Wikipedia talk:Build the web

message: Proposal: merge WP:BTW into WP:linking by adding the following paragraph at the top of WP:linking#General principles:
Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to find relevant information on other pages with just a click of the mouse. Therefore in adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the webin the knowledge tree. Make upward links to categories and relevant contexts (Charles Darwin was a biologist; Sahara is a desert in Africa, etc. Make sideways links to neighboring articles (for proton see also electron, Oregon borders on California). Introduce links from related articles to avoid orphaning the article; and don't be afraid to create links to articles which don't exist yet.  
That's shorter than I expected; I'd written another para based on BTW but I've found all the parts of it are already in that target section (apart from the bit about category trees which I couldn't make sense of and doesn't seem to belong here). Comments? Can we do this merge now? Rd232 talk 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised to replace "web" with knowledge tree. Rd232 talk 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Revised to strike ref to categories implying linking to categories, which is deprecated. Rd232 talk 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is far more the direction to go in. I don't think this text has much to add in terms of general principles - largely because BTW already has been merged into WP:Linking, so anything that means anything here is already there. What might be worth adding (though it would need to be written out properly, with legible examples) is the idea that we are more inclined to link to things which directly contain the thing we are writing about, or are classes containing that thing, or are similar to that thing, or are examples or components of that thing. (I guess that's what the upward/sideways/etc. language is supposed to mean.) But this wouldn't go at the top of general principles - it would get quite detailed and technical, and would probably go somewhere in the list of principles, or maybe better in a separate subsection.--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The North Africa link is justified in my opinion. Today I was pointing Africa on a map and asked a group of 5 koreans what this continent was and they had no idea. So we shouldn't take it for granted that everybody knows what we learnt in primary school. And these koreans can speak English. Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry for misrepresenting your words. I hope I have fixed this to your satisfaction. – Perhaps we have just found a genuine point of BTW: I do happen to think that while links to articles such as desert and Africa should be used very sparingly, Sahara is an excellent example of an article where they are appropriate because superficial readers of the article are likely to find them of interest. The article actually links to North Africa instead, which is even better. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This is already in the target section. I'd rather we didn't get into a big discussion, as we seem to be, about the precise wording and policy implications. The only thing that really matters, as far as I can see, is the first two sentences, plus the shortcuts. The rest is naturally subject to future post-merger revision and clarification (which I think the target page could do with); these two sentences are the core idea which is worth merging, I think, the rest is detail, and is precisely why the merger should be done. Rd232 talk 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *Have you been misled by the discussion? The proposal says nothing about linking to categories. Rd232 talk 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have you read the text you appear to have proposed? "Make upward links to categories and contexts". My emphasis. Hiding T  15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) clearly I haven't!! Removed the ref to categories. Rd232 talk 15:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's certainly an improvement (much more pertinent examples; and red links and orphaning are perfectly well covered by what already exists at WP:Linking anyway). I would still remove "Therefore", since the second sentence (about the tree) isn't a logical consequence of the first (about the web). (The first sentence could go, actually, since it is already stated at least once on the WP:Linking page as it is now.) And if the examples are supposed to be from the articles indicated by the first links, then we should show that, at the very least by replacing the links by bold type as they would be in those articles (Charles Babbage was one of the great cryptographers etc.).--Kotniski (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually maybe the Antarctica example doesn't quite work (is there such a thing as "the Antarctica"?) And the proton example never worked. But it's going in the right direction.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yes, some silly mistakes. How is that? Tony (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "The" Antarctica? Except for this, your example sounds OK to me. (But I disagree that linking "novelist" in the first sentence of an article about a novelist is overlinking.) As for "categories" in the original wording, I don't think it referred to categories in the MediaWiki sense of the word: it would make little sense to write "Charles Darwin is a biologist". As for red links, the criterion should be whether the linked title could host an article complying with WP:N and WP:NC and relevant to the topic of the article containing the red link. So I'd write something like: and don't be afraid to create relevant links to articles which don't exist yet, provided that the topic is notable enough to merit its own article and the linked title complies with the Wikipedia naming conventions. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sigh". I'm not getting my point across very well here. As for "categories" in the original wording, I don't think it referred to categories in the MediaWiki sense of the word. That's my point, it does and doesn't refer to categories in the MediWiki sense of the word because the MediaWiki sense of the word didn't exist when the text was written.  This guidance predates category space. That's why the guidance refers to category linking, it was the only way to implement a category, by linking to "biologist" and then extracting a "category" if you will, byt using "what links here" on bilogist. That's what a vast number of people seem to be missing, that "Build The Web" hasn't been updated in seven years to reflect the way the software has changed.  The way we implemented categories means the guidance as stands is written to indicate that we write "Charles Darwin is a biologist". This is probably germane and not germane, but there was once a reason for BTW and articles being a sea of blue.  It was all there was. Way back when, even "policy" was written in the main space, because it was all there was. Support the merge, but make sure it is updated to take account of the fact that this is so old it doesn't grapple with advancements.  Don't get blind-sided into accepting or re-using material that has absolutely no relevance to today's Wikipedia. Hiding T  12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to make it clear - what do you envisage will be at WP:Build the web when this merger is done? A redirect? A historical page or essay?--Kotniski (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't thought about it. And now that you ask, I'm not sure I mind either way. Rd232 talk 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This discussion is still dancing around a lot. It's not that it's unproductive, just that it would be much better to do this post-merger. So can we just merge the minimum we agree on (to the top of the General Principles para), then continue the discussion about the other points at Wikipedia talk:linking? Rd232 talk 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear - what do you envisage will be at WP:Build the web when this merger is done? A redirect? A historical page or essay?--Kotniski (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't thought about it. And now that you ask, I'm not sure I mind either way. Rd232 talk 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal (minimal)

message: Since there now seems to be universal support for doing this (and consensus in the earlier discussions was in favour anyway, it was just prevented from being implemented), I think it's time to go ahead. Therefore:
 
Please replace the content of this page with a redirect to Wikipedia:Linking#General principles, at the same time as making the edit requested at WT:Linking#Requested addition, which implements the merge as agreed in the above discussions (#Merge proposal onward).--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All  as requested. Congratulations on sorting this out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I suggest further discussion about improvements to the text continue at WT:Linking.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for edit