Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

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

Links within quotes[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion about wikilinks within quotations at WT:MOS#Proposed revision: links within quotes. I suggest that, should WP:MOS be modified reflecting the discussion, the current "Items within quotations..." under the General points on linking style section of this page be revised accordingly, because otherwise the two pages would be contradicting. Nardog (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss the proposals about WP:MOSLINK, not some other forums. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking examples[edit]

I've just noticed that the list of examples of geographical locations too well known to normally need linking is "United States, London, New York City, Latvia, Berlin". Now, due respect to Latvia, but it could hardly be considered well known; anyone could easily come up with the names of a dozen countries and cities that are better known - what's the justification for including it in the list? Colonies Chris (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixing incoming links for dead anchors[edit]

I just discovered a dead anchor (#molar r) in the English phonology page - the actual information had moved elsewhere. The anchor had several redirects to it, fortunately the rdcheck tool linked on "What links here" helped me find them.

However, I don't see any way to find non-redirect uses of the anchor, and the English phonology article has far too many incoming links to check which ones use the anchor, so if there are any (admittedly I don't expect it) I cannot fix them. Is there a way to find general internal links which use an anchor? --Ørjan (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing[edit]

I recently cleaned up some of the wording under Piped links and redirects to sections of articles, and realized that it gives two conflicting sets of instructions. Up until I made my initial edit, one part of the instructions read, "For example, to link to the 'Culture' subsection of the Oman article, type [[Oman#Culture|culture of Oman]]", while below it read "It is bad practice to make such links as Article#Section links explicitly [...] Instead, link through redirects". Any thoughts on resolving this apparent conflict?Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought most of your copy-editing was pretty good, but it's now been reverted. What do people think of the original edit? Tony (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC) [updated 09:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)]
I'm trying to see why the changes are improvements. Tony1, why do you think that the changes are better? Since Coconutporkpie and I commonly butt heads over our interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or what are improvements regarding such pages (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52#Biased vs. subjective statements, including Clockchime's commentary), maybe I was too quick to revert. I'd rather be on the safe side, though. Like Clockchime, I've seen Coconutporkpie attempt to change a rule to aid one or more arguments in a dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I can be okay with changing the one thing that Coconutporkpie cited above, but I'm not sold on all of the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm mainly concerned with the language. Let's take the opening sentence:

"You may want to display a text for a link that is different from the linked article title."

It was edited to:

"You may want a link to display text other than the title of the article being linked to."

I'd go further:

"You may want a link to display text other than the title of the article being linked to (the "target article").

Then ... "For example:" is nicer than the brusque "Example:". Tony (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Tony1, I've carefully examined the changes and I'm fine with most of them being re-implemented. I'm iffy on two of the changes, though:
"Do not place a link to a name within another name." was changed to "Do not create links to names within names." Isn't the first one clearer since placing a link and creating a link are not necessarily the same thing?
"Use of a piped link here avoids the unsightly Article name#Section name in the display text (alternative methods are to use a redirect or {{Section link}}). The format for a link to a page section is [[Article#Section|name of link]]." was changed to "If you decide not to use a redirect, you have to use a piped link, because the format "Article name#Section name" is inappropriate for display in an article. The format for a subsection link is [[Article#Section|name of link]]." Is the format always inappropriate? Should we state that we "have to use a piped link"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting the phrases ”Do not place a link to a name within another name" and "Use of a piped link here avoids the unsightly Article name#Section name..." Those were in fact the exact phrases that I used in my Revision as of 06:12, 19 September 2016. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL, you got me. I read those two pieces backwards. I blame it on lack of sleep. Either way, it seems you're all clear to re-add your changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the copy editing by Tony1 (Revision as of 12:49, 19 September 2016). It was helpful. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! Tony (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this has become a discussion about changes to the language used on the page, I've renamed this section and re-posted my initial query about the conflicting advice below. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Linking to sections of articles[edit]

The section on Piped links and redirects to sections of articles contains advice on creating links within articles using the format [[Article#Section|name of link]], and also says that it is "bad practice" to use the format [[Article#Section]] instead of a separate redirect since it can interfere with navigation. Any thoughts on resolving this apparent conflict? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie I think it means to say if you do a section link in article do a piped link, if you don't want to do piped linking then use a article section redirect to link as # tag can be confusing and interfere with navigation. VarunFEB2003 14:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I recently edited that section to try to make the wording clearer, but the part about navigation vis-a-vis [[Article#Section]] links may still be confusing. As of 14 September 2016, that part read:

Usually, a redirect page from a sub-topic to a general topic already exists, or should be created on demand. It is bad practice to make such links as Article#Section links explicitly, because navigation becomes inconvenient after the section is replaced by a summary of a new article. Instead, link through redirects, as it costs little and makes improvements easier.

As far as I can tell, this is trying to say that it's easier to manage links to a particular topic if a redirect exists for it than if references to the topic are buried within [[Article#Section]] links – piped links such as [[Article#Section|name of link]] would still have this problem. The question is, which method – use of the pipe or a redirect – is preferred? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a conflict, it's all about what the reader sees when they read the rendered text. [[Article#Section|name of link]] renders as name of link, and [[Article#Section]] renders as Article#Section. The hash sign in the second one is a straight "not nice to see"; not only does it not read well, the reader may not know what it means - worse, they may associate it with some facebooky thing, as in "click here to trend this!". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What about the part that reads, "navigation becomes inconvenient after the section is replaced by a summary of a new article. Instead, link through redirects"? This seems to be saying that linking from a "sub-topic to a general topic" should always be done with a redirect. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
On one hand, the page says under "Section links" that:

If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it, by following the article name with a number sign (#) and the name of the section. For example [...] the link eight gluon types (typed as [[Gluon#Eight gluon colors|eight gluon types]]) links to a specific section in the article Gluon.

On the other hand, under Redirects, it says:

The advantage of redirects over piped links is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere, which in turn allows us to: Create a new article when a significant number of links to that topic exist (see WP:Don't fix links to redirects that are not broken and Redirects with possibilities); [and] Maintain links (e.g. by filtering incoming links and identifying related articles).

There seem to be two different approaches being described, with no consistent advice as to which is the preferred one. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Neither is "preferred"; the point is that if you do go through a section link, it should be piped so that it reads sensibly, with the hash being undisplayed. But you may find WP:NOTBROKEN useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there any explicit documentation of consensus on this point, such as a previous discussion establishing that neither method is preferred over the other? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so; but normally, we would get consensus to prefer one form over the other, not to prefer neither. The way Wikipedia works is that we all carry on doing what we're doing until somebody shows that what we're doing is not a Good Thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)