Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Table Linking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As consensus has been reached on this subject and due to the length of the discussion it has been moved to this sub page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delinking Virgin Records

Please explain how delinking the multiple entries of Virgin Records in The Smashing Pumpkins improves the readability of the chart. It serves only two purposes, 1) to try to comply with the letter of the rule regarding duplicate links and 2) to make Virgin Records appear to be the most important Record label as the eye is automatically drawn to the black type when everything else in the text is blue links. It defeats the purpose of the rule.

"Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;"

In the case of this chart, since every thing is link except of 3 entires, just the opposite happens. The reader is direct to the spot of the 3 unlink entries. This is a case when following the rule to the letter actually defeats the purpose of the rule. Rules need to be balanced with reason. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

...? So the amount of links to the same article can now affect whether or not that article is POV or not? I hardly think that the editors of this article had the intention to draw specific attention to Virgin Records, much less by not linking to them. IMHO, overlinking would actually draw more attention to Virgin Records because using duplicate links would seem like unusual formatting compared to what people are used to seeing at Wikipedia. I do agree with your first point that the editors were probably avoiding the use of duplicate links, but it seems a bit far-fetched to assume that they had some hidden agenda promoting Virgin Records. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I just explained on Dbiel's talk page, I removed the links merely because they were redundant and unnecessary. WesleyDodds 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no attempt to suggest any hidden agenda on the part of the editors by my post, my point was that simply following the basic rules of overlinking when applied to this chart has resulted in a chart that visually draws the attention of the reader to the black entries. I will agree that as links, they are redundant and unnecessary, but as to overall look of the chart, the missing links are a major distraction. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. I feel honestly a reader's eye will be drawn by the fact that Virgin Records is listed a number of times in the first place; the removal of the links drawing attention to the label (and thus making it seem more important) seems a rather oblique analysis to me. WesleyDodds 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is quite clear - linking the same term multiple times in areas close to previous links is considered overlinkage. Girolamo Savonarola 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also quite clear that the following is consider unacceptable: "More than 10% of the words are contained in links;" which the chart clearly violates. So what is you point. Comply with one rule but not the other? Then why not apply the rule to the entire chart? - not just one column. The chart, by its design requires "overlinking".

Following you insistence and logic I have remove the other duplicate link in the chart. You can not have it both ways! Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The 10% figure applies to the article as a whole. As for duplicate links, it does not say that there should be none, but rather to note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate. The main issue is proximity of duplicated links. Girolamo Savonarola 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So then what was the logic to link 2000 twice and not to treat Virgin Records accordingly? Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where, on the chart? I don't see two links to 2000. If you see other minor problems, be bold, but also be aware that BRD may occur (as always). Girolamo Savonarola 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reference my edit where I removed the second link diff Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Girolamo Savonarola 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Full dates are always linked per guidelines. WesleyDodds 03:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the guideline WP:Date does not address the issue of dates used in tables nor repetitive dates and also states the following:

Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, (emphasis added)

• Do not autoformat dates that are:
  • in article and section headings,
  • on disambiguation pages,
  • within quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).
  • in date ranges (see below).

And finally the following:

Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.

Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So we either link all the dates or delink them. This doesn't support linking Virgin Records repeatedly. WesleyDodds 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not follow what you are trying to say. My last question was simply to ask where do you find the guidelines that support your statement "Full dates are always linked per guidelines."? And how does it address the issue of repeative dates? If the guideline says that repeative dates, in this case the repeative year, should not be linked, then the application of ignoring that guideline in the table support ignoring it also as it applies to the other column, in this case Virgin Records. What I have been unable to find is any guide line that specificly deals with the repeative linking of entries in tables. It has been stated that if the table is sortable (does not apply in this case) then all entries should be linked. My original point, which is still my main point, is that due to the limited number of unlinked entries, that all entries should be link so that when the chart is viewed the eye is not drawn to the unlinked entries as the key focal point (which optically they are). Or to state the same question differently, which should be addressed in the guidelines, but I have been unable to find; is how to handle linking in tables when nearly all entries are linked and all entries are linkable? If such guideline were to state that under these conditions duplicate entries should not be linked, then, well, that is the guideline and the current table would be following that guideline. But I believe the guideline would say that in that case all entries should be linked (my POV) I simply would like to know where that is addressed in the guidelines, not just what one editor thinks that the guidelines say or should say which applies to both you and me. I agree that the duplicate links are redundant and not necessary AS LINKS. I will agree with your statement "I feel honestly a reader's eye will be drawn by the fact that Virgin Records is listed a number of times in the first place;" but since these are the only entires in the table that are not linked, they become the very first thing a viewer will notice on the table at first glance. So why should that be a desirable outcome? If there were a single non linkable entry in the table, then there would be no question as to the linking of the repeative entries (it should not be done) But there is no such entry in this table. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My overall point was that you were getting off-topic by focusing on the date links. Anyway, back to the main topic, I still really don't see a pressing need or strong rationale to repeatedly link the record label in that section. It's just not important or imperative to. Your main worry is that we will impl , by not linking the label repeatedly, that the label is somehow more important than the others. The simple solution to that (if it ever comes up) is to just point to the guidelines and say "No, you misunderstand; it would just be redundant to link it multiple times." WesleyDodds 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing my point as refering to the dates was not off topic. The topic is simply the linking of repeative entries in a table when all entries are linkable and only a few entries are not linked. This table has one repeative date entry (2000) and 3 repeative label entries. You can not say point to the guidelines, they do not address the issue.

Sortable table require that repetative entries be link, but show me where one can find that in the guidelines. Lets take another example in which every entry except for one is linked and the one that is not linked is linkable but is not linked because it is a duplicate. I am saying that the table would look better is the one unlinked entry was linked - nothing more, nothing less. It is simply a matter of visual appearance and unfortunately it is NOT addressed in the guidelines. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The label and dates are two different things. There would be some merit to simply delinking all the dates, but I see none to repeatedly linking the label. On the subject of "a matter of preference", you are currently the only one insisting that the label be linked repeatedly, and this discussion has become ridiculously long. If someone had a similiar outlook to you there would be something, but as of now consensus stands against it. WesleyDodds 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As to "The label and dates are two different things" I would have to say yes and no. They are the same thing in the sense that both represent links to other pages and both can and are used in repetitive situations which means that they both raise the same question as to how to deal with duplicate links. They are different in the sense that dates have some unique formatting characteristics but no where do the guidelines address what to do when the dates are in close proximity to each other and are repetitive thereby creating redundant links. The emphasis shifted from this article to the Guidelines in general a long time ago. The fact that no one else has said anything on the subject coupled with the feature status of the article clearly indicates that the consensus stands against making any changes to this article in terms of table linking. BUT is says nothing about the fact that the Guidelines fail to address the issue nor does it in itself establish a new guideline. But an article talk page is not really the right place to discuss basis guideline issues, therefore this topic will be continued elsewhere at such time as I can determine where elsewhere should be. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to the discussing editors (of which I was one as well and include myself in the following): lamest edit war ever, or at least worthy of inclusion. :p Girolamo Savonarola 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly what I would call an edit war. I made two edits to two different areas of the table and User:WesleyDodds reverted both.

Now if you are talking about this discussion, that is another issue. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to concur with Girolamo Savonarola. While this isn't an edit war, the amount of space we've devoted to discussing this is ridiculous. You and I don't agree but I don't see either of us changing our opinions any time soon. I respect the efforts you've gone through to argue your position, but I would really like settle this somehow. So far consensus (which, as it stands, is three against one, but it's all we've got) says there's no problem with only linking Virgin Records once. I really don't see that changing. As it stands here on the talk page, there's no reason to change the amount of Wikilinking in the discography section. Unless someone else backs your position, there's no reason to continue carrying on this debate. Now can we move on to something else? WesleyDodds 05:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of this article, I fully agree with User:WesleyDodds last post. As state below, I have already accepted consensus as regards this article. As to Guidelines, it can and should be discussed elsewhere, as such this is my last post to this article. I will also spin this discussion off onto a sub page as it seems to be drawing discussion way from more important topics. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An example from another featured article where duplicate entries are linked

Just to make my point that is is NOT guidelines but article consensus that is at work here see the following from article England national rugby union team

For the record I do yield to article consensus, but refuse the accept the arguement that it is being done based on Guidelines.

The following is England's final thirty man squad for the 2007 World Cup:^[1]

Backs Player Position Club Olly Barkley Fly-half, centre Bath Mike Catt Fullback, fly-half, centre, wing London Irish Mark Cueto Wing Sale Sharks Andrew Farrell Centre Saracens Andrew Gomarsall Scrum-half Harlequins Dan Hipkiss Centre Leicester Tigers Josh Lewsey Fullback, wing London Wasps Jamie Noon Centre Newcastle Falcons Shaun Perry Scrum-half Bristol Peter Richards Scrum-half Gloucester Jason Robinson Wing, fullback Unattached Paul Sackey Wing London Wasps Mathew Tait Wing, centre Newcastle Falcons Jonny Wilkinson Fly-half Newcastle Falcons

Forwards Player Position Club Steve Borthwick Lock Bath George Chuter Hooker Leicester Tigers Martin Corry Number eight, lock Leicester Tigers Lawrence Dallaglio Flanker London Wasps Nick Easter Number eight, flanker Harlequins Perry Freshwater Prop USA Perpignan Ben Kay Lock Leicester Tigers Lee Mears Hooker Bath Lewis Moody Flanker Leicester Tigers Tom Rees Flanker London Wasps Mark Regan Hooker Bristol Simon Shaw Lock London Wasps Andrew Sheridan Prop Sale Sharks Matt Stevens Prop Bath Phil Vickery Prop London Wasps Joe Worsley Flanker London Wasps

Following the consensus of this article it would look like:

Note: treated each section (Backs / Forwards) separately

The following is England's final thirty man squad for the 2007 World Cup:^[1]

Backs Player Position Club Olly Barkley Fly-half, centre Bath Mike Catt Fullback, fly-half, centre, wing London Irish Mark Cueto Wing Sale Sharks Andrew Farrell Centre Saracens Andrew Gomarsall Scrum-half Harlequins Dan Hipkiss Centre Leicester Tigers Josh Lewsey Fullback, wing London Wasps Jamie Noon Centre Newcastle Falcons Shaun Perry Scrum-half Bristol Peter Richards Scrum-half Gloucester Jason Robinson Wing, fullback Unattached Paul Sackey Wing London Wasps Mathew Tait Wing, centre Newcastle Falcons Jonny Wilkinson Fly-half Newcastle Falcons

Forwards Player Position Club Steve Borthwick Lock Bath George Chuter Hooker Leicester Tigers Martin Corry Number eight, Lock Leicester Tigers Lawrence Dallaglio Flanker London Wasps Nick Easter Number 8, flanker Harlequins Perry Freshwater Prop USA Perpignan Ben Kay Lock Leicester Tigers Lee Mears Hooker Bath Lewis Moody Flanker Leicester Tigers Tom Rees Flanker London Wasps Mark Regan Hooker Bristol Simon Shaw Lock London Wasps Andrew Sheridan Prop Sale Sharks Matt Stevens Prop Bath Phil Vickery Prop London Wasps Joe Worsley Flanker London Wasps

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been the most brilliantly argued debate about nothing I've ever witnessed (and as some here know, I've been party to a couple myself). I award all concerned the Platonic ideal of a barnstar.—DCGeist 06:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But I can't see the barnstar link! ... For some reason this article seems to be a magnet for this stuff: Smashing Pumpkins vs. The Smashing Pumpkins, The Smashing Pumpkins are vs. The Smashing Pumpkins is, to link or not to link... If as many people were as passionate about the band as they are about these edit/discussion wars, Zeitgeist would've been triple platinum by now! ;) Girolamo Savonarola 06:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on me. Any second I may just revert this sucker back to proper U.S. quotation punctuation style, 'cause we Pun'kins am an American band.—DCGeist 07:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)