Talk:Ludovic Antal

Blue-linking
To complete my edit summary: a stylistic preference that appeared out of the blue (pun intended), and that supposedly requires us to remove a valid link at random, should be balanced against the anomaly of not linking a term that users may require in their search for info, and that we link in the text right next to the infobox. I would argue users who come up with, or endorse, such guidelines may be expected to consider functional issues and consistency before pet peeves (as a minor detail: I personally find it more annoying to see an unlinked term popping up in a sea of linked terms). Also, I note two contrary tendencies which never seem to communicate with each other, but which together wreak havoc on content I actually spent time creating: some users link every second commonplace term in the infobox (see the links on "musicologist" and "cultural manager" in Cornel Țăranu's infobox), while others use a random, never-properly-discussed, aspect of the stylistic guideline to advance their battle with a personal peeve, namely that there should preferably be no bluelinks next to each other (even if separated by commas!), to the point of removing links on obscure notions -- up to where they invite questions such is "what is the point of even having bluelinks, if we're not using them predictably?". Dahn (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For what it’s worth, all of these are FAs promoted this year: John Littlejohn (preacher), William Y. Slack, Dorothy Olsen, Jamie Kalven, Ian Carmichael. — Biruitorul Talk 05:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The aversion to bluelinks being side by side is sometimes warranted (for instance when three separate words in a sentence are each linked to one article). However, nobody seems to have realized that the guideline has been (re)written to recommend the removal of links in cases such as "Fushë-Krujë, Drač County, Kingdom of Serbia" (all of which links are clearly separated by commas, and clearly designate rather arcane concepts), and in particular nobody has noted that the recommendation has now been rehashed in that it warrants users who have this pet peeve to simply remove one link (the one in the middle). Had they been clearly shown this, most would probably reject this as absurd. I would wager that the people who endorse this approach, because they wish to objectify said pet peeve, are aware of this being the case, and that this is why they ignore (for now at least) the FA-level articles you mention, as these would instantly invite discussion about the absurdity of the guideline in its current form, and instead pick it up from the margins (i.e. articles such as this one), slowly creating the semblance of a supposed consensus. I don't have the follow-through to generate discussion about the guideline itself (talk about a thankless task!), but I would endorse anyone who wishes to test the supposed consensus on this. Dahn (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well . . . — Biruitorul Talk 22:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)