Proposal for dead links
 | This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
A proposal from: Jeroenvrp 16:29, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the Dutch wikipedia the default for non-registered users/readers is to have all dead-links to show like this?. On the English Wikipedia, as you all know, the default for non-registered users/readers, is a red link.
There are both pros and cons for both options. A discussion was started on the Dutch Wikipedia and after doing some thinking, I came up with a new linkstyle for deadlinks: like this+. A plus in superscript, same as the ?, but than a +. A very subtile change, but with large pros.
I know this requires a small change in the software, so I'm asking you all to comment in the discussion section below. Don't forget that I want to keep all style-options. So users and/or individual Wikipedias can choose between all options.
Pros and Cons
[edit]Lets make a list of pros and cons of the three options, according my opinion:
Red links
[edit]Pros
[edit]- Shows people that the link is "dead".
- Better for printing (if you print black and white).
- Conforms with the original design of the WWW as a hypertext medium.
- Makes better sense because links should always have meaningful link text.
- Increases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).
- Why should that be needed for deadlinks. They still can use tabs.
- Increases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.
- See cons +-link
- Makes it more obvious to see the extent of the linked text. (While the ?-method is unambiguous with the square brackets around multiple words, it is pretty confusing before you're used to it, and the square brackets are (warning: POV) ugly anyway.)
- Sorry not true. There are no square brackets around multiple words with ? or the proposed +.
Cons
[edit]- Bad for colourblind people
- Colour red has not the same meaning all over the globe (but then again, it doesn't really have this meaning in Western culture either)
- People are clicking on the link, not knowing it's a link to add content. Results sometimes in vandalism or people are getting frustrated and leaving the Wikipedia (again a future user gone).
- Not default Wiki-style
?-Links
[edit]Pros
[edit]- Default wikistyle
- Good for colourblind people
- Small, so people don't click on it to fast. We want people to click on something if they really want to click on it.
Cons
[edit]- Looks very cluttered for people who don't know wiki, but are only caring for the content.
- Makes people think they can find an answer on the subject when they click the ?. The opposite is the case.
- Makes people think they can ask a question when they click the ?.
- ? stands for a question, not a answer.
- Small to click on
- Bad for printing. The ?'s are making the printed page less readable.
- Kind of defies the original design of the WWW as a hypertext medium.
- see cons +-links.
- Links would not have meaningful link text, and in fact, many links would have the same link text.
- see cons +-links.
- Decreases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).
- see cons +-links.
- Decreases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.
- See cons +-links
- In case of single-word links, makes it less obvious to the newbie that it refers to only one word. In case of multi-word links, adds ugly square brackets; makes things look as if they were parenthetical when they're not.
- see cons +-links.
+-links
[edit]Pros
[edit]- Makes people think they are going to add something when they click the + link. So it gives where it stands for, + = add more.
- Doesn't look cluttered.
- Good for printing, +'s are not making the printed page unreadable.
- Good for colourblind people
- Not normally part of end-of-sentence punctuation for English and other European languages.
- This seems to stop? the sentence in the middle.
- This does not seem to stop+ the sentence in the middle.
- Small, so people don't click on it too fast. We want people to click on something if they really want to click on it.
Cons
[edit]- Not default wikistyle.
- Small to click on
- Kind of defies the original design of the WWW as a hypertext medium.
- I'm talking about deadlinks, not normal wikilinks
- Links would not have meaningful link text, and in fact, many links would have the same link text.
- Sorry, but this makes no sense. Please, see ?-links.
- Decreases accessibility for people who want to (or have to) use the keyboard to follow links (i.e. type in the link text).
- Not true. They are still links.
- Decreases usability in cases like the "Jump to" window in Opera, or the GetRight Browser, which lists the links on the page by their link text.
- but is that a good thing? Why should deadlinks be listed in a linklist?
- In case of single-word links, makes it less obvious to the newbie that it refers to only one word. In case of multi-word links, adds ugly square brackets; makes things look as if they were parenthetical when they're not.
- Same with ?-links. With ?-links, square brackets are not there with multiple words.
Discussion
[edit]If you combine the red Link with the superscripted + you combine the pros of each single possibility and in addition you eliminate some of the cons, as i.e. the small to click on -- de:Benutzer:Sansculotte 131.246.94.16 02:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, but it still makes the text somewhat less readable. -- Timwi 02:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see how... (See below) --IsaacFreeman
A superscripted + is similar to a footnote or asterisk which is standard mark-up. (Especially since wik- ipedia/tionary is being approached as an iterative drafting process.) I also think that a combination of sorts would work, if the bad link page was a little bit more intuitive and newbie-friendly. I.e. have an immediate (but brief) explanation of what they just clicked on, and a short summary of WikiNature (something along the lines of "Being as Wikipedia is a collaberative... ...you could contribute by..." etc) and some links to various "help on editing" and "Wikipedia style" pages, etc... Just a few so as to not clutter the page up. But then at the bottom have a link "Create this page" or something... (I'll post some of this on a few other relevent pages...) --IsaacFreeman
- Why not have both? i.e. we currently let logged in users choose between underlines and ?. Why not allow a third option of a superscripted +? Nanobug 12:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)