Talk:Compulsory purchase in England and Wales/Archive

Redlinked "See also" entries

While it is perfectly acceptable to have redlinked entries within an article, it is inappropriate to include them in a "See also" section. Scr★pIron^IV 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• That doesn't follow. Could you say it again with reasons?—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Certainly. See WP:NOTSEEALSO which addresses this issue. Scr★pIron^IV 19:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any reasoning there at all. All I see is a bald declaration, as if from on high. I'm looking for the part that says "because". WP:REDLINK, I note, is full of nuanced thought and contains a full explanation.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You're forgetting the part of REDLINK called WP:REDNOT where it says-

The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page).

The not is in bold at the page not added by me. Certain redlinks are not acceptable and WP:REDLINK says so if you read the whole page.

As I have pointed out, this very same thing was discussed four months ago here[1] when another editor was re-adding redlink See alsos into law articles.

I looked at this edit more or less at random. I see the addition of a red link to a see also section. Wikidea, If I read your edit summary correctly, where you said " this is important information. I'm astonished that this user has spent three days deleting important information", I don't understand your position. Providing a link to an article it doesn't exist hardly qualifies as important information. It is possible that the case identified in the link is a very important case and maybe there will be an article someday, maybe even soon. But until it exists, it doesn't add much to the article. That's an argument on general principles. I believe our guideline strongly discourages red links in a see also section, so you would need an extraordinary argument to explain why that guideline ought to be ignored. Perhaps you are arguing that this specific case is very important to this article. If that's the case, I don't dispute it but it doesn't yet exist. If you have plans to write that article go ahead and write it and add it when it is done. If you do not have plans to write the article but think it ought to be done, as my general response about suggests, the best course of action is to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law and propose it as an article worth developing.

Emphasis in this case added by me. Another administrator went on to tell[2] Wikidea that continued addition of redlinks would not be acceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of see also links is send article readers to related articles. See also. There is nothing to see also if the article don't exist....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Brilliant. So apparently, you're allowed to breach the actual editing policy when you edit-war to remove redlinks that appear below a heading marked "see also" based on this obscure discussion on a manual of style subpage I've never watchlisted, and apparently, sysops will not just support you in this ridiculous behaviour but actually intervene to protect you. This is why I hate that fucking manual of style so much. What will happen now, of course, is I'll wait three days because Ymblanter has actually protected the page and then I'll reintroduce the completely appropriate and needful redlinks in this article somewhere above the "See also" heading.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• • What you wrote above isn't very brilliant when you say 'I'll reintroduce the completely appropriate and needful redlinks in this article somewhere above the "See also" heading'. Bad faith edits to make a point. Maybe @Ymblanter: would care to comment whether that fall would come under WP:DISRUPT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • Jesus Christ, you're the one who's making four successive reverts!—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You can't count or please point out four successive reverts. I will take it to ANI if no administrator warns you first about the planned action you stated above and you go ahead and do it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I have absolutely no fear of AN/I in this matter. This is an article about compulsory purchase in England and Wales, which I started and Wikidea helped me with, and I watchlist, because of course anyone who writes an article on Wikipedia is doomed to defend it forever. The redlinks in it which you removed 1, 2, 3, 4 times in the same few hours are appropriate and necessary. They should appear somewhere in the article. It is utterly ludicrous, but (apparently) true and enforced by sysops, that they are not allowed to appear in the "see also" section. Therefore I intend to reintroduce them elsewhere in the article when the page protection is removed. If you then refer this to AN/I, then I will look forward to discussing it with you there.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your first example does not meet WP:REVERTING and you haven't once stated why those links are necessary, you however in your last statement may be showing signs of WP:OWN. That will be for someone else to decide....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I see that those four removals only actually amounted to three reverts. You have correctly quibbled that particular point. It is of course a breach of the editing policy; and it's not the first time editors have taken you to the edit-warring noticeboard over it; and in fact it's not even the first time this week editors have taken you to the edit-warring noticeboard over it; but hey, let's make a big deal over the exact number. Fact is that you're on a MOS-related crusade, WilliamJE, as anyone who examines your recent edits can see.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• In fact let's go straight to AN/I. This is going to end up there anyway, so why fuck about?—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)