Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Label style: inside the brackets?

When styling a label (in [[Main page|label]]), one can add the style code inside or outside the brackets:

inside

[[Main page|''ABC'']] → ABC

[[Main page|<span style="background: pink">DEF</span>]] → DEF

outside

'''[[Main page|GHK]]''' → GHK

<span style="background: pink">[[Main page|LMN]]</span> → LMN

Both options work as expecteed, and no WP:LINTER errors reported. Special:ExpandTemplates does not alter them. My question is: is there a preferred convention in this? DePiep (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In practice, if we're going to have a preferred convention, it should be whatever the visual editor does, because editors using it don't get a choice.

I will point out, as @Jdforrester once pointed out to me, that when you want to write something with mixed formatting, such as [[Main page|OPQ<sub>2</sub>]] or [[Main page|RS''T'']], the formatting must be inside the label. Therefore if one wanted to have a preference, it might be a good idea to prefer the version that always works, rather than preferring the version that only works if the link label gets the same formatting throughout.

This, naturally, is the opposite of what many editors find aesthetically pleasing. I recommend not establishing a preferred convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with WhatamIdoing, except I think it would probably be good to recommend (or at least consistently illustrate) the "inside" style, for the [[Main page|RS''T'']] reason given above, but only if it's what VE does. If VE puts the markup outside by default, then all bets are off and we just have to throw up our hands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The visual editor always puts bold/italics on the inside of the brackets if a piped link is involved: [[This|''That'']] and on the outside if for a simple link: ''[[This]]''. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying the purpose of links

In a discussion on the Salmon chaos page, I was involved in a discussion with @Drmies because I did not understand the purpose of linking. They explained how things should work and I think the page should be edited so that the guidelines reflect these principles and prevent further confusion.

I interpreted this page to mean that pages should be linked if they are relevant (e.g. WP:BUILD's "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"" or the lead's "Whenever writing or editing an article, consider [...] what links to include to help the reader find related information"), but they explained that pages should only be linked if they explain something. Obviously these are very different approaches. I have the immediate suggestions of:

1. Changing OVERLINK to read "We should not link to commonly used words and names, including the names of (current) countries" (etc).

2. Deleting "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"" from WP:BUILD as this is irrelevant.

3. Deleting the first bullet point from UNDERLINK.

4. Generally, changing the guidance on principles and under- and over-linking to emphasize that we should link to specifics about which readers are unlikely to know, regardless of whether or not they help readers understand the page in general.

Does anyone have any further suggestions to help other editors? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the "unless particularly relevant" wording. Sometimes not linking an article just because you wouldn't link it elsewhere doesn't make sense. For example, because it's such a large and significant city, linking New York City is unneeded. But what if it's a topics specifically about the city, like the New York City Subway, or the Government of New York City, or one of the sports teams located there? Not linking the city in that case would be, frankly, dumb. So I'm reverting the changes for now, as no changes should be made while this discussion is just starting. oknazevad (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and letting discussion begin! (I was beginning to worry that nobody else cared...)

I originally felt the same as you, which is why I was confused at de-linking Taiwan from the Salmon chaos article, on the grounds that the place where something happened must be particularly relevant. But Drmies' advice was clear that this is how OL is supposed to work, and two admins, each having 15+ years editing experience, definitely outweighed my knowledge. So all my suggestions above are meant to make this clear rather than to change anything. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is no list of places that should automatically be delinked, and whether or not a place is relevant depends on the subject of the article. Also, admins may be veteran editors, but they don't all agree on everything, and no one admin's interpretation is necessarily definitive. Which is why discussion is important. Especially when editing guidelines that have been hashed out over the decades. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are completely right, and I have done my best to discuss this - it is difficult to do without other editors' input. However, the guidelines clearly need clarifying (not changing) if they are as unclear as they seem to be. The alternative is bizarre.

Anyway, what do you think about changing the OL part to something like "should not be linked unless intrinsically relevant, e.g Government of New York City to New York City"? Hope you don't mind me borrowing your example - it's a good point!

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change MOS:OL, as it already contains the qualification that terms can still be linked if they're particularly relevant to the context in the article. As for the bigger question, it's a good idea to be parsimonious with links, but as the guidelines make clear, linking isn't only done for unfamiliar words. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, if they're not going to stand by their changes, I suppose that's that. No need for further discussion. Thanks to you and oknazvad. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur with oknazevad's objection. I also object to removing "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article". It is not irrelevant at all, but precisely the kind of judgment we use on a daily basis in determining what to link. Actually, I just oppose this entire revision proposal until we can see side by side (or, more probably, above and below) text to compare.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

DL, sections, and mobile readers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to challenge the assertion in MOS:DL read from top to bottom like a regular article.

I saw a lot of people state during the recent Vector 2022 RFCs that they don't read Wikipedia articles the way they read a novel, and that they come here for some specific information on a topic rather than reading the whole article top to bottom. On mobile, sections are collapsed by default, so it's actually super inconvenient to encounter some term that has been linked once somewhere above in the article, and now I have to expand all the sections individually and hunt for where it was initially mentioned and linked.

Another negative experience I've had due to application of this policy is encountering a term in the context where it first becomes interesting enough to check out on its own, but again it's been mentioned in passing somewhere above, and I have to go find the first instance to follow the wikilink. I'll also add that when a list of related topics are introduced somewhere in an article, and exactly one isn't wikilinked because it's been mentioned already, it looks unattractive.

What I'm wondering is if we can loosen the guidance in the DL section to ...may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead in a section. This should help accomodate mobile readers, as well as desktop readers who click anchor links from the TOC instead of reading the entire article. Folly Mox (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd be happy relaxing the rule from once per article to once per section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given by Folly Mox. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support also, because one-per-section is closer to actual practice, especially in long and complex articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons outlined by Folly Mox, which basically make the links more accessible. It would also help in the specific case when someone's name is first mentioned in passing and then in the next section that person is the subject. Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This could mean that we end up having a terms linked multiple times in a long article (7 or 8 times, possibly more) and possibly fairly close together, if at the end of one section and the top of another. I know common sense would dictate against that, but common sense isn't that common and often doesn't make sense. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment -- common sense should prevail; I think the current practice permits more than one mention in the main body in long and complex articles, for instance in a detailed composer article it seems logical to allow the same term to be linked in both "life" and "works" sections, OTOH it seems excessive to link a term in one short section and then again in the next section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above – good change IMO. J947 † ^edits 10:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems a sensible change, and of particular benefit in longer articles. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above.  Stepho  talk  11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, especially on mobile. It's also useful when Google directly links to a specific section with highlighted text (with the `#:~:text=` location hash in the URL). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's about time that someone brought this up! Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support As long as it is discretionary. I would hate to have to reintroduce and re-link every person mentioned in a bio every section.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support; when writing lengthy articles, I've often felt more links would have aided the reader even if they had been reading top to bottom. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose For now, per Ian Rose. But establishing something in the MOS about more links on longer articles is something I could get behind. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support In lengthy articles, some things, people, and concepts may be mentioned in multiple contexts considerably removed from one another. Sinking of the Titanic is a good example—several individuals (e.g. J. Bruce Ismay, John Jacob Astor IV, and Benjamin Guggenheim) are mentioned early on and then again much later. Repeating the links at these later instances is helpful to readers, not harmful. It is especially helpful to readers who have skipped the earlier sections and gone straight to the sections they are interested in. Linking once a section is probably a bit excessive in many cases—obviously depending on section length—but it is a decent rule of thumb (my personal rule of thumb is one thousand words). TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support if we also provide guidance on excessive linking. Linking is one of the newcomer tasks; tagging an article (or section) as requiring more links adds it to the list of articles for improvement on the Newcomers Homepage. The outcome can be dispiriting for those new editors, as they see their helpful attempts reverted as overlinking. If we state that repeat linking is acceptable because not everyone will read the article sections above, we should advise or warn there and then, in the same paragraph or even sentence because not everyone will read the MOS sections above, that it's not helpful to repeat every link at every opportunity and provide some guidance. We can't simply rely on common sense; that's learnt from advice and experience. If we do so guide/advise/warn, then this is a sensible, realistic and helpful proposal, even overdue, but if we don't then oppose. NebY (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support This is necessary in the era where the absolute majority of Wikipedia views are on mobile. Articles that follow current MOS linkage guidance are actively inaccessible to mobile readers; the MOS is concerned with accessibility and approachability in many areas, but falters on this. Even for desktop readers, it's not always trivial to figure out when an arcane concept was introduced (particularly for less technically competent readers who haven't figured out ctrl+f et al; keep in mind average tech literacy is shockingly low). This is compounded by long articles, articles on jargon-heavy subjects, long articles on jargon-heavy subjects, etc. I've supported this for quite a while and used it as practice already, MOS violation as it was -- but hopefully won't be for much longer. Vaticidalprophet 00:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. In mobile and desktop, readers looking for specific information especially are faced with this issue. Having no wikilinks to important topics that were previously-linked can be a hindrance to the accessibility and convenience of how the information is presented. As with everything, it should be applied with common sense. I think it should note that this is generally best suited for long articles (a short, two-section article wouldn't need it), and that linking every previously-linked term in every section just because it can be isn't beneficial. The contextual value of linking something in any given section should be considered, which is often obvious. Lapadite (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Would this trickle over to MOS:SURNAME, where we would mention the full name of people in each section?—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't see that as a necessity: if I can click on the person's surname to find out who they were, I could do without their full name, and it might actually be a nice indicator that the person in question appeared already in the article. That's something I hadn't thought of when I opened this discussion though; it might be a good follow-up at that talk page if this passes. Folly Mox (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mobile and long articles I see two arguments for more re-linking: mobile and long articles. For phone view, all sections are collapsed (not so on my tablet). Someone jumping to a section, might miss an earlier link, thus the proposal to link once per section. However, this doesnt apply for subsections (e.g. 2.1, 3.1.2, etc), which are all viewable once its respective top-level section is uncollapsed. Does that mean this linking change generally applies to top-level sections and not subsections i.e. ink once per section, but not once every subsection. If so, this might also address some who had concern that there might be excessive linking if sections were (too) short.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording change I initially proposed was as smol as possible, to avoid proxility in the already formidable MOS, but I always had level 2 subheadings (the collapsey sort) in mind with the term "section". I suppose this could be explicated in prose or footnote. Anything deeplier nested than level 2 can't be collapsed, so appropriate links should always be identifiable by scrolling up and down. Tangentially, browsers tend not to search within collapsed sections, so even if using the browser's search function, you still have to manually expand all the sections for it to work properly. Folly Mox (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing note

The link in the edit summary for this edit should have been to wp:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Sorry about that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Linking New York City

Hi. An editor keeps on doing this, across the project. I've discussed this with him, and pointed him to wp:overlink. To no avail. Suggestions? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:ACA0:80D5:F00F:2AA1 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)