Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell:

Provide links that aid navigation and understanding.
Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links.

Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. This practice is known as "overlinking".^[1] A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. (Example: Lucille Ball went to the store; the "Lucille Ball" link, referring to a well-known personality, is, in most contexts, much more valuable than the "the" link.) Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

This guideline is in dynamic tension with the goal of building the web.

What generally should not be linked

It is generally not necessary to link:

Plain English words
Low added-value items when linked without reason—such as, "1995", "1980s", and "20th century".
Subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that should never be created, such as the names of book chapters.
The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)
Individual words when a phrase has its own article. For example, link to "the flag of Tokelau" instead of "the flag of Tokelau". Such a link is more likely to be interesting and helpful to the user, and almost certainly contains links to the more general terms, in this case, "flag" and "Tokelau".
A page that redirects back to the page the link is on. These circular redirects are frustrating to readers.
Words in a disambiguation entry other than to the disambiguation target itself. The general rule is "one link per entry" on a disambiguation page; additional links tend to confuse the reader.
- Similarly, articles generally should not link to disambiguation pages when a page describing the topic in context of the original article is available.
Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, common professions, and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided),^[2]^{[under discussion]} except if they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article.

What generally should be linked

In general, do create links to:

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
References to a page with more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series." Linking items in a list of examples makes them easier to reference as well.
Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article and do not have their own separate article. Sometimes the most appropriate link is an interwiki link to Wiktionary. Consider instead defining technical terms immediately, if this can be worked into the sentence neatly and concisely.
Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker (or users of other varieties of English). If the word would not be translated in context with an ordinary foreign language dictionary, consider linking to an article or Wiktionary entry to help foreign language readers, especially translators. Check the link for disambiguation, and link to the specific item.
Geographic place names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or to have names that are similar to or the same as other place names. Link to the most specific available article, or create a stub or redirect if the place deserves a new article (check similar nearby places for naming conventions and category tags)^[3]

Other considerations

This section is a summary of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Changes to this section should reflect the consensus version of that guideline.

Link density

Aim for a consistent link density. Do not link eight words in one sentence and then none in the rest of the article. The introduction of the article may require modification of this rule. For general interest articles, where the links are of the "see also" or "for more information" type, it may be better to not link in the summary, deferring the link until the term is defined later in the article. Numerous links in the summary of an article may cause users to jump elsewhere rather than read the whole summary. For technical articles, where terms in the summary may be uncommon or unusual, and linking is necessary to facilitate understanding, it is permissible and may even be necessary to have a high link density in the introduction.

Excessive links make an article difficult to read. For example, see this archival version of Mean Red Spiders, as compared to this acceptable version.

Subsections

Linking to subsections can be useful, since it can take the reader immediately to the information that is most focused on the original topic. The format for a subsection link is [[Article#Section|name of link]]. For example, to link to the "Culture" subsection of the Oman article, type [[Oman#Culture|culture of Oman]]. When naming a piped link, think about what the reader will believe the link is about; in this example, the piped section-link should not be named "Oman", because the reader will think that link goes to the general article on Oman.

Quotations

Generally avoid linking items within quotations; instead, place links in the surrounding text of the article wherever possible. Do not link dates inside quotations.

Dates

This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first.

Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic. Articles about other chronological items or related topics are an exception to this guideline.

Links to articles on a topic in a specific chronological period, such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history, may add significantly to readers' understanding of the current topic. It is possible to use piped links to such pages ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but these have the disadvantage that readers do not see where the link is targeted. If an explicit link is provided, preferably in the lead, then it alone can be the gateway for the reader to access the available sibling articles for other years (1998 in South African sport and so on), making multiple links throughout the article unnecessary.

Note that dates should no longer be linked for the purpose of autoformatting, even though such links were previously considered desirable.^[4]

Titles

"As a general rule, do not put links in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or any section title." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles) Use {{main}} and {{seealso}} immediately after the header instead.

Disambiguation pages

"Don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries)

Examples

In the article on supply and demand, you should:

almost certainly link microeconomic theory and general equilibrium as these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight;
consider linking price and goods only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic (a section-link is generally preferable in this case);
not link to the "United States" because that is a very large article with no particular connection to supply and demand.
definitely not link "potato", because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on supply and demand, beyond its arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.

Common words should only be linked where there is a direct relation to the subject at hand:

Do link Friday from the directly related articles Thursday, Friday the 13th, and days of the week.
Don't link to "Friday" as in "Friday, January 1, 1999" from the unrelated article Bowl Championship Series.

Example of overlinking

An extreme example of overlinking can be found at an old version of the article on hyperlinks.

Footnotes

^ Dvorak, John C. (April 2002). "Missing Links". PC Magazine.
^
Examples of common measurements include:
- units of time (millisecond, second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year)
- metric units of mass (milligram, gram, kilogram), length (millimetre, centimetre, metre, kilometre), area (mm², etc.) and volume (millilitre, litre, mm³, etc.)
- imperial and US units such as inch, foot, yard, mile, etc.
- combinations of the above (e.g., m/s, ft/s).
Links may sometimes be helpful where there is ambiguity in the measurement system (such as Troy weight vs Avoirdupois weight) but only if the distinction is relevant. Likewise, in an article on units of measurement or measurement in general, such links can be useful.
^ It is not necessary to link to geographic features that are familiar worldwide, such as continents and prominent countries, except when they are relevant to the topic of the article.
^ This change was made on August 24, 2008, on the basis of this archived discussion, and confirmed in December 2008 by two RfCs: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC.