Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hey, I reverted you on one article but then I noticed you seem to be doing this same edit on hundreds of articles, so I thought I'd come ask. (They're all deletions of commons links). I'm just a regular editor creating articles, and I don't understand your edit comment that a commons link in an EL section is "misplaced"?

I've looked at the help for the commons templates themselves, and the help pages on what's allowed in an EL section, and EVERYTHING says using commons links like that is just fine. Has there been some policy change that I'm not finding? Wouldn't it be a good idea to update the MOS and help documents before we go ripping these out everywhere? (Just a thought).

Also, a bunch of the edits you are doing are leaving articles with empty "external links" sections, which IMHO looks poor. I'm guessing some robot will come along and clean those up, but...

Sign me confused in Atlanta, as I don't understand these deletions. --Krelnik (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also am starting to wonder if this is a good idea. Hundreds of mine are affected. Could you explain Mike? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krelnik and Philafrenzy: They are 'misplaced' as the commons category doesn't match the article. In Dr. Mary B. Moody House, commons:Category:Mary Blair Moody was linked, but that link belongs at Mary Blair Moody as the category is about the person - the correct link for the house needed to be created, which I did, and now the article links to commons:Category:Dr. Mary B. Moody House. I generally don't think that the links are 'external', but that's a separate point - I'm fairly sure they shouldn't be the only link in 'external links' though!

In this run I'm only removing links that are clearly misplaced, I'm skipping over cases where it's less clear to look at them more closely in the future. I'm also generally correcting as many links as I can (look for edits with summaries starting 'Changing the Commons category'). It's part of the cross-wiki cleanup work of Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories - all links should ideally be in the '... from Wikidata' or '... on Wikidata' categories, the others have something wrong here, on Wikidata, or on Commons.

I'm happy to double-check/discuss specific cases where you think the removal was incorrect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the links from Wikipedia to Commons don't need to be bijective. If the result of these edits is to reduce the number of English Wikipedia articles with a link to Commons, we're making things worse and not better. Nemo 10:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: It's only affecting a small percentage of the links, most of them are fine. Think of it as pruning back dead growth to make way for new. I'm thinking of proposing a bot that would add more uses of {{Commons category}} in the future, but I want the backlog of bad links to be sorted out first, to see if we can then sustain maintenance of the links. I've also been adding a huge number of new links to Commons in the sidebar, but that's not so easy to see here - it's clearer on Commons where the new links mean that more infoboxes can be added to categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• please stop removing those links from Scouting related articles. Those are there as part of a plan. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 13:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]