Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

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


I've never understood the "problem" with overlinking, it's not as though it makes the article difficult to read, and the reader is not obligated to use the links, so what's the actual problem with these links? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The need to be selective in linking was resolved back in 2009. Two arguments among the array were that linking without discipline undermines the function through pure dilution—that is, it fails to allow editors to use their skills and knowledge to offer readers a selection of high-value links, that are likely to be relevant, focused, and helpful in the circumstances; that uncontrolled linking makes the text more difficult to read (and poor to look at synopically). Tony (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that with over 125,000 current editors that any issue in the English language Wikipedia can ever be truly resolved. I'm also pretty sure that most of the active editors of 2009 were not even aware of, let alone involved in, the overlinking discussion. I also believe that with the advent of smaller screened devices that duplicate/repeat links are actually advantageous to the user, as it negates the need to scroll up-and-down the screen looking for a link to an article that may/may-not exist. Best regards. 16:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The policy against 'overlinking' geographical features can lead to rather absurd results. For example, the article on Auckland was edited to remove all links to New Zealand. For someone who doesn't know much about New Zealand, surely a link to the country article provides helpful context in reading about the city? miracleworker5263 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
New Zealand's North Island is linked in the opening sentence. Tony (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

WP:MOSLINK#Red links does not mention that adding red links to persons is forbidden, where WP:REDLINK does. This ban is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Personal names redux. If the ban is supported by the community, it should be mentioned more upfront here to avoid confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Tony (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on red links for persons[edit]

Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia policies in articles[edit]

I was wondering if someone could instruct on the legitimacy of a policy link in an article. In List of films in the public domain in the United States the word "notable" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:Notability in the second sentence of the lead. The MOS does not seem to prohibit this type of link but this is the first time I have encountered an article link taking readers under the hood of Wikipedia, so to speak. Is this an acceptable form of linking in an article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO the intent of either WP:EGG or WP:Self reference applies. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE clarification[edit]

I'm involved in a dispute relating to this change, but should the following be listed as an example of a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem:

There is an unlinked comma, but I have to look carefully to notice the difference, even though I put it in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It's more of a WP:SPECIFICLINK issue. The first of the three is best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Arthur Rubin Aha, so you revert me but you're not even sure of whether that was right or not, and then you report me for edit warring? You're an admin? Seriously? Bottom line is that it's not a sea of blue issue, and this is a preference, i.e. a qualitative view, nothing absolute carved into policy. Not to mention that in the same article you reverted me, there's "... and Nigeria, intervene in the Gambia's political crisis to... " and "... the Maldives, cut diplomatic ties with..." and "... is a common year starting on Sunday (dominical letter A) of ..." yet the only one you decided to pick up was the one I changed? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    In all except the common year example, and your unfortunate edit, there is no simple adjustment of the text that would resolve the issue, and the text seems unlikely as a single bluelink. I'll have to check common year .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Your unfortunate edit warring which clearly was pointed and involved, just to catch me out, overlooked the others. Simple adjustments aside, these are all sea of blue violations (per your own interpretation, not others I might stress). Yet you had to edit war over the one I addressed? How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: It's off topic to discuss your edit warring and Arthur Rubin's behaviour here. Yes, it's appropriate to discuss changes anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Walter Görlitz: it's off topic for an admin who has accused me of edit warring to drag me here with his ping. Highly inappropriate. Please resolve that before having a dig at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see you pinged. Perhaps you were alerted in a different way and are using that precise terminology incorrectly here.
    Please stay on-topic though. The topic here is linking and it is appropriate to discuss that here. Complain at the ANEW and pray for a WP:BOOMERANG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi. I support Arthur Rubin's three verdicts, but this is already in WP:EGG. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on red links in infoboxes[edit]

Regarding MOS:INFOBOX, there is an RfC about red links in infoboxes. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)