Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

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

"major nationalities"[edit]

How does one determine what are the "major nationalities"? The examples given are: "(e.g. English, British, American, French, German...)" But then we have those three dots. Does it depend on the size of the country? the article context? something else? Could we have examples of countries which aren't "major nationalities"? Unless there is a strict rule, won't this guideline just lead to endless debate over all those countries "in the middle"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether there has been a more centralized discussion, but this is not the first time it's been discussed, so rather than saying anything original myself, I'll just throw in couple of links, fwtw: "Overlinking vs. overpolicing" (2011), "What is "major" for the purposes of overlinking?" (2014), and also a more recent discussion at Talk:Brian_Sylvestre#WP:OVERLINK (2015). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that last one is quite an informative discussion, thanks. With some useful comments from User:SMcCandlish. There has been a recent much smaller discussion, also with User:Walter Görlitz, over at Talk:Arvo Pärt. I simply wanted to link Estonian in the opening sentence, but Walter says that is WP:OVERLINK since Estonian is a ""major nationality". I'd just like to know how to tell what counts as "major" in future. Things don't seem to be quite so clear cut as one might imagine. It all looks rather subjective. But I see that User:Wikimandia says: "Every article that specifies ethnicity has the first FIRST mention linked (eg Russian American, Irish American, French Canadian, etc)." Well that looks kind of clear cut? Or does this must mean that (all) "ethnicities" are ok to link, but (some) "nationalities" are not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of that wording or that idea. The concept is basically "if the average seventh grader can point to it on a map without having to look it up", I would think. So, no, Estonia does not qualify. My own practice today (notwithstanding my 2015 comments) is to always link it on first occurrence, and to a cultural article when possible (e.g. Estonian people) if linking from a bio. I know some editors disagree with this and call it overlinking. I have just elected to take a WP:DGAF stance on the matter. People can revert me if they want to, or emulate me; there is no clear-cut consensus, because there is no clearly defined dividing line making the cut.

We actually have a bigger but closely related problem at WP:ENGVAR: the idea of "major" and allegedly "national" varieties of English. I think it's meant to convey "the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, and everyone else can buzz off". It's generally taken that way. I think we should scrap the entire thing and go with well-codified forms of written English, of which there are three: US, British/Commonwealth, and (just in the last few decades) Canadian, which is a mish-mash of the other two. In actual practice, written English in the Commonwealth (and former semi-recent British colonies that are not in the Commonwealth, like Ireland) is indistinguishable except for informal local vocabulary differences from place to place, with the sole Commonwealth exception being that Canadian English has accepted a lot of Americanisms. Similarly, formal written English in heavily US-influenced places like the Philippines, Okinawa, etc., is not appreciably distinguishable from that produced in New York or Los Angeles, except again for occasional "local color" terminology (also found within these "major nations" as regional variation).

Put this in problem-solving terms. These are the problems to solve, in actual priority order:

  • We do not want readers' minds to revolt, at the sight of the Duke of Wellington being written about with American spelling, or Chevy and Ford vehicles referred to as having "boots", "bonnets", and "tyres".
  • We do not want editors to fight over "national" varieties of English. This does not mean, however, we need to entertain people tagging "their" article as being written in New Delhi English or Western Canada English or Scottish English or New Mexico English. The territorialism is itself a problem and a source of problems.
  • We do not want any "dialect" writing here at all. No article should be written in Jamaican English or Philippine English or whathaveyou. Numerous spoken dialects exist, the users of which write in fairly standardized British/Commonwealth or American English or Canadian English when writing formally (to the extent they don't, we don't give a damn, because this is not Belizepedia or Guamipedia).

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Like much of our decision-making as to what to link and what not to, there are grey areas. Just as there are grey areas in our grammar, in what to cite and how often, and in getting the "balance" right where politics are hot-button. In the end, we must rely on individual editors to make a call; SMcCandlish's mention of the average-seven-year-old test is a useful though vague rule of thumb. I would probably link Estonia once. But not household names that are 20 times bigger in population and area, like France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, India, et al. and all of the majority native-anglophone countries (since this is the English WP). Individual editors will have their preferences for few or more, beyond the obviously well-known country-names. I am on the more conservative side, linking country- and city-names only where they seem to be pretty unfamiliar to an English-speaker, and sufficiently important in the context, at that.

    But there is a second issue. In my gnoming I frequently come across linked country-names that should point to either offspring articles (e.g. Sport in South Africa, not the generic South Africa article); or sections within the country-article or a related one ([[Politics of Estonia#Political history of Estonia|Estonia]]), because most readers are likely to ignore it. This is where our editorial skills are needed to help readers navigate well around the topic. After all, we are the ones with the topic knowledge, right? It's all-too-often dismissive of readers to supply them with a lazy link to a mega-topic.

    My preference is not to "Easter egg" such specific links with a pipe to the generic country name in the main text ([[Architecture of Estonia#Gothic architecture|Estonia]]), but to display the specific link unpiped in a "See also" section further down. Let readers see and judge what they want. It's very satisfying to apply our skills to this end, I think. Tony (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC) PS I do think that Politics of Estonia should link to the generic country-name, somewhere in the lead. At present, there's no link at all to the country. Tony (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks for the input. I don't see Estonian as any kind of Easter egg. Over at Arvo Pärt, me and Walter each reverted twice, and then someone used the phrase "edit war". So I'm not sure how that gets resolved. I have to agree with what User:SMcCandlish has added above, although I think his second topic deserves a separate discussion thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the ENGVAR thing shouldn't be discussed in detail here; the point of bringing it up was to suggest it get discussed at WT:MOS, and I should have been clearer about that. As for the editwar, hopefully either this discussion or one at the article's talk page will resolve it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    Who knows. We're only five days in at the moment! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    However, in the article, there are links to the Estonian city and state in which the subject was born, and if a subject wanted to get there, that would work. And no, [[Estonians|Estonian]] isn't an Easter Egg, but with the content in the section below it, isn't necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    I thought we linked things on first occurrence? Maybe I'm seeing too subtle a difference between the country and the nationality. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) That ignores the "link the first instance" principle, which is especially important in leads. A common reading pattern here is to skim the lead's first sentence for the gist, then jump immediately to a section of particular interest.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    First instance and REPEATLINK are in conflict here. If WP:OPENPARA didn't exclude including birth location in the first sentence, this wouldn't be an issue. A separate, but related problem is that the classical music group prefers not to have infoboxes. Both the OPENPARA or infobox could include birth information, but in the case of most classical composers in general, and this composer in specific, that doesn't happen. Compounding problems, but I don't see a need to link Estonia because there is always the search box if some needs to know what it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    Um, "... there is always the search box if some needs to know what anything is. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    Do you have a point? In Pärt's case in particular, being Estonian is not key to understanding the subject. Period. He wasn't a nationalist composer the way that Carl Nielsen or Edvard Grieg were so linking the nation in the lede is not necessary. That it can be reached in the next section and using a search are sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    I used to have one. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. so that's Period with a capital P, then.
    So are you equating the fact that Estonians are proud of Pärt with the lack of need to be a nationalist composer? I'm sure he's a favourite son, but his compositions do not promote the nation. At this point WP:STICK applies to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's part of understanding the person to see that he is Estonian. I think what you dispute is the wlink. You should not make that argument. Alaney2k (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • But he's not notable for being Estonian. He's notable for being a composer. Understanding what Estonia is does not assist the reader in understanding the subject at all. Therefore, Estonia does not need to be linked. That Estonians love him because he was born there is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, the fact that he's a composer makes him notable, not that he is Estonian. Alaney2k (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'd accept that if the article was called Music of Arvo Pärt. But it's not, it's about him. I think his place of birth has made quite a large contribution to an understanding his life. But the discussion here was meant to be about the term "major nationality," and I must say I feel we are no further towards any clear definition. I'll copy that Estonian World source back to Talk:Arvo Pärt, as I think it's useful for the article. The other point I was trying to make, Walter, which again is not specific to Pärt, is that I don't think that just saying "there is a search box" is a very convincing argument. If it was, then we wouldn't bother linking anything. Or did you mean because of its proximity to the opening section? I wasn't quite sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Two things. We're talking about the wlink in this case. I would link it, but the wlink to Estonian people is not necessary. Secondly, I would not put Estonians in major nationalities. Alaney2k (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, I'd link it too. And I did. And then, after re-adding it, I was accused of being in an "edit war". Walter Gorlitz suggested that part of the problem with my linking were rules about "major nationalities". But I think we've now established here that any judgment about those is almost wholly subjective. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata and the English Wikipedia's stylistic integrity[edit]

Fellow editors,

It's likely that we'll be living with increasing amounts of Wikidata-generated text on the English Wikipedia. Yet it's being generated in Berlin by developers and programmers in the German chapter without reference to the stylistic consensus that has painstakingly evolved on this site over the past 14 years.

I believe we should be taking more than a little interest in the style and formatting of Wikidata outputs. I've sounded a warning at the Wikidata state of affairs discussion that has been playing out during September. That page contians many expressions of caution, dismay, and alarm at the potential pitfalls of Wikidata's ability to roll out text at its whim, and at the lack of control we will have over the inevitable encroachments on en.WP.

Wikidata is an important project that will be riding the transition from biological algorithms (that's us, as creative editors) to electronic algorithms (that's machines that generate and read WP text). It's the latter that will slowly grow to dominate WMF sites from the mid-2020s onward, in a process that will be occurring in the economy at large in the first half of the century.

I urge editors to keep abreast of the developments, and to be ready to insist that Wikidata consult us on style and formatting before releasing on our site each displayed text that it proposes. This should be a matter of established protocol, in my view.

Tony (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: Just for those who are not fully aware of the current state of affairs (like me), could you give a few examples of where this Wikidata-generated text appears on en.WP? I am only aware of infoboxes (where there is no text, just snippets of information). Thanks! − Pintoch (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The worrying thing is that general editors, like you and me, find it hard to know what Wikidata is all about. But it's comin' soon, I can assure you. See my query here. Tony (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am actually fairly active in Wikidata, so I do understand how these things work − I just suspect that there isn't any text generation from Wikidata in enWP at the moment. A few editors here are trying to spread the idea that a "Wikidata Crusade" is going on, and that Wikipedia should fight for its life against Wikidata. That is a bit silly, so I think it would be good to back all these claims with solid examples instead of just spreading rumors. But I agree that a lot more has to be done to explain how Wikidata works, why it is useful, how to use it in Wikipedia, and how not to use it in the running text of articles. − Pintoch (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch: I've been reading and mostly avoiding directly participating in that drama, and feel that you're mischaracterizing it. The primary concerns are that a) WD doesn't have policies or procedures that match en.WPs (or a means of applying ours to WD data imported here); and b) WMF itself seems hot to promote integration of WD into other projects, quickly, and has not been responsive enough to concerns of these sorts. That's hardly a crusade or an accusation of one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I totally agree that the concerns that you point out are legitimate − but some of the arguments I have read are a bit less pragmatic and a bit more emotional. For instance, I think we should avoid considerations of "electronic algorithms" endangering "biological algorithms" and other things like that! − Pintoch (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like weirdly geeky wording and a flair for the dramatic, but even that concern is valid when you boil it down: an automated machine process is exercising inflexible pseudo-judgment, and can interfere with human real judgement that has done something else or is trying to do something based on the specific contextual needs. Modern life is kind of overflowing with this problem. WD-in-WP has been raising this concern at almost every turn (some exceptions seem to be interwikis and TemplateData, but issues can even arise there).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Pintoch you asked could you give a few examples of where this Wikidata-generated text appears on en.WP? There is an active dispute over articles containing descriptive text taken from Wikidata when viewed on mobile (currently disabled for browser-based-mobile on EnWiki-only, but Wikidata text is still placed on articles in app-mobile). The same wikidata text is attached to articles on search results, in the link-tool inside Visual Editor, and likely elsewhere. There is also hot battle over replacing refs with {{Cite Q|Q######}} which completely replaces the ref with Wikidata. Not currently live on Wikipedia, the VillagePumpTechnical MAPLINK request you just supported involves full Wikidata database queries to retrieve arbitrary batches of Wikidata items to construct a map. If Wikidata displays Ohio shaped like a penis, approximately zero-point-zero-zero percent of editors will be able to read that raw database query to find the Wikidata edit that needs to be reverted to fix that vandalism. Alsee (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee: thank you for this survey! As this is the talk page about a part of the Manual of Style I was thinking about some auto-generated sentences in main text of articles (I would certainly oppose that). I can add to your list the proposal to add Wikidata identifiers to CS1/2, with the plan to integrate the functionality of Cite Q in CS1/2 on the long term (I have opposed that). Finally (and this is probably not the right place to discuss that), I am puzzled by your account of the mapframe extension: as I understand it, the extension itself only displays OpenStreetMap data. Why don't you voice your concern directly at WP:VPT? − Pintoch (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Pintoch, I didn't yet post at VPT because proposals are supposed to be posted on Pump Proposals. (Which is where I and others watch for proposals.) I didn't discover it on Technical until it was too late to effectively respond before closure. I posted the above-comment to you while trying to think through what, if anything, I wanted to post there. Regarding the Wikidata integration in mapframe, it was misrepresented in the discussion. You can see a wikidata-query example at Kartographer#GeoShapes_via_Wikidata_Query. Alsee (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-repeated links: is there any tool to add them automatically?[edit]


Is anybody aware of a tool that would take Wikitext and add wikilinks that have been omitted due to this policy? Something that would read the text gradually, see things like [[Douglas Adams|D. Adams]] and replace all further occurrences of D. Adams by [[Douglas Adams|D. Adams]].

Input text:

This book was written by [[Douglas Adams|Adams]] and was originally a [[radio comedy]].
The [[BBC]] had commissioned the radio comedy from Adams.

Output text:

This book was written by [[Douglas Adams|Adams]] and was originally a [[radio comedy]].
The [[BBC]] had commissioned the [[radio comedy]] from [[Douglas Adams|Adams]].

Of course the goal is not to perform such edits on Wikipedia (as it goes against the policy) but rather to use these links for entity extraction from wikitext. Of course, such a tool could potentially insert wrong wikilinks, and would need to be used with care.

Cheers, − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean by "extraction". You mean add the links off-wiki to duplicate text? Tony (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes exactly. I am looking for software that would take the input text above, and spit out the output text below (off-wiki). − Pintoch (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a question for WP:VPTECH. I could do this manually with regexps in a good text editor. Which means you could do it in more automated fashion with a perl script, python program, or whatever, that tokenized the stuff inside the [[...]], and also excluded false positive like [[File:...]] (but looked inside them for [[File:...[[...]]...]]). Whether someone's done it already or is willing to isn't an MoS question, though.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask there! − Pintoch (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"United States" is not a geographic feature[edit]

It's a political entity.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And your point would be ...?  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
So what's that big thing between Canada and Mexico?
I believe he's referring to WP:OVERLINK Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The wording gave the US as a location, not a geographical feature; anon was mis-reading. That segment was a big mess though, so I boldly rewrote it [1]. Hopefully it will stick.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That big thing between Canada and Mexico is also to the northwest and in the ocean to the southwest and southeast of Canada. Tony (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
My original re-draft didn't include "United States" [2]; someone else added it again later. I have no objection to its re-removal. Not every single example of everything in MoS has to make reference to the US or the UK, anyway. People who live in Canada and Australia probably get tired of it. I guess France should not be included, either, since one of its departements is in the Caribbean. It kind of stretches the meaning of "location" in the sense meant in that passage.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Books are not people, right?[edit]

Apologies if this is overly elementary, but I have not happened upon specific guidance yet: Recently I've seen several cases of plays being linked to the person represented in the title. As an example, Nathaniel Lee wrote a play called Mithridates (which has no Wikipedia article) and it is currently linked to Mithridates VI of Pontus. Now, that's indeed the guy the play is about, but surely this is bad practice, right? The reference in Nathaniel Lee is unambiguously to a play, and it links to a person. By-the-bye, Mithridates VI of Pontus does not even mention Lee's play (though it mentions other works, e.g. by Jean Racine) -- I could imagine that if a work of art (without its own article) featured very prominently in a biographical article, then maybe such a practice could be condoned (although I'd still find it far from ideal), but broadly speaking such links should be de-linked with extreme prejudice, shouldn't they? Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be way more sensible to link a non-notable (or notable but presently redlinked) play to the playwright. We should never confuse a historical figure with a fictionalized work about that figure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotations, redux[edit]

The current policy, "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." from MOS:LINKSTYLE is overly restrictive. This policy has been discussed on a number of occasions previously, but petered out inconclusively. See, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_186#Proposed_revision:_links_within_quotes (warning, LONG)

My proposal, in the light that discussion: "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) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Does need to happen, but it won't without a specific proposal subjected to an RfC.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about linking in quotations[edit]

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)


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 [3], 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.
  • 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)

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 every 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)

Duplicate and repeat links[edit]

I have noticed that the shortcuts WP:DUPLINK and WP:REPEATLINK overshoot the target. I have added the section Duplicate and repeat links, and I'm hoping someone can get the shortcuts to go there. Thank you. (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just needed to exchange the {{anchor}} and {{shortcut}} templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Um... Did you actually try them? (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I think anon is pointing out that there is collapsing text above the anchor points that causes the section heading to scroll off the screen when rendered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In which case it's a browser issue, nothing we can fix here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)