Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive 2

message: How about adding the following sentence to the policy:
Do not leave any links from the article to itself, including through redirects, since this annoys readers considerably.
Any objections? Gadykozma 09:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already the policy (though it is not spelled out on this page - I can't remember which page it is on).  Feel free to add it if you think it would be helpful here. Rossami 13:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's kind of obvious, and people don't do it intentionally anyway. Gadykozma 13:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self links 

message: Wikipedia has extensive guidelines for the writing of articles.  However, it has few for the choice and editing of links. As a result, some articles are under-linked, others over-linked, there are articles created earlier which lack links to those created later, and external links often appear by surprise in the middle of articles. This is a draft policy for editing links, not articles.
One guide to areas of coherent discourse that should heavily inter-link is the Main Page. One expects psychology or mathematics or history articles to link densely to other articles on the same topic. If one sees a lot of links to psychology in a history article, or to history in a mathematics article, however, it may be time to figure out which are really essential or neutral. One mistake to avoid is censoring out-links to other topic areas - this is this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook so one expects philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science and philosophy of physics to be well integrated with philosophy in general, even if mathematicians, physicists or other scientists might prefer it not be.
Another guide to areas that are coherent is the Wikipedia:WikiProject list.  These are closely related article clusters on things like voting systems, 
places in London, or
all the world's ecoregions. As choice of a voting system depends on its comparison to others, a place in London can only be reached or understood in relation to others around it, and ecoregions likewise can only be understood as unique in relation to others on their borders or elsewhere in the world, one expects dense linking and detailed comparison.  However, in some cases, there may be special articles just on comparisons or categories, in which case, those overviews are the place to discuss and compare.
A third guide would be the Markov chain of links that users actually follow - showing what they perceive as coherent subjects or topic areas, and which are the most common pathways from one article to another. The most heavily travelled link paths can be shortened by including clarifying texts and links to the articles most commonly reached in two or three links while browsing - thus making the Wikipedia a far more convenient place to get quick briefings.
Sadly, this data is not now being made available to contributors or editors, and this should probably be a priority for some future software release. There is probably no other way to become user-driven with regard to the way that the encyclopedia puts paths in front of its users. A forest or garden path is beaten flat and thus the most commonly taken route s visible. Wikipedia by contrast is more of a jungle that quickly overgrows.
Opinion: Please remember that every link makes the text slightly more difficult to read, and may encourage some readers to divert from the topic. Fewer links will invest greater importance in the remaining links. In general, I think that Wikipedia articles are overlinked, in particular with general links that can be of no immediate use to the reader in understanding the topic. Whoever started linking broad chronological items on Wikipedia, e.g., 17th century, 1990s, 2001, deserves to be horse-whipped; it's now a scourge. Tony 23:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text deleted from Wikipedia:Link editing

message: :This page is not official at this time.
Wikipedia contains many articles on subjects that are relatively unimportant, and this is fine, because Wikipedia is not paper, and the articles can all fit.
However, what irritates some Wikipedians more than such articles themselves are links to the articles that make the minor subject seem more important than it is. When creating an article about minor subjects, a good policy is to avoid the temptation to link to it from pages where it is not particularly relevant or important. Instead, limit yourself to creating links from pages where the subject really is highly relevant.
See also:
*Wikipedia:Build the web
*Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context 
:I believe the title of this page says all that needs to be said. Sfahey 23:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Text deleted from Wikipedia:Links to minor subjects