Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Large image links

Can we devise something better for these than "Click here for larger version"? (http://www.w3.org/2001/06tips/noClickHere ) How about "See a larger version"? -- Tarquin 12:26 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

On Rachel Corrie I just used "larger version", which is nice and short :) Martin

Or "See also larger version". Additionally, put the large image on the image description page of the small version, because it is common and intuitive to click the thumbnail itself to get the larger version. See also [1], [2] - Patrick 13:35 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I used to do that, but I was told off - see wikipedia talk:image use policy. Martin

It may be "common and intuitive" but in the case of Wikipedia all images are clickable and only a very few of our images have larger versions. Therefore the user has no idea without clicking the image if that image has a larger version. That is why media links are used in the caption area below images which directly link to the larger versions. Our users should only expect to see image meta data on an images description page unless the caption area below the image in the article says otherwise. BTW, I use "larger image" for the displayed text of media links. "Click here" bugs the hell out of me and I try to avoid using those words. But I must admit that when there is a substantial description on an Image's description page I will often write "Click image for description" (see Saturn (planet)). It would be great if somebody could think of something better to say. --mav

Okay, I see. But it is a bit confusing: normally, the text that pops up at a link describes what you get when you click; so when xxx.jpg pops up you expect an image; may be the pop-up text should be "description of xxx.jpg". - Patrick 00:21 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

That's a very good idea - I suggest you make a feature request. --mav

Well, I just saw a great example of how not to do it, at wasp. :p -- John Owens

let's see if we can't make life easier for ourselves: m:Image pages -- Tarquin 08:51 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Links within headers

Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly.

I put this earlier, rephrasing "They seem to get buried by the bold type.", but is this really so? Normally links are underlined and/or a different color, so bold links can be distinguished from other bold text. Sometimes the words to be linked are not in the text itself, so links in headers can be convenient, avoiding cumbersome duplication. I agree that links in headers must be avoided if they distract from the meaning of the header as a whole, but I like them in headers like "Transportation in Azerbaijan", where they are the two main generalizations of the subject. - Patrick 11:29 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I really dislike links within headers, because I think the bold interferes with the underline and colour change. I prefer to have them as free links in the first sentence. Or, if it's an important link, to use a "Main article" style to really draw attention to it. Martin

I agree. I think really look terrible and should be avoided if at all possible. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My 2c: links in headings are ugly. Avoid where possible, unless all the headings are links in that particular section of the entry. Mixed colour headlines look really amateurish. Tannin

It should usually be possible to write the first sentence of the section to mention the heading. Eg: "== Foo == \n The

were prominent in the bar region...." -- Tarquin 13:14 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

The only think about links in headers like Transportation in Azerbaijan is that presumably you're in either a transportation or azerbizjan article already, and the two conceptions don't need prelimary explanation and don't need to be exclusively linked in the header--the terms will come up in the body text. Another thing that drives me crazy is linking every state from Alabama to Wyoming in an article that divides stuff up by states. Now, I realize these could by mystifying to someone from Wallingford-on-Tyne or Northwest Billabong, but presumably a link to the United States in the explanatory text could clear that up without uglifying the entire page. jengod 20:58, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikifying?

Do I have to put blabla on the See also list when I have wikified the blabla already in the text? --webkid 05:45 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I never do Theresa knott 07:10 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You don't have to. If it's a really important link, you may wish to.

I tend to think we shouldn't, because it's already linked to, and often remove those from see also lists. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:53 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It makes the "also" meaningless; how would it be "also"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikifying (part 2)

When we have an article which has a lot of years in it ( for example the Erich von Manstein article ), do we have to wikify all the years ( of course, I won't wikify one year twice, but there are at least 15 years in this article ). webkid 17:49 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, in my opinion years should only be linked if they are really important to the subject in question. In the Erich von Manstein article, currently only the years of birth and death are linked. One could add a few more, but it certainly sounds like a bad idea to link them all. Just like one does not link every word that might be a Wikipedia article. Andre Engels 13:32, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Articles with only links

Re: "an article with only links is actively discouraged"

I'm sure this has been exhaustively discussed but to me the first step in writing an article is to research information available on the web and make a list of links.

So I did this and put the links on a page.

Unfortunately it seems "actively discouraged" means "people are encouraged to blow it away".

Next time I will keep a copy at home (Duh. Well, there weren't that many, I can find them again).

But supposing I have done a lot of research and collected a lot of relevant links and then I have difficulties actually writing something. Shouldn't I be able to make my collection of links available to others as a starting point? Perhaps I could make a "stub" page which mentions that links are availabe on the "talk" page?

But, you must see that an article with just links is not really an article at all and says near to nothing about what the article should be saying. An article about eggs with just links to eggs sites doesn't say what an egg is, how it is important, and so on.

If you like, add perhaps a 1 to 2 sentence description to start with (a stub), then the links. This way the page becomes instantly functional, and you can help it grow by adding information later (Of course not by blind copy and pasting! :) Dysprosia 06:34, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind this is that something that is linked is already available on the web (and, for instance, already comes up higher on a Google search than a brand-new Wikipedia article). I "blow these away" quite frequently; I wouldn't, however, if the least effort were made. An article consisting of simply a link to another site with an page about George Washington isn't going to cut it; a stub article that said "George Washington was a U.S. president" and then listed a link, I'd leave alone (except of course we already have an article on Washington, that's just a hypothetical example). - Hephaestos 06:38, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Multiple Linking for albums

In the case of albums, especially compilation albums (In this case Echoes, is it considered OK to link out to the same word more than once.

In this case, there are many songs on the album Echoes from identical albums, especially The Wall.

It seems that in this case it would be better because then others won't have to search for another song from that album to get the link, however, another user thinks its better like it currently is (Though notice that on the second disk, for song 9 (Arnold Layne), the album it is from is left as Relics (album)|Relics, and this can be a negatice impact to not linking every song to its appropriate album. -Fizscy46 18:08, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Links to non-existent articles

The following text has been brought over from the Village pump because I think it is a debate worth having here:

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Start of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Why does clicking on red links bring you to the edit page? --Sgeo | Talk 01:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because red links go to pages that don't exist (except when the database is confused). -- Cyrius|✎ 01:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woudn't it be better though to send the user to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adslkjfuwr? -Sgeo | Talk 01:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Or even better, make it a user preference --Sgeo | Talk 01:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think that you [or anyone] wil get used to the red pretty quickly. Don't worry about it and it won't bother you. Carptrash 01:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which leads me to another question: what is the current consensus on red links, anyway? It seems like when I first got here red links for potential article subjects were encouraged as placeholders and a way to draw people into editing and creating articles. More recently I've seen lots of articles "cleaned up" of red links, even when this creates some inconsistency in what is linked and what isn't (such as when some albums but not others by a given group have articles). Of course if an article is created later the implication is that all these articles are now lacking links and have to be located and updated. Jgm 01:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think red links make articles harder to read. I also think it has a negative effect on the reader impression of Wikipedia, just as the text "more detail to be added here" makes the encyclopedia look worse. Well-intentioned editors may believe that other people should write particular articles, but it does not mean that they will. Even if they do, the title may differ. Some people assert that they encourage article writing. It is difficult to find out whether there is any significant net benefit. Having the number of persistent red links that we do seems a high price to pay. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some guidelines: Links to non-existent articles should only be added when the articles in question are supposed to be written. For example, you should not link a person's name unless that person is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Avoid links on things like individual works (books, albums, etc.) unless you are absolutely certain that the work deserves a separate article of its own, and the main article is already well-developed. Also avoid links on minor fictional characters and in general try to synthesize fiction articles as much as reasonably possible.--Eloquence*

See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums. There is not really much consensus on the specific issue of albums, but common practice indicates that major bands get an article per album (rule of thumb: if people who don't like the genre, much less the band, have often heard of them, each album can have an article; particularly major bands who non-afficionados are probably unfamiliar with can also have an article per album). Ultimately, each issue is separate -- no single guideline can work in all subjects at all times. I recommend abundant linking if you are not sure -- after all, if you do not know whether or not a term needs an article or not, it probably needs, if nothing else, a redirect, and a red link makes that more likely. I suppose the only real answer is to do whatever floats your boat until you have become well-enough versed in Wikipedia to decide based on whatever criteria seems most useful; as long as you don't start any edit wars or anything, disagreements can usually be amicably resolved.

I am probably at the other end of the scale to you then. I recommend that a link should not be created unless an article exists. Links to non-existent articles are not helpful to readers, and may make the experience worse. Could we at least have a guideline that within a single article, the number of links to non-existant articles should not usually exceed 5% of the links on the page? Bobblewik  (talk) 20:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of a concise rule on the subject... Tuf-Kat 07:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Surely a red link means that an article is nonexistent as yet and is intended to encourage an editor to create it? A perfectly praiseworthy aim, I would have thought. Dieter Simon 23:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a praiseworthy aim. Having an aim is one thing, it is quite another to assume it has been achieved.

• What is the effect on readability of having too many links (non-existent and live)?
• What is the effect on the impression of the encyclopedia of having 'under construction' artefacts.?
• Are there limits to our willingness to expose all our readers to the unfulfilled ambitions of past editors?
• Are there any guide lines that a current editor can use to remove a link created by a previous editor?
• How many non-existent links are on Wikipedia?
• What is the proportion of non-existent links to live links?
• How long does it take for a non-existent link to become live?
• What is the proportion of non-existent links that do not become live within 6 months (or any other time period) of creation?
• How many articles are created because somebody saw a non-existent link?
• What is the opportunity cost i.e. if an article is created as a result, is it merely diverting editor effort from other useful work?
• Is 95 % of links in a prose article should be live a reasonable guideline to put in the Manual of style.
• Am I the only one that questions the issue?

Perhaps we should take this debate to the Manual of style talk page Bobblewik  (talk) 10:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ End of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

I think the suggestion to make it a user preference is good, but I don't know whether that's feasible.

Maurreen 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't the existence of red links part of the whole wiki-philosophy? I don't want to come across as some kind of crusty old sod, but questions like this tend to incline me to outbursts like "if you don't like red links, go somewhere else where they don't have them". Maybe you'd prefer one of the Wikipedia mirrors where you can't edit the text? --Phil | Talk 14:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

A red link bothers me only when I'm sure no one will ever create the article and it probably shouldn't exist anyway. Some people seem to reflexively link just about any proper noun. On the other hand, I don't agree with a numerical guideline. It would be too restrictive in fields where we're weak, but would allow some garbage links for articles in fields that are well covered. JamesMLane 14:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Phil here. Wikipedia IS a substantially unfinished work in progress. I've been noticing quite a few things being suggested around here lately which are coming from a desire to be more than we are. We're big, but there are large fields in which our coverage is incredibly threadbare.

IMO, red links are hugely encouraging to write articles. I suspect a good many editors write their first article because of a red link -- "What, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on THAT yet?" -- and it's great inspiration for when one is at a loss for what to write about. I note some of those complaining about red links are those who rarely start an article from scratch, preferring to work on existing articles; this may be influencing the opinion. —Morven 04:56, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Morven, a specific example from the John Kerry article -- in Kerry's first campaign for Congress, in 1972, one of his opponents in the primary was a state legislator. Kerry beat him in the primary but lost the general election. So this opponent was a Massachusetts state legislator 30-some years ago and never advanced to the U.S. Congress. He's a red link now, but I don't see much chance he'll ever have an article. That's the kind of red link I'm not inclined to favor. On the other hand, if a subject showing up as a red link would make people gasp at the absence of an article, then I agree completely -- red-link it to inspire/prod someone. JamesMLane 05:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linked Lists

Sometimes I think it is work repeating a link. For instance, Maher Arar contains the text "Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan"; Syria is not linked because it is mentioned further up the article. I would link it. PhilHibbs 14:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've thought about linking, and here are some general criteria I came up with for a good link:

1. The subject being linked should be somewhat unfamiliar to a significant proportion of people who read the article (unlike, say, water, or town). In more specialized articles, there is an even higher standard of such expectations, and obvious concepts within the field (such as vector in math, variable in computer science) should only be linked in the intro, if at all.

   There's already a principle that as the number of links grows, less interesting links should be removed to avoid clutter. PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. A link should only be given more than once if the reader may not have seen the first link, or the new link is in a new context. For example, if a reader might reasonably have skipped the section containing the first link, another link is probably warranted.
3. If the linked article is unfamiliar to most readers and important to the article, it should be briefly summarized in the linking article.
4. Never ever link to an article that describes a completely different concept from the one actually being referred to in the linking article. For example, linked list has nothing to do with this section. Mislinks are worse than no link.

   Agreed, except for disambig, such as "This article is about the animal. For the White Stripes album, see Elephant (album)". PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5. The link text should unambiguously describe the linked article. In particular, no "surprise" or humourous links.

Some of these seem very obvious, but they're broken all the time. Probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but this is the jist of it. I've been occasionally attacked by people who like to dump links throughout an article, often linking to articles completely different from my intended meaning, as well as subjects that are totally obvious (in general) or totally obvious within the field, and often repeatedly. Derrick Coetzee 18:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whilst what you say seems reasonable, I'm not convinced that we need a policy on this. You claim that there are instances where you;ve been attacked by people dumping links throughout an article, though, which suggests it is a problem area. Could you provide examples? jguk 18:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is already a policy about linking the first instance, I'm going to add a suggestion "links may be repeated if it is considered helpful to the reader". PhilHibbs 10:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Multiple links to the same target

The guidelines currently suggest that more than one link to the same target "may be considered" too much if the links are within 40 lines of each other. I think we should distinguish between paragraphs of text, and tables. Paragraphs are usually read from beginning to end, and more than one link to the same target within the same paragraph (or even within the same multi-paragraph section) is unlikely to be useful. However, in tables such as those in List of asteroids (1-1000) or List of Members of the European Parliament 2004-2009, I think it's useful for every cell to be linked. Tables are often searched to find a particular entry of interest, and the reader might easily ignore everything outside the one entry of interest, so it's useful if the entry of interest has links for all the relavant terms, whether of not those same terms are also linked elsewhere in the article. —AlanBarrett 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree as well. Matt 04:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links: bold and italics

I would like to propose that links not have additional character styles applied (such as bold or italics). As a professional technical writer/editor, that has been the convention whenever I have dealt with HTML writing/editing. (Besides, it just looks ugly.) I know that this would go into effect slowly since people learn by imitation, rather than reading the style guide, but I have started making these changes wherever I see them. User:Ksnow

In my opinion, whether or not something is a link should be independent of whether or not it is emboldened or italicised. However, could you provide some links to diffs for edits you have made where you think removing bold or italic markup improved an article? —AlanBarrett 20:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am neutral about what Ksnow suggests about boldfacing, but I strongly oppose what Ksnow suggests regarding italics, which looks terrible in a paragraph that contains both titles that are linked and titles that are unlinked (because they are second or third occurences of a title that has already been linked earlier in the article). There is nothing wrong with "Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea."—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 03:40, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)