Disputatio:Corpus humanum
NexInt[fontem recensere]
Klein, why are you replacing the (new) NexInt formula with the (old) "Nexus interni" wording? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:57, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I also remove it everywhere, it is broken and does not function as a heading (does not allow opening the article in this place), and what advantages is not clear. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:13, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- @IacobusAmor, because it doesn't provide any added benefit beside removing the edit section possibility for that section. We've talked together about that here. I don't agree with its use personally but I'm not removing it everywhere. At least not intentionally. I only removed it here because I wrote the article myself and was one of the many small modifications I was doing while dealing with it. I believe I removed it when I was dealing with the links in that section and I got frustrated that the edit link "kept disappearing" or that I kept losing track of what I wanted to edit when I had to edit the whole page or the closest section to it.
- But for what my words are worth I really believe you shouldn't use that template at all. Like Demetrius says, it's technically broken with no added benefit. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:10, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- The only benefit is adding a tracking category, which again, in my opinion it's not needed. Not with the cost of removing the edit link. Even if it came without that cost I'm still not sure why we would need to track articles that use nexus interni. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:14, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- Generally, we rely on lists of internal links to make up for the brevity & incompleteness of articles. (The major exception is biological articles, where lists of subjects at the next taxonomic level down are useful, even if they're red.) Ideally, according to a long-standing consensus as I remember it, lists of internal links are as short as possible, or even nonexistent. ¶ Is a disputation page for {{NexInt}} available, so that we might see why it was invented? My memory is that it was hailed as an improvement at the time it was created. "Removing the edit section possibility" has never seemed like a problem: go to the section just above it and scroll down! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- The edit history of the template shows exactly that: new formula, to make the "internal links" sections uniform and to facilitate finding them (and eventually eliminating them), by user Amahoney in 2016. But... Why? Why do we want to eliminate the "see also" section? What's the rationale behind that? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:56, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- Generally, we rely on lists of internal links to make up for the brevity & incompleteness of articles. (The major exception is biological articles, where lists of subjects at the next taxonomic level down are useful, even if they're red.) Ideally, according to a long-standing consensus as I remember it, lists of internal links are as short as possible, or even nonexistent. ¶ Is a disputation page for {{NexInt}} available, so that we might see why it was invented? My memory is that it was hailed as an improvement at the time it was created. "Removing the edit section possibility" has never seemed like a problem: go to the section just above it and scroll down! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
- The only benefit is adding a tracking category, which again, in my opinion it's not needed. Not with the cost of removing the edit link. Even if it came without that cost I'm still not sure why we would need to track articles that use nexus interni. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:14, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)