Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

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

RfC about linking in quotations[edit]

There is a strong consensus in favour of the new proposed wording. --Brustopher (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:LINKSTYLE currently says:

Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.

Should this be changed to

Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. (If quoting hypertext, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate, to avoid ambiguity as to whether the link was made by the original author.)

NPalgan2 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

If you Yankees can send a tamping bar through a fellow's brain and not kill him, I guess there are not many can shoot a bullet between a man's mouth and his brains, stopping just short of the medulla oblongata, and not touch either
– why in the world shouldn't I link medulla oblongata? Similarly, when I quote someone saying
He is the index case for personality change due to frontal lobe damage
–what's the problem with linking index case? How am I supposed to somehow "[place] the relevant links in the surrounding text"? I've told that linking is "changing the quotation", but that's stupid. If the source is hypertext, then obviously that's a special case, well handled in the proposal. EEng 22:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would you need to link it in the first place? Is the quote in an article on the effects of weapons on the brain, I'm sure the various parts of the brain are already linked. If it's in an article on the thoughts of physicians, does the actual body part matter? So again, in what context does this quote appear and why does it need to be linked? The same questions can be asked about index case. And similar questions could be asked about why "Yankee", "tamping bar", "brain", "personality change", "frontal lobe" or other terms are not linked. Where do you stop the linking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is [1], and you can answer your questions yourself there. It's irrelevant to ask why editors judged certain links to be useful or not useful in a given passage – that judgment is exercised all the time. The question here is: If editors would have linked these terms had the text been not a quotation, why shouldn't they be linked just because it is a quotation. EEng 01:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. There are way too many links and way too many quotes on Wikipedia, and anything that may encourage well-meaning editors to add them in combination is a terrible idea. --John (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Walter Görlitz, what about this example: the article Tian Qilang quotes Pu Songling's postscript: " If Jing Ke had been capable of this feat, he would have left no regret to linger on for a thousand years." The comparison to Jing Ke is mentioned in passing and has no connection to the rest of the article, inserting a mention of Jing Ke in the article would disrupt the flow. There would be no problem with paraphrasing Pu as "Pu compared Tian to Jing Ke." Why not make the link in the quotation instead? It's not as if the reader would be confused as to whether an 18th century Chinese author was using hyperlinks. John, I agree that WP:OVERLINK is a problem, but that is a more general problem. We can always say that editors should be *especially* sparing with links in quotations. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A few issues. I think you mean WP:SEAOFBLUE and not OVELRINK. Removing an overlink would be obvious.
Why are you not breaking back-links? Each of those topics you linked is now linked to this discussion.
I'm watching this page. There's no need to hail me. Thanks.
Why not link the quotation? If it's not appropriate in the note, why would you imagine it's appropriate in the quote? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I won't hail you if you prefer not. SEAOFBLUE is "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link", I meant OVERLINK. I don't understand your other points. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Collapse digression in which A scolds B for trivially altering C's post – and C doesn't care
@Walter Görlitz: Why did you add colons to the links in this edit? How was doing so permissible within WP:TPO? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a manual of style not a policy. How was it a violation of TPO? How is it that you have no clue about breaking backlinks? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
What on earth do you mean about "breaking backlinks"? If you mean that by putting a colon into the link it somehow removes this page from "what links here" for those two pages - well, it doesn't. WP:TPO allows modification of other people's posts in certain circumstances: inserting those colons is permissible for file links and for category links; but neither of these circumstances applied to the links which you altered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Will you two simmer down? It was my post that got altered, and while I have no idea why it was altered, it's a trivial change and doesn't bother me. If someone wants to explain some subtle significance to the change, please do so on my talk page. EEng 21:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah; the colons didn't break anything or affect the visual rendering, so WP:DGAF. WP doesn't need people micro-policing each other's editing down to the character. Seriously, no one cares.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; wikilinking changes the sense of a quotation. It's lazy editing to use a link to explain a term anyway; our articles should work when printed. An explanatory footnote (incorporating a link if desired) is far more elegant. --John (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    "Our articles should work when printed" is an argument against links in general, whether or not they're inside quotations. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. John, it still says "conservative", and I would still avoid it. - I have a question open at Classical music (BWV number), where footnotes are opposed, also discussed in the peer review of BWV 80. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per Phineas Gage's brain damage link above... "Does my Rs look big in this"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well-meaning but misguided. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as reflecting years of actual practice. I suspect some copyediting will occur later, but this proposed version is good enough.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Loose links quash quotes.
EEng
  • Oppose—I'm concerned the new wording will shift us toward loose linking in quotations. Tony (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current text says "should not generally be linked", which leaves plenty (and I think adequate) scope for the cases offered in support. The proposal adds more details, which just makes MOS more complex, and offers more points to argue about. I might agree with NPalgan2 that "editors should be *especially* sparing with links in quotations", but that is not what has been proposed. I agree with John (and the current LWQ) that wikilinking changes the sense of a quotation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Observation: The current and proposed wording can actually easily be merged; there's very little mutually incompatible between them. It really is true that generally linking in quotes can/should be avoided; it's just also true that in a site this size, many quotes will have links in them, and we ought to offer specific guidance about how to not do that poorly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  05:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So that the description of how to handle the exceptions does not become more prominent than the proscription, perhaps that special guidance could be put into a box, and prefixed with: "If you must link with in a quote:". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't normally use boxes, and doing so would just serve to highlight it. A more typical approach would be an indented or bulleted sub-item under the main line-item in the guideline.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I would prefer to see footnotes being used to provide additional information, but can understand that there may be some extraordinary circumstances in which it may be beneficial to link to an article. Sb2001 12:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the change will still ensure that links are used sparingly, but it will also avoid situations where writing can appear plain awkward – i.e. introducing a term before a quote for no other reason than to avoid linking it in the quoted text that follows. Over the years, I've come across reviewers dismissing the current requirement as impracticable. JG66 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a style guide that I'm apt to ignore, and not seeing a better way to do it, without including a needless summary. See two of my most egregious lapses: at Peacock Throne, where I link some obsolete Indian measurements, and at Tuileries Palace, where I thought it foolhardy to try to improve on Filon's description. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very sensible; comports with our usual practice. Neutralitytalk 22:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The sea-of-blue is a question of aesthetics. Never sure why it was abolished, also not sure why it is prohibited at Wikisource. The whole point of links is to use them to give context. (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral — I'm leaning towards 'support' but would like to see the wording refined a bit. Users J. Johnson and SMcCandlish seem to be on the right track by my reckoning. --A Fellow Editor (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (I think) – the new wording is more explanatory, which is a good thing. It doesn't otherwise change the outcome of the guidance. Tony (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:LWQ -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: any quotation with embedded wikilinks gives the false impression to the reader that the author of the quoted text was writing for an encyclopedia. Or worse, that they were Wikipedia-aware. Frankly, I find these wikilinks disturbing. - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Like when at Abraham Lincoln we quote the great man thus –
Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword ...
– someone might think that Lincoln was Wikipedia-aware. We can't have that. Thus the thing to do is add some awkward explanation after the quote, or just say nothing and leave modern readers who don't know what bond-man means in the dark. EEng 15:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an example where a witk-link does a good job. Now try linking to unrequited, drop, blood, lash, and sword in there. Then I am out of here. - DVdm (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Overlinking is an issue for all linking, not just in quotes. EEng 18:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, replace my and with or. - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - primarily because I agree with the spirit of the guideline, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked." To that end, the current version maintains the restrictive nature intended while clearly not forbidding the practice outright; the suggested modification presents linking from within quoted text as an intuitive practice while delineating a level of diligence no more robust than what should routinely be exercised.
The hypertext connotations are interesting, and I believe their existence needs extenuation, but this RFC does not adequately vet the question, nor does the suggested modification provide sufficient remit. For example: if the hyperlink, in the cited text, targeted a Wikipedia article, as they often do, an interlink here would satisfy minimal change whereas if the sourced hyperlink targeted a page external to Wikipedia, an interlink here would not satisfy minimal change, and an external link doesn't belong in the article's body. For these reasons, I prefer the status quo.--John Cline (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Note MOS:LWQ, which says: As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader. If consensus is achieved to change MOS:LINKSTYLE, this may also need to be tweaked, depending on what changes (if any) are adopted. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged is the stupidity I refer to in my post in the Survey section. EEng 22:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a certain argument for purity, though? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The extra verbiage proposed introduces vagueness, which will likely be taken as carte blanche by lazy editors (like me) to pack quotations with wikilinks instead of taking the time to write encyclopedic summaries of source material. The original, more concise version still allows some flexibility (see "not generally", "instead, consider"). Those who don't like the guideline can always make a case via WP:IAR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, when I gave, in the Survey section, my super-duper support for change, I was really channeling my longterm hatred for the LWQ text (quoted by NPalgan2 above). Its over-strong discouragement of linking is what I think really, really should be changed. I'd support both the LWQ text and the LINKSTYLE text being changed to the proposed new text. EEng 01:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The MOS:PMC concern is actually just the use of links that take people to misleading pages and imply a meaning not intended by the speaker, e.g. "Damned liberals make my butt hurt" in a Trump quote, or "Do it, England" in a quote from Hamlet. A side concern, of course, is trivial and distracting over-linkage of everyday words, which we shouldn't do anywhere, and especially shouldn't do in quotes. However, site-wide consensus has clearly never actually been in favor of the idea that any link at all within a quotation is an impermissible alteration, since there has never been a time when experienced, MoS-cognizant editors have not been regularly linking key terms/names in quoted material, even if the better writers among us try hard to write around the necessity to do so. (A good but unrelated reason to do this is that various editors are on a mini-mission to eliminate unnecessary quotations, and when they cut out a questionably encyclopedic one in which there are actually-important links, that just gets lost, while doing it in the surrounding prose will retain the contextual linking, with minor copyedits, if the quote is axed.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  05:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain what's wrong with the current text, which includes an out, in "generally"? Tony (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, like I said a bit up from here, my distaste is really for LWQ's over-discouraging As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader. EEng 03:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Editors assessing articles for FA or GA status tend to ignore the out, which is why I prefer my phrasing. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Clarify? It's my experience that editors assessing articles for FA or GA status tend to ignore almost everything except spelling and citations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm glad this discussion is coming to life again. NPalgan2, since you're the OP, how do you want to move this forward? EEng 04:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I posted a request for closure; I think everyone's had their say. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Every"-thing" should be internally linked, with external links strictly in the reference & external links sections only. Wikipedia isn't only for people who already know about the subject they're reading about; internal links make the content user friendly for everyone. The next step's to use Logic programming to avoid vandalism, and auto link every"-thing" internally; everyone would need to learn how to be programmers though, but Deductive databases could also contribute... -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be an Amishpædian! Hyperlinking is a technological marvel that should be used to it's full potential! And Wikipedia should use Grammar checkers & Spell checkers; there could be a feature to suggest adding a new word into the Wiktionary. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: If the wording is changed, the "Linking" section (MOS:LWQ) of MOS:QUOTE should be changed to match. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:QUOTE. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone please link an example showing where this guideline was cited to justify the wrongful removal of an interlink from within quoted text. Every example, given above, shows a term that currently is linked, has long been, and, AFAICS, was not contested. My impression is that the guidelines are well written (already) and well understood (as written). The given examples serve only to solidify that impression.--John Cline (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Does this count? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
While I wouldn't exactly say the guideline was used to justify the wrongful removal of interlinks, I will concede that using it, as shown, required an overly broad interpretation even while their removal was more appropriately covered by MOS:OVERLINK. Therefor, while it "counts" for more than the other examples are due, It is not quite enough to draw my support at this time. Thank you for your reply.--John Cline (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The term "wikilink"[edit]

At present, 25 November 2017, Manual of Style/Linking only uses three instances of the term "wikilink" in the main body of text; one of which is simply as part of the title of a {{section link}} to another page (eg Help:Link § Wikilinks).

Has the term "wikilink" officially gone out of fashion in some manner? Ie was there some explicit previous discussion regarding this? Or is it just an example of a drift in taste over time? And/or ... ?

The situation came to my notice while looking into the WP:Wikilinks redirect.

Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, not official deprecated or anything. It's just unnecessarily lengthy when the context makes it clear we do not mean an external link.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What with the present state of things (full term 'wikilink' out of vogue here) I'm thinking it might be better (least 'surprise', clearer for readers) if the Wikipedia:Wikilinks redirect were to target Help:Link § Wikilinks (internal links) as that section starts off with relevant terms in bold while also linking other pages offering further elaboration.
Help:Link § Wikilinks, quoted
Wikilinks (internal links)

A wikilink (or internal link) links a page to another page within English Wikipedia. In wikitext, links are enclosed in doubled square brackets like this:

  • [[abc]] is seen as "abc" in text and links to page "abc".

Use a vertical bar "|" (the "pipe" symbol — see Wikipedia:Piped link for how to type one) to create a link while labelling it with a different name on the original page. The first term inside the brackets is the link (the page you would be taken to), while anything you type after the vertical bar is what that link looks like on the original page. Here are some examples:

  • [[a|b]] is labelled "b" on this page but links to page "a". Example: b.

[...]

Basically, as things stand, Help:Link § Wikilinks seems to me more what one might expect to land on when offered "WP:Wikilinks" as a shortcut.
--–A Fellow Editor– 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Including "the" in wikilinks[edit]

What's the deal with including "the" in wikilinks?

Seems to me they should be excluded when they're not part of the title of a work. So that means, for example, we should link like this:

First: should this be covered in the MoS? (Maybe it is already and I'm missing it?)

Second: assuming I'm right about excluding "the", was I right to be reverted when I changed "the Holocaust" to "the Holocaust" on the David Irving article recently? I suspect this was done because the article title itself is "The Holocaust". I have separate opinions about including "the" in article titles, but putting those aside, does this not create an inconsistent linking style? Popcornduff (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like overkill (policy creep) to me. While I'll concur that it's generally advisable to just wikilink the title term and not an accompanying article (grammar)—and doing so conveniently saves having to add a pipe and target in markup—I can also think of times where I've intentionally made an exception. Like when an article title being linked is very short and one wants to be sure the wikilink is readily apparent to readers ('readers', those mysterious beasts for whom we—ostensibly—do this all for). Or in cases where stretching the span of a wikilink may otherwise serve as a convenient form of emphasis.

Speaking of overkill ... Complicating a simple direct wikilink like [[the Holocaust]] into the [[the Holocaust|Holocaust]] just to satisfy one's personal pet peeve seems a bit over-the-top to me. Especially when one takes into account that the article, "the Holocaust", is presumably so titled because it conforms to common usage familiar to general readers with minimal wp:astonishment. Please stop.

A cautionary note – when technically minded folk with a penchant for order, consistency, and control get caught up in the zeal of a systematization crusade unpleasantness can result. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, if one reflects a bit they may notice an iconic example of the extremity of such already embedded in this discussion.

Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk)

I've memorialized some of A.F.E.'s wise words [2]. EEng 05:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yikes. "Please stop"? I'm not picking a fight. My change was reverted, I didn't challenge it, and checked what the consensus is.
So the logic is indeed that the article is titled "The Holocaust" rather than "Holocaust" (even though both pages go to the same place, so it's not like it disambiguates anything). I therefore don't see why the page title includes "the" when the Mona Lisa and White House articles don't; these things are also always referred to with the definite article, so why does WP:ASTONISH apply here? I also note that the Holocaust article only bolds "the Holocaust", excluding the definite article, so I'm even more confused. edit: consulting the Holocaust article archives, there was already a discussion about this. I shouldn't have brought it up here in detail.
But these are all points to be discussed somewhere else, I suppose, and not here. That is if I have the guts. I might have to find an example less likely to have me likened to a totalitarian regime that murdered millions of people. Popcornduff (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If being compared to Nazism is the worst thing that happens to you as a WP editor, you're doing pretty well. Back to the point at hand, my gating question on additions to MOS, always, is: show me evidence that this has been a problem on multiple articles that editors have been unable to settle for themselves. See User:EEng#mossy. EEng 06:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is purely something I've wondered a few times. A MOS entry would have been useful for me to know if there was a right way of doing it. If no one else finds it confusing, hey ho. Popcornduff (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Re: "Yikes." – Ooops, sorry, I may have been coming on a bit strong myself. "Please stop." probably could have been better phrased as "Please don't make a habit of repeating such in similar circumstances." I tend to give a fair bit of thought to formatting and would have been irked if you'd come along and reformatted an edit I'd made in such a manner.

As to The Holocaust's title choice and lead emphasis and such ... Speculating off-the-cuff I'm thinking an urge to clearly distinguish "The Holocaust" from "a holocaust" may have affected prevalence in available sources ... Perhaps a sort of 'branding-a-cause' comes into play as well. I grew up around Columbus, Ohio and one of our regional icons, The Ohio State University, can be very particular about including the "The".[n 1]

Mayhap a good way to explore the topic further would be to go ahead and post an inquiry over at Talk:The Holocaust. Relevant stuff may have come up in discussion before—and if not you've an opportunity to stimulate some reflection.

G'luck, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

note

  1. ^ Not trying to trivialize the former by comparing to the latter; just focusing on the use of language. And ironically I've now noticed that Wikipedia actually has the title and body usage askew for the OSU article ... It's presently titled "Ohio State University" while using "The" within.
  • Popcornduff, a discussion elsewhere (regarding WP:SHORTCUTs) brought my attention to wp:NotBroken/DoNotFixIt which—though specifically addressing a slightly different context—may offer something of value in relation to wikilinks of articles as well. Perhaps try mentally amending the section heading to § Do not "fix" links to redirects [and articles] that are not broken.

    Specifically, in regard to:  • Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form., and,  • Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

    Hope this helps, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't include "the" unless it's part of the title, e.g. The Lord of the Rings, or The The. "The" is often included in a piped link for contextual clarity to avoid a MOS:SUBMARINE link, e.g.: The team then published [[Report on the Progress of the Underwater Basketweaving Proposal|the report]], where using the [[Report on the Progress of the Underwater Basketweaving Proposal|report]] would misleadingly imply a link to the page Report.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    Man, I wish we had a way to steer people away from links like that. EEng 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    That might be a sunk proposal. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
We could be out of our depth. EEng 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to ... "sinking The Belgrano". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the MOS:DUPLINK and MOS:LEADLINK material need separate sections?[edit]

The MOS:DUPLINK material used to simply be under the WP:Overlink (MOS:OVERLINK) section (without a subheading), and that was not too long ago. So it's still the case that when editors point to WP:Overlink, they mean what MOS:DUPLINK states. Of course, MOS:DUPLINK is right beneath WP:Overlink, but it might be confusing to have the MOS:DUPLINK and MOS:LEADLINK sections separate from the WP:Overlink section. It's all overlinking, or at least it was before the separation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh. It's just a natural process of content development that more section headings and stuff get added. People will adjust.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, this is all that need be done [3].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought about asking if we should perhaps make them subsections of WP:Overlink, but I wondered if that would help much since the title being smaller would not look that much different than the title being slightly bigger. Anyway, it's better than nothing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And MOS:LEADLINK was already its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. "Duplicate and repeat links" is logically a subtopic of undesirable links, while "Lead section" is not, so I just left that one as-is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand leaving that section as is, but it's also about excessive links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking non-notable subjects to their WikiData entries[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)