Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Mistake

message: *Manual of Style editing page, Wikipedia, January 11, 2005.
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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: OK. Maurreen 01:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New link inclusion paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title:  numbered external links as bad style 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: Thanks Maurreen. I've rather changed my mind: I believe Captain 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)
thread_title: What to link?

message: 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  — 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)
thread_title: Space after asterisk

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context]] & [[Wikipedia:Build the web]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbered links--a strange "problem" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: 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.
# mm versus mm.
# f versus f.
# normal stress versus normal stress.
# tensile test versus 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 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)
thread_title:  What to link to, displayed text, and redirects? 

message: 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
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)
thread_title:  Geographical Links in Other Articles (City, State / City, Country) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 computers. -- Kjkolb 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking apostrophe-s possessives 

message: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you suggesting the MoS says editors should not do this?  Because of course, they may. Just not in the References/External links sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Butting in, in a hope to clarify, isn't it the case that -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  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)
replies: text:  Yes, URL-only citations are accepted as being better than nothing.  More complete citations are preferred.  (SEWilco 14:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Embedded links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nevertheless SE, the sentence as it stood was false. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show that it was false.  (SEWilco 19:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: They're not problematic. I've deleted that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-numbered links 

message: What do you think of the usage of icons like  (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)
thread_title:  Marking links to foreign-language sites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References/external links headers name-change proposal 

message: I keep seeing people using wikilinks like Pluto_(planet) or even 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)
thread_title:  Underscores 

message: 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" 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 since the main article is at Rome. The rule actually being broken by 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 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 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)
thread_title: Piping and redirects

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notify requirement for registration or subscription? 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for "self-referential" internal links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FYI: [[Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks|Quotations should not contain wikilinks]] proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Makes perfect sense to me. I already do it. Especially in lists near the ends of articles. -Freekee 03:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Good idea. SilkTork 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Multiple linking if in different sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: discouraging adjacent links