Disputatio Usoris:Potatornado

Hunc usorem obstruxi quia e variis paginis sine explicatione res bonas delevit. Melius est aut in summario aut in paginis disputationis utilitatem mutationum explicare.

I blocked because this acccount was used to delete useful material (especially redlinks) without explanation. It's better to explain what you're doing in an edit summary, and better still, if thinking of deleting material that someone must have thought useful, to discuss it first.

It appears to me that edits under this name on en:wiki are good and constructive. Therefore, by all means discuss (on this page, for example): you could be unblocked at once if you respond to the above comments. Keep in mind that policies differ from one Wikipedia to another. Small wikis have some growing to do, and naturally have a lot more redlinks than are currently seen on en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:27, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby Sorry about that, I just assume that redlinked pages are redlinked not because they're viable as a page, but because they're esoteric and unlikely to ever be notable enough. I didn't know if there were any special rules across different wikis, but I wanted to help out more places besides English wiki. I am learning French and have a good understanding of it, and am editing French wiki. I am also an aspiring Latin learner, and just wanted to learn more about it. Again, sorry, I usually don't leave an edit summary when deleting a redlink because I assume it doesn't need explanation, but I realize the size of this wiki. Thank you for alerting me! Potatornado (disputatio) 18:36, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for responding. I unblocked you. Do come back, and do learn Latin!

It's perfectly true that we have many unnecessary redlinks ... Evidently opinions differ, but linking common and general terms (a thing that Vicipaedians used to do all the time in the early years) is rarely useful. We continue to link dates that are relevant to the subject of the article (en:wiki doesn't do this any more). Surely we should link special topics relevant to the article, and names of relevant people and places and institutions and events. I don't see any reason not to do that. Millions of such links would have seemed esoteric on en:wiki in the past, but have now turned blue! Anyway, there's always time to discuss. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby In my opinion, if something does have the potential to be an article in the future but isn't at the moment, someone can always go back later and relink it. Looking forward to learning more! Potatornado (disputatio) 19:22, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but why do the work twice? The redlink is an incentive to the user to add a page and turn it blue. Black text doesn't carry any message. This is one major way in which all the Wikipedias grew, and the small-to-medium ones still grow in this way. But it's a matter of judgment, largely ... maybe look around a little, and try some other kinds of edits, and see what Vicipaedia most needs? It needs your work, no doubt at all.

Incidentally, because your edits seemed all alike, weren't obviously helpful, and weren't explained, I rolled them all back initially. Then I looked in detail, and restored some again. You have a point :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Redlinks in small wikis are pleas for help, and at least one of us likes to turn them blue by adding the appropriate articles. (For many such invitations, see numerous taxoboxes, where turning redlinks blue often has the advantage of linking articles marked {{Pagina non annexa}} and thereby getting them out of danger of deletion.) Fair examples of the process are Poesis Civitatum Foederatarum, where I'm almost finished (look at all the beautiful blue!), and Litterae Civitatum Foederatarum, where another burst of recolorizing is happening offline and will be occurring online by the end of the month. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:24, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Whatever the common judgment about links in general, the 10,000 most important articles (Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio) want to have as many octeti as possible, to help with Vicipaedia's standings in the competition at Meta, and links can be part of that strategy. Indeed, work more important than tinkering with typography is beckoning there. Look at the thousands of important articles begging to be added! Please help add them! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:24, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶ For readers who don't want to see red, doesn't Vicipaedia have a gadget that turns colors off? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:28, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe it doesn't. I was thinking of the gadget that turns discretivas off. Maybe some kind programmer would like to add such a gadget for fastidious readers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:11, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example[fontem recensere]

An example of what the evils of redlink hatred can cause turned up today. Long ago, in 2009, an author adding articles on the archbishops of Canterbury, apparently not imagining that Vicipaedia would ever have an article on the Archbishop of Canterbury (which at the time in Vicipaedia, and for about seven more years, until 31 May 2016, would have been a redlink), came up with this horror:

[[archiepiscopus]] [[Ecclesia Anglica|Ecclesiae Anglicae]] [[Cantuaria|Cantuariensis]].

Here we have three separate bluelinks, perhaps most accurately translated as "archbishop of the Church of England at (the city of) Canterbury." Now, with the addition of that unimaginable article, all of that circumlocution—in many dozens of articles—has to be changed to a mere:

[[archiepiscopus Cantuariensis]]

What a bother!
Compare the opinion above: "if something does have the potential to be an article in the future but isn't at the moment, someone can always go back later and relink it." But it's not just the link that needs to be changed: it's the whole phrase. Why not do it right in the first place? What's the value of requiring additional unnecessary work, all because of a hatred of red? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:02, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]