Talk:C. J. Chivers

Somebody else should link the Wikipedia site to WQ, 'cause I've been warned making connections.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Gedanken sind zollfrei - unless they don't cross the borders."--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC) - Most people who visit Wikipedia think that it's enough to know that Nietzsche, for example, was a notable philosopher, but if they want to know WHY he was notable they must go to WQ or Wikisource.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Risto hot sir: It seems Hijiri 88 was referring to the James Gunn "incident", which is a BLP article. Wikipedia has very strict rules on BLP articles, and the WQ article on James Gunn had some controversial quotes on it IIRC. I don't see the problem with non-BLP articles (or with BLP articles which have no controversial quotes in it). Yes, new articles are often stubs, but adding a link could increase the likelihood that the article will be expanded sooner with more quotes. (Although WQ is already linked in the navigation tab, and adding a template box doesn't seem to add much traffic. I'm often checking page views, and for most articles they are very low (compared to WP) even after a link was added on WP.) IMO adding links is fine (except if there are obvious BLP violations) - articles also have links to Wikinews which often has very little and outdated content. --Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)