Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Mistake

The following contradicts another page, is not in line with usual publishing or scholarly practise, and is causing confusion among editors, especially when they submit an article for featured-article status, where these issues are pounced on:

"If an article has used information from an external webpage or it is to be indicated that more information regarding the article will be available, such as statistics, picture gallery, essays on a website, then such links should be part of the "External links" section at the bottom of the article. If the external reference to be cited pertains to only a paragraph or a line in the article, then the use of inline external links as footnotes serves as a proper citation. Footnote links can be used throughout the article; they are replaced by numbers in increasing order starting from 1."

If an article has used information from an external webpage, that should be in the "References" section, not "External links" section, and if there's a "References" section (and every article is supposed to have one) containing external links, then it's silly to have another one called "External links", when what it actually contains is further reading i.e. additional related material that was not used in the creation of the article. The section containing further reading, whether it lists external links or book citations, should really be called "Further reading" or similar.

This part of the policy page needs to be rewritten, in my view, because it contradicts the other page that asks for a References section, which I can't find right now due, but will post here when I do. SlimVirgin 18:36, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

How about this instead:
"If an article uses information from an external Web site, then the link should be part of the "References" or "Sources" section at the bottom of the article.
"If the external reference to be cited pertains to only a paragraph or a line in the article, then the use of inline external links as footnotes serves as a proper citation. Footnote links can be used throughout the article; they are replaced by numbers in increasing order starting from 1."
Maurreen 03:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is meant to be done is this: You write a sentence "Sue loves Joe," then you cite your source directly after the sentence. [1] Then, at the end, under References, you add that link as a reference, like this:

References

I worry that the use of the word "footnote" will get people confused when the real footnote software starts to be used more widely. These link numbers are not footnotes because they don't refer to notes. They're just the numbers of the links. SlimVirgin 04:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, how would you reword it? Maurreen 04:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose adding this as the second paragraph in the "free links" section:

The purpose of free links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. Free links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere—most specifically, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, a reader should never have to hunt for a free link elsewhere in the page.

silsor 17:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also in cells in tables. —AlanBarrett 09:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. Maurreen 01:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates and units of measurement

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision 1) proposes "BC" and "AD" (in contrast with "BCE" and "CE") as standard for Wikipedia, 2) apparently encourages linking of years, and 3) encourages linking of units of measurement, among other changes. It also reverses the style of many of the dates used within the guide (such as "February 12" to "12 February"). See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for discussion. Maurreen 01:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re: 2) above. Some otherwise well-done articles have every date linked, which of course looks lousy. Does this MOS section
In the specific case of dates containing the three components day, month and year e.g. 25 March 2004 , links permit the date preferences of the reader to operate. Both day-month and year must be linked for the preference to work correctly. Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.
suggest that day-month-year formatted dates should ALWAYS be linked? Help appreciated. Sfahey 23:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with you. Maurreen 05:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not that I ever mind being agreed with, but I was asking a question. Does the above-copied section mean that every day-month-year entry should be linked? Sfahey 20:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In a word 'no'. It is not saying that. It is merely telling you about your options and being informative about relevance and date preference. The word 'link' has two meanings in this context, one of which is a misnomer. The double square brackets have two purposes: (1) to provide access to another article; (2) to create a date-object that permits date preferences to work. The quoted text does not mandate that date-objects should be created, it is merely informing you about reason number (2). This is useful to know and you may wish to apply this knowledge when you add or delete links. For example, you may see a pages with 1000 links to 2000 (yes, a page with that many links to a single article exists) and think it has 999 too many. If somebody convinces you that date preferences are essential then you may downgrade the estimate of overlinking from 999 to 750 too many <sigh>. I wish that create date-object was done with a method different to that for real linking. As a category, I think dates are the most excessively linked articles. Dates:
These are extreme examples of a common theme in Wikipedia articles. Sorry to rant, but you pressed one of my buttons. :) Bobblewik  (talk) 22:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks,B. Now I gotta find out about these "date preferences" before I take my eraser to some of these (apparently) overlinked articles. Sfahey 04:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've only just noticed a change to this guidelines page about a month ago: date link have gone from 'always should be linked' to being "low-value links", and grounds for candidature as "over-linking", which seems to be something of a 180. Not a great deal of discussion, either. Perhaps there ought to be a straw poll or some such. Alai 04:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there needs to be something other than a link which will allow a user's date preferences to work. All of the links really muddy the articles, especially when there are certain people who seem to have dedicated themselves to wikiliking every date mentioned on Wikipedia. How difficult would it be to create some kind of template that would permit date preference to work? Then that could be used where a link is not necessarily desired. Peyna 00:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As a relative newbie to Wikipedia - but trying very hard to write at least one article of 'Featured Article' quality (Mini - which already hit 'Good Article') I have been very confused about date linking. I see (for example) in the current set of FA nominees, the Joan of Arc article is being criticised for year-number linking. Yet, today's FA (Zion National Park) had (until I fixed it) every single year linked...no matter the importance, relevence or whatever. The WP:MOS warns that we shouldn't do low-valued links and gives as specific examples three linked year numbers, and elsewhere "Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked."...and so forth. So why wasn't today's article fixed during the vigerous vetting process? In fact, if you pick a random sample of FA's, about a third of them have rampant irrelevent data linking. Well, I've decided to take the WP:MOS as The Will of the Gods - so I just ripped out all of the data links in my article and from Zion National Park. I think they both look much nicer as a result. SteveBaker

We should note that 'reason (2)' (above) to link dates in order to allow preferences to work isn't going to do ANYTHING for simple year numbers - there isn't anything in user prefs that affects a simple year number. 1959 always displays as "1959" no matter what. Maybe if you could choose between "1959" and "'59" for dates less than 100 years ago or between AD300, 300AD, 300 for dates less than AD 1000, then there would be some worth to linking them. Personally, I believe some other kind of markup should be used - although the sheer effort of trawling through 1,000,000 articles (Yeaaaah!) to fix them all would be an insane waste of human brain-cycles. But linking makes the article look too cluttered and it's just not done consistently enough. If there were some kind of new markup, one could automate the conversion of existing year-links into new markup - then offer users a preference to link years or not. SteveBaker 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put in some text about numbered external links being bad style. This is already mentioned in the editing help and there are a number of bad things about them mentioned in Wikipedia:Cite your sources. They shouldn't be encouraged.

I think that external links in general shouldn't be encouraged, but I think your text here is rather in effect, prescribing one style of external link over the other. If they must be used, I'd personally see 'numbered' as less intrusive than 'named'. (What's especially unfortunate is a mixture of the two.) I'll wait and see if there are more opinions on this before making any further changes, though. Alai 17:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What to link?

It's not always clear how much of the text should form the link - e.g. in the Mink article I've just altered to read [[John Smith of Jamestown|Captain John Smith]], as for me "Captain" is part of the link. I've seen similar situations elsewhere but don't want to make changes unless it's an agreed policy. Have I missed a guideline on this somewhere?

I think it's up to the individual. Maurreen 05:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Maurreen. I've rather changed my mind: I believe Captain [[John Smith of Jamestown|John Smith]] is better anyway, as conceivably a person's title might be usefully linked separately (e.g. to a definition of Captain). Dave.Dunford 15:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multi-word piped links.

Is it easier on the hardware if, when we pipe links, we include underscores and HTML escape codes e.g.: "Fight Club" and "M*A*S*H"; rather than "Fight Club" and "M*A*S*H"? Should we only stick with underscores, as the escape codes may frighten and confuse new editors? — Jeandré, 2005-05-06t18:38z

You should probably do neither. Readability is more important than any gain here, if the gain was large software enhancements could make it automatic and invisible. Rich Farmbrough 22:28 13 April 2006 (UTC).

List articles

Several times now I have encountered list articles that consist largely of deadlinks to name s of people. One or two that I have monitored have experienced a recurring problem: that these links become "live" when an article is created about an unrelated person or thing with the same name. For example, the individuals on one list in question, Brent Cross and Brandon West, have nothing to do with the articles about the British shopping centre and the Canadian electoral district to which they became linked. Artilces still have not been written about the individuals, and it is quite likley that they may never be.

I have also encountered this problem when articles have been written about US legislators or Australian football players who have the same names as people listed elsewhere.

This issue is addressed in part by the proscription against making too many links where:

  • more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist.

but I think that we could go further and add a specific recommendation:

  • When creating or adding to a list article, do not create links to all of the items on the list: link only to articles that exist when you create or add to the article. Links can be created later when the corresponding articles are written.

Comments? Should I go ahead and add this to the Manual? Zeromacnoo 15:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a bad addition. The wiki grows by leaving in links to empty pages. silsor 17:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Empty pages don't really help Wikipedia grow in my opinion. I think we just end up with faulty links -- one of my favourites was when I followed the linked name of Kevin Richardson, from a list of candidates for mayor of Toronto, Canada. It took me to an article about Kevin Richardson, the Backstreet Boy. I think that faulty links like that undermine Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness. Zeromacnoo 19:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I know there are some corner cases where links to unwritten pages can cause confusion, but linking to unwritten pages is one of the oldest wiki traditions. Users aren't supposed to start new articles by hand-editing URLs; we hope they'll start them by following red links to empty pages. Red links should be judiciously used to point only to titles which can support real articles, but we shouldn't avoid linking them altogether. silsor 22:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Good point, which it took me a while to understand when first starting to wiki. Sfahey 22:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is when someone creates a list with hundreds of names, fewer than 10% of which are blue links. In one particular case, which I'm sure won't interest many people, but is a useful example, the List of gay porn stars had hundreds of redlinked names. It is very unlikley that articles will ever be created for more than a small percentage of them. Zeromacnoo 14:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty with NOT creating red links is that when I write a new article about something, I have to do a grand search and massive edit to get my article linked from (potentially) hundreds of places. Furthermore, frequently red-linked non-articles show up automatically in the list of requested articles (I believe) - which gives people who are looking to start a new article some idea of what to go off and write about. Several times I've seen things in that list that I know stuff about and was provoked to go write about them, Red-links are a GOOD THING. The problem with large numbers of redlinks in lists of irrelevent things is that the list of irrelevent things is itself largely irrelevent if none of the things it lists are themselves important enough to be written about. IMHO, the guideline should be "If you make a list of things and more than half of the things in the list come up as red lings - then you should reconsider whether the list was important enough to be in the Wikipedia in the first place." SteveBaker 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Space after asterisk

what do you think about recommending a space after *? for example: 

* foo
* bar
* baz

as opposed to: 

*foo
*bar
*baz

I find the mark-up with the space easier to read. there's currently nothing on the issue that I could find in the MoS. I think it'd be a good thing to recommend to new editors. — boredzo (talk) 08:00, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I don't think extra whitespace makes it easier to read. With lists it's a vertical row anyway, tho it might make sub bullets easier to see in the source. I think extra whitespace unnecessary increases the current download (even if it is just a little it eventually adds up; tho removing them increases the full download with histories). I've been removing unnecessary whitespace when editing anything with them, including in section headers (== H1 == to ==H==), in double spaces between sentences, and blank lines when it's not necessary e.g. before a list. See [2] — Jeandré, 2005-06-26t11:48z
I have a slight preference for the space, but I also lean toward leaving it out of the style guide and letting people decide on each article. Any which way, the question might be better on the main style guide talk page, because this one is about links. Maurreen 11:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is interested in designing an editting tool (i.e. manually controlled bot) for the purpose of standardizing some of the ways that citations appear in Wikipedia articles. As something of a test run, he did such a conversion to a single page, ice core, see the diff [3]. As a result, myself and one other user objected to how he was converting inline URL links into formal reference links.

Apparently such a conversion is supported by statements at Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), however these statements seem to be only a few months old and I have been unable to locate any significant discussion of them.

As a result of this disagreement, discussion has ensued at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3#Footnotes_vs._inline_web_references, and we are looking for outside input on this issue.

Dragons flight July 8, 2005 23:07 (UTC)


What follows below is a summary of the formatting styles being discussed for the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with these different styles.

Summary of formatting styles

Inline linking

One way to reference a website is simply to add a link to it in the body of the article. For example, one might write "Zebras like to play checkers [4]", with a simple inline link pointing directly at the site.

Footnote style

Some users dislike inline links like this because they don't provide information on what is available at that site or when it was retrieved. Instead, it has been suggested that we should used the {{ref}} / {{note}} style of Wikipedia:Footnote3 and {{web reference}} for such web references, for example: "Zebras like to play checkers[5]"

References

  • ^ "Those amazing checker playing zebras". Retrieved June 8, 2005.

Where the little superscripted number links to the appropriate reference and the "^" on the reference links back to the little number. This has the advantage of providing additional information on the website source so that it could possibly be found again if the link ever went dead. It also would make website references consistent with book / journal and other references relying on the {{ref}} / {{note}} form.

The disadvantage is that to get to the external material one would have to click on the little link and then click again on the link in the references section. Personally, I think this is a big disadvantage since it makes it harder to get to outside material and it doesn't provide a way of distinguishing reference links to books and hard resources from those which are immediately available over the internet.

Hybrid style

A potential compromise exists by way of a mixed form with both an inline link and a formal reference, which is to say using "Zebras like to play checkers [6]." Along with:

References

But not using the {{ref}} / {{note}} formulation to link between the two. This preserves the direct link from the text but also gives the detailed reference information. However, since the two aren't linked, it is more likely that one may get removed or changed without the other being fixed. Also, there is some concern this could create very long references sections out of what in some cases are fairly innocuous but plentiful links.

I'm new to wikipedia so tell me if I'm being stupid. One thing I find confusing is I don't know whether a link is linking to an article about a specific event or about the general genre of events.

E.g. a fake situation because I can't remember any cases off the top of my head.


Say this was on the "Bus" page: On 7 July 2005, a [7 July 2005 London bombings|bomb] was detonated on a London bus.

I don't know whether that link is going to take me to a page about bombs in general, or to the page on the 7 July bombings.

What I would propose is use of the article to show this:

On 7 July 2005, a bomb was detonated on a London bus.


On 7 July 2005, a bomb was detonated on a London bus.

The first does not include the article ('a') in the link and links to bombs in general. The second includes ('a') in the link and links to the specific event.

For some reason this just makes sense in my head and I thoughjt I'd suggest it.

I see how the issue could be confusing but I do not think this would clarify things unless it was universally used. The indefinite article "a/an" is applied to any number of countable things, such as bombs. so saying "a bomb" does not necessarily clarify it as being specific. if it was "the bomb", then i could see it being more clear. Perhaps in this case, writing "On 7 July 2005, a bomb was detonated on a London bus" or "..., a bomb was detonated on a London bus" would be best because there is no ambiguity. -- Bubbachuck 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Also it is very helpful to look at your browser's status bar when hovering over a link. It will tell you directly what the link points to, losing all ambiguity. I know not everyone uses the status bar and it is not even on by default in some browsers (which I think is a very unsafe practice personally) so it does not solve the problem, so just a tip I guess. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 16:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This links MoS prominently links to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, yet that page does not have a style-guideline template and it states that it is in "dynamic tension with Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikipedia:Build the web is not linked to in this links MoS, yet it has the style-guideline template and has no warning about tension with other guidelines. So, the style-guideline template ought to be added to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context and/or the Wikipedia:Build the web style-guideline template may have been wrongly added and ought to be deleted. - Centrx 02:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Numbered links--a strange "problem"

The section on numbered links mentions a problem with such links:

it is impossible to tell if the material behind is different from that originally linked

Isn't it confused somehow? Linked page content can always change... Conf 19:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

ME AGAIN: I'll replace it with something like:

Lacking information what was linked, it might be difficult to find the new location or an equivalent, in case the original is moved or deleted.

Conf 13:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Overlinking

I wonder, why are many links within an article considered harmful. Is it just a matter of personal preferences, or is there some deeper rationale behind ? --Lysy (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Because it makes an article very difficult to read for the user. Plus, if a link provides little added value, why have it at all? Peyna 00:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Internal links should have two sections.

  • Internal links to other Wikipedia articles
  • Internal links within an article

Which of the following links is better? The first link in items 1 through 4 gives a clear context and meaning when you hover over the link, but causes a redirect. The second link of each item doesn't cause a redirect but, on the other hand, doesn't correctly indicate the term intended in the sentence when you hover over the link.

  1. [[millimetre|mm]] versus [[metre|mm]].
  2. [[foo (unit)|f]] versus [[foo|f]].
  3. [[normal stress]] versus [[tensile stress|normal stress]].
  4. [[tensile test]] versus [[tensile stress|tensile test]].

Item 2 is a fictitious example to illustrate the point that many users wouldn't necessarily know foo is supposed to be a unit when hovering over [[foo|f]], even if it happens to arbitrarily be the default definition today (plus, some other meaning might be default in the future). The second link in item 3 might lead some to believe "tensile stress" is a synonym for normal stress, which isn't exactly the case. The second link in item 4 implies that the article being mapped to is intentional and probably covers the subject, instead of making people more aware that the article hasn't been written yet.

Which is worse? A redirect? Or an unclear bubble help (or status bar) when hovering over the link? What are your thoughts and expertise on this subject? --Simian, 2005-10-03, 17:24 Z

1.2. I'd feel more comfortable if the tooltip, or status bar, showed the actual page I was going to, not a redirect. The purpose of piping is so that the displayed text describes what you mean. I don't see any reason to manipulate the tooltip contents. So I vote for 1(b) unless you have a reason to think the redirect will be turned into a separate article in the future. I'm not exactly sure of your point on #2, but the link should go to whichever page has the desired content, regardless of its title.
3.4. The purpose of redirects, OTOH, is to make 3(b) and 4(b) unnecessary. If one of those topics isn't mentioned on the target page, then the redirect shouldn't exist, and there's no value in linking there in the first place. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it written somewhere in the MOS or help as to doing geographical links in other articles, like bio's, companies, history, etc?

Should it be: 

[[City, State]]

or 

[[City, State|City]], [[State]]

I thought the former was fine, but would like to see a note in the help section somewhere.

WikiDon 16:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I came here to ask the very same question. I've been preferring the latter, since it has more information, but I've been starting to wonder if the former doesn't read better. Any linking-style mavens with a less wishy-washy opinion? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can some official provide an answer whether which is the Wikiway? In the beginning I started doing it the first way, then someone edited my links to the second way, so from that point on, I began to format my links that way, and now someone just changed my edits back to the first way. therearenospoons 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a wikiway. However the second example takes no more display space, and allows the user more choice, and builds the web. So I prefer it. Rich Farmbrough 22:39 13 April 2006 (UTC).
  • The former is the one used in most articles, and follows examples given in multiple guidelines. The latter is what Farmbrough has been making mass changes using AWB. The mass changes are not approved.
    --William Allen Simpson 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking apostrophe-s possessives

Is there a preferred style regarding whether the apostrophe-s is part of the link or not? i.e, "Hannibal's elephants" or "Hannibal's elephants"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for this, as well. I think that it looks better when it is included in the link. Perhaps the Wikipedia software should be modified so that it does it automatically, like it does for other characters immediately following the brackets. For example, computers, is typed like [[computer]]s. -- Kjkolb 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was totally looking for this too. I like the latter MUCH better. Also in terms of people's titles: I prefer Dr. Kavita Rao to Dr. Kavita Rao. Joeyconnick 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SEWilco, you reverted this: "In the References and External links/Further reading sections, you should always add a title to an external link by supplying descriptive text after the URL, separated by a space and enclosing it all in square brackets," saying in the edit summary that it's "restrictive." Could you say a bit more about what you mean? It only repeats what's lower down in the section, and the reason I clarified it was because, as it stood, it sounded as though we were saying editors weren't allowed to do this, [7] which of course they are, and do all the time. But in the References and External links sections, editors should add a title by supplying a descriptive text etc, as above. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the original "You should always add a title to an external link..." refers to all external links and is in a section referring to all external links. Further down in the article, in a separate section, is the suggestion on placement in "External links" and formatting of such entries. You restricted an existing strong requirement for general usage of titles with a qualification from a more specific section. (SEWilco 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC))
Are you suggesting the MoS says editors should not do this? [8] Because of course, they may. Just not in the References/External links sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it indeed says editors should always add a title. There's even an article wrapped around that sentence with some relevant information. Shall we move on to whether people should use certain spelling or is "ghoti" OK? (SEWilco 03:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
Butting in, in a hope to clarify, isn't it the case that [9]-style references, in articles, are almost always used as a cheesy footnote replacement system, and in a perfect article they should be replaced with real footnotes per Wikipedia:Footnotes? I know that's what is expected over at WP:FAC. Of course the [10] style is frequently used for ease and speed, until someone decides to take a pass at converting to footnotes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, URL-only citations are accepted as being better than nothing. More complete citations are preferred. (SEWilco 14:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC))
SEWilco, you're reverting to a version that is incorrect, and which contradicts itself. Editors should NOT add a title to all external links. They should NOT do it when the link is an embedded link in a text and is being used as a source. They SHOULD do it when it's in the external links, further reading, or references sections. Using embedded links is a perfectly acceptable way to cite a source provided a full citation is given in the references section, as WP:CITE states. What is your problem with my edit exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they should. Using embedded links with titles are preferred over URL-only links. More information is preferred over less information. Why do you think is it preferred that less information than possible be given in text? (SEWilco 18:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
Are preferred by whom? It doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, WP:CITE says the opposite. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Where in WP:CITE does it say that less information about sources is preferred? Or less information in the text of an article? (SEWilco 19:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

explaining my revert. SE, please explain yourself here if you do not agree with me.

I just reverted SEWilco's last edit. The problem is, the section in question begins with the sentence: "You should always add a title to an external link by supplying descriptive text after the URL, separated by a space and enclosing it all in square brackets," and this sentence is false. Being false we cannot have it in Wikipedia. It is false because external links provided in-line in the article should not include the title (this is tru for both Harvard system and notes). This sentence is only true if we are talking about "References" or some other section at the end. Therefore, we have to make it clear that it is only in Reference section that one doe this. Without so qualifying the sentence, it is flat out false and would have to be deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is not talking about References. This section is talking about the use of links. Note the title of the article. Following the section on use of link titles is a section which contains guidance on use of both References and inline links, but that is more specific guidance than the more general explanation on the use of link titles. (SEWilco 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
Nevertheless SE, the sentence as it stood was false. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Show that it was false. (SEWilco 19:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

It is patently false and I explained why above. As to your response to my comment, it is a section on "link titles" and it is perfectly appropriate to explain when one uses titles at all, since you have to use them in certain circumstances but not in others. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It is preferred that they always be used. More information is preferred over less information. (SEWilco 19:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

No, it is required in the references section, and not prefered in inline citation — which is why we need the material you keep cutting. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the section about References it does indeed say it is required. Elsewhere it is preferred. WP:V prefers more information to less information. (SEWilco 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

In URLs as embedded (numbered) links we say auto-numbered links are problematic. Then in Position in article we say they are the preferred way to link to external sites. Which is correct?

Personally, I think the latter is incorrect. Why should Wikipedia use hyperlinking style different from the rest of the internet? --Doradus 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

They're not problematic. I've deleted that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the usage of icons like (in French) (Template:Fr_icon) for marking link to sites in foreign languages? Perhaps, advice on this kind of icons can be added to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Foreign-language sites section?--Imz 01:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is an icon of just text, why not just keep it text? Benn Newman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because this is a policy page, I'm putting it here for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning for bypassing redirects?

I'm wondering about the sentence:

A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.

Why is it preferred? See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix redirects that aren't broken. I've seen this MoS page cited several times as justification for "fixing" [[redirect]] to [[direct|redirect]]. --TreyHarris 00:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this also violates various guidelines in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Folks are constantly "fixing" Rome, Italy to point to Rome, when that is actually an example specified in that guideline.
Also, such "fixing" inhibits finding links when a large section is split into a detail article, or a multi-stub page is split. This problem has been discussed in several places.
--William Allen Simpson 15:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I would assume there is a different standard for "not fixing redirects that aren't broken" in articles one comes across, as opposed to material that one is creating or adding. So, don't change the link if it's there already, but try to avoid a redirect when you're newly adding it. That's the impression I got from reading the last bit in that MoS page about what is more expensive for Wikipedia—if you're already editing the page, might as well avoid the redirect. The issue came up for me while editing an article about a food dye. I added a piped link to "vegetarians" which I did not know redirected to vegetarianism, but as I was still working on the edit, I changed it to [[vegetarianism|vegetarians]]. Had I come across [[vegetarians]], and I was not making any other edits I would have left it alone. dfg 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
proposal to replace existing quote

Links should use the most precise target that arises in the context, even where that is merely a simple redirect to a less specific page title. Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles. For example, link to "Rome, Italy" rather than "[[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]", and "V8 engine" rather than "V8 engine".

Automated processes should not replace or pipe links to redirects. Instead, the link should always be examined in context. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix redirects that aren't broken.)

--William Allen Simpson 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that. It also answers a question I posed elsewhere about someone fleeing Iran during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It felt to me like I should link to 1979 Iranian Revolution, even though it redirects to Iranian Revolution, since if there's ever another revolution in Iran, he wouldn't have fled during each of them after all. --TreyHarris 16:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, let's give it a day or so to see what other responses we get, Monday is usually more popular than Sunday.
--William Allen Simpson 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. --William Allen Simpson 12:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Underscores

I keep seeing people using wikilinks like [[Pluto_(planet)]] or even [[Vladimir_Nabokov|Vladimir Nabokov]]. Not having found any style guides on the subject, I was wondering if we should say something about the use and abuse of underscores. Yes, it's at least number 652 on the list-of-minor-irritants, but it makes people who don't know better think that underscores are necessary, and eventually they start popping up in visible places. Anville 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that in the goal of promoting online research Wiki encourage its editors to indicate to users when a book or article is available online with a URL link. There are many tens of thousands of books and journals online, and in my observation most American students do most of their research with these online resources. Wiki should facilitate that. Some sources are open to all (like scholar.google.com) but the majority are proprietary--that is the libraries pay a fee to get access. For example: JSTOR includes complete backruns of every article in hundreds of major journals in every scholarly field from 1880 to 2000. QUESTIA has about 50,000 out of print books for which it gives (free) the first page of every chapter and (free) a powerful search engine; EBSCO has 100 databases with thousands of recent journals. There are many more. Even small libraries have subscriptions, as do academic libraries all over the world. I suggest that when editors include a citation to a book or article in the Reference or Footnote section, they be encouraged to link to the specific title in one of these databases. This will open the sources to tens of millions of users around the world who have access to a school or public library that enables them to log into the sites. If the library does not have the service the link gives a bibliographical guide that will allow the item to be borrowed by interlibrary loan. Rjensen 12:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't users of these systems just enter in the bibliographic information they already have in the Wikipedia article in order to retrieve the article? It is already encouraged that people citing, for example, a newspaper article give a link to the newspaper's website. But pointing people looking for publication X to database Y's website brings up a host of gnarly questions. For instance: if two databases host the publication, which one gets listed? Both? First-editor's choice? The one with more subscribers? The one with more content? Also, for those people who do not have access to the databases (which will be the majority of Wikipedia readers, if not the majority of student Wikipedia readers), the link will amount to nothing for them but link spam—clicking on the link will send them, not to the information they are interested in reading, but to a solicitation for payment in order to see the material.
Rjensen, you've no doubt seen the ISBN feature for books, which tries to strike a compromise between convenience and avoiding over-commercialism. If we had a similar cross-cataloging model for online sources for articles, I'd drop my objections. --TreyHarris 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Our priotity has to be helping users find information. When an editor knows a user can click through to an article, and the user does not know, it's a service to help them. The vast majority of academic libraries in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain have subscriptions to these services, and I expect that it's the undergraduate student who would be most appreciative. Even if the link does not work for some users it will alert them to the possibilities that they can take to their librarian for help. Casual users who are not interested in reading the book or article will not be hurt or affected in any way. But maybe 10-15 million Wiki users will be helped to find free online copies of the material they need, and for which they have already paid for access through tuition--the waste comes when they have paid tuition, have free access, and do not know it. There we can help. The ISBN is great for purchasing a book but it does not help one find the free online copies. So I can't see what objections there are to helping users. Rjensen 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Redlinking

There doesn't seem to be a policy on linkifying items for which there are no targets. Is there a general consensus? The page in question is a discography consisting of 79 or more albums, only ten of which have articles. Am I the only one who finds this irritating? I am particularly annoyed because, when making other changes a couple of months ago, I removed the redlinks. Any opinions? Thanks. Freekee 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are already a bunch of comments about this very thing up in the section entitled 'List articles' up towards the head of the page. IMHO, the problem with a 'list article' that's full of red links is that the entire article is probably irrelevent if all of those things it lists are so irrelevent that nobody can be bothered to write even a tiny stub about them. A list of inconsequential things is an inconsequential list. If you buy into that argument, then it's not the redlinks we should be worrying about. Excessive redlinks in a non-list article would bother me more. SteveBaker 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I had been skimming looking for the subject of links, but I missed that one. I agree to some extent, with your point about inconsequential lists. You'd cringe at the page in question. It's a list of the bands compilation albums. How many "best of" albums can one band have? I generally prefer not to mess with other people's contributions, though, so I'm just going to suggest your recommendation, along with the 10 percent guideline, on his talk page, and the article's talk page.
Freekee 05:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You know Freekee, you can always add the template from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for Redlinks to the article if there are too many links and you don't want to be the one to deal with it. It's a pretty passive response, but it is better than nothing.CharacterZero 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Piping and redirects

I'm not utterly sure about Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Context. The section reading "Links should use the most precise target that arises in the context, even where that is merely a simple redirect to a less specific page title. Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles." is definitely correct and accepted. The following advice, "use [[V8 engine]] rather than [[V8]] engine", makes a lot of sense too, and is a good example of using a more precise target, though it doesn't constitute an example of using a more precise target that turns out to be a redirect. The bit that reads "link to [[Rome, Italy]] rather than [[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]" makes relatively little sense. It certainly is a use of using a more specific name, but the fact is there will never be demand for a more specific [[Rome, Italy]] article to demonstrate how [[Rome, Italy]] (the capital of Italy) differs from [[Rome]] (the capital of Italy) since these are actually two ways of referring to exactly the same Wikipedia article (the disambig page is at [[Rome (disambiguation)]] not [[Rome]]), the former being a redirect to the latter, and although differing in format, are in no way talking about different aspects of the same subject. Moreover, I can't think of anyone who in their right mind would link using [[Rome, Italy|Rome]] since the main article is at [[Rome]]. The rule actually being broken by [[Rome, Italy|Rome]] is "it's really silly to use a piped linked linking to a redirect that sends to the same place as the name appearing on the link", which is so simple it's hardly worth describing why it's wrong. I suspect that the point of this section was to say "use [[Rome, Italy]] rather than [[Rome]], [[Italy]]", although I think the latter actually has an advantage in that often the "Italy" is link-worthy - depending entirely on context, of course!

A more "obvious" example of "Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles" is the following: Talkie Toaster is a minor character in Red Dwarf. Whether Talkie Toaster deserves his own article will depend on several factors, but I guess if Talkie Toaster got a lot of inbound links (especially from episode articles) then there would be a reason to give him one. So, rather than using [[Red Dwarf characters|Talkie Toaster]], lets just use [[Talkie Toaster]] - that would seem to be the point of the MoS section. BUT things are more complicated than that... he actually has his own subsection in the Red Dwarf article. Indeed, [[Talkie Toaster]] actually contains the text #REDIRECT [[Red Dwarf characters#Talkie_Toaster]] - but redirects to sections don't work! So, in fact, it would be better to link Talkie Toaster as [[Red Dwarf characters#Talkie Toaster|Talkie Toaster]], and indeed, if I found an incidence purely of [[Talkie Toaster]] it may even be worth editing this semi-broken redirecting link, unfortunately at the expense of not being able to see how many pages link to the Talkie Toaster section via the redirects page. Certainly the truth is a little more subtle than the MoS is describing. There really ought to be a little bit of material on this (maybe a couple of sentences, no need for an essay, though).

A "better" example of what the MoS is describing might be where: you want to link "Minor Topic A". At present [[Minor Topic A]] is a redirect to [[Major Topic B]], of which Minor Topic A is a subtopic. However, the article [[Major Topic B]] does NOT have a subsection [[Major Topic B#Minor Topic A]], so you can't make a more approriately targetted link by avoiding the redirect. At some point, somebody will see all the links to [[Major Topic B]] that come via [[Minor Topic A]] and realise that it might be a good idea to turn [[Minor Topic A]] into an article. However, I can't think offhand of any places where this situation occurs. Usually, if Minor Topic A is sufficiently discrete a topic to ever warrant its own article, it will have a subsection under Major Topic B (or maybe a joint subsection [[Major Topic B#Minor Topics A, X and Y]]. In this case it would be better to link to the subsection. So, I suggest that the emphasis given in the MoS to dealing with this situation might need to be toned down a little (or at least adapted to point out that there will often be subsection links possible, and that at present redirects can't handle these) and also a better example would be good (like I said, I can't actually find one of these minor A/major B/no subsection B#A examples where it's really relevant). TheGrappler 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens and apsotrophes

" When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type. This syntax is also applicable to adjective constructs such as [[Asia]]n, as well as hyphenated phrases and the like."

Hyphenated-phrases don't really work. Apostrophes cause problems as well. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Linking_apostrophe-s_possessives.

Proposed new text

"When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type. This syntax is also applicable to adjective constructs such as [[Asia]]n and the like. Hyphens and apostrophes must be included in the link to show as part of it for example [[Jane's fighting ships|Jane's]] or [[truant|playing-the-hop]]. Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source."

Rich Farmbrough 22:57 13 April 2006 (UTC).

"Rome, Italy" vs "Rome, Italy"

The sentence;

"For example, link to "Rome, Italy" rather than "[[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]", and "V8 engine" rather than "V8 engine". "

was added on the 31 January, I see no consensus for it, but more importantly, it is the opposite to what most people do, and is clearly inferior as "Rome, Italy" offers the choice of two seperate links. I agree that about the V8 engine link example, that is just common sense and I don't think we should reverse the present guideline, rather just remove it altogether. It did after all only have a consensus of 2 vs. the de facto standard of the rest of the encyclopedia. Martin 16:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Rome, Italy" is better. There is a tiny amount of discussion that seems to favour it at #Geographical Links in Other Articles (City, State / City, Country). Rich Farmbrough 20:41 19 April 2006 (UTC).
The discussion that "favors" it is your (Farmbrough) comment of 16 April 2006. The AWB mass changes have occurred only because most of the encyclopedia uses the simple link form, instead of overlinking. The simple link is clearly superior, as it links to the contextual link without involving an unrelated link to another administrative division. Readers should not be required to carefully select adjacent words in order to find the link.
--William Allen Simpson 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I too agree that "Rome, Italy" is better. (See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Links to places.) Noisy | Talk 07:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the right forum?: Has it ever been considered, as it should be technically possible, to have "invisible" (neither blue nor red) links attached to words so that the reader could hover over, and/or click on, any   word he or she would like to look up (within reasonable relevancy to value of context)?

This could be done automatically to each following matching word that is linked manually at first occurrence. Often relevant words are linked in the beginning of an article, but I sometimes find later on in the article that I would like to look the word up without having to find my way back to the one linked ("was it linked?") or writing it into the search field to look it up.

In this way the flow of reading wouldn't be disturbed, and I could see if the word is linked, just by hovering over it with the mouse the pointer (pop-up link info). These automatically linked words wouldn't have to show up as linked text in the editor when edited later on, for the sake of visibility, but created again at each save or preview.

This could eliminate a lot of visible red and blue links, at the same time also stimulating users to write articles on “red subjects”. A 'no article yet' could pop-up over the 'automated' red words as well as the ones linked manually – or the word could just turn blue or red when hovered over. Would it be worth the programming effort?
Profero, April 18, 2006

Notify requirement for registration or subscription?

The page recommends that information be given about the target of an external link, e.g. the file size or format. I think it would it also be helpful to the reader to know if the target site requires registration or subscription; similar to what is done on the News Now website. Alan Pascoe 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to call this kind of link, so I'm picking "self-referential". I mean the kind of links you put in "See also" sections, or "Main article"/"Further information"/disambiguation templates. They are self-referential in the sense that one could turn them into a cross-reference in a non-hypertext version of the article without changing the text, so it is clear from the displayed text that WP is referring to itself.

My proposal is to recommend that such links not be piped. For example, in article text we might have a hyperlink like "three [[Foo (unit)|foos]]". In a non-hypertext medium this would probably be translated into something like "three foos (see Foo (unit))". In a "see also" section, the links are cross-references explicitly giving another article to look at, so the reader wants to know the exact article name, so we put in the list "* [[Foo (unit)]]". If we piped it instead, we would get something like "* Foo (see Foo (unit))", which is silly.

This is already mandatory for links from disambiguation pages (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping). I think it should be extended to this kind of link in general, though I'm not certain how to define them.

Hairy Dude 10:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A proposal relating to this policy has been created at Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks, please discuss on that proposal's discussion page. Hollow are the Ori 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Multiple linking if in different sections

Because a reader may read only particular sections of an article, rather than reading the whole thing from top to bottom, I propose that the first appropriate usage of a term within a section be permitted, perhaps even encouraged (in appropriate links, of course). There are at least three circumstances for which this would be important:

  • A reader may, at the introduction, click on one of the sections in the table of contents and read only that section.
  • A reader may be connected to the article from an external website or another article, directly to a particular section.
  • A use in a latter section might actually be more important and relevant to that latter section, even though it was linked secondarily earlier in the article, though still relevant enough to both sections.

The purpose of recommending against multiple links is to discourage over-linking, so that every use (and every insignificant use) of a term is not linked. The purpose is not to recommend against links that are highly relevant to the surrounding topic and that are as useful to any reader as any other link is. —Centrx→Talk 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. I already do it. Especially in lists near the ends of articles. -Freekee 03:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Good idea. SilkTork 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks bad when two internal links are right next to each other in the text of an article. When you see three of four blue words in a row, you can't tell if it's one link or two without mousing over them. It looks better if people can just pick out links by sight. I'd like to see something encouraging editors to separate internal Wikipedia links with other words whenever possible.

A lot of the offenses involving something like "a Category example within that category". In many cases these could be changed to something like an "example of the Category" or "an example from the Category" etc which both look better.

One of the two linked articles might link to other right in its heading, so you could just eliminate the latter article without comprimising the reader's ability to find both. For instance, I'd write Chicago, Illinois instead of Chicago, Illinois because the Chicago article links right to Illinois.

Sometimes an "example" article is already restricted to the "category" such as if I wrote United States state so the category isn't needed at all.

There are other cases, such as when the first link is to an adjective, but I think you get the idea. I think Wikipedia looks a lot better when links are well-separated, easy to identify and easy to click on. I think this advice should be added somewhere to the style manual or other Wikipedia pages. What does everybody think? --Howdybob 11:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it looks better and there are many cases in which there is excess linking, as in your examples, but what about when it is not redundant? The first example that comes to my mind is "federal constitutional republic". Now, this is not redundant, but it is a rather excessive description and was changed to "federal republic". Maybe this indicates the clustered description rather than the linking is where the problem is at, in that it is not the best prose, but how do we fit all this into concise wording for the MOS? —Centrx→talk • 06:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Another example just found "an American English writing style guide". These are most often found in introductions, where we want to be comprehensive in a short description. —Centrx→talk • 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it might be necessary sometimes, but I think it should be done less, whenever it's possible to avoid it without causing problems. I think it would just be good to have something that mentions it so that editors would keep it in mind. --Howdybob 08:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_1&oldid=1034162024"