PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Links to sections

@Ahmet Q.: Before you added some links to sections of articles, we only had links to articles here. Since whole articles normally cover more notable subjects than sections, I think we should stick to this rule. Another reason is that some sections on genetics in various articles are nothing more than a summary of studies, i.e. of primary sources, so they are - in my opinion - of rather low quality. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: That is not true. If we follow your logic we should remove the Basques, Azeris, Han Chinese and the Hutu's from the template too. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But more importantly, why should we not include sections from other articles which are completely in accordance with the subject of the template? Doesn't make any sense to me. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are both right. Azeris and Basques link to articles, but only sections of those articles are dealing with genetics. So, I think these should also be removed. Han Chinese and Hutu/Tutsi are redirects to sections, I'd prefer to remove these, too. Notability is one reason (articles are normally more notable), quality is another one (although unfortunately many articles in genetics rely heavily on primary sources). Rsk6400 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guide for navigation templates (WP:NAVBOX) refers to articles, links to sections are not explicitly mentioned there. No mention of course does not means that they are prohibited, but for practical reasons, I suggest to avoid links to sections in nav templates. Section links are inherently volatile: if a page title is moved, there normally will be a functioning residual redirect; however, if a section is renamed or removed, the anchored link has no target and will just jump to the top of the page, rendering the link in the navigation template useless. –Austronesier (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I should add, due to the often abysmally low quality of genetics sections (characterized by sockery and Y-haplogroup cruft), complete removal is often the best option (WP:TNT). –Austronesier (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to sections are normal and should not be considered different if within navboxes. Your views are not a policy. I would be willing to take this to the policy on wikilinks as a whole: sections links are allowed and encouraged, no reason not to use them. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no rationale to limiting the potential of Wikipedia. I take this very seriously. If it's good enough to have a section, and it would have been linked as an article, then it should be linked. The decision should be about noteworthiness and not whether or not it is "a section". That's like discriminating against sections. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates serve to navigate between articles. It definitely matters if a link only leads to a section. Sections are not backlinked. Editors who e.g. alter section titles or delete entire sections can generally not trace any backlinks, including links from nav templates. It's a practical matter. For further input (since you take this very seriously to the point of edit warring) you can bring to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need, it's already not policy. Instead, the policy is to go to those sections that are changed, and change the links manually. This "difficulty" does not mean that sections cannot be linked: your statement is nonsense. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why sections can be linked in articles but not navboxes? Altanner1991 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article text is content. "Venus is a planet" is a meaningful statement, with ("Venus is a planet") or without links. The art of linking in a sensible way is described in various pages of the MOS, but a broken section link is not fatal insofar as the meaning of the statement itself is not affected.

Nav templates do not convey meaning. They are a collection of links to interrelated articles. The potential of having dysfunctional links in a box that contains nothing but links is a much bigger issue than in running text. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great argument, I do concede. Your words should be placed in a style guide or essay! Thanks, Altanner1991 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#WP:EXISTING. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Altanner1991: Keep the (newly acquired) collegial spirit! WP is a communal effort: we all have voice and we all have to listen to each other. Here's some good reading matter: User:Uanfala#Edit warring questionnaire. Actually, you did make the effort mentioned in point 3. But, believe me, it comes better without the abuse that immediately preceded it :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points but I would say the most important of all, which actually should also be added to that questionnaire, is "Would I be supported by other editors or not?". Because this is the crux of any revert/3RR activity: are you acting with or against the views of the experienced editors and the administrators?

(They usually know best and regardless it's better not to rush! WP:NODEADLINE) Altanner1991 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Navigation template says we can link to sections. Would it be alright if the section link was returned given the proper advice? It is not sufficient rationale to remove the link just because it links to a section. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Altanner1991, Austronesier, and Rsk6400: I added several section links here, but they were removed again in this revision. Has this discussion reached a consensus to exclude ethnic groups such as Pashtuns and Indigenous Australians from this template, since their genetic history is described in sections instead of stand-alone articles? Jarble (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least I'm sure that there is no consensus that links to sections can be included. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]