefully so users don't get the wrong idea. I mean, it's okay to link to titles that don't exist yet, and it's perfectly acceptable to link to the same title more than once in the same article, or even the same section if there are several intermediate paragraphs, or even on several rows of the same table if it helps create a more consistent/attractive layout. We don't want to inadvertently teach clueless newcomers that usefulness is a crime. (as if {{Mosdab}} nimrodry doesn't already have that effect — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what we discussed in the AfD and that is what we changed the template to reflect. There is no mention of colour of links in the template at all now, nor do any of the new name suggestions have anything to do with color.--Crossmr 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)