User talk:Neilc/External links

Description of changes

Could you suggest (insist?) that people label their changes "Correct external link title" as it otherwise implies that the links have been changed. Mr. Jones 11:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering that there are only about 150 links left to be corrected as I write this, I don't think there's much point changing the procedure at this stage. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind -- that makes sense. Neilc 23:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Location of instructions

Consider putting your instructions on each page so that it's easy to find & copy the link to post into the Edit Summary. I didn't use it because it wasn't on the page whose links I was following. Oh, well... Elf | Talk 21:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't a bot do it?

Couldn't one of the existing spelling bots do at least the correction of "External Links" to "External links" (perhaps with additional check, i.e. only if the words are in a header etc.)? That would save much of the work we're doing here... - Marcika 18:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

external link?

How come you're changing the header to read "external links" even if there's only one of them? DanKeshet 17:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neilc/External_links#Common_mistakes Danikolt (Talk) 17:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's pointless to protest. There are too many of them. And they blindly follow their leader, who has enlightened them with the eternal truth that the word link has no singular form. <KF> 01:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think you could be a bit more charitable, KF. I'm simply trying to improve WP, and this is the first I've heard that some people don't agree with that particular change. I don't think "External link" is wrong, I just think "External links" is equally correct, and less prone to error in the future (I've seen a significant number of pages that claim to contain an "External link", but in fact have multiple). What, exactly, is the harm in making the change? If you see a page with a section called "References" containing a single item, are you really going to argue it ought to be "Reference" and the plural form is incorrect? Neilc 06:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think having a heading that says External Link sounds almost as silly as putting on one pant. I still think the correct solution is to find a second link rather than argue over it being singular or plural. --ssd 06:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded too rude. Of course I appreciate people's attempts at improving Wikipedia, and of course I can distinguish between them on the one hand and vandals and trolls who want to cause trouble on the other.

I came across this change because the Silvius Magnago stub happens to be on my watchlist. The only link there—which I created myself—is to a photograph of Magnago, and the heading "Links" looked/looks very very strange.

I'm not prepared to spend my time arguing about this. I'm also of the opinion that one could use one's time more wisely than by carrying out that change.

However, I'm sometimes troubled by the power structure here at Wikipedia. Three examples: (1) Some time ago a user demanded from a sysop that they delete, "for a page move", a disambiguation page I had just created, and that request was carried out immediately. (2) The other day an anonymous user had vandalised a biography; then someone else, without looking at the page history, had the "patent nonsense" speedy-deleted. (3) Now, when asked (by me) to refer me to the passage where it says that it should always be links, people cite your user page, where it says "Personally, I don't like ...". This, to me, is the willing executioner syndrome, something I do not like at all.

No more of this, please, and happy -s adding! All the best, <KF> 10:31, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)