Help talk:Interlanguage links

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

[[]]

2404:0:823A:F8AB:FA30:D57B:294D:7409 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Inline links (links in the text of the article)

Question: Though point #1 says it is "best practice", is anything wrong with preferring to use point #5 (or even #6), especially if you don't like redlinks showing up? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Red links are not evil. Using the methods shown in #5 or #6 will confuse some readers clicking on those links, and they negate the benefits of red links. IMHO, those points ought to be removed from this guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This situation is as good a reason to have a red link as any. Unless the article in the other language is bad but it hasn't been deleted because it's been overlooked by patrollers, the fact that another language's Wikipedia carries on article on the subject coupled with the fact that an editor here finds the information worth linking to even though it isn't in English is as good a reason as any to want to flag the nonexistence of an article in English and encourage the creation of one. Largoplazo (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Carlobunnie and disagree with both Michael Bednarek and Largoplazo. Modern browsers do a good job of translating, so it really does not matter what language the article is in. While 10-20 years ago a page in another language would not be useful, those days are past (and the browser translations are going to continue to improve). I noticed that the "best practices" was introduced on July 25th 2022 by Loginnigol, see here. I do not see any discussion of this on a talk page. While I might be missing the discussion, at first sight this appears to not be a concensus decision.

Proposal: remove the "best practice" from point #1. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – Using the template {{Interlanguage link}}, or much more commonly {{ill}}, is the superior method because it creates a red link while the English article doesn't exist which will turn blue once it does. After that, a bot will eventually remove the template coding. All other methods overleaf ought not to be used in articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Make option 1 a rule (with exceptions) seeing how most experienced users have a consensus that Template:Ill is the preferred option (see recent discussion at WT:WikiProject Physics#Links to people), I think this article should reflect that. I tried for example to suggest that Template:Ill should have an option to remove the red link, but the responses at WP:WikiProject Templates and Template talk:Ill show that this might not be an option because we seems to agree that the current article H:FOREIGNLINK says that {{Ill}} is option 1. Thus, I agree with users here that under the current format of this article, we are leaving wiggle room. Users that favor ill will point to this article, users that do not like red links will points at the other 8 options in this article, the article seems to be favoring both sides. My proposal would be to remove the options make it clear that {{ill}} is the main practice and open a subsection of alternatives in specific cases.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I will add a comment here that I have also made elsewhere -- browser translation is moving fast, so conclusions from as little as a year ago may already be obsolete. I routinely look at foreign pages, both inside and outside Wikipedia; a few days ago I used a ChatBot to get software help on a Korean page. The lines between different language Wikis is probably already blurred, and will get more so within a few years. While redlining non-English was appropriate in the past, my crystal ball says it is Gen X/Y. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Got to say I'm very doubtful that all non-English Wikipedias can be treated equally. While a specific German article might be up to standard that's certainly not going to be the case in all instances, especially some of the Wikipedia versions that are on their last legs. Much more likely that a few (perhaps just one) will dominate and the others will fall by the way side. Anyway I don't see what the point has to do with the issue here, which is that redlinks should remain if they can "plausibly sustain an article" which seems to be the case here. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  The original point was that if there already exists a good article, then, for instance German: Daniel J Alpert is useful and that page is useful for readers. Alternatively Daniel J Alpert (in German). It has to be a good article but the same holds for an english language link -- we have all avoided using ones which are dubious. That is something's editors must decide. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Under the current version of the article, Ldm1954 is right there are other options. However the consensus is clear {{ill}} should be used and the red links are better than hidden links. My point here is that the current version of the article is not supporting this consensus.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, while other options are allowed, if the option used is "challenged" then surely the "best practice" at H:FOREIGNLINK must be used unless there's a good specific reason not to. Nigej (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  The 'best practice' is the only one consistent with the manual of style (MOS:INTERWIKI). The text here should be changed to reflect that. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Moreover, the list of options should include just "leave a red link without any inter-language alternative", which is also an entirely fine variant for an editor to decide to use. –jacobolus (t) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Much better to make it clear that option 1 should be used except in rare situations. Several of other options should probably be removed as bad practice. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It makes no sense whatsoever to obscure the fact that there is no English language article. "I don't like red links" is simply not a valid reason either to modify this help topic or to make changes in the already very complex {{ill}} template. older ≠ wiser 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk section is about a question from Carlobunnie. As part of their response, Ldm1954 then created a proposal mid-section.

Let me provide my opinion, but first, my reply to the original question. There is nothing wrong with using #5 or #6 (if there were, we wouldn't be including them in the list). However, "not liking redlinks" is a poor motivation. Redlinks are a good thing, not something to be avoided. If you have a legitimate use case for #5 or #6 go ahead and use those, but if your only reason to avoid #1 is the red link, you might want to read up on what red links are and how they are useful.

More generally I feel {{ill}} is subject to intense feature bloat pressure. The point is to inform the reader of the existence of a foreign-language Wikipedia article on a subject English Wikipedia currently lacks coverage of. To be helpful, that other article needs to be actually good. The purpose of ill isn't to index any and all foreign-language articles on the subject! That's what the Languages sidebar and Wikidata is for! To include a link in ill, you're supposed to think it will actually be helpful to the reader. A low quality article or minimal stub isn't worth linking to, since it will likely not be worth the reader's time. The ideal is to link to ONE other wikipedia project - the project with the "definite" article on the subject, such as that project's counterpart to our "Featured Article" status. (though since editors cannot always agree, the template has been extended to allow for more than one link).

The argument "browser translations are getting better" I don't understand. The best translation in the world won't help if the reader isn't informed the article exist. And I think it is a bad idea to present the ill link as a regular link as if it wasn't important to make the reader aware they have switched languages. I can only speak for myself, but I consider English Wikipedia a magnitude of reliability higher than the other languages I frequent. I would not want intra-project links to be indistinguishable from links to within English Wikipedia - even if the translation was flawless, which it most definitely isn't now, and likely won't be for some time to come.

This is about building English Wikipedia, and we do that best by clearly marking ill links, carefully hand-curating ill links to other languages, and retaining the red links (that prompt your fellow editors to create more articles)!

CapnZapp (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I was not clear enough in my original post, I was objecting to the addition of the "best practice" clause which I think is not reader first. I completely agree with you that the "best translation in the world won't help if the reader isn't informed the article exist". In my opinion the [de] does not inform the reader -- how are they supposed to know that contrary to normal conventions the de links to an article on the person/topic? I consider {{ill}} to be editor-centric. It may be good for building English Wikipedia, less for the reader, WP:RF. I also think we need to look beyond just the English Wikipedia, smart translation is changing the world.

N.B., I am not sure where " not liking redlinks" comes from. I consider {{ill}} good for editors but clumsy for reader, that is different. My original post on this topic in WT:Physics#Links to people was all about providing reader first information, but I was outvoted on linking outside of Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The reader is likely able to learn what the small [de] or [fr] means after the first or second time they encounter this practice. Just like they are able to learn what blue and red links mean. Readers aren't stupid. —Kusma (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Including red links is good for readers. It tells them "a human editor thinks this topic should have an English wikipedia article, but it currently does not". In some cases this will even inspire a reader to go write a new article. –jacobolus (t) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kusma, who said it succintly: "Readers aren't stupid." The Guardian and The Independent use red font for hyperlinks (example 1, ex. 2); the New York Times and Al Jazeera use underlined blue (ex. 1, ex. 2), and Washington Post and BBC News use underlined black (ex. 1; ex. 2). Is this a problem for anybody? No, it isn't; readers quickly pick up the local style, just like readers at Wikipedia who see '[de]' do, and learn what it means. I think this is a complete non-issue. I also think that the "what's best for readers" vs. "what's best for editors" is a false dichotomy, and that red links help turn the former into the latter, as jacobolus said, and in any case are good for both. As far as the bolded proposal: oppose. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree fully with CapnZapp. Avoiding red links is bad, but there are cases where using {{ill}} is awkward for other reasons, and in those cases, it is fine if the main authors of an article decide not to use it. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the fact that Template talk:Interlanguage link is still going on and previously uninvolved users still prefer {{ill}} over everything else. I think that independently of the motivation for this proposal, a counterproposal can be made. I think we should consider modifying the text in H:FOREIGNLINK to make {{ill}} be the default option, and the rest of the options to be used only if there is an excuse not to use {{ill}}. This seems to be the consensus so far and the current wording stil leaves the door open to editor preferences.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with that. Support. Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't add link to Japanese ESOP article

There's a Japanese language version of this article at https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESOP but I'm unable to add Japanese as a language to this article because it says the Japanese article is already being linked to by another item. 60.102.232.135 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Our article Employee stock ownership links to ja:ESOP and vice versa. What's the problem? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't remove an erroneous Interlanguage link

Was looking up the article on the German railway line Gäubahn railway line in SW Germany. It seemed pretty brief, so clicked the ILL for German looking for more info, which links to de:Gaubahn (note the lack of the ä-umlaut), which is an article to a different rail line in south central Germany along the Baden-Württemberg/Bavarian state border. The French link is also to the fr:Gaubahn.

I tried to remove the Gaubahn links from the ILL table, but then figured out it is the English link which is wrong. The ILL set is for the Gaubahn. There is no English language article for this railway line. However, the Gäubahn exists in both French and German (as well as Italian, Dutch, and Japanese). When I tried to remove the en link from the Gaubahn ILL, I get an error message that it cannot be removed unless the article has been deleted. The article is fine, but the link is to a different topic.

So, ... would someone smarter than me please fix this? The English language Gäubahn article ILL needs to be deleted from the de:Gaubahn/fr:Gaubahn ILL menu, and added to the de:Gäubahn/fr:Ligne de Stuttgart à Singen/etc. ILL for the Gäubahn Bilhartz (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)