User talk:Andrei Korshikov

Listing both List of programming languages and pages for language(s) X, Y, Z is redundant?

Quoting myself from Talk:List of programming languages#Add this page to the Related articles for all our programming language pages:

• If we do as you suggested, we would spare ourselves from doing repeated work and just redirect to a centralized place (this page) that lists all the related languages' pages.

I see that you've added both List of programming languages and Clojure, Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp (and other permutations) as Related Articles in those 3 pages. I think that it goes against the initial idea (reasoning) behind linking the List of programming languages page in all that pages. Now we have a duplication and readers will just jump back-and-fortch

Also a bit off-topic: List of programming languages as a Related Article feels a bit out of place on the Emacs page, since that page is about Emacs-the-editor in the first place (my opinion). Pigeon (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as i've been writing this you posted an reply on Talk:List of programming languages#Add this page to the Related articles for all our programming language pages page. I don't know... Perhaps if nobody is against, then i am also ok with the way it is right now. Pigeon (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To know how many links is just enough one needs to at least read the ArchWiki Editing Guidelines more than just a few times (i am the kind of person who likes to play but doesn't like to read the rules :)) and have a bit more experience. So ultimately i myself don't want to render verdicts for now. I trust the maintainers (e.g. you) more than my subjective feelings. Thanks for your effort. Pigeon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

how many links is just enough

Ha-ha:DDD It's an art:) You trust me, I trust @Erus Iluvatar, @Lahwaacz, @Hanabishi, and so on. The most important thing: we are adequate people, and we can trust each other:) — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that it goes against the initial idea (reasoning) behind linking the List of programming languages page in all that pages.

In principle, I agee. I've made appropriate changes.

List of programming languages as a Related Article feels a bit out of place on the Emacs page, since that page is about Emacs-the-editor in the first place

You've approved my thoughts (thanks:). I removed List of programming languages, but I'm not sure about Lisp dialects.

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

):)

I meant that List of programming languages would be the ultimate connector between programming langauges' pages to avoid listing many many related articles. Say one writes an AW page for Janet. Now you would want to go and add it as a Related Article for Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, etc. But if we link the List of programming languages as (the only?) Related Article, the [[Janet]] page author would only need to add it the that one page. Pigeon (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But in the end, this indeed simply turns into a different form of Category, just as @Erus_Iluvatar noted here: Talk:List of programming languages#c-Erus Iluvatar-20260309165800-Andrei Korshikov-20260309122200

EDIT: this is still useful in the sense that it also enables discoverability of the languages that don't have an AW page (similarly to the very purpose of the List of programming languages page itself) in addition to already mentioned benefits. I mean, it's a nice change in the end. Pigeon (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Formally—yes. But for a newcomer a link in Related articles is way more feasible than in Category. As I said "it's an art" or "it's subjective":) Someone might agree, someone might disagree—that's how the wiki lives. — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding, in general—the more links is the better. Of course, exceptions have their place:)

As I always say, imagine a newcomer. A totally n00b would prefer a lot of links. And we have to keep the balance between our professional pride and newcomer-friendliness. — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this topic can be closed as discussed. — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)