Proposal for dead links

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

Lets make a list of pros and cons of the three options, according my opinion:

Red links

Pros

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

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

Pros

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

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

Pros

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

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

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)