Template talk:Australia-stub

Overlinking?
I agree that overlinking should be avoided. On the other hand, the Stub templates I've come across all tend to have their subjects linked, whether it be "industry", or "music" or whatever. So if you do not intend to go through all the Stub templates and delink their subjects, then I suggest that consistency is the more important issue. I'm open to discussion on it, though. &mdash;  Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  06:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to some specific templates, or to stub templates in general? The MoS says not to link common words like 'music' or 'industry', and I agree. To unlink all links in all stub templates would be a massive task (there are tens of thousands), but it's possible to make a big dent in the problem by unlinking the most widely used ones. Are you asserting that I shouldn't start on the task at all unless I can do all of it? There's not a great deal of consistency between stub templates at the moment; some link all sorts of common words, some link only technical terms, some are not linked at all. In virtually all cases (there are a few exceptions), they shouldn't be linked at all; even links to technical terms (e.g. Template:Orthoptera-stub), are unnecessary because the only way anyone would have known to tag an article with that stub template is that the link is already present in the article, but I'm leaving those alone because they don't do any harm, unlike the excessive linking of common terms. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to all Stub templates. There are a few I've come by that don't link the subject, such as Book-stub, but most I've seen do link the subject.  You'll find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#What generally should not be linked (WP:OVERLINK) that the word "common" is only used for units of measurement.  That's because "common", when used for English words, will mean one thing to you, another thing to me, and yet another thing to another editor.  I asserted nothing.  I did suggest going for consistency.  However, if you have found that there is a lot of inconsistency, and you have decided that the consistency that should be sought is to decrease the overlinking, then I will defer to your judgement.  You'll also note in the MOS that technical terms should be linked.  But perhaps, they should not be linked in Stub templates for the reason you gave.  I'm sorry if my words made you feel defensive.  You have every reason to believe that you are correct about the overlinking in Stub templates.  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)