This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
information regarding links per the MOSInternal linksItems in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").
Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. 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. 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.
Links add to the cohesion by conveniently accessing other article. Therefore, linking to non-existant pages detracts from cohesion and convenience. Reverting to links non-existant is a violation of this policy. IrishLass0128 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You've proven absolutely nothing.►ChrisNelson 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have gotten an admin involved. He will decide. What I've done is add the MOS for links, provided information to what is policy of Wikipedia. An admin will decide further how to handle the issue.IrishLass0128 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
An admin already said you were wrong on my talk page. You clearly don't understand the policy you cite.►ChrisNelson 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the one that I have asked for an explanation. I will wait for him. Oh, I see, AFTER, this page was addressed. That's why there are time stamps. Don't address issues or editors using assumptions. You are supposed to show good faith in working with other editors. You seem to not understand that based on how you have treated this editor.IrishLass0128 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See my talk page. User:B practically proved you were wrong. The end.►ChrisNelson 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You have a misconception of the words good faith. You should try it sometime. Oh, wait, it's a requirement of Wikipedia that you seem to feel exempt to. Check your time stamps on this page. They are helpful in understanding the flow of this discussion. IrishLass0128 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)