Cookbook talk:Fried Pickle

Links
I was surprised to see the removal of the links to the Fried pickle and dill pickle, listed in the edit summary as "not necessary." Seems like WP frequently links to Wikibooks, why not the converse? I have reverted with plain wikilinks, sans hatnote. --Lexein (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: this deletion, my undo, and its following revert with the edit summary "that's your opinion, I disagree.. discuss on the discussion page rather than just undoing unless you can point to a policy supporting your view. Thanks)" --Lexein (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Not merely "my opinion."  In my edit summary, I paraphrased w:WP:Linking (linked from w:WP:MOS), which explicitly states Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwiki links bind the project to sister projects.  See also w:WP:UNDERLINK.  Linking is practiced and encouraged by many thousands of editors, over quite a long history. There are pillars, policies, guidelines, essays, and consensus. Guidelines, essays, and consensus are in favor of wikilinks, and interwiki links.  Note that I never overlink.
 * 2) Shouldn't deletions of links be justified by reference to a relevant guideline or policy?
 * 3) I already did "discuss on the discussion page" as shown in the talk page history, two minutes before the re-revert.
 * 4) The first undoing of the deletion was obviously not "just undoing", I changed from a hatnote, which might be perceived as intrusive, to an interwikilink.
 * 5) The linked Wikipedia article Fried pickle discusses, with sourced references, the history of fried pickles, and is from where this recipe was rescued. The Dill pickle article is long and detailed.  Since dill pickles may be covered elsewhere in Wikibooks Recipes, maybe it should link there instead of to Wikipedia.
 * 6) Here, in this recipe article, two wikilinks cannot be considered excessive.  Is there some other reason they were deleted?


 * I can understand why Wikipedia would encourage linking as much as it does, each article is a topic overview with many external links being used to not only ensure verifiability, but as a way for people to find places where they can gain a deeper/richer/fuller understanding of a topic. However Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays and consensus does not apply here. I imagine QuiteUnusual meant point to a Wikibooks policy supporting your view. Wikibooks takes the opposite stance by encouraging the practice of "Dewikifying" articles imported from Wikipedia. At Wikibooks, books build knowledge from one page to the next, and part of that is including any relevant details to understanding the topic within the text itself to ensure a deeper/richer/fuller understanding of the topic. At Wikibooks, external linking is discouraged when used as a substitute for missing details. Any relevant details for cooking fried pickles you think can be gleaned from Wikipedia articles should be explained directly for people to learn from. I hope my explanation provides some useful insight as to why the links were deleted and are likely to be deleted again. --dark lama  14:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darklama that Wikibooks should follow different rules on when linking is appropriate than Wikipedia should (I think this is explained on an official Wikibooks policy document somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment). The purpose of Wikibooks is to have self-contained books that contain all appropriate information. --Fishpi (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of ya. The in-depth reply is appreciated, though the link to WB:Dewikify tells all, and would have completely satisfied me by itself. Since there's a Template:Dewikify and an WB:Dewikify article, I do hope WB editors in future can just habitually refer new WB editors to that right away when deleting wikilinks, rather than what happened here.  Shouldn't WB:Dewikify be an actual guideline, since it's the working rationale for a Wikibooks-wide process?  Going forward, if I add the Fried Pickle history from the WP article, can I expect sources cited there to uncontroversially come with, per Policies_and_guidelines? Thanks again. --Lexein (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify my reasons - the links to the policies, etc., were added to your talk page as part of the "welcome" message in May 2010. I assumed - as it was seven months later - that you would have spent some time here and would be familiar with the general style of work here and didn't think it was necessary to treat you as a "new editor". I noted in the edit summary that it was your opinion and I disagreed because the "policy" in question is informal, hence it was my opinion that custom and practice here was not to WP link extensively.


 * On your question, above, if you think there is value in having a "dill pickle" ingredient page in the Cookbook, I suggest you request it is imported at WB:RFI and then clean it up to WB norms before moving it into the Cookbook. For the WP fried pickle article, it is unlikely all of that content is relevant so you'd have to use your own judgement as to what to copy over. QU TalkQu 09:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)