Tag used for pages where there is clearly a demand and links exist, but there is as yet minimal content. Use of this tag is contentious, with some saying they'd rather have the dangling links than a real link to a page without content. Others say it's useful to find pages that need filling out, and doesn't have some of the drawbacks of the WantedPages
The jury is still out ...
I don't understand this concept "demand for a wiki page". If you have a question, ask it where you have it. When the question is answered, refactor it to a new page.
But there's no need to try to make this wiki answer every question in the world. Please, let's concentrate on programming.
Not all wiki pages arise in the way you describe. Some people, me included, write material that is intended to be relevant, and create links to what we expect will be pages, trusting that AccidentalLinking
will work. Often it does, and therein lies a large part of the value of the wiki concept. Sometimes, however, it creates a DanglingLink
As a separate, but related process, DanglingLink
s should be "fixed". That can be done either by
- unsmashing the words
- because it only occurs once
- because the potential target page is irrelevant to this wiki
- because the concept is sufficiently obvious to this wiki's expected audience
- or creating the page
- because it's relevant
- and useful
- and semantically a single unit
- and too large to inline
If the target of a dangling link is referenced from several places, not just one, then clearly it is a candidate page. In some sense it is "wanted", possibly because it is a clearly relevant semantic unit. It's useful to be able to find such pages, and to draw the attention of people who might be qualified or interested in creating the content.
Using this tag makes it easy to find pages these sorts of pages. You can search for this tag and then
- check for relevance and then either
- delete the page and fix the subsequent dangling links, or
- create some content.
You can use the WantedPages
script to find DanglingLink
s, but that also finds links to SisterSite
pages and doesn't show multiplicity of reference.
Hence I believe this tag to embody a useful concept for this wiki.
- Relevant to what? Where I found this, it was really tangential meta-discussion.
- Does that make the tag less useful? In my opinion, no. It serves as a marker for something to be fixed.
- Or deleted. Stub pages are of less than zero value.
- As I tried to make explicit above, sometimes the way to fix something is to delete it.
- And sometimes the tag is mis-used - no argument there. It still marks something that needs to be fixed.
- And I believe it to encourage a less-useful wiki.
- And I disagree with you.
- The value of the wiki is (or was) in the emphasis it gives to important topics of programming. Trying to make it all-inclusive with something to say about everything just waters it down. As this proceeds, I find it less and less useful to turn here--Google becomes more likely to turn up something relevant than a check of the C2 wiki.
- This tag is not intended to make this wiki all inclusive, it is intended to let others build on time already spent and work already done. Specifically, it's intended to help bring this wiki abck to being more programming-centric.
- It's like web sites where the navigation leads you to pages that just say "under construction.
- This entire wiki is like that.
- No, it's not. Sure the wiki is perennially under construction, but so is the entire web. Creating stub pages is the practice that I find entropic.
OK, we disagree. Clearly I will therefore think that you are wrong, and you will think that I'm wrong. Let me try to make my case clear so you can tell me where you think I go wrong.
- Sometimes a good thing, sometimes a red herring. When pages are very well named, they create rich connections. Many times, they just create extraneous links. Does the GoodThing page really enhance this discussion? No, it's irrelevant. More is not better. ThereIsNoPointInMakingEveryPhraseIntoaLink. Thoughtfulness trumps accident more than 99% of the time.
- We are in complete agreement here. Do you understand that I'm trying to help you make this wiki better? Perhaps the problem is entirely in the name of the tag, and it should instead be something like "DanglingLinkTarget"?
- Why? Not every part of the universe needs to be filled. Music lives as much in the space between notes as in the notes themselves. Artists do not have to cover every square inch of the canvas.
- Because when they are inappropriate they invite the creation of the page, and when they are appropriate then they are worth filling. This debate about DanglingLinks needs to go to another page.
- If a single non-existent page is "dangling-linked to" from more than one place, it's probably worth creating the page.
- I think of this as akin to subroutine or function extraction as a refactoring.
- The person who finds a page that's worth having might nevertheless not feel qualified to fill it.
- Perhaps, then, that person might also be unqualified to determine that it's worth having.
- Indeed, and then someone who is qualified can use the stub as an easy way to unsmash the links to it, and then remove it.
- One way to avoid wasting the work done in finding the non-existent page is to create the page and put a tag on it to say that it's probably worth creating and populating.
- Such a tag needs to say what it means, but needs to be short
- Using the same tag each time this case arises makes it easy to search for.
I think the above argument justifies the use of the ContentWanted
tag. I would be interested to hear a cogent case for the opposite.
I'm guilty of using this tag a couple of times, when I've created what would be called a StubArticle? on WikiPedia. I've found some information on the subject, and by using the tag, I'm basically asking for more knowledgeable WikiZens to (add to|modify) it. I think it's a useful tag, but perhaps it's just a specialized version of EditHint. -- AalbertTorsius
A page with this name necessarily seems to call for content addition to itself :-) -- gz
Perhaps it should be called DanglingLinkPointsHereAndSomethingNeedsToBeDoneAboutIt?
- Nothing needs to be done about it. Dangling links are just dangling links. If they don't encourage useful content, delete them. In the mean time, ignore them.
- This is the nub of our difference of opinion. I find them annoying, distracting, and unproductive. You don't, but that's no reason why others who do shouldn't try to fix them. I could equally say that you can simply ignore the ContentWanted tag and the pages it's on.
The above argument for C
ontentWanted is invalid because it is based on a flawed premise, namely that DanglingLink
s are a problem to be fixed. See DanglingLink
for a refutation of this idea.
Also, creating pages with nothing more than "C
ontentWanted" makes Wiki less useful. A wiki link contains exactly one bit of information (other than its name): whether the page it refers to exists. Since a page is expected to have useful content, that bit is meaningful. Creating pages with no content decreases the value of that bit.
To take this to a ridiculous extreme, imagine a wiki engine that creates stub pages automatically from DanglingLink
s, so that no link is ever dangling. How useful would links be in that wiki?
I disagree with the argument on DanglingLinks because I believe that
The ContentWanted tag fills the purpose of the first when the finder feels unable to fill the void, WikiGnome work fixes the second.
The wiki I use personally does auto-fill the targets, and I find it very useful. That's part of why I use the tag here. If you've ever used such a feature then perhaps you have less experience on which to base your opinion. Like all things, it takes getting used to.
- If the idea is useful it should be filled
- If the idea is not use the link should be unsmashed
(Perhaps, but perhaps the prevailing culture of your wiki differs from the prevailing culture of this one. This wiki was designed to indicate the dangling links with ?, not by creating stub pages. It works well as designed.)
Actually, I don't care anymore. I've made my case, if people disagree then the tag won't get used. I'll use it for pages I think are relevant to this wiki but which I don't feel qualified to fill. If this page exists then you can easily find those instances with a search. If it doesn't, you can't, wasting someone else's time.
Either way, if you don't feel I've made my case, do what you like.