Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Questions re delinking

Further to the most recent blow up of this on the Queen (band) page, I thought I’d spend a bit of time putting together some questions and actually get some answers. The general ones are mostly - with some additions - on points that I and others have raised on many occasions, but that I have never seen properly addressed. The more specific ones are just a couple of examples I’ve dug out from a couple of scans of recent changes, which either highlight some of general issues, or which raise their own, more specific questions. Without wishing to dictate how others format their responses on a talk page, perhaps it would be easiest for people to add any comments under each individual question/point -

General points

• wp:link explicitly says: “Provide links that aid navigation and understanding”. That is, aiding navigation is a defined aim of linking, as well as it having some kind of pedagogic function.

• It also explicitly says: “Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers”. That is, a simple assertion by a couple of editors that a link is “not useful”, whether generally, on any page, or in a specific context, should not by itself suffice to sanction delinking the term.

• It also qualifies the suggestion to “avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions”, with the qualification/exception: “Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article”. Yes, linking “France” every time it appears in every article would lead to thousands of somewhat pointless links. But does that mean it should never be linked, even in articles about things from France?

• Given the above, where is the consensus that terms such as “France”, “sitcom” etc need to be stripped from every article, even from infoboxes, whether by script or other automated process, or by manual intervention? Where, furthermore, is the consensus as to which of these terms are to be stripped? It seems to me that people running these removals are applying different criteria. Hence the process is rigid, arbitrary and inconsistent all at the same time.

• Why does the presence of a link to say “London” then require the removal of the separate link to “England”, where the text includes both terms, as in “London, England”. They direct to different pages. Yes, London is in England, and people could go to the London page, and then on to England, but why reduce navigability and push people through this convoluted loop when there’s no need to?

• Why remove links on the basis that “people know what/where” something is? First, at what point and on what basis do you decide when something is well-known enough – Sydney, but not Brisbane? Secondly, even if there could be some form of objective standard on this, so what anyway – I know what/where Darwin is, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to read the WP page on it, getting there from a related page.

• What exactly is the “dilution” or “distraction” point? People can see the links, and decide whether they wish to go from the WP page covering the current topic to the WP page covering the related topic or not. How are they being distracted from looking at “better” links? And on what basis are we asserting that some links are uniformly – in all circumstances and for all readers – “better” anyway?

• How does the “readability” point – such as it applies at all – apply to infoboxes and lists? They are not prose.

Specific recent examples

• This edit to a page about a (rather tired) BBC sitcom removed, for example, the links to “sitcom” and “BBC One” - but not for example the links to pages about the other channels that the programme has been repeated on. These links are surely relevant, and in the case of the link to the page on the original broadcaster, BBC One, surely more relevant than the links to other channels. Isn't their removal somewhat arbitrary?

• This edit, on a “List” page, removed the links to some cities – eg Paris, Moscow – but not others, such as Brussels. What benefit is there here? Again, on what basis is this arbitrary distinction being drawn?

• Here, for example, the links to “pop music” have been removed, but the links to “country music” retained. She is best known as a singer – but we’ve also lost the link to that generic page, while keeping the link to the “political activist” page, something that is of secondary relevance. This makes no sense, surely, as well as again being totally arbitrary?

• Here, where is the rule that says we should not link nationality, as asserted in the edit summary? Personally, I’m unsure whether such links are needed, but there is always arguably the option of linking to the relevant “people” article, eg "British People" rather than simply UK, or even to a more focused link on say, in this case, “Politics of the United Kingdom”.

OK, essay/questionnaire done. N-HH talk/edits 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: more recent examples of poor delinking

• This manual edit on the Rugby football page removed links to the page that covers Football (in the widest sense, not "soccer") and to the United Kingdom, the country where the game was invented. When discussing where the game is played, it also removed the link to Portugal, while keeping the adjacent link to Romania (I later replaced all these and other links with links to the pages on rugby in each of these places); the same for New South Wales and Queensland - all completely arbitrary and inconsistent and not seemingly based on any fair reading of any style guidelines. Equally it left in place multiple repeat links to Rugby school and Rugby Sevens.
  • I can live with most of the relinkings, except for United Kingdom (what in that article aids readers' understanding of rugby? All they need to know is that the sport originated there). I also removed links to basic grade-school level terms such as "alcoholic beverage" (deceptively piped to "drinking") and "social class" (pointless when you have more specific terms, "upper class" and "middle class" linked in the same section). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the country-name links have been vastly improved by N-HH in his piping them to "Rugby union in ..." pages (although will the reader know this? I'm trying to think of a way to make it more obvious). I have no objection to links to relevant things in a country. The link to the UK is an unfortunate example of the old way of doing it, though. Why not the same piping idea there? Tony (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• This script-based edit to the Dubai page removes links in an infobox to India, the country from where a vast number of expat labourers come from.
  • It is true that many expat Indians go to Dubai (I have several such friends and relatives). However, a reader directed to the article Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin will find on a quick skim of the lead the basic definition of an NRI, which is probably not what they were expecting. I fixed the piped link to lead to the "Middle East" section of the article, which actually mentions NRIs in UAE and may actually be useful to the reader. Lesson: sometimes, improving link specificity can be a viable alternative to delinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• This version of a recent main article, Sydney Newman, had been left with no link in the lead to the BBC, but did have links to other broadcasters where he had worked. Again, arbitrary and inconsistent. There were also no links in the infobox for his profession, even though "TV producer" can hardly be said to be a common occupation.
  • This one I admit is a toss-up; if I had happened upon the article I probably would not have changed a thing. On one hand, the BBC is one of the most well known broadcasters in the world, and "film producer" is a pretty well-known and -understood occupation, so I see why Tony delinked those terms. On the other hand, Newman spent a large chunk of his career at the BBC, and while TV producer is pretty common, it is not as self-explanatory or universally known as author or athlete. While we're here though, I don't think that occupations are automatically qualified for links. As always, whether or not a career should be linked depends on whether readers would actually need to click on them; common terms such as writer or dancer rarely require links (unless you link to more specific career links, such as "romance novelist" or "salsa dancer"), but I would fully expect to see gastroenterologist linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a toss-up. The BBC is a household name all over the world, not just in the English-speaking world. There's even "BBC America". "TV producer" is too much like a dictionary word: what English-speaker doesn't know its meaning? I agree with Dabomb about "gastroenterologist". For those who are interested, I do routinely add links to Signpost articles, and even FA nominations, when I copy-edit them. It goes both ways. Tony (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but again I don't see what that has to do with anything, whether common sense or wp:link. Yes most people probably know what the BBC is, but the BBC page doesn't simply say "national and international UK public broadcaster". It's a long page full of detailed information about the organisation, including, presumably, some detail about the place when Newman was working there. I'm British and know quite a lot about the media, yet if I were to sit down and read it, 90% of it would probably be news to me, and not just because it might be nonsense. Page stats suggest it's been viewed 130,000 times last month. Are these people all stupid? And why would we want to make it more difficult for those people and others like them to reach the page from ones that are clearly relevant/related? Similar points apply - in principle - to TV producer. No WP is not a dictionary - that's precisely the point. And, again, how would we draw the line as to what is a "household name" anyway for the millions of people who come here, from millions of different places and cultures, for millions of different reasons? N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll preface my comments by saying I was extremely annoyed by the patronising tone of the post above. I would merely point out that trotting out page stats like 'the BBC article has been viewed 130,000 times last month' is all good and true, but is pretty meaningless without a detailed analysis of the origin of the hits in an attempt to understand why people are landing there. It is undoubtedly a popular topic in its own right, but it is also widely linked to. Any typical reference section will generally contain at least one link to the BBC. So no, people who click on it are not necessarily stoopid ;-) The plain simple fact is we don't know why; we also don't know how long they stayed, or if they found what they were looking for. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• This edit to the Indigenous Australians page removed links to two out of the six Australian states (plus the ACT) in an infobox, as well as taking out a link to Australia in the first sentence. Why remove Queensland and Western Australia, but keep New South Wales and Victoria? Why take out a link to Australia on a page that even has the word in the title (it has since been replaced, with a slightly better link). That's possibly the most random one I've seen yet. Is anyone going to stand up for this one? N-HH talk/edits 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, only a sample. N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a rare instance where one link to the whole "Australia" article might be reasonable; however, the part you point to has been relinked as "Australian continent", which is probably less offensive to Indigenous people, who might be forgiven for seeing the Australian nation as a cruel, oppressive, destructive phenomenon. The cultural sensitivities are a minefield. As for linking the names of the colonial states, they created borders in the continent that are at loggerheads with traditional Indigenous relationships with the landscape, and perpetrated and supported such evils as the murder, displacement, and cultural destruction of the original owners, starting in the 19th century when there was no Australian nation. The articles on the states (and territories)—which are increasingly regarded as silly and expensive relics of a poorly conceived federation—are written more from the invaders' point of view than is the Australia article. If readers want to see the boundaries to see where these states and territories lie, why not one section-link to the good map of this, in the "States and territories" section of Australia? Tony (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged the continent link was better (and also am aware of the broad political and historical issues you have highlighted). And as for the individual states, for better or worse, they are the current administrative/political divisions. Nor am I sure why you assume that readers only might want to see their boundaries, or why a link to a map would be more helpful. And anyway my point was, why unlink only two? You haven't addressed that, and it is one of the key points in the whole debate, of which this simply serves as but one example - the random consequences, especially in lists/infoboxes, of rigidly removing certain terms without looking at the individual context of each article. N-HH talk/edits 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding btw. I think the general points that come up, from where I'm sitting, are that relevance and navigability are key issues as well, as the guideline states, and can justify linking, even to things that are well known or to pages that might not necessarily directly assist understanding as such; plus that it's difficult to draw lines according to the latter two criteria, given the variety of people who are likely to look at pages here, and that trying to edit links according to them often leads to fairly arbitrary inconsistencies. My preference is to err on the side of keeping a link when there's a close call, unless it's manifestly redundant or trivial. Or, as you suggest, find a better and more direct link. I think it's too easy, as people who might edit here to a lesser or greater extent, to forget that a lot of people who use the site probably come here very infrequently and that navigability does matter. We might use links less, and hence think them less useful, because we've already seen the more obvious pages. Not everyone has. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• The more professional approach being adopted is to provide the minimum number of links that give the best experience for the average reader of an article. Overlinking is rife at WP, and the great work being undertaken now by many editors is to reduce that overlinking. It is a skill to bring out the high-value links that add value to an article, and linking dates and other low value targets diminish the value of links to the reader. If you want to see where we don't want to go, have a look at a few pages on the French Wikipedia.  HWV258.  11:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Par exemple? - Pointillist (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose objectively defining what would constitute the "professional approach", or the "best experience" for the "average reader", and what "add[s] value"? And where did I talk about linking dates anywhere above? I note as well that you have not addressed in any detail any of the substantive points I spent probably far too long posting about above. Making vague noises about "overlinking" - which undoubtedly exists, and should be dealt with - does not give a small self-appointed group the right to impose an incredibly rigid stripping of specific links from hundreds of articles, where those links are often arguably very relevant to the articles in question. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your pejorative language ("impose", "self-appointed", "incredibly rigid", "stripping") is unnecessarily combative. I have spent a lot of time conversing with you, so I thought it prudent to give others a chance. I'll leave you with one thought: the foundations laid by the current work will benefit the long-termed perception and value of WP—and that is the only outcome desired by the editors involved.  HWV258.  22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is simply descriptive, and that is what it is intended to be. The only word that could possibly be seen, in addition, as mildly pejorative is the term "self-appointed". Someone who writes in these combative terms about vanquishing their rivals is probably in more trouble when it comes to their language. Anyway, I would rather others commented as well, but I also want answers to simple questions from those who keep avoiding answering them in any detailed way. We know we disagree - you think these changes are of benefit, I and others query whether that is always the case. With the examples I cited above, those questions seem very reasonable. N-HH talk/edits 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nick HH, you say "Why does the presence of a link to say “London” then require the removal of the separate link to “England”". Try Carnaby Street, Soho, London, United Kingdom, Western Europe, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way, Universe. I think the first one as a link is quite enough, don't you? That target includes ample geographical links itself ("chain" links).
• Yes, they do "aid navigation", but they come at a cost that needs to be balanced. Just as editors are charged with making calls on matters of prose and style (within the style-guide frameworks), so they are expected to think about the readership when they link. Prose is rarely perfect on WP, and sometimes the boundary between linked and not-linked cities isn't either. You could make that issue go away by linking no cities at all, or every city. The trend is definitely away from carpet linking, because people realise wikilinking needs to be rationed intelligently to be optimised.
• "I know what/where Darwin is, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to read the WP page on it, getting there from a related page." Type it into the search box, then. Do you really think our readers click on many links at all? Naaaaah. Let's get real about it: webmasters and psychologists tell us that surprisingly little link-clicking goes on in contexts such as WP articles. Ask User:Piano non troppo, an ex-professional webmaster himself, who dealt with such issues in the corporate sector. It was his job to know. Ask a fundamental perceptual psychologist such as User:Holcombea, who knows about signal-to-noise ratio. Look at the robust research findings by marketing academics over the past six to eight years that indicate the reduction in functional behaviour by consumers when they are presented with more than a certain amount of choice (surprisingly little, actually). And then ask a reading psychologist like me whether the linking density you encounter in many articles on en.WP—and in most of the other WPs—is helping or hindering our readers.
• If you want everything linked, go lobby developers at WikiMedia to introduce total linking of every item, highlighted only when the cursor hovers over it. This is not a bad idea: the latest version of the Encarta desktop dictionary—the one that comes on every Mac—does this. But the big loss would be our ability to use our knowledge and skills to show readers which items are important, relevant, and focused sufficiently for them to bother even contemplating a click. It's all about rationing—logically, intelligently—just as we ration words when we eliminate redundancy in prose. Tony (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, point one is a little silly, when is something like that ever going to come up? We're talking about a chain of two or three words maximum, often in an infobox anyway, not in prose text. On point two, I agree - editors need to make calls. To me, that means not necessarily stripping all links to Germany from every single article, but deciding when and where such a link is relevant, and should, per wp:overlink, be included. As for carpet-linking, I think in a list it's less of an issue. The arbitrariness of removing some cities while keeping others, however, as noted in my example, is a problem. You seem to accept at least that such a middle way is not the best option, even if you'd presumably prefer outright removal of all of the links. As for point three, I'm not sure of the direct relevance of such research to what is actually quite a simple and trivial issue (and also, with no disrespect, I do not take as read the claimed expertise of anonymous wikipedia editors). It seems to be a fairly simple and uncontroversial point to argue that a link to a relevant/related topic is at least likely to be helpful at some point. It's less clear how it hinders people in any way - people have the choice to click on it or not, instead of or as well as other links. Why make them go through the search function, when there's a much easier way of connecting to directly relevant pages? And I have no stats to hand, but the idea that people rarely use wikilinks seems unlikely. I know I do. On point four, I really would be grateful if you and others would stop this "if you want everything linked ..." nonsense. I and others who have queried aspects of this campaign have been very explicit about supporting the removal of repetitive and trivial links, and of those whose relevance or significance is limited given the context. What we are asking for is a little more discretion over the removal of links to common terms, such as professions and countries/cities, where those terms are relevant to the topic at hand.

Amid all my own verbiage above, and all the theoretical debate about the fundamental purpose of wikilinks, that last comment reflects the basic point from where I'm sitting. I still fail to see what advantage is to be had, for example by removing the links to pages on Germany and World War Two from the page about a German General who commanded armies in World War Two; or by removing links to London and England/English people in the infobox for an English person who was born and lived in London. We are only talking about a couple of links on each page, and wp:overlink pretty clearly supports the view that those terms are fine to link on such pages. If you disagree with that, explain how your view fits with the wording of overlink. If you say that there is a separate, agreed consensus to override wp:overlink, point us to the discussion that came to that conclusion. These points have been evaded for long enough now, and batted off with vague assertions about "dilution", language that does not appear in wp:link. On the more theoretical points, as I've noted before, I also find the suggestion that some of us know better than others what pages those others should be looking at a little bizarre and elitist. You make broad assertions such as that wikilinks "need to be rationed", and suggest that people should turn to you if they wish to find out whether excessive links help or hinder. Your opinions are as valid as other people's of course, and you may even be right in some respects. But they remain your opinions. And, even if correct, they do not justify the removal of every single link to specific terms in every article. N-HH talk/edits 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no advantage whatsoever, other than to meet a specific personal preference. For all the talk of a supposed "sea of blue", there has been nothing said that justifies the mass deletion of thousands of useful links, the "private" declaration of what is and what is not "common knowledge", and the condescending attitude that they know best what readers do and do not wish to read. It is very easy, of course, to then label anyone who even thinks of questioning this campaign as wanting to "link everything", and thus avoid addressing the actual concerns raised. For example, where is the research regarding link density in an encyclopedic context? Why are we being parroted data about consumers when that concept has little or no connection to a non-commercial project like Wikipedia? Why should we have to tolerate this secretive, we-decide-what-should-be-delinked script-based stripping of links when the list of so-called "common terms" is not easily accessible to Wikipedia's editors and has never been discussed? The scriptwork is even presented complete with edit summaries that lead the average user to assume it must be "official", consensus-driven cleanup when it is anything but. This is all based on a narrow, overly rigid interpretation of a guideline that was also purposefully rewritten to achieve this same goal. It would be nice if we could get some honest answers to these questions, rather than the avoidance that has occurred to date. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz -- I just tried to make a series of edits. Half an hour of work. And the new wikipedia system destroyed it. Poof. I'm thinking, it didn't like the overlinking either. Seriously, though, at the margins there will always be some who disagree. I would hope that editors can cut out the wasted time of fighting, and figure out how best to address overlinking. Clearly, we could link every word. Probably could have a bot do it. Would save enormous man hours, since you would no long have to hit that square bracket key. Would you be in favor of that. Possibly. I don't know. But I'm guessing most people would not like an all-blue page. Why? For the very reasons I and some others have mentioned. If most of you are with me till this point, we then come to the question of where to draw that line, for the benefits that we all agree are engendered by not having an entirely blue page. That's all this is about, at its core. Let's start pulling in the same direction. Just my two cents. Epeefleche (my sign button is now not working either).

Eppefleche's repsonse was to my "Comment" post below; I had originally posted it directly following the above but have now moved it below to avoid it being interpreted strictly as a reply. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm ... either I wrote my post even more poorly than usual, or you misread it, or you've just spilled coffee on your new slacks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my comment as being directed solely at you; it is not. (I'll clarify this on your talk page so as to keep this discussion focussed on linking.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I find it very frustrating to repeatedly see claims tossed about that myself, N-HH and others want to "link everything" (or words to that effect). The notion that I, or N-HH, or probably anyone else who's objected to the hard-line delinking is in favour of "linking everything" is nothing more than fiction, pure and simple. I've made that clear, and so has N-HH; it is simply a diversionary tactic from a small group who are pushing the delinking effort far beyond what many average users would consider a reasonable point. That group has drawn the line for what should and should not be linked based on their personal preferences, and it has begun to detract from the core functionality of the site. If you review the discussion to date, it becomes clear that we are not disagreeing about basic concepts (such as not linking simple words), nor the idea that we don't need to link every single time the word "Canada" appears in an article. The critical difference lies in the attitude that we should almost never link terms such as "Canada" or "New York", even in articles directly related to those terms. I've seen the delinking script used to strip away all links to the US in an article about its closest neighbour and largest trading partner, links to WWII in articles about battles in that same war, and so on. That is unreasonable, and - more to the point - there has never been a consensus to do such work. Why won't Tony and the others address repeated questions regarding why the list of "common terms" is hidden away in the depths of a script, rather than out in the open for debate and change by all Wikipedians? Why are personal opinions regarding the process - "sea of blue" and "smart linking" to name a few - being presented as if they were policy in explanations to editors who are unfamiliar with our guidleines? For that matter, why do we abide the continuous use of a loaded term as "sea of blue" when (often as not) we are really disagreeing over a handful of links amidst hundreds or thousands of words? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

comment. I checked random edits by Tony1 and cannot justify most of them. What's curious, he arbitrary delinks some "common" names and leaves others, no less "common", linked which results in a particularly sloppy look [1]. Is there any reason to treat Hong Kong (delinked) and Thailand (left linked) differently? Whether it was a random slip, or some private judgement over who are "common" and who are not, is irrelevant; this arbitrary mosaic delinking must stop. East of Borschov (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First, N-HH, could you please write less: people will be more likely to read it. I have a sore finger scrolling down and I find myself just skimming your text it is so long. Seriously, I'm doing you a favour in providing this advice. State the punch-lines at the start.

Second, this is just a re-run of the same old issues that have been aired here many times by the same people. Do I have to recycle the rejoinders? WP:LINK's guidelines on minimising links to common geographical terms (not to mention bunching them together) are well-established and well-supported by the community. The boundary between whether Thailand or Hong Kong should be linked is more up to individual editors, and if they want to go in and unlink "Thailand", sure, I have no objection—it has little value as a wikilink, and dilutes the important links surrounding it. I would have problems in re-linking "Hong Kong", just as I have problems linking "France" at the top of the article on "Champagne"; and "New York City". A boundary will always need to be applied to these items, just as we do WRT the linking of non-geographical items. This is nothing new: just a re-rurn of the same old dialogue. Tony (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, eh, Tony? You give those who disagree with you grief if they don't explain their position, then you chastize them when they do. Frankly, it would be a lot better for everyone involved in this sorry mess if you would just please address the points raised above. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't comprehend your first point here. There is a balance that must be struck in what is worth wikilinking and what is not. We long ago dispensed with the initial "link whatever you like" practice. Just as in prose style, editors have their own ideas: the larger picture (and some details) are set out in the style guides. You have breached this style guide on purpose in the article Squamish. I assume good faith that it wasn't to bait other editors. I ask you to assume good faith on my part. And I ask you to discuss substantive issues rather than personal ones, which has been almost the entire thrust of your posts on the matter of linking to date. Your next post will also avoid the substantive issue. Tony (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm... last I checked, I wasn't the one accusing you of being a malcontent, or of trying to link everything, nor am I misrepresenting your statements, etc, etc. If you really want to keep this on a professional rather than a personal level, then you will have to make an honest effort to behave professionally. Look, Tony, this all began when you rewrote the guidelines to match your personal preferences. Frankly, I think you took unfair advantage of your reputation on Wikipedia to make changes without proper discussion. However, now we're two years down the road and we have to work with what we have. At this point in time, it would really help if - instead of relentlessly trying to push on with your vision of delinking - you would simply consider compromising in order to accomodate others who do not share the same dream. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Your next post will also avoid the substantive issue." Whadd'I tell you? Tony (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And once again, you're glossing over any and all concerns raised in favour of more cheap shots. Seems we're in a bit of a rut, doesn't it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware I can be a little verbose, but, you know, reading something that isn't total drivel isn't really that hard, and sometimes there are quite a few points to be made. Especially when most of them are never addressed in any detail, or are even deleted without your reading them - which is why we ended up at ANI at all - and all that we get in response are accusations of being "malcontents" et al or of "wanting to link everything". To be quite frank Tony, most of your comments at ANI and the raids you have launched on to people's talk pages who have dared to query your behaviour, or make simple factual points about the date case, reflects very badly on you. Seriously, I'm doing you a favour with that advice. When you find that most people who comment on a topic have issues with your actions and arguments, perhaps you should stop railing against them, and maybe just ask for a second whether they might have some valid points and concerns. In a collaborative environment, whether you like it or not, if you can't persaude those people that you are "right", especially about fairly minor style points, then by definition you are not right. N-HH talk/edits 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Substantive point - Tony, you have at least above been a bit more specific in responding to specific issues, eg by talking about common terms such as Hong Kong, France etc above. However, I continually point out to you that there is an exception even in wp:link as written, which suggests linking them when they are relevant to the main topic. France in Champagne seems relevant to me. Canada in an article about an area in Canada seems relevant to me. On what basis do you disagree? Would you keep reverting even where consensus is against you on such points in individual cases? N-HH talk/edits 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

←"The" is relevant to the article on Champagne, too. Why not link it? "France" is sooooo general, and sooooo well-known, why don't you find a section link or a more focused daughter article ("Agriculture in France", if it exists?)—then your only problem would be that "France" as a pipe would be deceptive, and still no one would bother clicking it. "France" is adjacent to the more specific location, which links to France itself, if anyone would need to know even from that article. You are caught up in this concept of linking as auto-browsing: a magic blue carpet to anywhere vaguely relevant to the topic, just in case someone wanted to click it. They almost never do, I'm afraid, and your constant pushing for the linking of common geographical terms is further diluting the likelihood that readers will use the system. You think you're improving it, but you're degrading it. Good faith, but faulty reasoning, IMO. But taking this to ANI was in extremely bad faith—a political stunt to smear me. It is disreputable. Similarly, your use of political language is transparent—now my posts on users' talk pages are "raids"—oh give me a break. And as someone else pointed out above, the use of emotive words such as "stripping" rather than "unlinking" does your case no good at all. People see through the spin. You are not speech-writing for a politician or inventing language for TV ads.

And no, you don't write "total drivel"—you write well (just too much). This is why it's such a pity you've chosen to fight tooth-and-nail efforts to improve the readability and appearance of our text, not to mention the dilution of high-value wikilinks, and thus the utility of the whole wikilinking system. That is what we are trying to protect. Linking needs to be selective to be of real assistance to the readers. Linking "France" is not only useless: it insults the intelligence of the readers, even the eight-year-old. Tony (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, as I pointed out from the outset, I went to ANI because you ignored and deleted a clear note from me alerting you to the errors. And my use of terms such as "stripping" and "raids" is fair enough when referring to scripts being used on multiple articles, and your posting of notes on several editors' talk pages making wild accusations against them (eg telling a non-admin that they're not fit to be an admin, and leaving shouty messages in block capitals). On linking, as ever, much of your argument is about assertion and guesswork, about what every other user might be doing, or ought to be doing when reading articles. Editing involves judgment in the light of context, and linking is about navigability and options. And, for exmaple, in what way exactly is it "insulting the intelligence" of readers to offer even one link to France in an article about a French thing? It's not of course suggesting they don't know what/where France is. It's just saying - here's the option of going to that related/relevant page and reading it, if you wish to. It's far more insulting to people's capabilities to suggest that if we don't take out the link, they might be misled somehow into clicking it when they really didn't want to. I mean, that's just bizarre, as I've pointed out before. The dilution/distraction argument applies when a list of random ELs are dumped at the bottom of a page. There, filtering can work and help the reader. Wikilinks are much more transparent. N-HH talk/edits 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Tony (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus

OK, since we don't get answers above, and we don't get answers at the (second) ANI thread, let's start again, and keep it simple - 1) where is the consensus to delink common terms/countries in every instance, regardless of context; and 2) where is the consensus as to which terms/countries fall within the definition of "common"? Links to those discussions please. Then we can perhaps look at how to maybe move forward with an RfC. N-HH talk/edits 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nearly a month later, and nearly three months after I first asked them, and still no answer? N-HH talk/edits 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC?

I think it'd be helpful if we had an RfC on delinking, so we can trash out an actual consensus on what the principles are, and if/how any auto/semi-auto delinking should proceed. One thing that's needed is for those who are delinking to present what exact scripts and rules they are using in deciding what links to remove, and on what basis that decision was made. I think we all agree on the general idea that there is overlinking, and nobody wants to "link everything", but there is a grey area involved certain "common terms". A clear example is Champagne (wine): Tony wants to remove France from the lead arguing that it adds no value; I suspect many editors would think a link to France in the lead of a drink that is so strongly associated with France would be a good idea. The same edit did remove extraneous links like Prime Minister next to Tony Blair, though I'd argue that Co-operative is handy when mentioning wine co-ops. So the delinking here is open to debate. I think the RfC needs to decide 1. What is actually is considered to be overlinking. 2. Whether automated processes are the right way to approach delinking. Can we write an RfC wording that says this neutrally and succinctly? Fences&Windows 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to seek opinions simultaneously on (1) the boundaries between common items that should be, can be, and should not generally be linked, and (2) automation to unlink such items. For example, the result of (1) might well render a positive result on (2) unachievable technically. Automation requires its own set of proposals based on a result in (1). In any case, automation can never play a major role in reducing overlinking, since human oversight is required constantly, and the scope of items included in automation has to be only a small proportion of those that, in their context, need to be unlinked. It is essentially a manual task. (1) would need to be dealt with first.

The whole article on "France" is of little use to anyone but a reader who wants to wander through the most general links; "France" is now relinked right after "the Champagne region". The guideline says, "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." It also says, "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." and "can make it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". and "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" There are more than 100 links in the article text, and nine in the vicinity of the reinserted link to "France". So the guideline is telling us to be selective, in my reading of it. What is the value of the whole article on France at that particular point? Who doesn't know what France is? Nothing is stopping someone going to the article; but it seems just to dilute as an additional link at the top. Wouldn't a more specific link than the whole of France be more useful to the reader? ("Agriculture in France"?), wound into the article smoothly?

The same applies to "Prime Minister", which is already prominently linked from the top of the far more specific "Tony Blair" article: here, it bunches together with "Prime Minister", against this guideline: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link".

These guidelines have evolved over years, and everyone was here when User:Kotniski led a conflation of two other pages into this one. Which parts of the guideline are at issue? Tony (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there are two threads to the issue - 1) the delinking of common terms in principle, and 2) the use of scripts or other systems to bring that about. Not all the unlinking is done by scripts. In principle I don't object to the use of scripts, and think they probably do a good job in terms of removing redundant, repetitive and irrelevant links to common terms that are linked too often, usually when the terms crop up in passing in unrelated articles, as they often will. However, I do think that a) the terms they are stripping need to be clear and open and agreed, and b) there needs to be manual review of their effects in each instance, not only to avoid obvious mistakes per the ANI thread, but maybe sometimes to restore one or two links that are going to be relevant in the context of that individual page, or that restore consistency to lists or infoboxes. My personal preference - and there is nothing in wp:overlink to say this is a "wrong" view - is to err on the side of inclusion in those cases. For those who edit here, it's too easy to get sucked into a narrow vision and also to overanalyse everything. I'm for example never going to move through to the France page from the French wine page in the future, and we can all theorise about what might subjectively be "better" or "high impact" links, but - forgive me for the cliche and the hypothetical - who's to say that a 15 year old from Hawaii who's looking at the latter page for the first time, to research a school project, wouldn't find it useful? Even if they broadly know what/where France is already.

I don't think it's impossible to draft an RfC that would at least help establish a broader consensus one way or the other on these issues, and that would agree how scripts should be compiled and used and their effects monitored/reviewed, and yes, sometimes mitigated. Also I do think that even without an RfC, those running scripts should be checking/proofing their effects in each case anyway, and also should learn to shrug their shoulders a little if another editor comes by subsequently to reinsert maybe a couple of links, if there's plausible justification for that. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do believe discussion on this page should be conducted without mentioning other users, unless in positive terms. I think the use of items such as "stripping", "campaign", "point-scoring" and "raids" should be avoided by all. I think other people would readily agree to this. Is that the case? It is most important to be collaborative. Tony (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's add "sea of blue" to the list, OK? That would be of great benefit; what would also help would be ensuring that we all take great pains to represent each other's position accurately and with a complete absence of any hyperbole. Is that also acceptable? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And, if we could, accusations of "political stunts", that others have been "venting" or have "extreme views" or "do not accept the rules" or "complain loudly" etc etc, as well an end to answering others' posts with the response "What?", or simply not reading them altogether. Also - from others - accusations of "forum shopping" of "haranguing" etc etc. As my post above shows, I am more than capable of explaining the queries and issues calmly and reasonably. Reciprocation would indeed be welcome. N-HH talk/edits 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ps: note the word "raids" was a one-off, used to refer to a very specific set of comments made on other's talk pages. "Stripping" I use regularly, and I use it with a purpose, since it accurately describes the act of rigidly removing all links, via a script. That's at the core of the issue, and the word is not intended to be inflammatory or to denigrate. To me it's simply accurate, just as you would "strip" wallpaper from a room. I don't simply say "taking out" because that can imply a more selective removal. And I'm not against that, and never have been, as of course you know. N-HH talk/edits 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"sea of blue" is a descriptive means of addressing a substantive issue in the debate. "campaign" targets editors.  HWV258.  21:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a neutral term by any stretch of the imagination, especially given that it has been used in situations where said use is utterly ludicrous. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• "unlinking" or "delinking" are neutral; as opposed to linking and stripping. As an act of good will, we could all neutralise our language as perceived by others, couldn't we? Ckatz takes issue with some usage; I will endeavour to persuade people not to use it, where I can identify it. The important thing, to me, is that the focus be taken away from people. Tony (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of those items mentioned above, and an avoidance of anything negative about anyone. This would be a welcome move towards a more harmonious and productive environment here. I ask all regular editors to agree to this. Tony (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • All of these words could be substituted with more neutral items, couldn't they? Instead of "sea of blue", talk in terms of link/non-link ratio, or signal-to-noise ratio in a technical sense, or dilution. This is not hard if it keeps the peace. "Stripping" is an emotive word, to me. Tony (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make two suggestions to start this:

• One: It is very useful to note that wikilinks that start with : (which we use for linking to image files without showing the image, for example) will still show up and be linked. Any bot/script that is dealing with removal of links should ignore such links, as this gives a natural way for editors to tag a link as "opt out" from the delinking process.
• Two: We should have a discussion/RFC to determine the appropriateness and removal of "common geographic names in the English language" including what terms consistent this. This seems like the only assured area that a bot/script can perform delinking within prose due to the obviousness of it, and also appears to be an area where there is mutual agreement for this. If there are clearly other classes of words that can be considered at the same time, we should do that too, but we need very clear understanding of what these classes or lists will be and how they will be applied. Let's not try to solve all of the best types of linking/delinking in one go, but instead what can easily be done via bots/scripts. Assuredly any other types of links are going to require more editorial monitoring and the like. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read this entire thread, can I make a few points to narrow things down? (They're not really related)

• Scope. Can we narrow the discussion explicitly to geographic names, since that seems to be the main focus?
• Presence indicates relevance. The fact that a term is mentioned at all in an article gives weight to its being linked. Having translated a number of French Wikipedia articles, I have some sympathy with the idea above that they tend to link more over here than we do at EN:WP, even excluding the date linking and other kinda mechanical linking that they do more than we do. However, you will find that when places are referred to "France" is hardly ever mentioned, let alone linked. This makes sense: an editor has decided that it's not worth saying that Rouen is in France, so there's no need to mention France. That is, the presence at all of a theoretically redundant term nudges it in favour of being linked at first use (it does not make it a black-and-white decision by any means, of course). If we write "Rouen, France" we should either pipe the whole phrase (which is hardly WP:EGG) or also link France. And on the flip side of that coin, since we don't then say that France is in Europe The World The Milky Way The Universe we neither can nor should link those terms.
• Accessibility. There are two practical points that seems to have been missed about "you can get to France from Rouen" and so on. Those on who have limited ability to interact with the browser (e.g. because of some disability or because they are have limited technology such as a mobile device) might not find it particularly easy to jump to via a search box where they have to type it. On the other hand, those that use assistive technologies such can find links a hindrance since they might be spoken or displayed in a way that disrupts the article's flow. Also, not everyone has a 300Tb/s connection, and having to request the Rouen article JUST to get the France article up wastes bandwidth, even if only a small proportion of the article need be downloaded to be able to link through.
• Sea of blue. Can we just dismiss this since nobody (that I can see) is suggesting (for the purposes of this discussion) that links should be increased (beyond restoring links that were once present), over whether they should be automatically or semi-automatically reduced. In any case, presumably the WikiMedia engine, a skin, a client-side script or other intermediate technology could in theory be fashioned to link every word or phrase that had a corresponding Wikipedia article, on the fly rather than in the stored version. This would in any case fail to be as helpful as where editors manually put in piped links for things like natural reading order, specificity, disambiguation, and so on.

Just a few suggestions on how we might limit the discussion to what I see, as an interested but somewhat passive observer, to what are the main points. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Linking → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) — Consolidating naming per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Poll Gnevin (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain: While a persuasive case could be made that this is more of an editing guideline, the main MoS page has long had a section devoted to links that naturally connects to this more detailed treatment of the topic. On the other hand, our Wikipedia:List of guidelines indeed lists this as an editing guideline. I believe more opinion should be solicited.—DCGeist (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had always assumed this was part of the MoS; i.e., a sub-page. Like MOSNUM. It's news to me if it's not. Tony (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here does offer stylistic advise . Gnevin (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make the move to MoS titling, and I'll clean up the references to it as an editing guideline.—DCGeist (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking part of a word

Reading quickly, I don't see any prohibition against appending a number after a linked word or acronym; the current article I'm copyediting has "Nakajima A1N2 fighters" (a specific version of the A1N fighter). Is the language on this page? Should it be? (The problem here is that the Mediawiki softerware automatically makes any letters that are appended outside a link appear to be part of the link, but not numbers.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there doesn't seem to be anything at all that says a link should be a whole word (or several whole words), though the examples imply it. Myself, I'd pipe [[Nakajima A1N fighter|Nakajima A1N2 fighters]]. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

An article that links to itself, to a section farther down in the article

Somehow I got the idea that a wikipedia article is not supposed to link to itself. I recently came across an article in which the lead contained several links to various sections of the article below the lead. Is this ok? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is clear where the links go, yes. A. di M. (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a specific example at the foot of WP:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Link_specificity. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

tables

I have restored what was the guideline, but was replaced with no discussion here. Briefly, the reason for linking in each row of a table is that we should not expect readers to go hunting around the table for the spot where the term is linked. That is the same regardless of whether it is "very long" or sortable. In very short tables with only a few rows, it may well be appropriate to only link once, but that is more a case of ignoring all rules and using common sense than a justification for turning the policy on its head. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was going to be a new effort at cooperation here

This is disappointing. The page itself is being changed in ways that clearly do not have consensus. It is a sensitive issue, and needs to be discussed here before any change is made. I'd have thought that was obvious. Discussion by edit summary is not an acceptable way to push and pull the style-guide page, which should remain stable where there is no consensus to change it. If an editor wants to propose a change that is sensitive, please raise it here first. Tony (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I regret not having the time for a full post here earlier today, I think it is fair to say that the edit summary was very clear as to the purpose of the change. To recap, the change involved rewording:

"avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links"

to read as

"avoid adding obvious or redundant links"

This edit makes no change as to the substance and intent of the guideline, but removes the highly opinionated terms "cluttering" and "useless" that do not fit with the professional style used throughout our guidelines and policies. Furthermore, the change itself should be self-evident, not "sensitive"; we have agreed on avoiding this type of loaded language on the guideline talk page, so it should be even less acceptable in the actual guideline. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it seems to be a more professional and concise way of making much the same point, which ties in with the wish to moderate the language being used. Not really worth everyone heading off down another discussion tangent over it, surely. I know I've just added to that tangent, but you know what I mean, as they say. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A useless wikilink is by definition either redundant (already linked) or obvious (commonly known term), so the word useless is superfluous, and I don't mind its removal. As for "cluttering", I don't see how that term is "highly opinionated" in this context. If a link is redundant and/or obvious, then surely it is unhelpful and adding to the sea of blue (if you will), and therefore "cluttering" the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Epeefleche; in my opinion, this is of a different nature than the change I made, as it restores the problematic language and then adds "appropriate" in, well, inappropriate places. I have left some of the changes that do not alter the substance of the guideline. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edit seems more professional. I think the only remaining issue is whether the edit materially changes the message. Tony, do you think it does? If you think it does, let’s discuss and arrive at an all-hands consensus as to whether there really is a change in meaning and how to go forward from there. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering that the wording change does not have universal support yet, I'm inclined to revert to the original wording until we can all agree on the exact change that needs to be made (if at all). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Katz--I'm disappointed with you. I just made a number of clarifying changes that all improve the article, including one that I would think you (though not Tony) would like -- encouraging linking in cases that they were not formerly encouraged (but which make sense). Yet all you can do is revert in an edit-warrior fashion the part that more clearly and accurately states what the guideline calls for--perhaps because you feel it eviscerates the POV you are battling over. You really might want to consider not biting the editors who don't have a dog in this fight, along with those who do -- your battleground mentality edit warring is not appreciated. I've not had sufficient coffee today, so perhaps my words here are harsh, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by reverting perfectly reasonable edits by a (relatively) uninvolved editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "biting", what was clearly frustrating was that you restored the clearly opinionated text, without even mentioning that you were doing so. You repeated that action the second time, again without mentioning it. You'll have to forgive me if I seem frustrated by that. With your comments in mind, however, I have removed only the problematic text ("cluttering" and "useless") that I originally intended to fix, and left the rest of your changes intact (other than correcting a very minor spelling error). --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aargh, missed my own notes. I did pull "appropriate" from the very first line of the page; I can see your point for the second instance where you added it, but in the first case the text is illustrating the concept of linking itself. Hopefully, this works for you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to look at the clutter conversation -- I'm not sure I understand the issue fully. I simply made that aspect of my change because IMHO it makes good sense (and I have difficulty understanding what a spat about it could be about). It was just one of my many changes. The use of appropriate is IMHO appropriate in the fist sentences -- the guideline discusses the fact that some links are appropriate, others not. Linking through inappropriate hyperlinks is not an important feature of Wikipedia. Your deletion of my clarification suggests that it is. That's at odds with what the article says. I had thought that if anyone would find reason to question any aspect of my edit, it would be Tony musing as to whether my add suggesting linking (in places it wasn't formerly suggested) might be something we can discuss. That instead you should be the one biting me, and biting me for of all things this, annoys me, and suggests to me that you are not acting in the best of faith here, but rather approaching this page with a battleground mentality. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am I apologize, but I wanted to be frank with you as to how your revert here landed in this part of the world.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Include info on intra-article links?

Hi there, just a suggestion here to include information on intra-article links, so that editors will be better informed on this kind of linking. These links send readers from one part of an article to another part. If you want a reply from me, just ring me up at my talk page. Regards, AngChenrui ^Talk 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this was discussed earlier at this talk page, but the relevant guidance is already included in the last sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Link specificity. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Should the information be made more overt and obvious to editors? I tried on a previous occasion to find info on linking within an article, but couldn't find any then. Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ang, can you suggest more obvious target words to use? Tony (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: new judge of the Silliest Wikilink of the Month Awards

Friends, it is with disappointment that I announce that His Grace the Duke of Waltham is no longer able to judge the monthly awards. However, we are in luck: Ceoil has kindly agreed to take over. Please see the announcement here. Tony (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and not funny. Thanks for wasting my time, it gives me new impetus to do something useful. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant to be funny. It's a good-faith attempt to encourage excellence in linking practice on WP. Thanks for your concern. Tony (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair play, but to me it did the opposite. I come to MoS including its talk pages to get advice about how to make articles conform with MoS not to snigger about the worst link, a competition I neither no nor care about. You riled me and probably accidentally. It is my fault with being so keen, but had your style been in an article I would have found seventeen ways of saying that is out of order. You shouldn't really snigger at editors getting things wrong sometimes. If you take the job of fixing bad links – and God knows in good faith we all sometimes get the wrong links – you could be modest about it and not snigger behind other's backs. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling ClueBot will delete my remark for saying "s n i g g e r." because it includes another word (which I also don't find objectionable in the right context). If it then reverts my edits, complain to it, not me. (I have in the past, with no success.)

It's not so much a snigger as a recognition of the hard work (and careful judgement) of the many editors who clean up overlinked common terms in our articles. It's a job that can't be done automatically (beyond a small proportion, even then with care): it's contextual, mostly. I suppose sometimes we do smile at the linking of some words—it's hard not to. Better than being irritated by the task. And the original editor? I don't think anyone has ever bothered to go through article histories to find this: it's not the point. Tony (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work, anyone who contributes to Wikipedia in any way deserves a slap on the back. I also agree with you that a lot of this work cannot be done automatically (and sometimes bots do more harm than good, then the fun starts telling them). So, I got riled without needing to. But it did rile me.

Best wishes, y'all keep up the hard work. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Books and television titles

I've had a look through the page and can't see anything specific on linking book and programme titles within an article. Would it be the case that they can only link to an article on those books/programmes? An example would be the Keith Floyd article where there are numerous links throughout the individual titles. Thanks. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looks wrong to me - remove the links. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cod, isn't it good, direct, efficient linking practice to do this? I'd say they are high-value links. They are articles on those books and programs, aren't they? Tony (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. A general rule of thumb is that one always links to proper names outside of what should be obvious geographic locations, since while one can presume a basic understanding of the english language while on en.wiki, one cannot presume any deep knowledge of people, books, shows, etc. But this of course assumes blue links or reasonable expected articles-to-be redlinks; if there's no article or no chance for an article, a link isn't necessary. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tony and Masem. Scrolling down, though, I see Keith Floyd#Cookery shows, which has rather silly links. Food? Italy? Africa? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I believe Jack is referring to something like this example:

• Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - where only partial linking of the title takes place.
• Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - I don't think anybody has a problem with linking to the correct article.

Or as another example

• Coming to America and not linking to the actual article on the book or movie.

I'd say, remove the partial linking. It's just gets silly. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was referring to - just looks wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What if...

The article encourages us to use red links to link future articles if they are relevant to the content. Let's say I want to put a link to the 1848 revolution in Germany, but there is an article only about the 1484 revolution not the former. (Hypothetical) Should I prefer the red link or the less detailed valid link ?

Sincerely NikitaUtiu ^{talk contributions} 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)