Talk:Do Not Disturb (Van der Graaf Generator album)

Links in quotes

In this revert, the edit summary says "We don't link within direct quotes without demonstrable exceptional need." Where is this policy written? To my mind, all six of the links in the two quotes enhance the meaning and are a real benefit to the reader. I think User:Ritchie333 might have an interest in Van der Graaf Generator so I'd appreciate his view here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't recall a policy, but at the moment the article, consisting of large amounts of close paraphrasing, is at risk of being deleted per WP:CSD#G12. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So, in the absence of any confirmation of policy, I'll revert. Thanks for the advice about the article; yes, it certainly needs improvement. Although I don't see "large amounts of close paraphrasing" but just direct quotes which are fully sourced to their originators? Is this just a matter of proportion? Quite regardless of this individual example, however, - if those blockquotes were shown as part of, for example, a WP:Good Article, what would your view be on the use of those nine links within them? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that the editor who keeps removing the links is thinking of a defunct MOS guideline which was removed [1] exactly because it was interpreted as forbidding links such as these -- it's hard to imagine better examples than these are of appropriate links-within-quotes. Ritchie's right about the G12 danger, but if you paraphrase 1/3 of the quoted material I think you'll be OK. EEng 14:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is MOS:LWQ and those links do not appear to be inconsistent with it. What EEng said. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that we've agreed what MoS policy actually says, perhaps we can establish a consensus here as to which items it is useful to link (instead of engaging in an asinine ping-pong edit war)? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pink Floyd"! "Jethro Tull"! Wow! What a great idea to link those! They're incredibly obscure bands that only have the tiniest of niche-followings. If those links hadn't been added, the overwhelming majority of our readers would have not the slightest idea as to what was being said in those quotes. Add to that the myriad diacritics and complex symbols that make them all but impossible for an interested reader to type in to the search box and you have a brilliantly sound rationale for ignoring the MoS! Joefromrandb (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd probably avoid linking to Jethro Tull (in case folks ended up in 18th-century Basildon). But which bit of the MoS are we "ignoring"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The part that (now, ridiculously) says: "link sparingly within quotes". How is linking to one of the most well-known bands in the history of music linking "sparingly"? Hint: it isn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if someone has been living under a rock for the past 50 years, and is unfamiliar with "Pink Floyd", we have this new feature where people can type something into a box at the top of the page, and believe it or not, it actually takes them to that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that any reader who ends up here knows all about the history UK prog rock? Or even of the similarity between this album and those other bands. Those commentators actually suggested comparisons I had not thought of. But the idea of internal links is they are are easier than having to break off and type something in a search box. That's kind of a general principle of the whole encyclopedia? If you disagree with that, I'm really not sure how to advise you. If you have a problem with what you see as ridicule at WT:MOS, I think you'll need to resolve it there, not bring it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. yes, I admit I've been living under a rock, but only for 23 years.

• Despite the repeated protestations that it says various things other than what it says, what MOS:LWQ says is Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after.

There's no question as to what the quoted author intended by these names (unless someone wants to argue that the 18th-c agriculturist was indeed intended) and there's no sensible way to link from outside the quotations without pointlessly repeating these names for no purpose. The links that are there at this point [2] are 100% appropriate. EEng 22:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing at all "conservative" about linking idiot-terms like Pink fucking Floyd and Jethro fucking Tull; it's an insult to our readers' intelligence and 100% inappropriate, per astonishingly clear, (seemingly) idiot-resistant instructions at the MoS page. Given your history, however, of ignoring policy (and tag-teaming), I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how linking other bands, where mentioned, insults readers' intelligence. Our article The Beatles links to The Rolling Stones, for example. EEng 23:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Where, within a direct quote, does that article link to the Stones? Unlike this embarrassing pile of shit, that is a featured article, so I'll happily go remove it if such a situation exists. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not in a quote, but that has nothing to do with it. You said linking to Pink fucking Floyd and Jethro fucking Tull is an insult to our readers' intelligence, and I'm asking why. If we think readers will benefit from a certain term being linked in a given context, then that's true whether the context is a direct quote or a paraphrase. EEng 06:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

But thanks for the compliment, Joe. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)