Template talk:Incoming links

Hmmm
How about replacing the link to the what links here with: [ internal link]. That way it takes them directly to the mainspace links instead of all links. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - I've changed things around a bit again and added the markup you suggested. I've been meaning to initiate a discussion as to whether or not to start using this template, but I've been too busy to ask for opinions. Do you see any reason why I shouldn't move this into the template namespace? Do you think a link to DPL somewhere would be productive? I had included one originally, but it seemed a bit too much like an advertisement for the maintenance division. Dekimasu よ! 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw it on the Newfoundland article and decided to take a look at it. Personally I'd point the link to Disambiguation to WP:DPL instead. Other than that, perhaps it should be a "This disambiguation page has a number of [ internal links] that require cleanup..." That way the template can be thrown on any of the disambiguation pages that comes up on the list, not just the ones that have a large number of links to them. But either way, I'd throw a discussion onto DPL because a template seems like a good idea to me. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe linking "linked" to DPL is a good compromise? Many of our cleanup messages link really basic guideline/help pages (for example, the manual of style or Cleanup), so I think the WP:DAB link is useful for descriptive purposes. About which pages apply, I think 100 links could be considered "a large number" depending on the situation. My choice of words there was mostly related to keeping the template applicable to a manageable number of pages so that the transclusions are maintainable. If people remove the tag when they finish disambiguating, that's great... but I don't have confidence it will always happen. Some people who use tools to disambiguate spend very little time on the dab page itself, as evidenced by the number of pages where all the links are fixed but disambig-cleanup remains in place. Dekimasu よ! 06:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The crisis of the incoming-links template
Both of the above discussants seem to me to be approaching a good-intentioned new facility with responsible deliberation. But a user who may have never visited a talk page has, 15 minutes after registering, (and whose last edit was at the point where their duration as a registered editor had ballooned to 45 minutes) taken the initiative by in effect adding the super-linked Dabs to a Cat whose purpose seems to have been essentially stable for a month less than 4 years, in this undertaking that has still to complete its 8th year. I doubt that either the description or the function of the Dab-CU Cat is compatible with using it to draw attention to the pages the template is intended for, but the crux of the matter is that two and a half users have shown signs of considering the issues, and the presumably least qualified of them has without consultation taken a big step, and turned what i hope were reasonable straw-man category choices into an ill-considered live test. I am cutting short the test by reversing that step, and look forward to following the needed continuing discussion of the next step. --Jerzy•t 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incongruity between the template's categories and its documentation may have been one problem here, so I have hidden the note related to additional categories. I am not sure I agree that the choice of category was incorrect per se; creating a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup for pages transcluding this template might be an effective way of keeping the different purposes separate. Dekimasu よ! 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the which Cat to include, i argued more specifically on your talk page (starting before your response was here) against using Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup; of my objections there, those that are to me most important -- the potential harm specifically to the functionality of that Dab-CU Cat -- would IMO be avoided by such a proposed sub-Cat. Nevertheless, i also argued there that these are not Dab pages "needing cleanup": i see them seldom more than good Dab pages that are widely invoked by pages that need bypassing of the Dab's they link to. Such overuse of a Dab lk can reflect
 * just a statistical outlier,
 * relatively recent creation of the Dab (so that no one has undertaken the systematic bypassing),
 * inherent susceptibility of the subject matter of one or more of its entries' articles to ill-defined mention in other articles
 * disproportionately low concern about precision by editors attracted to editing articles calling for one or more of the senses of the Dab-page's base title, or
 * one or more entries that are so unhelpful to editors that they disproportionately give up choosing among the entries (but don't consult the articles) and thus settle for a link to the Dab.

Conceivably in cases 5 and maybe 3, the enormity of the incoming-link count of a Dab can be an indication of the need for changes to that Dab, but the numerical criterion is no assurance of that. IMO that implies that a rational and editor-friendly maint-cat structure will find another home for a Cat populated by numerically overlinked-to Dab pages. It would not surprise me if editor more specifically concerned than i am were to that aspect would insist on a different parent. Finally, i wonder if the choice of location for the Cat is as important to the purpose of the template as where the Cat and its use in cleanup are going to be mentioned and linked to, on relevant pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. WikiProject Disambiguation might may be a good place to start a broader discussion of that; looking there now, i am surprised to realize that there is no mention of the important work of bypassing Dabs, but IMO it should be within the scope of that project, just as Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation is quite properly a child of Category:Disambiguation (tho not one of Category:Disambiguation pages). --Jerzy•t 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As per my reply on my talk page, I respect your opinion that cleaning of incoming links doesn't represent "cleanup" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You've convinced me that if a category is to be readded, Category:Disambiguation would be a better parent; alternatively, both the new category and Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation could be placed into a new subcategory together. The most important function of a category (aside from where it is mentioned) would be to have a simple location (other than Whatlinkshere) to monitor translcusions and keep the application of the template up-to-date. Dekimasu よ! 14:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)