Wikipedia talk:Piped link/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Piped link. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
WP:EASTEREGG: clarity sought on a particular situation
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See the second line in the infobox at Beiseker. The village's municipal status is piped [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]]. Linking directly to [[Village]] could potentially be WP:OVERLINK as an everyday word understood by most readers in a general context. The benefit of [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]] as the current state here however is to link to the article that discusses what a village is in the Alberta context. So, is the above example an WP:EASTEREGG violation or not? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Anyone care to assist? Hwy43 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to happen quite a lot: Acme, Alberta, Bal Harbour, Florida, Clayton, Illinois, etc. I think it is clear enough what the intention of the piped link is: the word "village" links to a list of such communities via a "List of..." page. IMO that makes sense and is not a surprise. OTOH, village would be a surprise per the essay... — Iadmc♫talk 15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Iadmc, thank you. I've always felt it to be reasonable, and agree it makes sense and is not a surprise. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- This appears to happen quite a lot: Acme, Alberta, Bal Harbour, Florida, Clayton, Illinois, etc. I think it is clear enough what the intention of the piped link is: the word "village" links to a list of such communities via a "List of..." page. IMO that makes sense and is not a surprise. OTOH, village would be a surprise per the essay... — Iadmc♫talk 15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes
Is it a WP:EASTEREGG violation to pipelink a community status type (e.g. city) in an infobox settlement_type parameter to the list article applicable to the context in which it is located (e.g. List of cities in Foo)? Hwy43 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Additional question relevant to the above
- Same question applies to:
- |subdivision_type1 = [[Provinces and territories of Canada|Province]] (see Provinces and territories of Canada);
- |subdivision_type2 = [[Regions of Canada#British Columbia|Region]] (see Regions of Canada#British Columbia);
- |blank_name = [[List of British Columbia provincial highways|Highways]] (see List of British Columbia provincial highways);
- etc.
Given that wikilinking to City, Town, State, Province, Region, and Highways would be considered WP:OVERLINK violations (as such are already commonly understood terms), is it a surprise to land at pages that elaborate on what these things are in the context of their higher levels of government (e.g. | settlement_type = [[List of villages in British Columbia|Village]])? Hwy43 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
See the discussion above, preceding this RFC's heading, for what was originally posed in 2017. Hwy43 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong no in fact, it would be overlinking to the max and overly generic to link to generic terms. I'm gobsmacked this is even an RfC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure you're parsing what the issue is. It's not: should "City" be linked to the generic term or a much more specific "List of cities in Foo"? It's: is "City" being linked to the specific "List of cities in Foo" a case of WP:EASTER? If yes, it doesn't mean people would (or should!) start linking "City" to the article on the generic term. As mentioned below, that would be OVERLINK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's not an Easter egg, but it is an OVERLINK, just as linking Capital to the capital cities of the country is, linking Largest city to the list of largest metropolitan areas in the country is, etc. It should not be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- No as above. ili (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes (not convinced the RfC wording is clear enough or neutral enough, based on the comments so far) A random reader would expect an infobox heading to be linked—if it is linked at all—to an explanation of what the heading meant. So if we used something like "population density" or "GDP", which are not necessarily common terms, we would link to the generic meanings. An infobox is not a navbox—its purpose is not to lead the reader to links related to the topic but to provide highlights of the article—and linking a generic term like "City" to the very specific "List of cities in Foo" is classic WP:EASTER. And given it's classic EASTER, then the generic terms could only legitimately be linked to their generic definitions... which as Walter Görlitz points out would be OVERLINK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes: I couldn't anticipate where the link was going to go, so it's an Easter egg link. I'm not as convinced that it's overlink—maybe some rephrasing like
Village ([[List of villages in British Columbia|list]])would be appropriate. But outright removal seems sensible. — Bilorv (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) - No: As stated in the 2017 conversation that preceded this RfC, "Village" linking as [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]] is not a surprise and makes sense, whereas linking as [[Village People|Village]] would be a surprise. Linking to an article that explains what a "village" is in the specific context of Alberta is actually helpful to the reader's understanding.
WP:OVERLINK is a different discussion and not subject to the question at hand. In my view however, preventing [[Village|Village]] (linking to the generic term) is the intent of the OVERLINK guideline, where the general context of the targeted article is already understood. Preventing [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]] is not the intent of the OVERLINK guideline.
Speaking of, Wikipedia:Piped link, of which WP:EASTER points to the third heading, "is a how-to guide" and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". In the seven years since I implemented linking to "[[List of cities/towns/villages/district municipalities in British Columbia|City/Town/Village/District municipality]]" in the infoboxes of British Columbia municipality articles, only one editor has contested said implementation as WP:EASTER... seven years later. That editor is now in a slow edit war on numerous articles with another editor, asserting that WP:EASTER is a guideline when, as mentioned above, it is not a guideline. Meanwhile I stand by in accordance with the second bullet at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC. I'm not intervening and not exacerbating the dispute. Rather, I am waiting to make "improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I would request Joeyconnick cease what I view as disruptive editing and edit warring until this RfC comes to a close. Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:PIPEDLINK is a guideline. I happen to agree that linking to the more specific article is more helpful to the reader than linking to the generic term would be, but at the same time that doesn't preclude it being an Easter egg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see MOS:PIPEDLINK is embedded in MOS:LINK, which is a guideline whereas WP:EASTER is embedded in WP:PIPELINK, which is not a guideline, hence the confusion. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hoping that call to stop edits along these lines also includes folks like Moka Mo, whose multiple bot-like edits to add many of these EASTER links are what started this debate in the first place (because I began reverting them). Unfortunately, I find many people are inappropriately swayed by "a ton of other articles do this" as justification in these debates for a practice that is clearly against guidelines. Left unchecked, Moka Mo's edits would simply have added fuel to that very mistaken fire. Unsurprisingly, Moka Mo has claimed exactly that as their "rationale": that this is somehow a standard for British Columbia settlement articles and thus should be done across all such settlement articles simply because it was done in some. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- While I believe Moka Mo appears to have been implementing WP:STATUSQUO in good faith, that user was also apprised of this RfC and has not participated. Instead, that user has been an equal partner in the slow, disruptive edit war. Instead of furthering things, Moka Mo should stop and instead comment here, otherwise I would suggest that perhaps the user truly is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Hwy43 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I guess Moka Mo just forgot we were still discussing this? Or rather, that this was unresolved? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I believe Moka Mo appears to have been implementing WP:STATUSQUO in good faith, that user was also apprised of this RfC and has not participated. Instead, that user has been an equal partner in the slow, disruptive edit war. Instead of furthering things, Moka Mo should stop and instead comment here, otherwise I would suggest that perhaps the user truly is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Hwy43 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hoping that call to stop edits along these lines also includes folks like Moka Mo, whose multiple bot-like edits to add many of these EASTER links are what started this debate in the first place (because I began reverting them). Unfortunately, I find many people are inappropriately swayed by "a ton of other articles do this" as justification in these debates for a practice that is clearly against guidelines. Left unchecked, Moka Mo's edits would simply have added fuel to that very mistaken fire. Unsurprisingly, Moka Mo has claimed exactly that as their "rationale": that this is somehow a standard for British Columbia settlement articles and thus should be done across all such settlement articles simply because it was done in some. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see MOS:PIPEDLINK is embedded in MOS:LINK, which is a guideline whereas WP:EASTER is embedded in WP:PIPELINK, which is not a guideline, hence the confusion. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:PIPEDLINK is a guideline. I happen to agree that linking to the more specific article is more helpful to the reader than linking to the generic term would be, but at the same time that doesn't preclude it being an Easter egg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- YES These are EELs because they do not go to where expected. They don't provide forther information on what the term means (which as already stated in usually unnecessary) and are more of a navigation/see related type thing which doesn't belong in the infobox. MB 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)