Forum:CT:Linking to colors

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Linking to colors

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 No consensus to discontinue practice of linking to colors. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:59, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

This consensus track concerns whether we should link to colors.

At present, we have several articles on colors which function as disambiguation pages. They direct the reader to a variety of articles that have the particular color in its title. A recent trend has developed among some users to link any occurrence of a color to these disambiguation pages. I think we should stop this practice.

First, these color articles are disambig pages. The disambig template specifically says:

If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

Therefore, there is a logical inconsistency in linking there. Second, I fail to see how linking to a color aids the reader of the encyclopedia in any way. A color is a color. It has no different meaning in Star Wars than in the real world. Therefore, the reader gains nothing by the link to it.

If this CT succeeds, it would be a simple task to get a bot to remove the links so there will be no great effort needed on the part of Wookieepedians. If, and this is a big if, there is a color I am unaware of that is unique to the Star Wars universe, I would be happy to link to that, but we could cross that bridge if we come to it.

As usual, please do not start any new voting options without first discussing.

[EDIT] To clarify, as there seems to have been some confusion, this CT will not involve deleting the color disambig pages from the Wook, just ceasing to link to the disambiguation pages (as is our current Disambig policy as quoted above). --Eyrezer 06:41, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Don't link to color disambiguation pages

  1. --Eyrezer 10:32, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 10:34, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  3. CFS. Thefourdotelipsis 10:50, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it? Then why is this CT at no consensus, hmm? Perhaps because it's not as stupidly obvious as you people believe. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, you people? Now I see what this whole "color" issue is. Kidding. Only here to lighten the mood on something that honestly shouldn't be so heated in either direction. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • Trayus certainly has a point. I just hate politics, and stupid things like this that escalate. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
          • Lol. "You people" Very nicely played Trayus. XD --Eyrezer 23:13, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • Haha thanks Trayus; got me a couple lols. And yes, good point, too. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking about this not one week ago. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 11:00, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 11:18, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  5. The mother of redundancy. -- 1358 (Talk) 11:19, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  7. A reasonable idea, but I have mixed feelings about it given the effort I've put into making color disambigs utterly ridiculous. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:11, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  8. I'd only been doing it because I saw other colors were linked. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 12:31, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  9. I've stopped anyway. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 14:17, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  10. I want to see the colors unique to Star Wars, throw my perception of reality into question and all that. NAYAYEN:TALK 16:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per Soresu and Xd. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  12. There's no reason to link to a disambig and every reason not to. Havac 21:25, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Same thing as JMAS. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:02, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Oo, I've been waiting for someone to start a CT about this. I'm not sure why this trend started, but I'd like to see it stop. ~ SavageBob 06:09, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • ETA: I like Fodigg's proposal below. Seems like a good compromise position. ~ SavageBob 18:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Now that I actually understand what the CT is about, then I vote to stop linking to 'em. I thought we were gonna get rid of the disambigs at first. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  16. I thought I did have other things to worry about, but evidently not. While jSarek is right in that they are sort of pseudo-articles, they're not articles in their current sourceless form. We should by all means link to them if we create actual colour articles separate from the disambigs, which I think could be informative, but in the meantime I would consider them the same as any of the other disambigs listed by Fourdot below. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:40, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  17. I vote link to the color page the first time you mention a color, then leave the links out. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 18:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • This is actually pretty good idea. The color article is, well, an actual article, and provides info on the relevancy of various colors to groups and individuals in the galaxy. I support the use of links to the color page for the first, and only first, instance of any color in an article. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 18:39, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  18. ASDF1239Chiss Ascendancy-DISCUSSION- 22:18, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Menkooroo 10:24, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  20. By crikey, I like Fodigg's suggestion too. No idea who he is, but good idea Enochf 09:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • /wave Hi, my name's fodigg, I like long walks on the beach... —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 23:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Do link to color disambiguation pages

  1. What's the big deal? If people want to link to something and it's generally useful, let them link to it. There are some people on this wiki who forget that just because you write an article doesn't mean you own it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:15, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Strong per Tope. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  3. How ridiculously petty. Graestan(Talk) 19:19, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Sure, linking to colors in articles really isn't a necessity, but I don't see why it's a big deal. I do recall a CT not so long ago, wherein we decided that people could source single-source articles if they wanted to—even though it clearly wasn't necessary, as sourcing a single-source article is obviously redundant—simply because people wanted to. It's basically the same situation—if people want to link colors, why shouldn't we let them? So, per Tope and Grae. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:34, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Do we really have nothing better to worry about? Per Graestan.—Tommy 9281 22:56, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:12, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  7. JangFett (Talk) 06:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • If we don't link to green, then where else would we be able to use the awesome quote from Colors and Shapes? It would only exist on a userpage, and we can't have that! Trak Nar Ramble on 06:44, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per Jon. If it doesn't hurt, why not?--Bella'Mia 07:01, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Per Graestan and Tommy. Grunny (talk) 07:47, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Meh. Doubt I'll ever bother to link to one, but I really don't mind if others want to. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:25, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 21:03, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Per all above. CC7567 (talk) 06:11, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  13. We link to everything else even if it's not terribly relevant to an article, why not the colors? It's not like users actually need a link to blood or death or male and female in every article that mentions them, but we do it for consistency. Same here. If the disambig tags are confusing, take them off the articles; strictly speaking, the color pages aren't really don't need to be disambigs anyway, since they can describe and define the color, and only after that link to a slew of related terms. EDIT: Okay, so apparently I misremembered how some of those pages looked. Still, with a little editing, the articles don't have to be strict disambigs. jSarek 06:36, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  14. I fail to see why we need to codify one way or the other about something as trivial as this. Frankly, I'm voting against laziness on this one. It really isn't hard to link to an article. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  15. If you don't link to them, you effectively turn them into orphans. It's just good organization to have things arranged by color. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:54, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  16. I would love to see a color FA. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:20, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
    Squid the Baptist 22:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: not enough mainspace edits -- —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:30, May 18, 2010 (UTC))

I don't care which option you vote for, just spell colour properly

  1. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 18:54, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I couldn't agree more with this, actually. Especially the spelling :D. Besides, this could be one of the last times we get to do this sort of thing, with this looking to go through soon. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:41, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Agreed fully. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Trying to stick just to substantive discussion, what I differ on with you Tope is what these links are "generally useful". That may be a difference of opinion, and that's fine. That is part of what CT's are for. Grae, I don't see how calling it "ridiculously petty" adds anything constructive to the topic. --Eyrezer 23:18, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • To answer Jon's question, I'll explain why this is different from allowing people to place citations in single-source article. Citations in that case are not obtrusive, they're only redundant, and in the case that the given topic gets another mention somewhere it's already got the sourcing infrastructure. Which is objectively helpful. Linking to a disambig is objectively unhelpful. It's sloppy, considering that the disambiguation template itself says that these pages shouldn't be linked to, and more importantly, links are there to provide the reader with instantaneous access to directly relevant further reading. Every other link does this, except those links to colours. That's not helpful to the reader in any way shape or form. It's just a waste of time for everyone involved. Thefourdotelipsis 06:36, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Fourdot. When a reader sees a blue link, they assume that there's a useful article on the other side of it. Disambiguation pages are useful for helping someone who's lost, but they're not all that useful for providing Star Wars information. In other words, there's lots to be gained from linking to Green Squadron when discussing Jake Farrell, but little to be gained from linking to green (disambiguation) when discussing the color of a Lizard Warrior's scales. (And I'm not sure what the subtext of this CT is that people are being called petty and whatnot; I legitimately think disambig links in general are not helpful, and have voted for that reason alone.) ~ SavageBob 06:18, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, if this CT results in no consensus, (which it appears it will) what happens? Will linking to color pages be enforced requirements for articles, or will it just be kind of a "if you think of it, do it, but if not, somebody else can do it if they really want to" kind of thing? Because these are not normal links (they're disambigs), and because linking to these pages isn't currently any kind of a requirement (seems more like a trend) would it be up to the editor to add, and not formally enforced or forbidden? I honestly don't care one way or another, but I'm just wondering. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 06:29, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Totally agreed (with Fourdot and Bob). Disambigs are for helping lost people. Linking directly to a "You may be looking for X, Y, or Z" page is absurd, since they're not looking for any of those. If we just want to link to things that are useful and may be of general interest, but are irrelevant to the article, we might as well stick pipelinks to our policies all over article intros. Or start pipelinking categories. If you're getting linked to a page, you assume that you're being given a destination, not going out sightseeing on a Sunday drive. That's totally unlike sourcing one-source articles, which is redundant but directly practical. Havac 06:35, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • And to reply to Trayus, whose comment wasn't here when I started: the default policy is not to link to disambigs. So under no consensus, we ought to default to not linking disambigs, which would exclude colors. That would be the logical result. Havac 06:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • Personally, I'd be happy with a "no one can object to a nom because it doesn't link to colors". --Eyrezer 22:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
        • They can't do that from before, really. :P --Imperialles 22:10, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
          • Btw, Eyrezer. Didn't you start the purple page? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:57, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • The existence of diambigs isn't being debated, but whether the use of a word in text, outside the context of any of the items being disambiguated, should be linked to them. We don't link any use of the word "allegiance" to Allegiance, for example, because it's utterly useless and defeats the whole purpose of links as being informative. - Lord Hydronium 20:02, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
              • Riff, they are disamgibuation pages. They are meant to be orphans! --Eyrezer 20:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • What I'm seeing in the "Do link" votes are three themes: 1) What's the harm in linking to disambigs? A variant of this is that this vote is "petty" or "trivial." 2) Not linking them is lazy. 3) Not linking to them makes them orphans.
    • To 1, the harm is that linking to a disambig reduces an article's usefulness. Our users should be whom this vote is aimed to help, and linking to a long list of random articles is not helpful to them. A blue link is supposed to mean something, otherwise it's just an impediment to comprehension. Seas of blue links interrupt the flow of the page and actually slow down comprehension. This is why boldface and italics are supposed to be used sparingly and for emphasis in graphic design and publishing. Colors are similar. This gets to JSarek's point, in that in reality, I would argue that we should not be linking to anything that can be linked. We should be linking only to terms that are of immediate pertinence to the article's subject. But disambigs are even worse than that, becuase they don't go anywhere. They go to a long, confusing list. They are there for people who enter something into a search box as signposts, not for people who have already reached an article.
    • To 2, there's nothing lazy about it. In fact, the inclination to link to everything without considering whether it's a useful link or not is the lazy part. We currently have a lazy policy in that we link to pretty much anything that can be linked. It takes more effort to make a decision on a link.
      • "Lazy: adj. averse or disinclined to activity or work" By the word's very definition, linking everything that can be linked in the most complete fashion is the opposite of lazy. In fact, not linking everything fully and completely would be lazy, because you would be doing less work. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • Consider this: It might just be even lazier to apply a blanket concept blindly instead of considering each individual case and discriminating accordingly. Under your definition of laziness, we should actually link to allegiance at every turn. Or maybe even jagged. Or perhaps sacrifice. Just because you've decided to put four square brackets around a random word doesn't make you a paradigm of resilience of fortitude. Thefourdotelipsis 22:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I'm breaking up the thread incorrectly. Fourdot gets to my point. I'm saying it's not lazy to avoid linking everything that can be linked because it then requires that the editor have a reason for each and every link he or she makes. It requires more thought to determine whether a particular link will be pertinent to the article or not. It's what editors are supposed to do. That said, I'm not disparaging Jon or anyone else who advocates for linking anything and/or everything. I of course see my way as better, but I'd like to see us avoid making or taking any of this personally. :) ~ SavageBob 23:17, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks for explaining that further, Bob, and apologies if my post sounded confrontational, I did not intend for it to be. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:29, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
          • Consider this: I am not applying a "blanket concept blindly;" my reasons for voting to allow people to link to colors are stated above. And in fact, I am considering this case-by-case; although it would seem that you are not, if you think that just because I think it's OK to link to colors instantly means that I also want to link to "allegiance" or "jagged" or "sacrifice." I wouldn't agree to link to "allegiance" or "jagged" or "sacrifice" at every mention, but I see nothing wrong with allowing people to keep linking to colors. I don't think it should be required, but why not let people do it if they want to? Also, another good post to read above for reasons why I'm voting the way I am would be Tope's. Particularly that last sentence. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
            • I actually don't see the relevance at all of the line "There are some people on this wiki who forget that just because you write an article doesn't mean you own it." This CT is about whether links to color page are useful or not. It has nothing to do with people supposedly claiming propriety over articles. That comment just presupposes bad faith. --Eyrezer 22:53, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
              • The point is that some people are overzealous in "protecting" their articles. That goes against the very nature of a wiki. Those people know who they are. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:58, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
                • Except for the fact that it's got absolutely nothing to do with that. I think that those who are advocating have provided ample logical reasoning. The assertion that it's about "protecting their work" or "laziness" is pretty weak, and is rapidly approaching the territory of bullshit. Because it's clearly not about that. If it was, one of the reasons cited in the CT would be "Oh, and it's extra work. Lol." I personally can't see that anywhere in Ey's original proposal. And if we're talking about things that go "against the very nature of a wiki," linking to a disambiguation page is pretty much near the top of list. It's just not done. We didn't use to do it, it seems like a very recent little trend that has popped up with a few users who have decided that it's the way to go, and now that people are pointing out the bung logic of it, these people are suddenly over-protective lazy scumbags? Well, OK then. And Jon, I'm acutely aware of your original comments, seeing as though I responded to them pretty rapidly at the top of the comments section itself. Thefourdotelipsis 23:07, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
                  • If you read mine and Tope's original posts, then I would kindly ask you to not accuse me of blindly applying a blanket concept, as you would know that is not the reasoning behind my voting choice. Thank you. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:29, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • And to 3, disambiguation pages are supposed to be orphans. They are found by using the "search" function, and that is how they are supposed to be found.
  • That's why we should avoid linking to these pages from articles, and why I am not convinced by the people voting for the second option. ~ SavageBob 22:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to... stem away from some of the more heated commentary that has sprung forth from the loins of this discussion, I'd like to point out that if someone were to make actual articles of these colours, I wouldn't be adverse to linking them. Because then they'd actually be, y'know, articles. They're not at the moment. The real question is whether or not we actually want to have articles on colours, and if those would be useful to the reader, and if they would genuinely contain unique Star Wars info. I have a hard time believing that they would, but I'm open to suggestion. Thefourdotelipsis 23:37, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Addendum: However, I also agree with Bob's first point, that we really shouldn't just be linking to everything under the sun since it actually obstructs the reader, but that's another discussion for another day! Thefourdotelipsis 23:51, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, the point about not linking to "jagged" and "sacrifice" certainly stands true. Everything relevant should be linked, though. Anyway, while I think it's stupid that people are so incredibly set against linking to colors, I'm sure you guys don't understand my position. Having said that, I'll stop linking to colors in most noms, but I still prefer to keep color links in my FA/GAs. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:54, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's kind of where I'm coming from where my vote is concerned; that while they have the "disambig" tag on them, and in many (if not all) cases they have at most a bare-bones stub before listing disambiguating terms, these all *should* be articles, if we are going to have articles on general concepts like death. And we should link to them every time the color is first mentioned, if we are going to link to articles on general concepts every time that concept is mentioned. I'm not sure this is what we necessarily *should* be doing, but it is what we *are* doing for other general concepts, and colors shouldn't be exceptions. jSarek 23:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • This isn't intended to pick on you, J, but what would an article (as opposed to a disambig) about a color have in it? I ask because I'm not sure how such an article could ever be more than either a dictionary definition or an indiscriminate collection of information with stuff like, "Mace Windu's lightsaber was purple, and the Foo-bar people of Snafu Prime had purple skin." I also ask because I once wrote an article on traps that was summarily deleted because people deemed traps in Star Wars to be no different from traps in the real world. I'm not sure how or if colors are different from traps in this case. ~ SavageBob 00:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
          • Some colors have symbolism to different cultures, but that's about the only basis of an article I could think of. And if they were to be legitimate articles, I wouldn't disagree with linking them. But we shouldn't be linking to disambigs. Havac 08:32, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • For those who say that not linking to them makes them orphans, what do you think the "Links to disambiguating pages" page is for? Although, ironically, not all of the colours have been added to it (purple and green specifically). But yes, the fact that we don't link to normal disambigs should be reason enough for people not to link to colour disambigs. Or color ones =P NAYAYEN:TALK 16:39, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • After digging around some more, it appears that all the relevant content is in the Color article. You could either move the stuff there to the color page and move the disambig stuff to "<color> (disambiguation)". NAYAYEN:TALK 16:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
      • I love having that information, and kinda like the idea of moving that information to it's related color's page, and creating a separate disambig page. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:04, May 22, 2010 (UTC)