From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"The ninth word of this sentence is an example of an embedded link."

Change to, "this is an example." Too trivial.

in order to get a hyperlink in the example is to link it like "this" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Why don't the links in this Wiki article show as underlined blue text in my different browsers - although the article states that links are typically shown as underlined blue text? Links on other websites are shown as blue underlinings in my browsers. History teaches (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Question - web-application links[edit]

I have been reading upon links but what I was looking for I have not seen yet. A link from web-application X in company A to web-application Y in company B, including handling firewall settings, auto-logon on web-appl Y, take the search parameters from web-appl X and search for this data in web-appl Y. Does anybody have any idea if something like this is already mentioned somewhere?

The closest thing to what you're describing is the concept of a Web service, which could be triggered by a single link, assuming the service is set up properly. But if you mean embedding all those actions into one general-purpose link (without any coordination in advance between the two companies), that's generally not possible. --Coolcaesar 08:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fat Links[edit]

Can anyone write something about the concept and implementation of Fat Links?


Unless there is a web browsing markup language tag that contains all the links, the fat link is just a set of random accessed hyperlinks. It's only one link that contains the data for other links. The program is automatically selecting the rest of the links one at a time. I'm not sure that a special note should be made of this technology. The reasons one may need to have a link randomly accessed or automatically selected are infinite. The most significant usage of automatic random accessed links is the web-crawling and cataloging technology used by spiders in search engines and personal agents. The subject of fat links may deserve mention in the tabbed browsing and web browser articles. Oicumayberight 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


How do you create a hyperlink in a message board to a file that is saved on your desktop??

Uh...what do you mean?[edit]

What are you talking about?

You can't create a direct functioning hyperlink in an online message board (either Web-based or USENET) to a document saved on your desktop unless your computer is already a Web server and can respond to http requests.

The usual method is to first upload the file to an existing Web server, then make sure the URL to that file works, and then post that URL (pointing to the copy on the Web server) to the message board.

I hope this helps.

--Coolcaesar 05:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This description of IE seems wrong?[edit]

>> IE gives it from the last slash, or if it ends with a slash, from the last but one.

This isn't the behavior I see on my PC (IE6, windows XP). I see Full URLs.

Is this info really necessary, anyway?

Currency of the web[edit]

This should really read 'currency of google' as it relates A> only to Google, not to the web itself and B> indicates that the web actually might use currency. It, of course, doesn't, even as a theoretical explanation of a search engine's technology... without google, and pagerank, the web still existed and worked.

So really, I'm suggesting that this be removed. Were google less popular, it wouldn't even be considered...

changed introduction[edit]

The introduction had it look like hyperlinks were mechanical. They are not. Anybody can buy a book for under $10 at their local corner bookstore, and can then read, write, and manually follow hyperlinks.

(And if they can't, I could write a small wikibook in under 10 pages, most of which title-page or this page intentionally left blank after which the above sentence will certainly be true. I'd even throw in netcat for good measure.)

Of course, some people have *claimed* that hyperlinks are mechanical in nature. So to NPOV-ise, someone might want to link to parties who have said so.

Kim Bruning 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The associative trails that inspired hyperlinks were clearly mechanical. Please read As We May Think by Vannevar Bush. Douglas Engelbart's writings indicate that they are clearly mechanical (particularly his 1962 report and subsequent reports transmitted to ARPA in 1966, 1968, 1970, and 1974). Ted Nelson's writings, starting with the 1965 paper in which he invented the word hyperlink, also strongly imply that they are mechanical (the whole point of Project Xanadu was to create the physical infrastructure to support them).
Can you cite any source (written by an expert on hypertext in particular) that states unequivocally that the term hyperlink can be generalized to cover all cross-references? --Coolcaesar 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have in fact read "As we may think", but it was a while ago. I believe hyperlinks are semantic, as opposed to mechanical. Common sense dictates that hyperlink is a form of cross reference, and in fact they are used manually in this manner; as any person who has ever copied down the URL represented by a hyperlink to paper can attest.
I am of two minds:
*If there is no document that covers this common experience, then that might explain why courts have often ruled that hyperlinks are mecahnical and not covered under free speech. It might then be pertinent to write such a document, though perhaps that falls outside the scope of wikipedia.
*On the other hand, it may be argued that knowlege common to all who are versed in a field of expertise is in fact encyclopedic, and need not be seen as original research.
What do you think?
Kim Bruning 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've also read the original WWW proposal on hyperlinks. I think it might be up for interpretation. There is a semantic angle, as well as a mechanical angle to the situation.

In fact, I have been indirectly reminded that it is possible to create hypertext entirely without touching a computer or any machine whatsoever. One could imagine a hypertext system of library cards, where the reader could follow a link by looking up a next card with a relevant identifier.

Kim Bruning 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See Paul Otlet. But he lies outside of the mainstream of hypertext thought because the similarity between his monographic principle and Xanadu was not noticed until Otlet's biographer, W. Boyd Rayward, began publishing papers about it back in the early 1990s. His work almost certainly did not influence Vannevar Bush, and definitely did not influence Douglas Engelbart, Ted Nelson, Tim Berners-Lee, or any of the other great hypertext researchers. --Coolcaesar 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*Grin* Cool! It doesn't matter who influenced what. This gentleman basically actually applied the library card example in practice, and this application has been documented. I love working on wikipedia. :-) Kim Bruning 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course Otlet's work influenced Bush, through the work of people such as Emanuel Goldberg, see [1]. Personally I'd define a hyperlink as a reference that can be followed immediately, without having to use an auxiliary mechanism, such as page numbering in books. The exact definition may be a matter of taste but I think it's clear that references in paper books are not supposed to be called hyperlinks. Rp (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

microsoft access[edit]

memo and text fields putting hyperlinks in them

Your point? You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Coolcaesar 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironic Error[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the part of this page that says:

Thus, the complex link string is reduced to, [BendGovt]. This contributes to a clean, easy to read text or document.

... in fact, not displaying a link correctly? Jenolen 10:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Links other than embedded links[edit]

The article says "There are a number of ways to format and present hyperlinks on a web page. An embedded link is one of the more common formats: one or more words of distinctively styled text. The ninth word of this sentence is an example of an embedded link." This confuses the reader. Saying there are "a number of ways" suggests that there is more than one way, but only one way, the embedded link, is listed. If there is more than one way, others should be listed. Nowhere does this article explain what a non-embedded link would be. Anomalocaris 07:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but my guess is that an invisible hot area of the screen that is above a label or graphical navigation element would be a link that's not embedded. An example of this would be an interface that allows for swapping skins or labels beneath the coded hot areas without repetitive embedding of code in the various skin elements. Oicumayberight 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the introductory section is even more confusing than before. The paragraph beginning "There are a number of ways to format and present hyperlinks" seems to be giving a list of different ways. If so, they should be listed as a bulleted list. But it's still not clear what is meant by "embedded link" and what would be a non-embedded link. If a graphic image on a web page is stored on another web server, this seems to be termed "inline link." Is it non-embedded by virtue of being stored on a different web server in a different domain? Are <img> tags considered non-embedded regardless of whether the image is stored locally or on some other domain? This whole topic remains quite murky. How about image maps: are they embedded or non-embedded? Anomalocaris 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Embedded would mean part of the object I guess. An inline link or an <img> tag could be considered either embedded or non-imbedded. The link is imbedded in the portal. The link is not imbedded in the object that shown in the portal. It technically doesn't matter if it's on the same server or a different server. It may matter for copyright legalities. An image map would be non-embedded. It's what I describe as a hot area. Oicumayberight 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

how do i create a link with target = new ?[edit]

Can you describe to me how to create a WIKI link to an external site which spawns a new window? I want to link a dictionary prounounciation string to the website that provides the prounounciation key. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozkill (talkcontribs) 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I think:

<a href=http://foo target=new>foo</a> -- 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint: Do not create such links, just let the user decide wether to open a link in a new window/tab (middle mouse button or shift click etc.) or to open a link in the same window by clicking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed pointer[edit]

The WIMP pointer does not really have anything to do with hyperlinks on its own, so removed --Kim Bruning 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Does not really have anything to do with hyperlinks? 99 times out of 100 the pointer is the link to hyperlinks. I don't know what people have against livening up the wikipedia with images. Even if the relevance is weak, having an image is better than no image. It can only help. Perhaps you could replace the image with one you think is more relevant. Oicumayberight 07:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It can do more harm than good, images can convey false information or convey a false impression. As is the case here.

I can think of quite a few ways to follow a hyperlink without ever seeing a pointer.

  • lynx (web browser)
  • links (web browser)
  • console cut-and-paste
  • Read html/xml and type the url yourself
    • (especially handy with wget sometimes)
  • touch screen tap on hyperlink (hypothetical?)
  • voice command (hypothetical?)
  • stylus selection. (hypothetical? Note: Some stylus systems do have pointers)
  • scroll wheel select (hypothetical?)
  • wired glove select (hypothetical?)
  • In firefox: search (/) and hit (enter)
  • in vim (text editor): move text cursor on item and hit (ctrl-]) (including non-html hyperlinks, including ctags and vim help)
  • automated retrieval, use wget -r , for intance .
  • automated retrieval, autofetch new RSS.
  • automated retrieval, web spider <- most of the hits on my own webserver are from these
  • specialised tools for particular sites? (pywikipediabot, awb)
  • look it up in a database instead (like for

A pointer is part of the WIMP paradigm, and has to do with practically anything you run in such an environment including word-processing, spreadsheets, gis, or flight simulation. It's a bit odd to show a pointer here. :-P (if it was a pointer hovering over a hyperlink: "a common gui representation of a hyperlink" that might be useful, perhaps?)

--Kim Bruning 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

what does href stand for?[edit]

does href stad for hyper reference?

No, Tim Berners-Lee says it stands for "hypertext reference". See: and Benhoyt (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal Issues[edit]

The section on legal issues misstates the current status of US law. The Ninth Circuit's decision in the case of Perfect 10 v. Google upholds the legality of hyperlinking. The US cases cited for supporting the proposition that linking to infringing content is illegal involve cases in which the defendant was engaged in active cooperation with the infringer and/or nose-thuimbing at a court order against the infringement.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please correct it! Rp (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Random accessed hyperlinks[edit]

I have never seen this term. It doesn't make much sense to call hyperlinks created from user-supplied information random accessed: the access is not random. Can anyone provide a source for this term? (Google only brings up copies of this article.) Rp (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I leave this article alone for three years and it's turned into a total mess. It looks like that bizarre text evolved from some very poorly drafted text inserted on 3 September 2006 by User:Oicumayberight at this edit. Thanks for catching it. I think the term is a neologism---in other words, original research in violation of WP policies---and should be deleted. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that edit was without merit - thanks for looking it up BTW - but I've removed the two terms in question nonetheless. Rp (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is questionable....[edit]

General public views[edit]

-- (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Academic views[edit]

-- (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


-- (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you inserting references for reference on an article about hyperlinks? Hyperlinks are references, but not all references are hyperlinks. Rp (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Following has the effect of displaying its target, often with its context. Can someone clarify this? It seems confusing. What is a target's context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon423 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


when links are forbidden by agreement[edit]

I propose an edit for which I don't have a citation. The following, essentially, would be added to the Legal Issues section, after the section's first paragraph:

In the U.S., if someone has agreed (by terms of use of a website or by contract) not to link to a website without the website owner's permission, then it is illegal for that person to link to it, but that does not bar an independent person from so linking without the owner's permission. If the person who may not link is not barred from informing someone else about the destination of the would-be link, then the barred person may describe the destination and someone else can do the linking. In Wikipedia, an editor who can't link but can tell another about a proposed link may go to the article's talk page, request an edit, and provide the description and the destination URL without creating an actual link; and another editor can consider carrying out the request.

I could add the above with or without a {{Citation needed}} template after each sentence.

By way of explanation although I'm not a lawyer and without intending to add this to the page, using a website in violation of its terms of use is generally a trespass on a chattel, the chattel being the website, and the trespass is unlawful, as is, generally, violating a contract, and the second sentence is for a confidentiality agreement or obligation, such as if an employee uses the employer's website containing a trade secret (a trade secret might be the URL of certain information) or privileged information (such as, in some cases, in lawyer-client, doctor-patient, minister-penitent, spouse-spouse, or social worker-client communication).

What do editors think of adding the paragraph?

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling causing a redlink: 15:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy section is low value[edit]

The philosophy section is based on two videos by Michael Wesch. While I very much like these videos (disclosure: one of them is based to some extent on a book I wrote), IMO the philosophy section should either be made more substantial or dropped. At the very least, it needs to be heavily edited. In particular, the following sentence has little to do with philosophy: "Hypertext has the ability to separate form from content on the Internet. Once form and content have been separated, Internet users with no previous coding experience are able to upload content (text, photos, video, etc.)." This isn't true of all hypertext, although it is true of HTML. Further, it doesn't follow that separating form and content makes it easier for new users to upload content. If anything, this remark should go in the HTML article, not a general article on hyperlinks.

The second claim in this section is: "The advancement of the hyperlink fundamentally changes user interaction with digital media." I think that's too vague to be helpful. What is that change? What are the philosophical implications?

I took a pass at improving the section, but when I was done I realized that what I'd written too closely summarizes my own work in this area, to the point where I'd be citing myself. I'm posting it here instead in case it can be cannibalized for use in a broader summary of philosophical implications.

Hyperlinks enable connected ideas to be expressed in non-linear form. This can result in the structure of ideas appearing to be more complex. Because the path a reader takes in a hyperlinked work is determined by the reader, the author may lose some authority over the way in which those ideas are related.
This can be taken as having a bearing on the structure not just of the presentation of ideas but also on the structure of ideas or of the world itself. For example, Western culture influenced by ancient Greek philosophers has traditionally assumed that there is a single order of nature, and the job of knowledge is to discern that order. In that order, every type of thing has one and only one place; this has been apparent in the Great Chain of Being, the taxonomy created by Linnaeus, the various attempts to organize the chemical elements that led to Mendeleev's periodic table of the elements, and systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification system for arranging books on library shelves. It has been argued that the assumption that there is a single order is based on the difficulty physical and paper-based expressions of order have in showing organizational systems in which items are in multiple categories simultaneously. Hyperlinked systems have no such difficulty, however, and thus are conducive to a change in how we think about how our world is ordered and what it means to know it. "Information R/evolution". (publisher=YouTube |date= |accessdate=2012-10-25)

In any case, I suggest that this section either be thoroughly rewritten or removed. dweinberger 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Rp (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Link with php Parameters set by person who links - what is the name ?[edit]

what is the name of this sort of link - all php attributes are subject to be changed by the linking person.

I am doing it, but i do not know the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol move vote.svg Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Hyperlink. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Such a link is called a link with query parameters; the details are HTTP-specific (not PHP-specific though), and I'm not sure whether/how this notion should appear in this more general article. Rp (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-printing hyperlinks[edit]

A problem I've been experiencing, as some others I've seen asking the same question (e.g., is how to resolve a problem printing hyperlinks.

My current printer can print copies of Wiki hyperlinks from 'docx files, but not directly from wikipedia pages accessed via Chrome, where it just leaves blank spaces. It can print blue in figures and diagrams from Wiki pages.

Advice please? Perhaps it would be a useful addition to the Article too? Thanks PaulGEllis (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I failed to spot the options in the left-side Navigation. Problem resolved. PaulGEllis (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@PaulGEllis: - Glad you fixed the problem. :) For future reference, article talk pages are really just supposed to be used for talking about the content of the article (rather than about the subject of the article). However, there is a place dedicated to questions like this: The Reference Desk, and specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Does hyperlinking was installed on Wikipedia? And I need to embed an image, audio or video over here and test it out greatly! --Allen talk 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is dedicated to discussing how to improve the 'Hyperlink' article. For help on how to edit on Wikipedia, see Help. You can try things out in your sandbox. Rp (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hyperlink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert of HTML example of hyperlink[edit]

I removed a two-stage "undo" in the Hyperlink section giving an example of a link in HTML code. The revert/undo to which this responds was an unexplained shortening and removal of a discussion on how an HTML link is coded. The example that was removed was considerably more explanatory than the previous discussion (to which the undo reverted the article) and therefore more useful to readers. No reason was given for the change that I just undid. Perhaps the matter calls for more discussion. I assume that the intent was good faith and not vandalism, but without an explanation I cannot understand why the edit was made. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That was me. I gave (admittedly brief) edit summaries of "copyedit, avoid selfref example" and then "code tag" when changing the <tt> to <code><nowiki>. I changed the example Wikipedia URL to (a domain reserved for use as an example in documentation), as it was an unnecessary WP:SELFREF; articles shouldn't say things like "a hyperlink to this page", because for all we know the text is being read as part of a printed book. The copyediting was just intended to streamline the explanation, and to edit for tone ("X would be written as the following element" rather than "this is what X looks like") - my edit is certainly shorter, but I don't think it's lost any information except for the example of "blue" as a colour that a hyperlink might have, and the arguable detail that the link text is "the only part of the code that is visible on the webpage" (most browsers will display the URL somewhere when the link is hovered over).
The <code> tag was just to standardise the display, since Wikipedia supports marking text up as "code" and we might as well use it. (Actually the {{code}} template might be even better here, as it marks up the individual components of the source, eg: This is an <a href="">example link</a>.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon Thank you for your explanation. I still think a longer and more expository description is more helpful than "shorter." I do think "shorter" is not always better, especially for dense content.
I do not understand the explanation of why referring to the same page is harmful in a nowiki statement. What difference does it make if someone copies it elsewhere? Also, a lay reader will not know about the site and will likely just find it confusing or at least non-communicative.
Maybe it would be desirable to combine the edits... For example, the hover point you mention might be a good idea to add. Perhaps discuss more? PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
See WP:CLICKHERE - it doesn't make sense to tell a reader that something is "a hyperlink to this page" if they're actually reading a mirror copy of Wikipedia at a completely different URL, or even a printed paper book!
I can't see how "" would be any more confusing to a reader than "". If anything it seems simpler.
And sure, we shouldn't always focus on shortening text. It just seemed redundant to say at length that "this HTML starts with 'a', then it has 'href=...' but it doesn't actually have '...' it has the URL that you can see in the HTML" when it would be clearer to say "this HTML starts with 'a' and has an 'href=' link to the URL you can see in the HTML".
By all means go ahead and make edits based on what I've said. --McGeddon (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. I've changed to the suggested {{code}} template and replaced the potentially confusing "here's a hyperlink to the page about hyperlinks" example with a general W3 link. --McGeddon (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon, you jumped in before I completed the edit. As a result the top and bottom are now inconsistent. If you want to do it your way, go ahead and fix up the edit your way. By the way, I don't agree that reduced size tt code is an improvement. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I edited it twenty minutes after you did, but thanks, I forgot to change both URLs. What don't you agree with regarding the code extract? --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing periods[edit]

There are a large amount of missing periods at least in the introduction to this document. I don't have time to fix them. --Disoriented Person (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the missing periods in the introduction and did some other copy editing. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)