Wikipedia talk:Piped link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects"[edit]

I take issue with the general notion of "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". Oh? Since when are redirects considered the default versus clean, direct linking to specific Wikipedia articles? Redirects exist as a result of internal link attrition (articles being moved, etc.). I don't care whether having redirects is "some sort of useful tool to gauge [this condition or that]", they exist primarily to deal with internal link attrition, as well as when a linked article's name doesn't fit cleanly into the style of wording of an article that the link originates from. Bumm13 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the corresponding Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken (I'd use a pipe but apparently some people are against them, per this very page). Since when do other editors get to say one of my edits to an article is "invalid" simply because some random person thinks that edits only involving the making of piped links ("fixing redirects") is somehow detrimental to building an online encyclopedia? Bumm13 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bumm13. Back when I was starting out in Wikipedia, many, many years ago, I was told that redirected links should always be fixed with direct links whenever possible. Now they're saying it should not be? I don't understand the logic behind this. Illegitimate Barrister 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Bumm13 & Illegitimate Barrister, one reason is that some redirects may eventually become their own articles. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, here's the thing. Sometimes that might be true, but sometimes it isn't. I only learned of this policy because I took "The Honorable" and made it link (piped it? is that the proper term?) to "The Honourable" because that's what the article is called, even though the particular page was for an American and therefore used the American spelling. There's absolutely no reason to have two different articles in that case, but someone reverted my edit. And the case doesn't correspond to any of the other reasons given, either. Is there still a reason to have the redirect? If so, someone should explain that and add it to the article. (Or, at least, tell me, please!) If not, then the article should be clear that piping is valid when none of those conditions apply. And, yes, I would support avoiding redirects in general (note that some of the reasons, such as the George Washington example, don't even lead to redirects), but I can see the idea that you can leave redirects if there's a legitimate possibility that a new page will be created.Brettalan (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


I'm wondering if formating links to be different colors or use small or bold instructions should be here or on a "see also" page linked from here. There are legitimate reasons for modifying links as such for example if a background color on the page makes links invisible or in signatures or something... Technical 13 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironic example[edit]

The last sentence of Intuitiveness section reads, "If the interpretation is purely that of the editor, it is original research and should be moved someplace else entirely."

While some may find it amusing, the last link may confuse the reader (at least myself, initially). A style guide should be concise and unambiguous, e.g. "it is original research and should not be included."

cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, cryptic. I've changed to "and should be removed", which preserves the original meaning and encourages fixing of this problem. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear links policy[edit]

Wikipedia is ever more plagued by 'easter egg' links, as described in this article's section, 'Wikipedia:Piped_link#Intuitiveness'. This isn't a lack of intuitiveness even - it's a lack of clarity. Avoiding these should be a matter of policy. However, looking at Wikipedia:List of policies, it's not clear that there is even an appropriate section for a policy on the use of piping. If such a policy were introduced, a suitably clear title would be the 'clear links policy'. - Crosbie 15:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Pensacola, Florida or Pensacola, Florida[edit]

Is it better to link like Pensacola, Florida or like Pensacola, Florida? Siuenti (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first one. See WP:SPECIFICLINK --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


So "[ Citation Needed ]"   ("[ [[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]] ]")  is right off? :)  ([[Smiley|:]][[Emoticon|)]])  --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG: clarity sought on a particular situation[edit]

See the second line in the infobox at Beiseker. The village's municipal status is piped [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]]. Linking directly to [[Village]] could potentially be WP:OVERLINK as an everyday word understood by most readers in a general context. The benefit of [[List of villages in Alberta|Village]] as the current state here however is to link to the article that discusses what a village is in the Alberta context. So, is the above example an WP:EASTEREGG violation or not? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)