Forum:CT:GA rule on templates

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:GA rule on templates

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was thread closed by request of proposer for further development. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:49, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

GA rule #8 has bothered me for a long time. I understand that redlinks in the intro and infobox are bad, but why should there be no redlinks in any templates? I propose we change the rule so that redlinks in navigation templates are included in the 3 or 5 redlink count. My main reasoning behind this is that if one is trying to nominate an article, they are forced to create articles on anything in the templates. This makes nominating articles much more difficult.

Support

  1. As proposer. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:43, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I don't think the redlink rules are all that helpful. Red links tell other users that our encyclopedia is incomplete and that they can help out by turning them blue. They encourage new users to sign up and to start editing. There's no reason that a nominator should be the one expected to clear them up. ~ SavageBob 22:13, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that redlinks are better at deterring someone from trying in the first place than clicking a link and finding a stub that needs expanding. Especially a new contributor that isn't familiar with putting articles together from scratch. If I stumbled along, brand new to the site, and saw that hey, I know what is missing in this article, I'd be a lot more apt to click "edit" and type in a sentence or two, as opposed to starting a completely new article to begin with. Graestan(Talk) 22:26, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly against. We shouldn't change this just because people are too lazy to make articles that need to be made. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:49, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm still going to vote against, because personally, I'd prefer not allowing any redlinks anywhere. The laziness and resultant lack of comprehensiveness in the article is completely unprofessional IMO, and defeats the whole purpose of having an FA/GA be presented as comprehensive and the "cream-of-the-crop," so to speak, to begin with. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:08, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • But redlinks have nothing to do with the comprehensiveness of the article. They have to do with the comprehensiveness of the wiki, which is not up for FA/GA status. :P MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:15, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • That's where I disagree. Per Forum:CT Archive/Linking in articles, we link everything in the article that can/should be linked, as a way to present the article as cleanly as possible to our readers. Having redlinks is like saying, "Well, we should have an article for this, but we don't, because we're too lazy to make one." Redlinks really do detract from the quality of the article that they're in. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:21, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  2. There is such a thing as {{stub}} for those who are too lazy. Graestan(Talk) 17:52, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per ^ 1358 (Talk) 17:54, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Rules are not to make things easy or hard, but to ensure the quality of the articles. If subjects vital information (that's infobox and other templates) is lacking related articles, so is the articles quality (and what they said). –Tm_T (Talk) 17:56, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Strongly per Jujiggum and Grae. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 18:20, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I don't think I even need to pontificate on all the many reasons against this. It takes 30 seconds to kill a redlink. If you're having problems with year templates because of the recent deletions, then clear out the redlinks from the templates. They're all unverified anyway. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:46, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. I was against a redlink limit on GAs to begin with (To quote Culator: "Not having to do extraneous work is the single best reason for GAN to exist at all"), but since it's here we should stick with it. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:00, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:04, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. I've probably got some permitted redlinks in my status articles (I'll get them) but I'll be hypocritical and say that I think the rule should be tightened, rather than relaxed. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 14:17, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. —Tommy 9281 14:30, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe I wasn't clear in what I said. Why should the lack of other article affect the quality of a certain article? The lack of coverage on a general topic does not mean the individual article is lacking coverage. Also, if you are allowed redlinks in the body, why not the templates. There's no difference that I can see. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:00, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • I see his point here, but the proposal is too vaguely worded. If it were limited specifically to navigation templates at the bottom of pages, I'd strongly support it. As it is now, for one really visible example, every year article now fails to meet standards. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:01, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, navigation templates are different, I wasn't even thinking of those. –Tm_T (Talk) 18:04, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Those are the main templates I was really worried about. I'll be more clear. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • Is that more clear? MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:07, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
          • You still don't have any proposed wording or anything. I suggest you close this until you can discuss it with a user or users who can help you develop it better. Half of a successful CT is presentation. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:17, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
            • How do I close it? I didn't realize I had to be so specific. I'll make a subpage in my userspace and have the people on IRC check it tonight hopefully. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:20, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
              • I've started a subpage in my userpage [[User:Master Fredcerique/GA rule on templates|here]]. I'll be on IRC hopefully sometimes tonight and I'll take suggestions. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:34, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm working on red-year pruning, mostly done on the era templates. Are there other chrono-templates that require attention? DD97Which bear is best? 21:46, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I've completely changed my approach. Please see [[User:Master Fredcerique/GA rule on templates]] for my new proposition and tell me what you think. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 14:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with the current redlink restriction. Also, the "redirect restriction" is bad in a way; users can object to it based on the rule while it is an easy SoFixIt fix. 1358 (Talk) 14:44, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, for the record, if and when you change the proposal here in the actual CT thread, you are required to inform all users who have participated in the vote as per Forum:CT Archive/Procedural proposal. 1358 (Talk) 14:45, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
          • How would making the redirect restriction official have anything to do with SoFixIt? Either they follow the rule and eliminate them before the nom, or the SoFixIt rule comes into effect during the nom. We do this with grammar and other links and such which already have rules. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 14:56, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
            • If the redirect finder would be in effect sitewide, I could support this rule. Fixing a few links to redirects definitely fall under the SoFixIt clause. Technically, links to redirects don't hurt anyone; the redirects go to the proper article anyway. I wouldn't object to link to redirects if the problem isn't very large. 1358 (Talk) 15:56, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
              • What do you mean by, "If the redirect finder would be in effect sitewide?" What finder? MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:57, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
                • It's an unofficial css hack that makes the links to redirects orange. Copy the following line to Special:MyPage/monobook.css (or wikia.css if you use the new look):
                  a.mw-redirect {color:darkorange}
                  1358 (Talk) 20:01, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • A couple things: Firstly, I completely support and endorse the new approach of no redlinks allowed, period. As for the redirects: meh. I think no rule is really needed; it's kind of an unwritten rule to fix them if they are found. But when you get right down to it, accidentally linking to one or two redirects doesn't instantly make the article's quality go down the hypothetical toilet, so I don't think it needs to be made a strict rule as such. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:49, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • I also would wholeheartedly support banning redlinks entirely, and I would go a step further by applying it to FAs as well. It takes one minute, if that, to create a stub. I don't see a need for a rule against redirects; it's a simple sofixit issue. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 21:49, December 8, 2010 (UTC)