Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 3

message: On a related note, what about items in tables? I've come across tables of lists of TV episodes, with their respective writer or director listed. Many writers/directors appear multiple times in a table, and the editors have painstakingly ensured that each writer is only linked for their first episode, and no subsequent ones. Or indeed not linked at all, if that person is mentioned elsewhere in some previous body text.
I believe this to be a waste of effort on their part, and positively unhelpful for the reader. Having found the entry in the table I'm interested in, and seeing the writer unlinked, I'm then left to do a search of the page to find a functioning link for that writer. Can I suggest a recommendation that all such entries in tables should be linked, even if repeated, due to the "random-access" nature of tables? --KJBracey 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One extreme example of this I've come across is List of Doctor Who serials. And that suggests I mean to include "lists" as well as actual "tables" in my proposal. -- KJBracey 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreed with KJBracey completely (as well as others?). And apparently no objection. So, I erased the nonsense sentence in question. -- by PTNFromm 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Multiple linking in tables 

message: The paragraph which instructs to use the most precise target uses an example which doesn't make sense to me: "V8 engine" rather than "V8 engine"
while V8 redirects to V8 engine. This example seems to address an evident case that you don't label a link foo if the article is named foo bar and you refer to foo bar as foo bar in your text. In that case, foo bar is not more precise, it's just the canonical name. I tried to fix that, but was reverted by User:Centrx. Is there anyone else that thinks like me, or am I missing something?--Chealer 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't the link be labelled "V8 engine" instead of plain "V8"? —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me, sorry if I was unclear. A link to V8 engine should be labelled as V8 engine. What I'm saying is that this is obvious, and does not exemplify what the paragraph talks about.--Chealer 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; okay. I don't think Debian is well-known enough to be a helpful example. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context: example 

message: There is a problem with multiple links on a page. It makes maintenance of the page difficult if the links change (as the link count is only given once in the what links here), which is why multiple links to the same page has been discouraged in the past. Revision as of 05:28, 16 June 2006 Nscheffey ← Older edit, Revision as of 22:34, 6 July 2006 Centrx --Philip Baird Shearer 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the maintenance problem which you refer to. Could you please this link count thing? -Freekee 01:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that this would be a significant problem, and the quality of the encyclopedia and its usefulness to readers should be sacrificed for this rare back-end issue. —Centrx→talk • 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance with multiple links 

message: I'd like to see guidance on redlinks here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious about this as well - Should an article have red links (with the hope that some one might create an article off it) or should you remove thos links? Markco1 05:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think, it depends. See Wikipedia:Notability. -- by PTNFromm 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: An increasing number of articles are using automatically numbered footnotes to cite references. This practice is apparently being encouraged, because it is especially prevalent in Featured articles. In my opinion, inline numbered external links (such as , which displays inline as ) should not be used in an article with footnotes. Having two overlapping number series (inline footnote calls numbered 1–x and inline external links numbered 1–y) is confusing and also ugly. In my opinion, the better practice in an article with footnotes is to put external links in footnotes with a descriptive title, such as: Blather, which displays inline as Blather and in the Notes section as shown below. What do others think? Finell (Talk) 06:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered links and footnotes 

message: I'm seeing more and more links of a new type. Instead of having the link reflect the name of the article, it's a verb phrase or something. For instance, the article
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the link: considered very inefficient' which is just horrible and could be replaced by:
considered to have a low efficiency    (or something similar). This links to the same section on weapon efficiency.
I think too much was put into the talk archive, as this page is really small now. I still stand by my comments about multiple, directly adjacent links. They're real ugly and clumsy because you don't know what you're getting, if it's one link or many, by simply reading an article without moving the mouse over every link. It spoils all multiple-word links that way. Usually this form is unnecessary and one of the links amounts to a sort of dictionary-definition link. It's a scourge on the whole enterprise if you ask me. --Howdybob 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piped links with phrases instead of variations on the name of the target 

message: The protocols are listed at Meta:URI schemes#Current settings. Peahaps this link should be given in the article? Secondly, what is the reason to restrict the protocols; that is, why not just to convert everything in square braces into external link? I was looking on how to insert ed2k links. --Javalenok 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL protocol limitation 

message: I've been editing using the Template:Infobox Writer and a user changed the Website field from the way I had it (example) Official website to  citing WP:MOS. I personally think it looks better as official site especially since being in a template, or heck even www.catherinecoulter.com would do but the WP:MOS-L only says However, you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section.   Is there any policy on this someplace that I'm not seeing? The template itself says nothing about the prefered style of choice. I bring this up here because I don't see it elsewhere and since that's the case perhaps it should also be on here, plus I don't want to get into an edit war. All other authors that I see using the Website field either have Official website or www.catherinecoulter.com so perhaps clarification for templates is needed? Anyway any answers are appreciated. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days since I posted this and since there haven't been any answers I've went ahead and posted this on the WP:MOS talk page instead. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pages in question are this, this and this. Obviously no problem. Congratulations! -- by PTNFromm 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates and linking in them 

message: I was searching this page for naming conventions for external links but found very little. In my opinion, if your article is, say, "Foo History Museum of Foo County", then if you have an official link to the museum, you can put that as the first link and simply call it "Foo History Museum of Foo County". I find it redundant to say "FHMoFC website", or even "Official website of FHMoFC", because I think "official" is overused and sometimes used to legitimize links that are anything but official. When Wikignoming articles I generally change the official link's title to the title of the entity or organization in question, but if at some point someone sees fit to change it back, I leave it that way since it seems to only be my opinion and not codified anywhere. Does anyone know if this has been discussed somewhere? Any thoughts? Thanks! Katr67 18:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titling external links 

message: Would it be good to change:
"The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant, is encouraged." 
into 
"The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant (resulting in Ant), is encouraged."
Or something to that extent.
Or would this only add to the confusion? kabbelen 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is kind of you to notice and propose such a thing. You are right and it is also clear that there is no objection. I accept your proposal. -- by PTNFromm 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I see someone made the change. kabbelen 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links 

message: What's the deal with links being underlined without rollover? I'm not sure where this is/was discussed, but it's really annoying. Sure, there's some merit to the change, and it's a bit more "proper," but it looks like shit on pages with many links (i.e. the home page). Compare the elegant rollover underlines on the menu panel. Anyone know why this was done? Max 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. It took me a while to realise what's making everything look so cluttered all of a sudden. Hardwick 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlined links 

message: Please, can anyone tell me the proper format to create a link within another link?  (Or, is this even possible?)  For example, let's say that I want the text to read exactly: Arnold (The Governator) Schwarzenegger.  What is the proper linking format that would create this exact text so that it links to both the "Arnold Schwarzenegger" article and the "The Governator" article?  Please help.  Thanks a lot! (JosephASpadaro 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could do Arnold (The Governator) Schwarzenegger as Arnold (The Governator) Schwarzenegger. That's a little weird though.  Max 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Yes, I thought of that -- but it's certainly not an elegant way to achieve what I need.  Furthermore, it's not quite accurate to have the text of the person's first name only (e.g., Arnold) link to his full name (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger).  These types of nicknames happen all the time (e.g., Michael "Air" Jordan, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, etc.).  I would think that there is an easy way to accomplish this.  Any ideas?  Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Within a Link 

message: Policy in a nutshell: A red link is not an emergency and it is not a promise. (It's not a baby that has stopped breathing, and it's not an engagement ring).
(This is a proposed policy page, to be summarized in shorter form, as a subsection under "linking")
Terms which are given link parentheses, but do not presently link to a wiki, appear in the default user settings, in red. This may have been an unfortunate choice of color, since red to many people signals danger, or something not working, or which needs immediate fixing. This is not necessarily the case with non-working internal (red) links, however!  A non-working link does *not* mean that something is wrong in Wikipedia, and despite the color, it actually is NOT begging to be immediately fixed, either by removing the brackets, or by creating a page which expands upon it. These things may be done later. Nature and the Heavens will not cry out if these things are not done immediately. In fact, a good healthy wiki article will probably have a certain amount of nonworking links, so long as wikipedia grows properly. 
Nonworking links may be perfectly normal things, like twig buds on a plant. They are markers for places where an editor has essentially commented, using brackets, that he or she would like to see a Wiki on this topic, but found that it didn't exist. That's okay. If the editor didn't have the immediate time or knowledge to expand upon a term, the mere marking of interest may stimulate another editor with more time or knowledge or initiative, to begin work on the article at some later date. This is a good thing. In the meantime, it's best if the non-working link is left alone. There is nothing wrong with such links. Editors who are offended by the violent RED color are encouraged to go back to their user settings page and change it for their own reader, so that they themselves can read articles in more peace, and thus leave these variety of links in peace. They are important, (which is to say, in the direction of writing articles on terms-of-interest which don't have them).
Editors may notice that some nonworking internal links really are pathological. For example, they may link to words that don't need links because they aren't likely to ever be the topics of Wikipedia articles. But note that links in the preceding sentence-- this is not always easy to figure out. In such cases, though, it's perfectly fine to remove the brackets. Also, editors may notice that a link is not working because somebody has mistakenly included the plural s inside the bracket, or the word is misspelled, or some obvious problem of this sort. Again, these can and should be fixed. Finally, an editor who knows enough about a nonworking link to write a stub on it, can click on it, and start the page by doing it. This is always preferable to removing the brackets on a non-working link, if the link is to a word which will EVER be worth a Wiki. Probably the best of all solutions involves figuring out that the non-working link is actually a variant of a term which already has a wiki, so that the link can either be changed to the existing wiki, or a redirect page can be created (creating a redirect is the better option if the non-working term is a very common but not technically correct one, for example transistor radio battery vs. PP3 battery) 
What a nonworking internal link is NOT, is a promise, or a deadline. So it need not be treated as an engagement ring, or a notice from the IRS. The person who made it is under no moral obligation to come back and expand it into a stub or article, even if they once intended to. And you, the editor, are under no obligation to watch a non-working link for some period of time, to make sure that somebody eventually "attends" to it, as though it were a parking ticket. Nonworking internal links are not wet babies; unless the nonworking link is a pathological link (see above) there's no particular hurry for anybody to attend to it. And if the color of it is bothering you, again you know what you can do about it. But leave the link itself ALONE. It's serving a purpose and function, like a bud, and what it needs most from you the editor, if you're not going to create the article, is not to be bothered by you, until somebody else can do the job. SBHarris 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be put through summary style, it's a complete essay written and riddled with personal opinions. Example: "and need to remain if Wikipedia is to grow naturally and in the best way". Quadzilla99 06:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it's essentially an essay which is fine if you want to create one. Or you can add it to WP:RED, I don't feel it belongs here, feel free to comment. Quadzilla99 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've deleted my essay, but the motto of Wikipedia is don't delete, improve. Clearly something needs to be said about red links in the link style page. Would you like to suggest a place to put a short synopsis of the existing WP:RED in the present article (THIS article), referring to WP:RED as the MAIN article? Then I'll add whatever I propose as missing over there, on the WP:RED TALK page. You see, I didn't even know of the existance of WP:RED, largely because THIS essay on link style doesn't even MENTION it, so far as I can tell. Am I wrong? That needs to be fixed (no?), as well as a summary made of its main points. I see, BTW, that the writers of THAT article have come to many of the same conclusions I have about red links, independently. So, "essay" on proposed policy or not, it looks like I'm on the right track as a lot of other people who've thought about this. Thanks for pointing out where that was happening. But might you have thought to connect the dots yourself, since you knew of the other Wiki, and I (obviously) didn't? SBHarris 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just cut and paste your essay: and say link it to WP:RED LINKS. You could summarize WP:RED here shortly. I just felt it was a little out of place. Also, although I liked a lot of it, it did read like an essay. As for why there's no mention of WP:RED here that's anybody's guess. Quadzilla99 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do something along your suggested lines. But do remember that although this is an essay, there's a reason for that. NPOV and NOR don't really apply to making wikipedia style policy. It's ALL "opinion," and once upon a time, it was all "original." Like how much linking is too much (10%? who says?). Opinion is how sytle matters start out, and (here's a shocker) that's how they remain. Some opinions and original thought are older than others, of course. However, that's the point of TALK pages like this, to gather concensus OPINIONS. This is all completely different from the rules that must apply to articles on the real world in the mainspace. You see the point? Anyway, it's one reason I'm a little irritated that these suggestions have been here for so long without comment from anybody, but are being tagged as "opinions" when added to the article. But no matter how long we wait, and how many opinions we gather, everything in this article is more or less like that. This is stuff we like, and that we think will make Wikipedia look good. Although perhaps it's not all as exuberantly expressed as I did it. SBHarris 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead and red internal links: not abominations, but rather how and where Wiki grows 

message: I have read a number of articles where placenames are referenced with separate links to the city and state/province. e.g. John Smith was born in White Plains, New York. This construction seems bulky and quite unwikily to me. Is this some sort of standard I don't know about? Am I out of line if I edit these links to White Plains, New York? Surely readers who want to read about New York state can find a link to it or enter it in the search box. I find myself somewhat of a deletionist with regard to links, particularly those which result in bulky wikitext. MKoltnow 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking for places with multiple division levels (such as city, province) 

message: Perhaps it should be explicitly mentioned that primary links to resources should not be avoided because of concerns about overlinking. With primary links I mean for example the main link to an album in an artist's discography, or the primary link to a track in an album track listing, even if those resources have been linked earlier in the article. This is being discussed at WT:ALBUM#Linking track names in track listingWikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 16#Linking track names in track listing. My interpretation of this guideline is that linking them is fine, as long as the links are in a separate section, which they will most often be, but it might be worth making this explicit. Opinions?--PEJL 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, for example, all album titles that could(should) have an article separately should be linked in an artist's article. The more links an article has, the easier it is for a reader to read, click and find. It's clear. I think current overlinking section is nonsense or harmful for ordinary readers and editors. If a reader is color-blind, it is no doubt that current overlinking section is not only merciless but terribly harmful. Therefore, link, link, link as many as possible within your common sense. Objection? -- by PTNFromm 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not arguing for more links in general, just that "primary links" shouldn't be unlinked because of overlinking concerns. --PEJL 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the guidelines discourage "primary links"? I'd have thought it was implicit that no one ever regarded them as overlinking. But once only in an article, please, unless one is important enough to repeat-link much further down. Tony (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good enough for me. --PEJL 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking and primary links 

message: I'd like to propose a guideline that, in situations where it is felt necessary to put multiple links in proximity, editors take care to avoid making adjacent words part of different links. As an example, these two alternative forms of the same fragment contain the same text and links, but the second is clearer:
*In his findings of fact, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote...
*In his findings of fact, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote...
SheffieldSteel 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and put an example in the section on overlinking. Any problems, you know where to find me :-) SheffieldSteel 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wikilinks - avoid adjacent links 

message: In re-organising the structure of MOSNUM, there's a proposal to move the information about the linking of chronological items to here. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Tony 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOSNUM overhaul 

message: Couldn't find anything to change ! thisisace 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: In HTML, the #-prefix of an INTRA-page link is suppressed.  See the (rendered) TOC for example.  It seems that in Wiki-markup, this is not so, as the 5th example under Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs shows:
#Links and URLs is a link to another section on the current page.
#Links and URLs is a link to another section on the current page.
Should articles really be speckled with stray #'s before certain words and phrases (that link to matching headings) ?, or should we all work together to manually suppress them with pipes (by duplicating the word or entire phrase, thereafter) ?
Any thoughts?
4.232.54.35 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we suppress the #-prefix on intra-page links? 

message: I am editing the entire page because the edit link on the section above goes to the no such section problem page. Is anyone else having problems? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The software is consistently having the edit tags edit one section below where they are placed. This sometimes happens with a repeated section title, but I don't see one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing problem 

message: I picked a paragraph from George W. Bush that has links within quotations:
In the televised Republican presidential debate held in Des Moines, Iowa on December 13 1999, all of the participating candidates were asked "What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?" Unlike most of the other candidates, who cited former presidents and other political figures, Bush responded, "Christ, because he changed my heart". Bush's appeal to religious values seems to have aided him in the general election. In a Gallup poll those who said they "attend church weekly" gave him 56% of their vote in 2000, and 63% of their vote in 2004. During the election cycle, Bush labeled himself a "compassionate conservative", and his political campaign promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House," a reference to the scandals and impeachment of his predecessor. (references removed)
I don't necessarily doubt your abilities, but I know I would have a tricky time writing this paragraph using the context outside of the quotations. Perhaps de-link philosopher? But what about Christ, compassionate conservative, and White House? You already know that I support linking withing quotations, but this is a serious question (especially for the "compassionate conservative" label). There are just some times when a link makes more sense than trying to write complex sentences (where the reader might lose focus of the subject and point). Mahalo, Tony. --Ali'i 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Compassionate conservative" is the only link worth having (well, possibly the little-known Des Moines, too); certainly don't autoformat the date: that will make it plain wrong in some settings, and we have to go to the edit box to find the original. I'd leave it to the reader to type the town's name into the search box—no big deal; I'd either leave "comp. cons." or succinctly explain what Bush meant by the term (referenced, if possible) before or after the quote, if it's important to the gist. I note that the com cons article has "quality compromised" and "no references" tags, and may well be misleading: there's nothing to say that that article is exactly what Bush meant. It's a classic example of why we should not tamper with people's meanings by linking within quotes. Thanks for your comment on my sig (I go for plain, and was sick of straining my eyes to find it in threads); I'll look at your next example later. Cheers. Tony (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, in the section Cindy Sheehan#Sheehan officially ends activism, what would you do with the "'Checkers' moment" reference? Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note on my talk page, Ali. It's 2.20 am and I'm off to bed; please wait! Tony (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aole pilikia... No problem. I am interested in a answer not marred by sleep deprivation. :-)  Like the new sig, by the way. --Ali'i 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some do seem problematic; I would not link to the chart of the public debt myself, but that should be fixed by fixing Public debt of the United States. But linking "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." to Fortification, Magazine (artillery), arsenals,  and shipyard seems simple reader service. Some readers will be helped by the link to magazine (artillery); those who know what magazine means in this context need not face an explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an English speaker—native or non-native—doesn't know what "shipyard" and the others mean, they should look it up in a dictionary or just type it into the WP search box. Why irritate some readers just for those few? However, I do believe that children and non-native speakers typically don't read English-language text that way: they're more likely to pick up the sense through through a word's repeated contextual use. Linking just on the off-chance sacrifices readability and dilutes the high-value links. The more they stand out among the choices, the more likely a reader to follow it. Presenting huge choice, as marketers have found, is not a good idea. Tony (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking dockyard  is in itself unimportant, although harmless; the justification for it would be that linking magazine, which is not the current primary sense of the word, without linking shipyard, might conceivably be the shift of emphasis which Tony is so worried about above.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for Tony1

message: I added a section called "Intuitiveness" as a sub-section of "Internal links". What do you think about it? A.Z. 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the section seems to conflict with the text of WP:MOSDATE. I've initiated a thread about it here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Z. is indef blocked.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter eggs 

message: <scratches head> On this page, I can't find the MOS guidance/convention which states that links of key importance should be bold, even though the page uses that convention itself, nota bene!
I grepped the talk page archives for the word "bold", but couldn't find a relevant discussion on inclusion or removal. Where did that go, and/or what happened and/or where should I be looking?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of key importance? Some links are bold due to their being menu labels, but I can't think of other examples right now. –Pomte 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, in List of Law & Order characters, active cast members are bolded to differentiate from former. This usage is also sometimes used in sports lists to show winners of matches. MKoltnow 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important links: Bold 

message: It has been stated that this is the best practice. But it doesn't help with fact checking like for links in citations. If the external page goes down, then Internet Archive can be used to find the most recent version regardless of what the date retrieved is. –Pomte 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date retrieved for external links 

message: Dear fellow editors—The idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages. 
The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things. 
Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to formalise the relationship between MOS and its sub-pages 

message: Requesting comments for a new style proposal for wikis listed in the EL section is at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis 

message: Should abbreviated units be linked or not within an infobox. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking of abbreviations 

message: Is there anything in the MoS or in WP in regards to a wikiling that directs readers to another section of the same article? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as well.  I find it annoying -- what do you think of it? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember hearing that the MoS said not to, but I couldn't find it when I read through the MoS. I think we ought to make a clear case that it should not be allowed. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any examples you have in mind? I'm not sure when someone would want to do that, but it's hard for me to imagine it really being an issue. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue where someone said the MoS was against wikilinking within an article was a while ago; I've forgotten what the article or problem was. Recently, in the SFO article, someone made a wikilink to the next subsection, arguing it was necessary or readers could get lost, but people can easily scroll if they feel the need to, and there is a table of contents at the top of the page. It also then reaches the point where if people start feeling that wikilinking to locations within the same article is necessary, then it'll be an overabundance of links; a lot of people already over-wikilink as is. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking within an article? 

message: I have taken the liberty of moving this topic to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Intuitiveness_and_year_by_subject_pages because of the cross-over with discussions there and that is the more active of the two pages. I hope nobody minds. Lightmouse (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intuitiveness and year by subject pages 

message: I was working on the Ian Stewart article and was surprised by the external link regarding his work on coupled oscillators in the Biography section. I had a feeling that external links were usually inserted as references, and only links within Wikipedia are inserted as inline text (perhaps because the few articles I have been focusing on seem to do that). Is that the convention? If not, are external links distinguished from internal ones in any recommended way, or is it standard style not to distinguish them? DiderotWasRight (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, that's what that little icon I didn't notice after the link is for, right? Duh. DiderotWasRight (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should external links be distinguished from internal links somehow? 

message: Is it possible to add a bracket ] inside a link name (so it does not close the link)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knakts (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bracket in link name 

message: I haven't seen any comments about which is preferred for a "See also" section—using a piped link to hide the Category namespace name, or not:
* :Category:Lists of people
* Lists of people
I think the second item looks cleaner, but it hides the fact that the link is to a category and not a list article as one might think.  Is there any MOS guideline for this situation? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to categories 

message: user:Beeblbrox has proposed to get rid of all red links as a matter of policy.  That is directly contrary to Wikipedia policies and the whole spirit of Wikipedia.  I was quite shocked to find someone unaware of this.  Getting rid of good red links is destructive.  Please help this user: user talk:Beeblbrox. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we should modify the policy.. red links means that the article may need to be created. I believe the reason for that specific term is linked is to be created.. although I never write anything on an article with a link to a non-existing article. --staka (T ・C) 00:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Michael Hardy as to the destructiveness of proposals to remove redlinks as policy.  It's not even like they are a neutral; red links are an overwhelming net gain for Wikipedia.  Ford MF (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  user:Beeblbrox wants to get rid of all red links 

message: What level of wikifying is expected for a great article. If an article contains a word that is very rare would you expect the article to wikify the word so the reader could understand what it means?
If further more the rare word had no article on wikipedia to explain it, what should happen? Should it be redlinked, left without being wikified or something else? SunCreator (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the word is specifically relevant to the topic of the article, then a link makes sense. If the word is simply an ordinary English word that happens to be uncommon, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and diluting links is unhelpful. Note that some "rare" words may not be so rare to many speakers; and that other "common" words might be considered "rare" by a non-native speaker, or by people who don't read books. Also, it is possible that the rare word may be inappropriate in the article, a more common word might be better; "portmanteau" is a good example: somehow this word is inserted all over Wikipedia--and then linked because few readers know what it means, or because whoever added it is goofing off--when the word is not even used accurately and a word like "combination" or "blend" suits the purpose more understandably and accurately: the rare word was in fact bad. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to link to wiktionary when you want to point people to the definition of a word like portmanteau. The link should show up a slightly lighter blue. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying a rare word? 

message: Should text within articles have links to non-articles? An example of what I'm asking about is in Hiroshima#Transportation: "... two are still in operation as of July 2006 (Hiroden Numbers 651 and 652)." In the article, the text "Hiroden Numbers 651 and 652" is a link to the image file. The brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links)#Links to categories shows an example of a link to a category, not in running text but in a "See also" section. Does anyone have opinions about when and where links from articles to non-articles are appropriate, or what sorts or purposes are good or bad? Fg2 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me as an alternative to putting too many images on the article, while still directing a specific image to a specific portion of the article (rather than a Commons gallery, etc). -- Ned Scott 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links to non-articles 

message: What's the rationale behind thoroughly WL every date that appears in an article?  I understand why, for example, it would be good to WL Einstein's birth and death dates but I don't know what purpose is served by WL every date that appears in the article about him.  The "what links here" feature is almost unusable with indiscriminate linking of dates, more helpful WL become lost articles where every word is a wl, and I find it difficult to believe anybody ever really clicks them.  I don't go to an article on Einstein and find myself suddenly curious what events happened to fall on the same day that he visited New York for the first time or his divorce papers became final.  We're even wl "retrieved on" dates for external links in article references.  This obsessive date linking mystifies me.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose is unrelated to linking. It's a formatting tool. Linking the day-date and the year results in displaying the complete date in the format the user sets in his or her preferences. This should probably be a template or some other formatting device, but it's now in a couple of million articles along with other relics of the earliest days of Wikipedia such as the words "move" ("to rename an article") and "stub." Fg2 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Now I see.  It would be better to use a template, and maybe a bot could do the monster clean-up job.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this issue, Professor. Full date autoformatting is a different concept from that of linking, but unfortunately was set up technically to use the same coding and display as linking. This is one reason that autoformatting is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). The other major reason (apart from a list of other technical inadequacies) is that autoformatting doesn't work for the vast majority of readers, who are not registered users and have not chosen a date "preference". There is an increasing feeling that the differences between the two major formats (and the apparently disliked ISO format) is about as trivial as the US/UK spelling differences that we've learned to manage and accept on WP. The within-article rule applies for date formats, whether autoformatted or not. Note that almost all readers see inconsistencies that are hidden from WP editors by the autoformatting mechanism. Tony (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinked dates 

message: I'm not sure if this is already part of the policy or a guideline, but I'd like to suggest that, while normally only the first occurance of a term should be wikilinked, sometimes it makes a great deal of sense to subsequently link; and there are a couple of situations where it is common.
One is when you have, for example, a film or TV show. The header might say "Title is a 1928 movie starring Actor and Actress", with the two names wikilinked. However, it seems obvious that it is ideal to also wikilink the actors names in a listing or table of cast, or a subsection on cast, so that links to all of the cast are together. Similarly, an article about a music album might mention specific songs in the lead or history section, but should still include a link in the track list/table. Basically, I would say that it should be noted that even when a term is linked in an article, it should be re-linked when included in a list or table within the article. I give media examples, but it can occur anywhere (a list of cabinet ministers in an article about a state leader, for example).
The second example that I see when there is an article that, in a way, discusses more than one subject (for example, if there is a TV series article that covers more than one revival or version of the show, it makes sense to re-link in the section on the second version/revival, as people may start reading about that section and not realize that the people involved have already been mentioned as associated with the first version (or might start reading only about the 2nd version). TheHYPO (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're proposing is, as far as I know, pretty much the common practice already, although I'm not sure whether the change should be made to MOSLINK, WP:CONTEXT, or both.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already covered in WP:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: "this is usually on the first occurrence of the term, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may jump directly, either within the article or via a section-link from another article."There used to be a more encouraging and explicit (albeit awkward) guideline: "Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page."AmaltheaTalk 10:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking? 

message: I haven't seen a MOS guideline that either permits or discourages interwiki links.  I'm specifically thinking of instances where the native language name of something is linked to the article in that language's wiki.  For example:
:... Munich (München) ...
Should there be a note about interwiki links like that from the main article prose or table text? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the German-WP article should be arrived at through the Eng.WP link (via the side-bar). Tony (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Tony. I can't think of an instance where a language interwiki link is appropriate in the prose of an article. In particular I'd find linking the native München in the LEAD of Munich to be very unexpected, and unnecessary. --AmaltheaTalk 10:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't it be great to have a Interwiki link go green (or another color other than red) when, in the language being written, there is no link in this language available, but in another there is? The link would then go to a page listing all the various languages available for this topic. eg. I'm writing about New York and I list a musician who worked there for a while but who spent most of his life in Mexico. As he spent most of his working life in Mexico there is only an article on him in spanish, which, unfortunately doesn't show up as a blue link when I'm writing in English. I've tried adding normal links but they get removed by others higher up. In some of my articles this has happened several times. German musicians, because they emigrated to the USA, sometimes only have biographies in English. How do I get this information on a German page?  --Ebrownless (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I sometimes stick interwiki links into disambiguation pages where one of the disambiguating terms (usually a person) is a redlink here, but there is an article on another Wikipedia. Sort of a lazy placeholder pointing people to an article that could be translated at some future point, and to flag the other article up for those who (a) write the stub and will want to know about this in order to add it to their stub, and (b) think that no article is necessary for the person in question (the link showing that an article exists on another Wikipedia language version usually makes people stop and think again). Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not common practice, but I can see where it would be useful.  If you think it would improve the article, then do it. WP:IAR.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links? 

message: In the manual of style, I found this:
:Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source, though either form is acceptable for possessive forms of links such as George Washington's or George Washington's.
We have discussed such things before (here and here), but I disagree with this solution. It makes things inconsistent. As before, I argue that allowing links such as "William Shatner's toupee" causes a visual ambiguity: are we talking about a person named William Shatner, or a place, like a café, called William Shatner's? Of course, the context resolves the ambiguity, but my eyes still parse "William Shatner's" such that the 's is a part of the noun, which is jarring. I know that before it has been argued that it's similar to how links like bananas shows up the same as bananas, but in that case the effect of leaving the S outside the link would be more jarring since there is no punctuation to break it up, so I don't think the analogy really works. Considering that, on top of all this, my way is also the easiest one to write in code, I think we should just stick to this rule. If consensus disagrees, we should probably stick to the other rule, because otherwise whether or not the 's appears in the link is significant or not becomes essentially random, which I think is silly.
Also, I remember at one point Wikipedia's software enforced the other rule, such that William Shatner's still put the 's inside the link, but this was quickly undone. What was the deal with that? Was there a software problem, or did somebody think it was just a bad idea? - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the first option.  "George Washington's" makes it clear that you are going to the article on George Washington. George Washington's could be a pub.  As Furrykef says, the context should make it clear, but it shouldn't really need to.  We should be fitting wikicode around the writing, not the other way around.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody's going to contest this, then I think I should put it in the MoS. I know it's better to establish consensus first, but if nobody's going to debate the matter, nothing's going to get done otherwise. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer the "'s" inside bracets. Similar to a way you would put link a whole phrase when appropriate rather than stopping part way through, the same should be applied here, but even moreso. the "'s" is a part of the word.Jinnai (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jinnai.  Plus, there was no consensus for the change made by furrykef.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there wasn't, but how can we develop consensus in any direction if nobody cares? Nobody spoke up (except for one person who agreed with me) until I threw my hands up and made the change. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See? Now nobody cares again. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive apostrophes revisited 

message: I've commented out some text in the "Overlinking" section regarding "commonly known" nations, etc:"The names of geographical locations that are likely to be well-known to English-speakers should generally not be linked where, in the context, they are unlikely to be confused with other locations of the same name, and the linked article would not specifically add to readers' understanding of the topic at hand—this includes the names of: countries such as United States, UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India, Russia, China, Germany, France and Italy, and the associated demonyms; major cities such as New York City, London, Moscow and Paris; the continents and the major oceans and seas; commonly known languages, particularly English; large-scale historical events (World War II); familiar astronomical objects (Earth, Moon, Sun); as well as common "dictionary" words."It was added back in July, and is being used as justification for the removal of said links, but I see no discussion of it here. I've also seen some opposition to the removal of these links from articles, so... thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is a direct copy from WP:CONTEXT, which is the controlling guideline on things like that.  If you think it should be changed, take it up at the talk page there.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm glad you pointed that one out. From what I can tell, the text was first added here on July 4th. 21 hours after that post, it was added to WP:CONTEXT with the description "Pasting in bit from MOS (links)". In fact, CONTEXT's "What generally should be linked" section was rewritten that evening to change from:"Geographic place names, since many places have similar names, and many readers may be from a distant place."to:"Geographic place names that are unlikely to be well-known to English-speakers"Again, after that change, the text from MoS (links) was copied to CONTEXT's "What generally should not be linked" section. I don't see a consensus here or there for what is, effectively, a reversal of that part of the guideline; if there is, apologies, but it isn't apparent. --Ckatzchatspy 07:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is truly bizarre and contradictory.  My advice: be bold and revert those sentences (in both guidelines) back to the original if you feel that's the way it should read.  If no one says anything, then we're good.  If there are any objections, then we have an opportunity to have a real discussion on it and find out where consensus lies.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording is now unsatisfactory, and will need to be changed when we sort out the wording out CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to "Overlinking" section 

message: I frequently come upon consecutive linked words, most often where the first term is to the far more directly relevant term while the second one goes to a parent article. The most recent example and the reason I'm finally posting here was from Gamma Cassiopeiae, where the consecutive words Cassiopeia constellation were linked to Cassiopeia (constellation) and constellation, respectively. I changed the link, as I sometimes do when I come across examples like this to one unified piped link to Cassiopeia constellation.
Personally, I regard such consecutive word links to be highly confusing, especially for non-editors who may not even realise that there are two different links. I also know that sometimes, linking from consecutive words can hardly be avoided. But imho the MOS should state that such links should be avoided wherever possible. Everyme 23:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does state this. Third bullet in "Overlinking and underlinking". Tony (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Ahm. Right. Sorry & nevermind. Everyme 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if there's any aesthetically unobjectionable way to make it clear that the two links are not connected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that in cases where consecutive links are valid, it is more or less obvious that they are different links. The main problem comes with things like my example, when the two links are closely related, most often in a subtopic-parent topic way. Everyme 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  different links in consecutive words 

message: As recently discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_55#Redundant guidelines, there are 4 different pages giving 4 different sets of advice on what to link: Wikipedia:Build the web, Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Wikipedia doesn't use Allwiki and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).  I remember Aervanath was working on this a while ago, and I'm glad to see that some progress has been made: User:Mr.Z-man recently demoted WP:ALLWIKI.  But we're not home yet; I see that WP:BUILD still has sentences like this one: "George Washington should be linked to from President of the United States".  It is very uncommon for a page on a particular public office to link to all the individuals who have been holders of that office.  The style guidelines have ignored WP:BUILD and WP:ALLWIKI for a long time, and it looks like further work and negotiation is going to have to happen if we want to start linking to WP:BUILD.  Better yet, it's probably time to get rid of at least one of the 3 remaining pages, and maybe 2 of them. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed there's some relevant discussion over at WT:CONTEXT; I'll move my thoughts over there, and bring in the chat from WP:VPP, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong with linking George Washington from President of the United States. He was the first and probably the most famous president, wasn't he? Whether every president should be listed in that article or only in the "List of..." is a different question. --Itub (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware when I wrote this that there was already a thread on merging and linking among the (now 3) relevant pages ... I'll answer over at WT:CONTEXT. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Build the web 

message: I'm looking at Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking, but there is nothing in that section on underlinking or how to avoid it. Should there be? No mention of what underlinking is on the whole page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet, while I have at least attempted to provide evidence to you, you have made no attempt to provide evidence to me.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlinking not explained 

message: Would there be any interest in noting on this page that one way to add links of secondary interest is to move "editorial aside" comments to a footnote and link to the articles there. i.e. instead of putting an aside in brackets, put it in a note at the bottom of the article instead. See here for the original post. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving links to footnotes 

message: For anyone who hasn't yet seen it so far, there's an RFC currently open at WT:MOSNUM on whether dates of birth and death in the first sentence of a biography article should be linked or not.
This is an issue that has recently come to a head, with the new deprecation of date auto-formatting, and recent bot-driven de-linking sprees.  Jheald (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To correct this blatant POV, read "effort" instead of "spree". Dishonest language will get you nowhere, Jheald. Tony (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC now open on linking dates of birth and death 

message: Hi, in MOS:LINK under the "Internal links" section, it states: "Do not link items in the title or headings.".  Does this apply to Templates such as Template:Anglican Cathedrals in the British_Isles as well, or only to article titles and headings.  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it refers to section headings. I'd think that most navbox headings should contain a link to the main article, e.g.  or . In  however there appears to be no such main article, so I would not link Anglican or British Isles there. --AmaltheaTalk 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "Do not link items in the title or headings" confuses me though. How can I link an item in a title? --AmaltheaTalk 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it really means "in the repetition of the title in bold text in the lead of the article", but that's a little cumbersome.  David Underdown (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Amalthea and David Underdown have stated the consensus view quite capably, HighKing.  While I'm not aware of any specific policy or guideline that addresses the issue, current practice certainly follows what they've said.  Anything else you'd like cleared up?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now I'm confused... Amalthea says not to link.  David doesn't say here, but on the template Talk page he says that linking is OK.  So which?  Is there a policy?  Links in template headings or not?  Thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amalthea is only saying not to link in cases where the title of the template is not also the title of an article. While I doubt this is written in policy anywhere, it makes sense to me.  So, since there is no Anglican Cathedrals in the British Isles article, I would not link that in the template heading.  However, to answer what I think is your underlying question: There is no specifically written policy or guideline for linking templates and headers in templates. Still confused?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. This means you should be bold and design it as you think best.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about internal links in Template titles 

message: It's strange that there's no lead. This is an initial draft. Does anyone have ideas on how it can be improved?
Wikilinking is one of the most important features of Wikipedia. It binds the project together into an interconnected whole, and it suggests closely related and useful pathways between locations both within the project and to external destinations. The four basic types of link—internal and external, piped and unpiped—are explained on this page in terms of their mechanical aspects and the contexts in which they are used.
Tony (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably start with "Linking is ..." instead, as external links are not wikilinks. I think the "four types" part could be improved—it makes it sound like there is such a thing as a piped external link. I also wonder if this page should cover interwiki linking as well. Pagrashtak 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Pagrashtak—that is very helpful; I'd wondered about those things myself. At the Help page (linked to in the first section, these things are explained, although in very technical terms and too much detail for MOSLINK. But yes, I think they should be briefly explained here, and exemplified. I also think that the opening "How to create links" should go further down, when they know what they're creating. It's kind of empty at the moment. Tony (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm not too keen on the "how to" section. It's good advice, but not really a style issue. It seems like a better fit for Wikipedia:How to edit a page, or something along those lines. Let's be honest, by the time an editor is reading a MOS subpage, he already knows how to create and check a link. As for interwiki, this page should include at least a mention of a special type of overlinking that I've employed in this sentence. Pagrashtak 17:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No lead?

message: The sequential points were very strange at one point (save, then fix?). Very messy, unexplained, makes assumptions I can't understand, so our newbies will be totally confused. Does this para refer to piped "Year-in-X" links? If so, they need to be introduced properly in their own subsection. It's strangely informal at the end—"we did a little research and came up with useful info for you" is the implication. I've removed it because it's misleading and confusing. External links are treated under their own section further down. Why here fleetingly??
All of the things that need to be typed in like (film) or (1935 film) or (TV series) or changing the link to avoid redirects can be done right then and there. Wikipedia's charm is diminished when links lead to areas that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Much of what we have mentioned also applies to creating external links ( [  ] ), but we have found very few of these that went somewhere unintended. 
Tony (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening section: "How to create links"

message: This statement can't possibly be what is intended:
These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions.
The implication could be that these are the only places one should link in. Another implication might be that you should probably link in captions and table cells. I think it probably needs to be replaced with something less ambiguous and more helpful. Unsure as yet what to write. Tony (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening to "Internal links"

message: Goodness. I just found (via WP:Red link), the following: Wikipedia:Interlanguage#Inline interlanguage links. It seems there is a school of thought that favours inline interwikilinks. I think the presumption is that people follow the link, see a foreign language, and are inspired to translate it. I think a better approach would be to leave it as a redlink, but have some way of saying to people "X number of articles on this exist in other language: link, link , links" (maybe in a footnote), and to say "please translate one of them for us. Or maybe not. The other point is that some people use a large number of existing redlinks to work out which articles are most "in demand" and to write (or translate) them. Use "what links here on a redlink to see what I mean: e.g. this allowed me to find out that William Henry Lang won the Linnean Medal and worked with Isabel Clifton Cookson. There is a William Lang (US football team coach). An examination of "what links here" for that William Lang shows us that someone has linked a William Lang in John Struthers (poet) - this one is a 19th century printer (could be notable, don't know. As a side point, Tony, what links here for William Lang is polluted with overlinking from a template. Namely, Template:Maryland Terrapins football coach navbox. Use of templates like that is responsible for huge amounts of overlinking. But I've gone way off-topic again. What should be done about inline interlanguage links? Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline interlangauge links 

message: Currently, MOSLINK says:
There is no rule as to whether "See also Train" or "See also train", but consistency is required for multiple links. Linking never forces the use of an initial capital letter, so you can leave the initial letter lower case if you so desire, in the interest of readability.
Um ... I've always corrected examples of the former, since wikilinking was made to be flexible enough to take either upper- or lower-case initial, and it seems wrong not to integrate links into the grammar of their context.
Is there any objection to changing this to encourage editors to use upper or lower case according to which fits the grammar of the context in which the link is used? Tony (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me. I routinely switch between lower and upper case depending on the context, remembering to keep proper nouns capitalised of course. It might be querying what the style should be in a "see also" list in the "See also" sections. Stand-alone lists of links should have capitalised initials, right? But I think that what you quoted was referring to inline links in an article sentence. Or is it referring to "see also" hatlinks? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested on "Capitalization" 

message: Earlier this month, Avearneth added a statement that "many articles suffer from underlinking" (proceeding to balance this by adding "overlinking" to the sentence). I've now made the prose neater and removed the negative "suffer". Apart from this, I've asked for justification of this assertion about underlinking, as has another editor above. I really haven't received a proper answer to this query. Can we have better examples than the list that was previously provided, to support this quite recent addition to the text? Tony (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people mean articles that are not wikified at all. :Category:Articles that need to be wikified (a bad example is The Guild of Cornish Hedgers, a better example is Gregory J. Harbaugh). What I think should be discussed is whether mature articles, considered to be good, are sometimes found to be missing links. Sometimes that is more because the missing text is not there (and so can't be linked). At other times, there may be huge bits of rambling prose with no wikilinks. I think there is a direct reaction opposite to the "sea of blue" reaction, which is to react with horror to a "sea of white" (or whatever colour people see unlinked text as being). Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Another point is that some people, when deciding what to link, indiscriminately link as much as possible (within reason) and preview it (this is what I do), and then examine the context some of the links provide, and remove some, and correct some redlinks, and so on. Eventually, I sit back and look at the article as a whole and see if I've got the balance right. The other approach is to only link stuff that you know we have articles on, and not to link other stuff. When I first started on Wikipedia, there were certain classes of things that it was rare to find articles on. Now, three years later, it is possible to find obscure articles on things you wouldn't have dreamed of being articles back then. I should do a list of really obscure stuff (where the articles are good) to prove this point. One point is that poeple might not think of linking journal articles, or the names of old books (a discussion I've been having elsewhere today, see here). You might expect to have On the Origin of Species, but not everyone would think of linking Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, or De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, or De sphaera mundi, still less Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery, or On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances. You really don't know unless you try. I think both points should be made: look for key points as articles, even if you don't think Wikipedia has an article - you might be surprised. However, even if we have an article, it is not always necessary to link it. Try and get a good spread of possible links, and then winnow them down. Carcharoth (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So Aevernath responds by refusing to provide evidence, and instead demanding evidence from me of "overlinking". I didn't think that was in contention; and it's a "you go first" stance, is it? But you were the editor who recently added the angle about "underlinking". The issue of underlinking, whatever your strategy here, remains undemonstrated. You are the only person I've ever seen to make such a fuss about it, framing it as a major problem. There's an army of WPians I could gather (if I wanted to bother them over what they'd see as a trivial, foregone conclusion) to attest to overlinking. I simply see no evidence that underlinking is a significant problem, and all you've provided is a list of stubs. Stubs are highly likely to lack a lot of things, including proper linking: that doesn't demonstrate that underlinking is this large problem you're suggesting. Tony (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  underlinking 

message: I've also left a note one the WP:OVERLINK talk page. There has been much argument on this, but having read OVERLINK, I find it's almost entirely about over-AND-underlinking, and it's all valuable, but too long to be all crammed into MOSLINK. Thus, it serves as a valuable main article for just the section on over and underlinking in MOSLINK. So I've listed it that way. There are a few bits in OVERLINK to move, but really, that classifies all this info nicely, now. What say you all? SBHarris 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I've just tweaked the link slightly to reflect that "OVERLINK" is a redirect to "Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context". --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of linking there, since that page desperately needs to be merged into this one. Tony (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why so? It's way too long to be merged into here. The MoS links section is fairly short, and really doesn't need to be the size of OVERLINK. And yet OVERLINK has much useful discussion of both under and overlinking. Let it stay as an expansion article on a subset of policy. SBHarris 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OVERLINK]] as a main-article for just the over-underlink section of [[WP:MOSLINK]] 

message: I've removed "suffer", but I haven't yet touched the use of the rather negative terms "overlink" and "underlink" in the title. This area of the MoS is splintered between MOSLINK and CONTEXT, and is a prime reason for rationalisation (specifically, the merging of the latter into the former). What I propose is that this be done without affecting the current substantive balance between over/under taking both pages as a whole. I hope this will avoid political disputes. But the merger needs to involve a rationalisation of the text. 
In particular, I wonder why a Manual of Style has to cast aspersions on articles by starting with this:
Many articles are underlinked or overlinked. An article is likely to be considered underlinked if subjects are not linked that are necessary to the understanding of the article. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:
"Many" is impossible to define, and there are unanswered queries here in relation to the existence of underlinking as a "problem". I note that this angle has only been recently added to MOSLINK by Averneath, and that when asked to justify it, he responds by asking me to provide other evidence.
I think the paragraph above is unnecessary and fails to assist editors. It would be better to simply state what generally should be linked and what generally should not be linked, as CONTEXT does. Tony (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not articles as a whole we are concerned with, it's the appropriateness of particular links. An article may well contain examples of both overlinking and underlinking, and the two issues don't cancel each other out (like the statistician with his feet in hot water and his head in ice, or whatever it was).--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking/underlinking: why the negative angle, why in two locations? 

message: I notice that the shortcut WP:EGG is no longer working. It used to link to the "Intuitiveness" section of this MOS, but I see that section header is gone as it has been merged with other topics. Would someone mind addressing this, either by restoring the header or changing the shortcut redirect? I often use WP:EGG to point other editors towards the consensus on linkn intuitiveness, and I'm sure others do too. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EGG 

message: I'm currently working on a Featured List, (List of ISS spacewalks) and the only issue remaining is that the list does overlink, because every astronaut's name is linked to their page, even if they have been mentioned before. On the suggestion of a reviewer, I am posting here to get input. The issue is that most astronauts have made repeated spacewalks, some were done over a span of years. Most readers looking at this list would be looking for a specific mission where something was done, (and not reading it through from start to finish) and if the names are not linked, because the astronauts had previously done an EVA and had a link far up in the table, the readers would have to scroll or search the list to find that name, to be able to go to their article. 
The same can be said for the links (and the acronyms) for modules, components, laboratories, and other parts of the station, which in the first mention, are spelled out, and linked, but not linked after that. (For instance, the Solar Alpha Rotary Joint (SARJ), which is linked and fully spelled out on first mention, but then years later, causes some major issues and multiple EVAs are done to evaluate and inspect it, and it is simply referred to as SARJ.) It seems that the overlinking guideline, in this case at least, is not the ideal. I would think that linking each mention of the components (or at the very least, once per mission) would be much more helpful to an average reader who may not know what the acronyms mean, or components do. 
As for the astronaut names, it seems that linking them all gives the list a "consistent" look to it, if some were blue, and some black, it would be visually distracting (in my opinion), and that's why I went with linking all names. The compromise would be to link the first mention of each person per mission, so that the most someone would have to scroll would be 5 entries to find the link. I'd appreciate any input, thoughts, or suggestions. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look, and given MOSLINK's explicit exemption of tables from the recommendation against repeat links, I think it's fine. I've replied to that effect at FLC. Tony (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique "overlink" situation - request input 

message: I remember reading somewhere that this was bad form to like part of a word and have the rest unlinked rather than piping it. FE: cars instead of cars. However, I can't seem to find that anymore so I don't know if there was a change. I had figured it would be in this article, but I couldn't find anything. The issue comes up because someone recently editing a link I piped like that.Jinnai (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, I thought I remembered the cars-style linking being encouraged, rather than discouraged, although I couldn't point you to where I'd read that.  Since the final appearance is the same, I don't think the MOS should have a preference either way.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So should I edit it back because that's how it originally was, or leave it? I ask because I know in other areas when there is no preference, the original is what generally goes. FE, British vs. American English.Jinnai (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the AWB general fixes is to routinely convert links of the form cars to cars, which is the recommended method. Perhaps there's some confusion here with the debate over whether possessives should be inside the square backets or not - personally I prefer the look of "John Smith's car" (John Smith's car), but some people prefer John Smith's car (John Smith's car). There was also a debate recently over whether "tetrahalide" should be linked as "tetrahalide" - this doesn't look good and various ways of getting round that were suggested. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember the part about possesives, but I guess policy changed without me knowing it because I remember before something like cars would be changed to cars because it was considered too distracting to a reader when reading a sentance. I also remember that something like Japanese (when refering to the country, not the language) was told to be made into Japanese for similar reasons.Jinnai (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer the look of "John Smith's car" (John Smith's car), over John Smith's car because the output, John Smith's car, looks like it links to an article of what John Smith owns. WRT to cars and cars, the only thing I can find is Help:Link#Wikilinks. Matthewedwards 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with parts of word linked 

message: Could some of the people watching this page give their opinions on the linking done in the 'award citation' quotes at List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry? It is currently a featured list candidate (see here - submitted by someone else, not me), and I pointed out there that links in quotes were only rarely allowed, though I think the links are helpful, and I've said before that the carefully chosen language of the Nobel Foundation is a good example of quotes where links are both: (a) helpful to explain technical stuff; and (b) rife with pitfalls for the unwary who don't realise what the citation is talking about and what the key links should be (simple plain linking without piping is usually very unhelpful). I suggested a separate column called "further reading" from which to add relevant links (my preferred solution, as this makes clearer that the links are from Wikipedia editors, and not us 'speaking for the Nobel Foundation' by suggesting what they meant in their quotes), but that 'separate column' approach doesn't seem like it will catch on anytime soon. So I'm asking here whether the piping of links and the 'easter egg' appearance of some of the links at List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry is helpful or not (despite the easter egg-nature of some of the links). Please, please, before taking a "never link in quotes" or "they are easter eggs" stance, take the time to browse down the list and see whether the links actually work for you and if you learn more about the Nobel Laureates and their work from where the links take you. There is a subsidiary issue of linking to sections vs linking to articles, so if that is a problem please say something. A permalink, in case the article changes drastically, is here. The list before the changes (so people can see what the standard of linking was before my changes) is here. I'll wait a bit for some responses, and then ping two people I recently discussed linking issues with to get their opinion (I'm hoping they watch this page). So, in short, the options for such lists with highly-technical 'citation quotes' seem to be: (a) no links; (b) piped links; (c) links in a separate column; (d) links in footnotes. Any verdict here on which is best, or does it depend on context? Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My preferred format in a case like this would be: "unlinked quote" (See: Unpiped link).  So, not quite (c), but closer to (c) than the others.  The consensus against linking in quotes, as far as I understand it, is pretty strong.  Also, as for linking to sections, you need to be careful of that.  The link from the 2006 award is now broken because the section header was changed in the target article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think that would work well. I prefer a separate column because it avoids things scrunching up in an on-screen layout, or in cases with a long quote, making the quote cell too large vertically. The links at the top of each column send people to notes that would explain how this all works, so if they read those notes, they would be told that the quotes are unlinked and that links to relevant terms mentioned in the quotes (as well as terms not mentioned) are in this other column, right next-door. The point is to leave the quote to stand on its own, but still to provide guidance to readers as to what are the relevant articles. Have the links right after the quote still feels too much like us saying "what they really mean is this...". We are actually  trying to say that (and it is actually easy to source this sort of thing for Nobels - less easy for more obscure stuff), but you do need to keep some distance from the quote to allow it to have its own impact. Speaking of which, an important note I haven't put there yet is that the language of the Nobel citation often uses terms that are now out of date (but were relevant at the time). Two example that spring to mind is "partition chromatography" (a term used in the early history of chromatography but not so much now), and "macromolecule" (a term used for what are now called polymers). The term 'polymer' used to mean something different. The term 'macromolecule' now also means something subtley different. The term 'free radical' has also shifted in meaning slightly as well. So it is, as I said, tricky, but if you stay aware of the pitfalls, it is mostly OK. Oh, the real pain about a separate column is adding in the extra wikicode. Anyway, I'm going to wait for more opinion at the FLC discussion, and more opinions here. I hope Tony and Greg will see this at some point, plus any other MOS regulars. Should I ping WT:MOS or just be patient? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Aervanath, and with your conclusion that it would work well. Yes, the consensus is strong against linking in quotations ... WP holds dear the notion of being as true as possible to our sources. If you want a contrary view, ask PMAnderson, who was very upset about this policy at one stage. But I'll still disagree with him in relation to the issue. Tony (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the list just got promoted to featured status, I don't want to mess with that list much more now, but I think at some point in the not too distant future, something will have to be done about linking from quotes in lists like this, and some clearer guidance provided. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking in quotes for [[List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry]] 

message: There is supposed to be a dispute or proposal or something about the wording of the section on dates. It is alleged to be at WT:MOSNUM, but I can't find it. Please can the editor who insists on having a tag here direct people to the discussion. (I'll alter the tag to point here - please indicate further where people should go to find it. Or else start it here if you want.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal or something 

message: I have started an RFC for a centralized discussion of the issue of linking units in articles.  I arbitrarily chose the talk page of WP:MOSNUM, but I am also leaving notices on as many relevent talk pages as possible to attract centralized attention to this.  See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Centralized discussion for linking of units of measurement.  Please carry on all further discussion at that location. Thanks.  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC started on unit linking 

message: I've hacked out a merged version of WP:MOSLINK, WP:OVERLINK (aka WP:CONTEXT) and WP:BUILD, as we agreed was desirable. It's at WP:Manual of Style (links)/merged. Please comment on that talk page. I know it still needs brushing up, but let me know if I've left out anything major. If there are no objections, I'm planning on substituting it for the current version of this page.--Kotniski (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge ready!