Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive 4

message: For longer articles: Would it be good to have a first link policy for subsections? In this case, if somebody moves the section to a separate page, the link would still be there. E.g. if you have only one link to George Washington early on the page of United States, then take a section of that page to make a subpage History of the United States, you would end up with no link to George Washington.  Chris 73 04:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ subsection link. Even if we never move the subsection, when we use #-link, like [Univer#Solar system], the reader will be directed to that section, not the beginning. So if he started reading there (and he most likely will), he'll encounter an un-linked term, thinking there's no article. --Menchi 04:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I'd generally vote against the subsection link.  If a subsection gets moved to a new page, the context is now different.  Maybe it should be linked but maybe it shouldn't.  I think that should be left as a decision for the author/editors of the new page. Rossami 21:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I agree to an extent, even for sections that aren't split out. If one mentions a term and links it early on in the article, and then starts a new section talking about the same term six or seven paragraphs down, then the initial mention in the section should definitely be linked again. This kind of redundancy is good. --Joy [shallot] 17:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I seem to be weighing in here pretty late, but will do so anyway.  This is an instance where I think people need to use a little judgment.  You do not need to make a link in a new section if the last time the link appeared was "recently" in the article.  If you are 5-pages down from the last time it was linked, it wouldn't hurt to link again. Chuck 18:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsection link 

message: While in general I follow the advice of not repeating links to the same topic, there are many circumstances in which I have done so, because otherwise the link may be difficult to locate. For example, suppose the article has a history section with a link buried in the middle of a huge paragraph, and two pages later in a different section that same topic is central to a discussion of its cultural impact. A repeated link is clearly appropriate, particularly since some readers may not read both sections. I'm not sure how to properly codify this, but I would say something to the effect of: "Restrict repeated links to circumstances where either the first link is not prominent or the linked topic is being used in a new context distant from its previous use." 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But can't we soften it even further? "Don't go overboard with links. You probably only need to link once to each topic." or something. I often find situations where early in the article, say on a band, you say "Jim was a friend of [Bob]". Then later on, if you follow this guideline, you end up with a sentence like "Jim, and fellow members [Mick], [Alice], Bob and [Willie]". It just seems silly not to link to Bob in the second case. Stevage 07:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, ordering might be important: it wouldn't appear as odd (methinks) if the second sentence were rendered as follows: "Jim, and fellow members Bob, [Mick], [Alice], and [Willie]." E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, vaguer is probably better, except that sometimes people go around ruthlessly deleting duplicate links with no regard for how much sense it makes. It might be nice to have a policy to point to - at least we should list a few examples where it may be desirable to repeat links. Deco 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know.  I've seen so much abuse - such massive overlinking - that I think any softening of the rule will make cleanup even harder and less likely to occur.  There may be exceptions for extremely large pages (like the first example) but if the page is really that large, I'd be seriously considering whether the page should be broken into several sub-pages.Stevage's example of the list is a good style question.  It doesn't convince me personally.  I don't think the format he describes looks silly at all and see no reason to slavishly follow such a pattern.  But if you really do think it looks better, you always have the style choice of creating the link in the list instead of the first usage in the article.  The guideline only says don't link words "that have been linked earlier in the article".  We usually link the first occurrance but we don't have to.  Rossami (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's generally prudent to wikilink initial terms, I think it's also prudent to rewikify germane terms that appear much later in an article – particularly a long one – or in a different section.  This would enable a visitor to not have to scroll up to article text already consulted.  There are many instances where dates are overwikified, for example, and serve as unnecessary distractions.  The key in using the piped link is doing so judiciously – i.e., within context.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to strict guideline against repeated links 

message: Should duplicate links sometimes be preferred?  I think the table in the h3 section titled "Main Event Overview" on the World series of poker article is a perfect example.  The lack of a link on the 1997 listing of Stu Unger, for example, looks like an omission, not like a conscious following of this page's "avoid duplicate links" style recommendation. Pokerriot 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was some considerable discussion of this, with particular regard to lists of links where one item was linked earlier. Just use common sense. Deco 11:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When duplicate links are ok