Appeal for

Appeal for


If you check the original site, you'll see they made a mistake in the html. There are two links in the 'related' block, one with the text "Z" and the href "#", and one with the text "even dingen(...)" and the href=(actual link).

Of course what they meant to have there was one link with the text "Zeven dingen(...)". But that's not what we have. Because of some one-off formatting problem, we have two links. So they both appear in the "related article" block.
The link text isn't even a problem; the IV engine will fetch the correct title from the IV. So the only potential issue here is that somebody might see a link to the page they're already on at the bottom of the article.

We shouldn't have to fix this one-off formatting error just because it appears on this one (!) page. As admins have said many times:

It's acceptable to ignore one-off custom formatting choices that only appear in one article.


It is not essential to chase after edge cases and make special rules for them - that's a dark path

IV breaking because of one-off formatting in the source code of the original is just a grade 6 issue:

While this is clearly a serious problem for the page in question, it's negligible for the template because the chances are so low that a user will hit just that article with the typo. A template that fixes a one-off case for one page is only marginally better than one that doesn't — because it processes exactly one page better.
At the same time, supporting all the possible typos is unfeasible. And we've frequently found that authors made their templates worse when trying to cover one-off formatting issues because this caused corrupted IVs in other unexpected places.


Even then, it doesn't even break the template, it just shows a related link to the same page! This is definitely not enough to decline an entire template.

To summarize; this is a one-off formatting problem (Grade 6 issue), users won't be noticably inconvenienced by it and it only happens on one page.

Thank you for reconsidering.