Misplaced Pages

The point here is that in "George Washington's", the apostrophe is parsed as a word delimiter, which means the "'s" is outside of the link. Could be better worded, though. — Sebastian 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Link density" et al.

• The title "Overlinking and underlinking" is quite different from the replacement "Link density". The density can be high without overlinking, and low without underlinking. I suggest the pre-existing title be reinstated.
• "consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic (but since many "single dictionary word"-titled pages are disambiguation pages, make sure that the links are directed to the correct articles);". This is not a good change: if an item is worth linking, it's normally no longer a "dictionary" word, but has technical dimensions in the context.
• The example of a "specific" link, to "film actor" rather than "film" "actor" is not helpful: these two items should not be jammed together in the first place, so the guideline now mixes issues. "Film actor", "film", and "actor" are highly likely to be common terms that should not be linked. In fact, they are misused in many many articles, where the guideline says already not to link professions, normally. This example needs a rethink.
• "If no such page exists, then you need to link to a more general article". What, so if no article on "Religion in Australia" exists, just bung in a link to "Australia"? No. This is bad advice that countenances trivial, general linking, and should be rephrased.
• "If there is any chance that the topic might become an article in the future, create a redirect page to the article as described in section {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing." I'm not sure I entirely like the encouragement to fill an article, especially a new one, with red links. Can it be toned down a little? "Any chance"?
• "Pound sign" is known as "hash sign" outside North America.
• "Let's assume for example you needed a link"—This is too informal a tone for this guideline. It's more like a transcript of a chat or talk.

This is all happening rather fast and without specific discussion. Tony (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and would have reverted the changes on the project page but found the "Revision history" too confusing. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i concur - can we please back up and discuss the changes being proposed? thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree – also, this is getting too technical. Remember, this is a style guideline, not a help page. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert my changes. There are obviously enough people here who deeply care about this page, so I'm not needed here. See also my talk page. — Sebastian 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the example from "film actor" to "Icelandic alphabet". (I have actually seen "Icelandic alphabet" in an article.) As for the "more general article", I think it's supposed to address cases such as linking neutrino if you have the text "electron neutrino" (one of the three flavours of neutrinos) and there is no article specifically about electron neutrinos. If you want to make that clearer, do that (I can't find a way right now), but the point itself is valid. In the since many "single dictionary word"-titled pages are disambiguation pages, make sure that the links are directed to the correct articles part, I meant that pages such as curl are likely to be disambiguations, so before saving an article containing such a link, one should actually check it goes to the right place (e.g. curl (mathematics)). I'm going to change it to many pages whose title is spelled identically as a common dictionary word. I'm trying to address the point about "any chance". --A. di M. 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better example there, ADM (can we call you that? what do you prefer?) I'm still a little uneasy about "specific enough" for a context. It seems vaguer than the previous wording. Tony (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, the Icelandic alphabet is great! i'm puzzled by some of what's now listed under "Link specificity", though - those second and third numbered options are not examples of cases where "no such page exists"; they're examples of when a page does indeed exist but using a piped link or a "see also" parenthetical works better than a plain link. Sssoul (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

maybe something like this?

Always link to a topic that is specifically relevant to the context from which you link. Examples: Link to "Icelandic alphabet" instead of "Icelandic alphabet". In the article about Mozart, link to "Requiem" instead of "Requiem". (This second example uses a piped link - see below.)

Check to see if a page for the specific topic already exists - this is often the case. For example, link to "the flag of Tokelau" instead of "the flag of Tokelau".

If no such page exists, the most appropriate link may be to a particular section of a more general article: egs/instructions. Alternatively, you can consider creating a red link, a redirect or adding a parenthetic "for more information, see Neutron".

and (to me) the part about "consider moving links to the see also section" doesn't have anything to do with "Link specificity", so i'd move that point elsewhere. Sssoul (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't understand what points 2. and 3. were doing there, either, so I removed them.

(<<=====) This bugs me.

link to "Icelandic alphabet" instead of "Icelandic alphabet"
Likewise, use "the flag of Tokelau" rather than "the flag of Tokelau"; 

Huh? What's the difference?

I made a point of pasting in the above text without the bluelinks that came from Wikimarkup.
Why? Because I knew that some of you would say, "WELL D'OH, MORON, you just MOUSE OVER the Wikilinks -- they're DIFFERENT!!!" But not all readers may think of that. If they are new, they have enough trouble absorbing and processing all this information, we cannot expect that everyone will think of hovering the mouse to discover that in the first example, the entire phrase is wikilinked and in the second, every component word individually. Suggested fix: show Wikimarkup first, then actual wikilinked result.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

that's a good point, Goodmorningworld - you've got my vote if you want to go ahead and fix it. Sssoul (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went and changed Misplaced Pages:Linking#Link_specificity, I hope y'all like it better now. Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

very nicely done, Goodmorningworld! Sssoul (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

the "what generally should be linked" section

a lot of the points in this section are really unclear. can we discuss rephrasing it? some of my questions/proposals are:

1] i don't understand this point - does "references" mean "footnotes", or ... ? and what does the second sentence mean?

• articles with relevant information, through references (Example: "see Fourier series for relevant background"). Linking items in a list of examples makes them easier to reference as well.

2] i'd like to rephrase the point about technical terms to something like:

• technical terms, unless they are defined in the article - but always consider providing a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link to another article. If a technical term doesn't have its own article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary may be the most appropriate.

3] the next point sounds dubious to me in a number of ways, including: what kinds of "confusing usage" are meant? what does "explicit articles" mean? and why is the point about about disambiguation buried here? it should be one of the "general principles".

• explicit articles when word usage may be confusing to a non-native speaker (or users of other varieties of English). If the word would not be translated in context with an ordinary foreign-language dictionary, consider linking to an article or Wiktionary entry to help foreign language readers, especially translators. Check the link for disambiguation, and link to the specific item.

assistance improving any/all of that will be very well met - thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the last two as you suggested, and removed the unintelligible part of the first. Maybe someone who understands what it was supposed to mean can suggest a clearer wording, which could then be re-added. --A. di M. 12:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks A di M - the one i numbered 3 remains incomprehensible to me, though. for that one, what i posted up there is not my suggestion - it's what's puzzling me. what kinds of "confusing usage" are meant? what does "explicit articles" mean? and why is the point about about disambiguation buried here? Sssoul (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it refers to when an English word can have several meanings and it'd be very hard for non-native speakers to figure out which one is meant in a given context. One example someone once made is "He was shot in the temple", but I think there probably are better examples than that. I believe that, when possible, the solution is to use a less ambiguous meaning, but maybe sometimes there might be no valid alternative. --A. di M. 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, A di M - i agree with you that creating links doesn't seem like the best way to address that kind of "confusing usage", so maybe the recommendation should be omitted altogether from this "what generally should be linked" section. but if it's going to stay, it certainly needs to be expressed more clearly than it is now. how about:

• articles that specify which meaning of a word is intended, such as temple (although writing more clearly to begin with is usually a better solution than relying on links to clarify the meaning).

something like that? but again: i think omitting it is a better idea. Sssoul (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that clarity of linguistic context is preferable. I often point out where readers should not have to hit a link to work out what an item means. The linked article should generally not be necessary to access a basic definition. "RFID" is one example here. Yes, "temple" should be clear from the context (I've never thought of mine as religious in the least). Tony (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A di M, hope you don't mind that i've tried to clarify that "confusing usage" point - the "explicit article" wording really isn't clear at all. the more i think about it, though, the more strongly i feel this point doesn't belong in the "what should generally be linked" section. sentences like the example given should be rewritten, not linked. Sssoul (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The monk who was shot in the temple. The word is not going to mean a religious building, by any stretch of the imagination. This should be moved into the "What should not be linked" section", if retained at all. I think examples will come readily from goming lots of articles—that's how I come across examples for all of my tutorial pages, almost by coincidence. If "temple" is a must, I'd look at the "what links here" for "Temple". Tony (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As currently worded, that point would encourage linking all words with several meanings, even if all-but-one of them are completely absurd in a context (e.g. I can open that can of beer); that's not what we want. I would have retained the point about non-native speakers and ordinary foreign-language dictionaries. For example, without the links a non-native speaker would have no way to understand most of the sentence and in "The Seven-Beer Snitch" his urine test contained "crack, smack, uppers, downers, outers, inners, horse tranquilizers, cow paralyzers, blue bombers, green goofers, yellow submarines, LSD Mach 3" and trace amounts of human urine (but was misread as Homer's test results), no matter how many learners' dictionaries you'd use. (And that's one of the very rare cases where I'd have links within a quotation; after all, that's a quotation of spoken language, so it'd make no sense to state that "the links were not present in the original".) Another example is the verdict of WP:RFAR/DDL, which linked "building a better mousetrap" (but this is a bad example, as I was able to correctly guess what that idiom meant; but this could not be the case with more confusing idioms). The "temple" example is a different one: even the most elementary dict will show both meanings, but the other meaning fits the sentence so well that it might not even occur to a non-native speaker about looking it up; given the high number of completely absurd choice of words in Italian translations of English texts (even by professional translators) I find everyday, which I can only make head or tail of if I guess the original English word and which other meaning could it have, it is not unlikely at all that someone might not realize that "temple" could have another meaning in that sentence. (BTW, "explicit articles" mean "articles about the one specific meaning of the word", as opposed to disambiguation pages.) I'd propose something such as: words and idioms used in a context where a non-native speaker could be unable to determine their meaning, even using an ordinary foreign-language dictionary; make sure the link goes to an article specifically about the intended meaning (or to a Wikitionary entry), and not to a disambiguation page (which would defeat the purpose of it). However, rewording the sentence to that it is less confusing, if possible, is strongly preferred. --A.  di M. 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

... i understand what you're saying A di M, but i still feel that an invitation to guess what terms non-native speakers might have trouble understanding and to create links to help clarify their meaning is not something that belongs under "what should generally be linked".

the example with all the drug jargon is a totally different question - plenty of people whose first language is English wouldn't be able to tell you what all of those mean. that kind of jargon/subcultural slang needs to be linked for the same reason as technical terms need to be linked (which could usefully be clarified in the point about technical terms). Sssoul (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

update: sorry, i've just elected to transplant the point here until we can work it out, because it truly doesn't seem to be getting better as it goes along out there. here's the last version:

• words and idioms used in a context where a non-native speaker could be unable to determine their meaning, even using an ordinary foreign-language dictionary; make sure the link goes to an article specifically about the intended meaning (or to a Wikitionary entry), and not to a disambiguation page (which would defeat the purpose of it). However, rewording the sentence to that it is less confusing, if possible, is strongly preferred.

and the last-but-one:

• articles that specify which meaning of a term is used, although rewording the sentence so that it is unambiguous is preferable. For example, in A monk was shot in the temple, a non-native speaker unaware of the anatomical meaning of temple might not even suspect that in that sentence it does not refer to a religious building.

i don't feel the MoS needs to prohibit links like this, but i don't think they should be encouraged as "what generally should be linked". Sssoul (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, ADM, I was being opaque: I really meant that "temple" shouldn't exemplify the "what should", and used the opposite ironically. May I put in a plea that we move slowly on changing this page. I feel that a lot is happening in a very short time. BTW, ADM, your spanking new signature—did you consider making the A and the M white against those dark backgrounds? Tony (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had gotten your point, but I couldn't find a better example than that; however, with Sssoul's wording the point is clear even without examples at all, so that's moot now. (As for the sig, the code for that would exceed 256 chars, but I think this one is fine.) --   A. di M. 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross namespace links

Any objections to adding "links from article to user namespace links" as something to avoid in general. I recently came across a "see also" which linked to a list developed on the user's subpage. I removed it, citing WP:SELF but it might be nice to add that here. Any objections, thoughts or discussion? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly added it, since there did not seem much discussion here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doh, already in it. My mistake. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Particle physics

ADM, one or two examples from that area are fine. Pp articles are likely to be more heavily linked because they contain a higher density of very technical terms. They are unusual in that respect. It may not be necessary, but you might consider making the point that articles (and parts of articles) vary in the appropriate density of links because of their varying technicality. Tony (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. They were the first ones which occurred to me (due to my background...), but I would not object to replacing them (except the one about Feynman, which is the most spectacular example of how not to use a piped link I have ever seen in an actual article). In particular, the one about electron neutrinos is not a very good example, because it's not evident to everybody that an article about them could be written. For the example on proton mass, I had thought hard about an example of a topic which could not have its own article; WP:NOT suggests "oak trees in North Carolina", but for the second half of the example I was looking for something more obviously needing linking than oak or North Carolina. --A.  di M. 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong disagreement with encouragement to repeat-link

"(As a rule of thumb, do not repeat a link in the main prose of the article more than once per section.)"—Why are editors now encouraged (that is as it will be taken) to link the same item in successive sections? This seems like a massive invitation to link, link, link, link. If a reader doesn't bother to hit the link on its first occurrence, many editors would say that's too bad, they'll need to catch it as they re-read the article.

This needs to be removed. Tony (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Because people don't always read the article from start to end... --NE2 00:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if they do that, it's too bad. This is not a magic blue-carpet service for readers who want to read only Section 5 and expect to be linked everywhere from just that section. Articles need to stand as whole entities. Why don't we link "the" every time it occurs. Why don't we simply turn the whole article, every single word, into blue links, just to be sure that no one misses out.

High-value links are diluted by linking items in every section. It's a major change in practice, and must not be allowed to occur.Tony (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Someone going to an article about a railroad and reading the history might want more information about a major predecessor. It would be silly to make them find the only place it's linked just because it's mentioned earlier. --NE2 00:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should take the middle road on this and encourage linking uncommon terms twice: once in the lead and once on the first appearance of the term in the body of the article. That way, readers who just want a quick overview of the subject can read the lead and see the link, and readers who want an in-depth understanding of the topic might skip the lead and still find the link. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be acceptable, dabomb, since the lead functions quite differently to the body of the article (as does the infobox); it is already the practice of a few editors. But really, linking a term in one section and then another is wasting the value of wikilinks. There's a dilutionary cost for every one added; I don't want to puff up the crisis potential of adding a single link—you know what I mean: editors will add links all over the place in an undisciplined way unless they're guided as to the balance between cost and utility. Look at the French and Italian WPs for examples of ruined wikilinking systems. Tony (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow... "wasting the value"... "puff up the crisis potential"... "ruined wikilinking systems"... either you're making a dry joke or you need to step back and look at the big picture... --NE2 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see where I was being ironic and where I was not. Tony (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this needs to be removed. Please look at it the same way as an acronym. Spell it out at first mention, then use the acronym. If someone reads only one section of an article and finds themselves stymied, they will read back, same as they would do if they need more context about the subject. We don't need "in case you are just joining us" wikilinks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i agree that "link once per section" is too frequent, as a rule of thumb. (besides which, having a rule of thumb within another rule of thumb was awkward.) Sssoul (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the quoted text needs to be removed.  HWV258  06:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was only trying to clarify what "a long way" meant; I was not encouraging anyone to repeat the same link in *every* section of any article. (And I don't believe that having the same link repeated twice in an article is always useless. Imagine a very technical word used in a minor parenthetical point in section 3 (with a link), and then the same term used in section 17 in a sentence where it's crucial to understand it all. Many readers will have forgotten that they had encountered that term before, so they won't know where to look for the link. Now imagine there is a redirect to section 17: a reader following it will encounter that unlinked technical term and they won't be able to make head or tail of it at all. --   A. di M. 10:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The language is clear enough as stands. People can use their judgment in cases such as what you mention. --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. One problem with the text is that it will green-light the edits by those who merely seek to lift their edit count. Such editors will only have to point at the text and say: "but the guidelines allow me to add all those links".  HWV258  22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning: it's bad because it's bad. If linking is good then I would expect editors to add links where apppropriate and applaud such behaviour.--Michael C. Price 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the editors who seek to lift their edit count by removing repeated links? --NE2 07:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I think linking has two fundamental aspects that overlap significantly but have slightly different requirements: Navigational and explanatory. Navigational aspect: When you go to Cat, you expect to find links to domestic animal and large cat in prominent positions. Possibly in the lead, but certainly from the most relevant section. Explanatory aspect: A reader who does not know a term, or aspects of it that are assumed without explanation, they can follow a link to the relevant article.

Based on this theory I came up with this rule of thumb: (1) If it's obvious from the table of contents where a certain linkable term will be discussed, link it once from that section. In very long articles occasionally two sections far apart from each other may deserve such a link. (2) If the term first appears in an earlier section, e.g. the lead, link it from there as well.

The formulation also allows for situations where it's better to link the second occurrence in a paragraph. Hans Adler 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i understand what A di M means about "a long way" sounding vague - but there are too many different situations for a more specific "one size fits all" solution. ("don't repeat a link more than once per section" does read like an invitation to repeat links once per section.) if we're going to add anything to the "long way" point, i propose a parenthetic to show it's vague on purpose - something like: "(how far 'a long way' is will vary; editors can make their own judgements within individual articles.)" Sssoul (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I agree with the point about two types of links, but I'm not 100% sure I understand what the conclusion has to do with it, as you don't say that the two types of links should be handled differently. (Besides that, links in the lead section will generally be almost all navigational, and links in later sections almost all explanatory.) --   A. di M. 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the parenthesis above. The lead section will be read by people who have just heard about the article topic (via a search result, or following an explanatory link), so we should not assume that the reader will be willing to go read even more articles in order to understand a sentence. That is not to say that no technical terms should ever be used in a lead; but they should be used in a way that the reader will not miss the gist of a sentence if they don't follow any link. Take a look at the lead of Quark: a lay reader will likely have never heard of "color confinement" or "hadrons" before, but they will be able to understand the point of that sentence anyway. So you don't want purely explanatory links in the lead. As for navigational links, a reader just visiting the article Icelandic alphabet or Flag of Tokelau as a stepping stone to Icelandic language or Tokelau will want to find those links without scrolling down; so navigational links should all be found in the first screenful of the article.

The rule of thumb I generally use is: include each navigational link as near the top of the article as reasonably possible; repeat the most important ones in a {{seealso}} or {{main}} template before the first paragraph of the relevant section, and/or in navboxes, but not in paragraphs. As for the explanatory links, include each one the first time it occurs; and for specialist terms (ones that most people with a high school diploma have never heard of) repeat them the first time they occur in each sentence, except if they have been linked to in the lead. (This is based on the assumption that almost all readers will read the lead, and then some of then might jump through the TOC to the section they're interested in.) --   A. di M. 13:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never understood the aversion folks have to linking, since I do not find it reduces readability; quite the contrary I find it reassuring to read a heavily linked sentence, knowing that I'm only a click away from more details if desired. It's very annoying in the middle of an article to realise that you have to go off on a long hunt for a link, and when you find it and click through you aren't returned automatically to where you where.

The notion expressed above that you have some moral duty to click on the first occurence, and if you missed it, well fuck you, is one of the most unfriendly attitudes I've seen here for awhile. It reduces rhe utility of WP. --Michael C. Price 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read some of the language used above. I'm appalled by the distain showed here for our readers. Limiting linking to the extent talked about above limits the usefulness for no other reason than it seems to offend some people. The appropriate level of linking will be found just as any other editorial question is settled on Misplaced Pages and not by some (literally) arbitrary set of rules. Editors can (and will) make judgements about linking on an article by article basis. RxS (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice, please remove your re-insertion of that awkward "rule of thumb within a rule of thumb" about linking no more than once per section. as your edit summary noted, this discussion has not concluded and there is no evidence that consensus supports the inclusion of that statement, and further discussion is appropriate. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it was awkard, so I've reverted it.

I propose that the first sentence be changed from

In general, link only the first occurrence of an item.

to

In general, link the first occurrence of an item in a section or subsection.

The reason is straightforward. Some navigational links, by design, take readers directly to an article's section or subsection. It defeats the purpose and intent of the link to require them to go on a further link hunt.

The following exceptions are still valid and do not require updating. E.g. if the (sub)section is very long then further linking may be appropriate. --Michael C. Price 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks for the self-revert and for continuing the discussion. proposing to "link the first occurrence of an item in a section or subsection" may make sense for some particular items in articles that have very long sections, but it definitely won't make a reasonable general recommendation. i suggest keeping "first occurrence only" rule of thumb and the three exceptions listed, adding a parenthetic to the "long way" point - something like: "(how far 'a long way' is will vary; editors can make their own judgements within individual articles)". Sssoul (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it may to necessary to state that "long" is a subjective matter, it doesn't address the issue of readers who are directed to specific sections (regardless of length). Unless the section issue is specifically addressed links will be removed, to the detriment of WP's readability.

As it stands the current advice about repeated linking and the ability to link to sections is inconsistent. Misplaced Pages should be consistent. --Michael C. Price 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would making that "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first, or is found in a section which is directly linked to by another article" be OK? --___A. di M. 10:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because that would require that everytime you add a link to a section you would have to check to see if the appropriate terms were all linked. And remove them all when the link was removed. Better to have them in by default.

And some readers will come to the sections directly, even without being directed there by links. --Michael C. Price 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

... is there some efficient way for an editor to ascertain whether or not a particular section is directly linked to from another article? more efficient, i mean, than a reader simply looking at the earlier parts of the article, if s/he wants more information than is in the exact section s/he's looking at? Sssoul (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to apply "What links here" directly to sections. When you create a link to a section, you are supposed to add a comment to it (see MOS:SECTIONS). --___A. di M. 11:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) maybe what i'm missing in all this is: what is wrong with considering readers capable of backing up a little to look at other sections of an article, if they want more information? it's not like linking to a particular section confines anyone to that section. Sssoul (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of convenience and ease of use, not capability. That's why we have links in the first place, to make finding other articles easier.

A natural extension of your argument is that we should remove all links, since any reader is capable of finding any article, without links.--Michael C. Price 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: only in the sense that "a natural extension of *your* argument" is that we should link everything - which isn't a constructive way to discuss this, so let's skip all that, okay? i believe that the guidance now given (linking only first occurrences as a general principle, with exceptions noted) caters quite sufficiently to readers' ease/convenience. Sssoul (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Why would we want to make readers scan a whole page for a link they are interested in, sometimes in sections they haven't read and are not interested in? Why would we make Misplaced Pages harder to use? Why would we not use the capabilities MediaWiki offers to make finding information easier to use? That's the whole point of this project. RxS (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.

--Michael C. Price 14:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just so we don't reinvent the wheel, Archive 4--Michael C. Price 04:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: i'm glad the two of you agree, but others don't, so we need to continue the discussion here, not in the guideline itself.

the wording "in general link only first occurrences with these exceptions" doesn't prohibit anyone from repeating links - even more than once per section, if the sections are large enough to warrant that. the wording you're proposing ("in general, link once per section") would read like an invitation to repeat links in each section even if the sections are only a few sentences long - which is obviously silly. i assume you two are not arguing in favour of something that silly - but these guidelines apply to ALL articles, including short ones, and need to be formulated with that in mind. Sssoul (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is silly with links in sections, regardless of length?--Michael C. Price 07:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, are you referring to repeat links within sections? If so, they add no utility for the reader, but each comes at a slight cost. The cost has been detailed and discussed ad nauseum, here and elsewhere, and relates to the psychology of signalling and of reading—a psychology that is readily understandable by all editors. Tony (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not "readily understood" by all editors as witness the archives which I linked to above, along with debate ongoing here. Such demonstrably false statements only undermine your stance's credibility.

PLease provides diffs or link to source your claim of universal support for your position, e.g. an RfC or whatever. --Michael C. Price 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot provide diffs that demonstrate "universal support", since you plainly do not support the notion of more rather than less selective linking. Tony (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And not just me, as the archives and this section testify. So, back to my question, "what exactly is silly with links in sections, regardless of length", and please provide evidence, not just unsupported claims of near universal support.--Michael C. Price 09:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I didn't call frequent repeat-links "silly", did I? I usually prefer to be understated, and I can see where you're coming from, so I respect the internal logic of your position (while believing that the frame is not usefully conceived). Nor have I claimed "near universal support"; if that were the case, en.WP would not have a serious overlinking problem. (I've just found multiple repeat links in the article on Dolly Parton, and worse, many many items like "high school" linked—someone went wild with the square brackets without understanding the skills required to make the system work optimally.) The really valuable links—to her songs, for example, were swamped in this sea of blue. Nor would the other WPs (French and Italian especially, which have no guidelines for wikilinking) be beset by scattergun spray-paint linking that unthinkingly drowns the links you'd want to attract readers to.

Now, it really is all a matter of balance: dilution and unprofessional visual appearance on the one hand, versus the utility of links for our readers. The difficulty of establishing that balance is why editors engage in debate (sometimes vigorous); and editors who have put a lot of work into articles they want to see linked (the "orphan" issue) represent a vested interest. IT professionals and enthusiasts are another group of users who tend to perceive the potential utility of wikilinks, and the connective structure on the web, in isolation from their costs. As editors, it is easy to be beguiled by this notion of utility, because we're a little distant from the experience of (most of) the visitors to WP, who we've been told by a number of IT specialists tend not to hit links at all, or if they do, only rarely (see my talk page). Nevertheless, the en.WP has moved significantly towards that need to balance (skilled wikilinking, I'd call it) over the past few years. Tony (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am picking up from you that you don't see this need to balance. Is that correct? Tony (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A balanced approach is not indicated by your statement that

"repeat links within sections .... add no utility for the reader".

--Michael C. Price 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• My view on this (as someone that doesn't read articles from top to bottom) is that when I come across a word in an article that I would like to click on, that is not linked, but which I think might be linked earlier, I find it very annoying to hunt back through the article, trying to find where it was linked. It jars my reading experience almost as much as it would to go and type it in a search box, or do Ctl-F (or whatever your search function is). And then I have to go back and try and find where I had stopped reading the article. The point of linking is to make such side-excursions easy, not difficult. As a reader, gliding past a link that maybe shouldn't be there is much easier than stopping to search or look for an earlier link (this is why I favour a conservative approach to tackling over-linking). On the other hand, there are ways around this. The method I now use is a function available in the Mozilla Firefox browser (maybe as an add-on) and maybe in other browsers as well. This function (not sure what it is called) means I can select a word with the mouse cursor (i.e. highlight it), right-click, and select a "search Misplaced Pages for this word" option. This is almost as convenient as clicking a link and much less disruptive than searching up and down a page, or going over to the search box. However, before anyone says this is an argument never to link, remember that useful information on relationships between articles and topics is present in the web of interconnecting links between articles (provided things aren't over-linked), so links are need for reasons other than people clicking on them. My view is that both over-linking and under-linking are things to avoid, and I don't want to see an over-reaction to linking that means we end up with an encyclopedia that is under-linked. In this particular case, for readers that don't have this add-on tool, and who might arrive at a section from a section link, and for those long articles, I would favour repeating links where it might be needed. Rigidly enforcing a "no repeats" rule is not sensible, in my view. There are things that need more urgent attention (such as clicking on existing links and making sure they are correct, and adding links that are missing). Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented on this earlier, but perhaps it merits repeating. In my opinion, linking a term on every appearance is excessive, and linking once per section is also borderline unnecessary. However, allowing someone to link only once in the entire article may be a bit restrictive. So, perhaps we should advocate linking once in the lead, and one or two times in the body, depending on the unfamiliarity of the word (technical terms) and the length of the article. A concrete example:

In evolution, species is a relevant link that should be linked once in the lead and once in the body, but no more, as it's not overly technical or unfamiliar. On the other hand, modern evolutionary synthesis, in addition to being linked in the lead, might be linked two or even three times in the body as a relatively less-known (but important) concept. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth's statement above expresses my sentiments pretty closely. The "rule" should neither imply encouragement of a rigid only-link-once-per-article regimen nor any sort of link-every-occurrence mania. Much as with Varieties of English, the guidance should encourage tolerance -- link minimalists should try to appreciate that not everyone shares their aesthetic ideal and link maximalists may need to be reminded that not every possible link adds value to an article and that overlinking can detract from the usefulness of the links. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been a webmaster for major companies for some years. Every couple weeks I get a request to "make as many links to and from an article" in a knowledgebase as possible, the assumption being that more people will read the article. In practice, what Webtrends and other analysis tools show is that readers quickly become "saturated" with links on a page, even to the extent that they will ignore a link in bold red in an article "PLEASE READ THIS". In practice the golden number of article links is about ten. Any more, and the number of readers clicking ("click-throughs") doesn't increase significantly, if at all. Therefore the strategy is to pick the best ten links. (The best articles, the most important issues — whatever the criteria may be.) This affects the question of whether there should be repeat links.

There is another pragmatic issue: how many readers scroll down the screen ("below the fold"). There is debate. (Notice how AOL director misconstrues her reference .) At any rate, some substantial number of readers do not scroll past the first screen, and most do not scroll to the bottom. This suggest two things regarding Wikilinking: 1) Links placed toward the top of an article are far more likely to be seen than ones at the bottom. The second inference, I can't provide statistics for, because the knowledgebases which which I have webmaster experience did not generally have a table of contents. However, the implication is: 2) Few readers would jump down pages in an article, without reading at least part of the opening page.

Most of the factors above in discussion against multiple linking I would agree with, but not on the basis of my statistical analysis. The statistical case alone for few links outweighs any small gain for a small number of readers. So not to gild the lily, but there are professional guidelines about hardcopy "linking". Readers expect to see the first instance of a term ... defined, footnoted, given an acronym, etc. Duplicates are confusing, because they cause the reader to think, "Wait, didn't I already see that term?" And then they have to stop reading, go back and check. I'm a skimming reader, and stumble over these links constantly. In articles with names of many foreign kings or cities or ingredients, it makes reading extremely difficult — the duplicate link leads me to think that I misunderstood something earlier.

In sum. An article in my knowledgebases that got 10% click-throughs to other articles was rare. 1-2% was typical. So multiple links are labor intensive for editors, little-used, contrary to professional hardcopy guidelines, and make articles more difficult to read for the vast majority of readers. I.e., in their current, limited technical form, they are a lose/lose/lose situation. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Easter egg question

I just have a quick question: Do people think I created an easter egg with this edit? — Sebastian 22:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I would have kept it as it was before, per the "better safe than sorry" principle. Never underestimate readers' stupidity. --___A. di M. 09:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine.—MDCollins (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it seems fine to me too Sssoul (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. To A. di M.: I assume you're saying that you wold have kept it, but if you were writing it as a new text, you would leave it out. Such a view makes sense, because the editor who put it in there before probably had a reason for thinking it might be needed. But in this case, that original editor was me, too. So, I weighed both concerns: The principle of least astonishment and the ideal of legibility, and ended up deciding that the latter prevailed in this case. Anyway, this was an interesting borderline case! — Sebastian 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian—Your edit in question is fine, I think; but the article itself is badly overlinked. And I see "Amsterdam" linked in the lead and then 15 seconds later in the first section. This is bad practice, I believe. Tony (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since sections are linking entry points it looks like good practice to me. --Michael C. Price 10:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, I cleared up a few examples I considered overlinking. Better?----occono (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Occono: nice work. I went through after you and caught "diary" and bad links to institutions; plus the date formats were inconsistent. Tony (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael C Price: I think you overestimate the number of readers who will ever hit a link (the rate estimated at 1–2% by an ex-web master, see my talk page. I frankly don't care in the case of the extremely rare case in which someone ignores the lead and starts reading from the first section: they can type "Amsterdam" into the search box. It can be irritating to see "Amsterdam" (of limited utility, anyway) blued out twice in such a short period, and this slightly dilutes the high-value links in the vicinity. What is clear to me and many other editors is that we have to be smart about attracting readers to links. Doubling up is not a smart way to increase the hit rate, and while it might make some editors feel that they've added to the intricate interconnectedness of the project, in the cold light of day, rationing the links is a better way of making the system work optimally, I put it to you. Tony (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The system works best when our readers can navigate easily around topics they are interested in. Aggressively rationing links hurts this goal and undermines one of the things that makes the MediaWiki platform useful for this purpose. RxS (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I can only add my support to RxS's views. Rationing links is the same as rationing utility, since links within sections have utility, despite claims to the contrary. --Michael C. Price 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to Non-English Misplaced Pages articles

When should one translate (in summary if neccessary) a foreign language Misplaced Pages article and when should one provide a link to the foreign language? The following case study might help concentrate people's minds:

The Elfstedentocht (Eleven Cities Journey) is a classic Dutch ice skating event. One of the giants of the event was Coen de Koning (who won it twice in the 1940's). Piet Keijzer was another winner from the same era. I checked the number of hits for each of these pages during July 2009. They are:

• Elfstedentocht: Dutch - 3384 hits; English 829 hits
• Coen de Koning: Dutch - 195 hits; English 158 hits
• Piet Keijzer: Dutch - 208 hits (of which 84 were on the first anniversary of his death); English - no Misplaced Pages entry.

Would is be proper in these circumstances to link Piet Keijzer in the English language version of the race to his biography in the Dutch language section, or to leave it as a "red link"? Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Always leave it as a redlink. --NE2 05:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy WP:SINGLEEVENT advocates caution about articles concerning people who are notable only in respect of a single event and that due attention should be paid to the significance of the event concerned. The Elfstedentocht is a major event in the Netherlands, but is a minor event elsewhere - how many column inches is devoted to in in English-language newspapers compared to Dutch-language newspapers? As I see it, the following options exist:

• Retain red links for ever and hide the fact that a foreign-language text is available.
• Remove the links completely in the English-language versions of Misplaced Pages and hide the fact that a foreign-language text is available.
• Create stubs in the English-language versions that automatically redirect to the foreign-language text.
• Create stubs in the English-language version with a link to the foreign-language text.
• Provide links to the foreign langauge text until such time as an English language article is wirtten.

I favour the last of these options.Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not based on the language of the sources. As for your last option, how, exactly, will you find the links to change? There's no "what links here" for interwiki links. --NE2 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that notability is not based on the language of the sources, but rather on various cultures. In some cases there is a very strong correlation between the language and the culture, for example the Dutch language Wiki caters mainly for residents of the Netherlands. However the English language Wiki caters for a number of different communities – the International Community who need a common language, the American community, the British Community, the Indian community to mention but a few.

Getting back to my original argument, if a particular entry would be notable only within a particular community and that community uses a language other than English, would you favour a stub in the English-language Misplaced Pages which contains the sentence “Please refer to the XXXX language version” and a link in the languages box? Martinvl (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If those people pass the English Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, an article about them can be written sooner or later, and you should use redlinks until such articles are written; and when written, the English articles even if initially very stubby will have links to the Dutch ones in the obvious places. If they don't pass WP:N, there's no point in having eternal redlinks, or to create stubs. Links going directly to the Dutch articles can be useful, but make sure the reader knows where they go before following then. --___A. di M. 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NE2: the Dutch Misplaced Pages is not bound by the English Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, nor vice versa. It's entirely possible that someone is notable according to the one but not to the other. In particular, the notability guidelines of a Misplaced Pages in a language strongly associated with a regional culture (such as Croatian or Japanese, and as opposed to languages such as English of Spanish) might well favour regional topics. --___A. di M. 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

One option might be a footnote referring readers to the foreign-language article. --Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Over-linking and under-linking

I've been following the over-linking and under-linking debate on and off for about a year, and my concern here is that changes that will affect the entire encyclopedia are being discussed by a small group. This actually applies to other manual of style discussions, but that should be raised at WT:MOS. What I fear is that what happened with date delinking will happen here. That small groups will gain local consensus for ever-more strict changes, and that as more and more people become aware of efforts to de-link or re-link (especially if anyone mentions bots or script automation being used - I don't know if that has ever been considered, or whether script automation is already being done, but that would raise tempers somewhat), that the dispute will snowball. What I propose is that major changes that affect all the articles in the encyclopedia (most MOS changes are not on this scale) should be discussed by much larger groups. And that until such large discussions are set up (there would need to be discussion beforehand on how to present such discussions) that efforts are directed towards gathering data and sources to back up assertions being made. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns. This needs to go higher up. Perhaps an RfC and some sort of user survey.--Michael C. Price 17:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Scripts that deal with linking

Is there a list anywhere of scripts that deal with linking? I've found the following so far:

• User:Nickj/Can We Link It
• User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js

I believe that Twinkle and Huggle and AWB and other such things also have functions to add and remove links. Could those be summarised here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking, delinking, changing links, and link maintenance exercises

I've noticed User:Tony1/Build your linking skills, which is a good set of exercises for spotting and removing unnecessary links and improving link syntax (and piping of links). What I think is missing there is exercises that point out when links need to be added, and how to spot and correct incorrect links (I call this link maintenance). Examples are: spotting when a redlink has incorrectly turned blue (when someone creates an article without checking what links to it); spotting when a link has turned into a disambiguation page without the incoming links being disambiguated; spotting when a link has turned red because an article was deleted (OK, that is a trivial example); spotting when a blue link is incorrect (links to the wrong article), and so on. In addition, exercises where a word that should be linked, but hasn't been linked, should also be included. Rather than have separate exercises for tackling overlinking and ones for dealing with underlinking and ones dealing with link maintenance, is it not possible to combine them and edit them collaboratively? Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a work in progress. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall I move this discussion to the talk page of the work in progress? Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved here. I'll leave this section open in case anyone wants to comment here on linking exercises in general, as opposed to the one Tony is developing. Carcharoth (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a stub, really. Thanks for your suggestions, Carcharoth—I'd already identified the need to write exercises for the correction of underlinking (although I see it as a much smaller problem than overlinking). I'm unsure what material to use for the changed-red-links idea: do you have any suggestions? (I'll put this and subsequent entries at the talk page there.) Tony (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)