Template talk:Bruno Latour

Too many redlinks

The "Works" section of this template lists 22 works, but only 6 link to articles. I removed all the redlinks, but Rhododendrites reverted.

Editing guidelines are strongly against red links in navigation templates, although they are not disallowed in all situations. WP:REDNOT states, "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template." WP:NAV states, "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first."

The red links in this template have been there since it was created in Oct 2014. This would appear to be a case of "excessive red links" where there has not been active "work on building those articles", in which case "they may be removed from the template". I suggest they go (or articles for the other 16 works are created). Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

When I created it, the language included only the exception for sets. The redlinks are limited to the set of major works by a highly notable academic, all of which should be able to sustain an article. Following an RfC (which I opposed btw), the language is even more permissive, allowing redlinks even outside of fixed sets, as long as they aren't "excessive" (whatever that means). I cannot imagine that "excessive" includes simply members of a set of major works by a highly notable author, though. Regardless, if you feel particularly passionately about this, it would probably be better to ask on Wikipedia talk:Red link or start an RfC, as I doubt anybody else will be commenting here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning with respect to the guidelines when you created the template. Of course, we have to work with the current guidelines now.

I would be very happy to see articles for the red links and concur with you that they should be able to sustain articles. Nonetheless, nearly half a decade on, no-one's created those articles, so I think we have to work within that. The purpose of a template is to aid navigation and a red link cannot aid navigation. So I suggest we remove them until such time as articles are created. Those red links aren't helping anyone by sitting there. I am confused by why you want to keep them... to what end?

When 16 out of 22 things are red links, that looks like "excessive" to me.

I hope discussion between us, or any other interested editors, can resolve the matter here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it possibly make sense to remove the links, but keep the titles in the template? Or is that bad form for navboxes? - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That is generally considered bad form. The purpose of a template is not to be a mini-reminder of what works Latour wrote. Its purpose is to be a collection of links to other articles. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Then yeah, I guess I would prefer we remove them for now and re-add as articles are created. I don't think that the articles that exist are a good indication of what people consider his "significant" works, but that's a problem with Wikipedia generally, not this piece in particular. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea of including notable subjects as redlinks is in large part to indicate work to be done. That nobody has done it yet speaks more to the interests of wikipedians than to their notability, I think. My reason for mentioning the old rules wasn't to argue we should still use them but to contextualize that even before the rules were made more lax, parts of a fixed set were still ok. I would be surprised if the rfc that led to the change has been interpreted as placing additional restrictions that would render fixed sets of notable works "excessive". But I agree keeping the titles with no link wouldn't really be of much use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Five years of having a bunch of red text at the bottom of articles hasn't led to the necessary work being done: I think it's time to acknowledge that! All these red links aren't serving a purpose. As per mathmitch7, we should remove them for now and re-add as articles are (hopefully!) created. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, WP:NODEADLINE and all that. But the question of whether I am obliged to create them in order for them to persist -- and all of this, really -- depends on that definition of (or application of) "excessive," which we seem to disagree on. It's entirely possible I'm wrong about that. If there's consensus to remove them based on that, so be it, but because I want to know better what is intended by "excessive" I've opened this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#What_is_"excessive". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)