| Revision as of 22:54, 27 December 2014 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Editor not seeing the benefit of WP:NOTBROKEN: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:57, 27 December 2014 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Editor not seeing the benefit of WP:NOTBROKENNext edit → | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| == Editor not seeing the benefit of ] == | == Editor not seeing the benefit of ] == | ||
| At the ] article, I ] and cited the ] guideline. Despite this, EChastain , stating, "avoiding clunky redirect is better (using ])." I , adding. "No, it isn't, and ] over a clear guideline (WP:NOTBROKEN) is silly. Follow the guidelines, with few exceptions. And this is not one of those few exceptions; not a ] case in the least. Redirects like this help readers. If you don't know why, then ask at ]. Or I will so that you are educated on it." EChastain , stating, "how does it help readers? just your presumption - readers don't tell you what they experience - please provide proof." Apparently, EChastain thinks that the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline exists just to exist and has no valid reason for existing. Either that, either the guideline is not fully clear on why it's beneficial, or EChastain was reverting simply because of Will anyone else watching |
At the ] article, I ] and cited the ] guideline. Despite this, EChastain , stating, "avoiding clunky redirect is better (using ])." I , adding. "No, it isn't, and ] over a clear guideline (]) is silly. Follow the guidelines, with few exceptions. And this is not one of those few exceptions; not a ] case in the least. Redirects like this help readers. If you don't know why, then ask at ]. Or I will so that you are educated on it." EChastain , stating, "how does it help readers? just your presumption - readers don't tell you what they experience - please provide proof." Apparently, EChastain thinks that the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline exists just to exist and has no valid reason for existing. Either that, either the guideline is not fully clear on why it's beneficial, or EChastain was reverting simply because of Will anyone else watching the Manual of Style/Linking talk page explain to EChastain why the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline helps readers? To briefly answer EChastain, it helps readers because not bypassing the redirect automatically lets them know that they are most likely at the right article; when they see the tell-tell sign, at the top of the article, that the term was redirected to the article in question, they know that they are most likely at the correct article, and that there is no article specifically for that term. ] (]) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:57, 27 December 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Linking page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 Archives |
|
WP:CONTEXT archives
WP:BUILD archive WP:MOSLINK archives
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Why is it that congress does not want Puerto Rico a state.
I heard that Puerto Rico, on its last elections, voted for Puerto Rico to become a State, rather than a territory. Why is it that Congress has refused to grant them statehood, if it is true that they did vote to become a State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.28.71 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unrelated to the topic, see WP:REFDESK. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
What should this say?
"Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a that links to an appropriate section of the current article)." I get the drift, but it's not good English. What is it meant to say? 86.44.196.15 (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind, I figured it out. It was missing a colon that would have made it "(unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article)." Fixed now. 86.44.195.47 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not link several times in the case of long Misplaced Pages articles?
I have a comment to make about this: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I would propose that for long articles, a link could be repeated again if the reader had to scrol down several pages from the lead to get to it. As long articles are unlikely to be read from start to finish, a reader my jump into the section that interests him/her the most. And there, if a link is not repeated it could leave the reader wondering if a Misplaced Pages article already exists for that particular item. Example is the long Misplaced Pages article on malnutrition where I would propose to link the term "stunted growth" more than just in the lead and in the first occurrence after the lead, namely also in the section that deals with children (which is quite far down).
Therefore, I would propose to modify this to: "... at the first occurrence after the lead or in the first sentence of a distint section if that section is a long way down from the lead. As a rule of thumb if the reader has to scrol down by two pages, then it is reasonable to repeat a link, as readers are not always reading an article from start to finish but may jump in at the middle into a section heading that interests them." Thoughts? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed for the most part, but be advised that you have unwittingly entered an ideological, almost religious war zone. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Strongly suggest you do some searching through the archives to get a sense of what you are up against before proceeding. Pay particular attention to the issue of "overlinking". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think Susana's made a practical suggestion which would help readers. Spicemix (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Strongly suggest you do some searching through the archives to get a sense of what you are up against before proceeding. Pay particular attention to the issue of "overlinking". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is not the first time that this or similar suggestions have been made. It would be wise to consider why they have not been adopted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree with Susana's reasoning. It exactly describes my sentiments when I add a link which later gets reverted. Why spend time scrolling back through an article looking for a link, when it could also appear in another section. If it doesn't appear twice within one or two sections, it is harmless and could only be helpful. And the statement "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article..." sounds more like a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. WP:COMMON encourages common sense, which when applied to this discussion should allow multiple links for the situations described here. CuriousEric 18:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Specificity
Sorry if this has been covered before, but when linking to articles such as ], is that how the link should be formatted, or is ], ] preferred? The second seems better, 1) to give the reader the choice of where to go, and 2) to give the option of Santa Barbara, California, when an overlink to California would result. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Aren't we going around in circles? See #Improving link specificity above. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I note the example ] above and I'm pleased to see that's the consensus. My problem though is that several times recently I've been reverted for piping links to be more specific, e.g. here, and I don't see a wording or example at WP:SPECIFICLINK that establishes ] as best practice. As there is a countless number of confusing non-specific links of the ] type across WP, can something be added to the MOS please, so that policy can easily be quoted in the edit summary? Spicemix (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, you're wrong as to the consensus; although not incorporated into WP:SPECIFICLINK, it seems, to be, in order of preference
- Santa Barbara, California
- Santa Barbara, California
- Santa Barbara, California
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think WP:LINKSTYLE gives a pretty good picture about the issue, and it also does supports WP:SPECIFICLINK. Anyway, if one takes a look at the former, there are similar examples: ] and ]. The first one is a direct link, the second one a pipelink. Like Arthur Rubin listed above, the first would be what WP:SPECIFICLINK calls "specific"; the second one "related, but less specific". The third one, however, would be similar to what WP:LINKSTYLE describes: ] ] ]. Hmm, I think user Tony1 has a pretty goor article about it here. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, you're wrong as to the consensus; although not incorporated into WP:SPECIFICLINK, it seems, to be, in order of preference
- Thanks. I note the example ] above and I'm pleased to see that's the consensus. My problem though is that several times recently I've been reverted for piping links to be more specific, e.g. here, and I don't see a wording or example at WP:SPECIFICLINK that establishes ] as best practice. As there is a countless number of confusing non-specific links of the ] type across WP, can something be added to the MOS please, so that policy can easily be quoted in the edit summary? Spicemix (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Post-nominals
I have boldly removed the reference to post-nominals in WP:OVERLINK. The usual practice is (now) certainly to link them, per Template:Post-nominals. In any case, we should not expect the average reader to know what "PC" or "CC" might stand for. StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unless a post-nominal is arcane or known only to a few, the practice is not to link them. Please restore the guideline. Tony (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how anyone could know how much of the Misplaced Pages reading population knows each post-nominal. That being the case, what does one do with "known only to a few"? I'll confess to being ignorant about anything more obscure than PhD or OBE (and I didn't learn what OBE stood for until I was probably well over 30). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes we just have to make decisions as to what the readers would know, and thus what would be most helpful. Tony, if this is the practice, how do you explain, for example, the Ian Smith article? It is a featured article, and yet the postnominals are linked in both the lead and the infobox. This is also the case with David Lewis (politician), Neville Chamberlain, and Stanley Bruce, which are all featured articles. StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- OBE is one of those that should be linked. A lot of people - even in Britain - think that it's Order of the British Empire. In fact, the O stands for Officer, and the full award is Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- OBE, probably yes. StAnselml, GCLM, ID, CC, QC—they're on the specialist/technical side. I'd link them, once. Tony (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what would be an example of a non-technical one, given that we don't use PhD as a postnominal anyway? StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, now that I look at WP:POSTNOM, it explicitly encourages editors to wikilink. I really don't understand why this was included among the things not to link. StAnselm (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- OBE, probably yes. StAnselml, GCLM, ID, CC, QC—they're on the specialist/technical side. I'd link them, once. Tony (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- OBE is one of those that should be linked. A lot of people - even in Britain - think that it's Order of the British Empire. In fact, the O stands for Officer, and the full award is Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes we just have to make decisions as to what the readers would know, and thus what would be most helpful. Tony, if this is the practice, how do you explain, for example, the Ian Smith article? It is a featured article, and yet the postnominals are linked in both the lead and the infobox. This is also the case with David Lewis (politician), Neville Chamberlain, and Stanley Bruce, which are all featured articles. StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how anyone could know how much of the Misplaced Pages reading population knows each post-nominal. That being the case, what does one do with "known only to a few"? I'll confess to being ignorant about anything more obscure than PhD or OBE (and I didn't learn what OBE stood for until I was probably well over 30). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unless a post-nominal is arcane or known only to a few, the practice is not to link them. Please restore the guideline. Tony (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- St, that question was gurgling around in my mind, yes. Tony (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I've been dead busy the past few days. Anyway, I oppose StAnselm's proposal. Pre- and post-nominals have been included ever since November 2012. Changing the prevailing consensus would definitely need discussion and achievement of new consensus before changing the guideline.
- I also think that the process has started rolling on the wrong track here: the proposal is about "post-nominals", but the change included both pre- and post-nominals.
- In my humble opinion, linking pre- and post-nominals is quite redundant. When it comes to pre-nominals, I don't think it's a good idea to link, e.g. ] ] or ] ]. For the sake of link specificity, linking directly to the subject would be a better idea. And post-nominals, I simply think that when it comes to more "bizarre" ones, it would be more advisable to write those open; that'd be better for the flow of the text, it would make the text more self-supported, and it for the reader it would save a lot of trouble. For example, instead of including a post-nominal such as "KBE" and wikilinking it, one could simply write it open as a "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ph. D. isn't a pre-nom, it's a post-nom. That aside, I get the impression that what you would like at Winston Churchill is
|honorific-suffix=Knight of the Order of the Garter, Member of the Order of Merit, Companion of Honour, Territorial Decoration, Deputy Lieutenant, Fellow of the Royal Society, Royal Academicianwritten out in full and without any links at all. If so, Oppose as way too bloated and unhelpful. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)- Aaah, it seems to be a Finnish speciality. According to pre-nominal letters: "In Finland, abbreviated academic titles can appear before or after the name (for example, FM Matti Meikäläinen or Matti Meikäläinen, FM)."
- Oh boy... The British sure fancy their honorifics, don't they? I agree Redrose64, writing it out makes it quite bloated, but I don't think the current '''Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill''' {{postnominals|country=GBR|size=100%|sep=,|KG|OM|CH|TD|DL|FRS|RA}} is any better either. I mean, if the reader bumps into 7 different post-nominals in the very first sentence of the article, and he/she probably doesn't even have any clue what do they mean, I think it's like throwing a bucket of cold water onto him/her in the first instance. Besides, I don't know if those honorifics really are that central to the actual article.
- Anyway, I'd suppose that Winston Churchill is kind of an extreme case? If the others have significantly smaller number of honorifics, the text of course won't be so bloated. And when it comes to writing it out, I think the upside is that the reader immediately gets the meaning and can decide for himself/herself whether he/she wants to know more or not. Or what would you like to suggest, Redrose64? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- "The reader... probably doesn't even have any clue what do they mean" - and that is precisely why we wikilink. "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire" is never written in full after a person's name in the British system. StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, I think pre-nominals are much the same issue as academic post-noms - WP:HONORIFIC says that "styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name" so the issue of wikilinking is pretty much redundant. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your point StAnselm, but forcing the reader to go through seven different articles on post-nominals isn't a solution either. If we wouldn't "encrypt" these honorifics, the reader wouldn't have to go through all of those articles. After all, they are not really central to the subject at hand. Anyway, as said above, pre- and post-nominals have been included ever since November 2012, and changing the guideline would need a consensus. I'd like to suggest that the proposal is first discussed before any changes. =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ph. D. isn't a pre-nom, it's a post-nom. That aside, I get the impression that what you would like at Winston Churchill is
- I think linking unexpanded pre- and postnominals violates WP:EASTEREGG. Relegate them from the lede to a footnote, or part of a "Titles and styles" or "Awards" section. Margaret Thatcher#Styles and titles could do the job better than the opening does (Currently "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS"). jnestorius 23:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's just like country-names: don't link the obvious ones (Dr, PhD, etc), but all of Thatcher's little baubles could do with a link. Tony (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Prefer anchor linking to section linking
A proposed reworking of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking#Linking to sections of articles, based on an orphan comment by @Altenmann: from January 2014 (see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 16#Section links)
If I want to link to ] then I don't think <!-- the article WP:LINK links here --> is ever optimal. If it's likely a once-off link, just linking ] may suffice, with no edit to Foo. Otherwise I suggest best practice should be:
- Add Bar of foo as
#REDIRECT ]{{R to section}}{{R with possibilities}} - Edit Foo to change
==Bar==to==Bar=={{anchor|Bar}}<!-- ] redirects here --> - Link to
]
Advantages:
- Linking to an anchor is better than linking to a heading, because the heading text may be changed, breaking all the incoming links. The current MOS is too diffident about this point.
- Specifying the redirect once you have added it is useful
- in case later another editor also wants to link to
]; they can also link to]rather than, e.g. creating Fooian bar as another redirect.- Special:WhatLinksHere/Bar of foo will become useful
- in case later another editor also wants to link to
jnestorius 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Editor not seeing the benefit of WP:NOTBROKEN
At the Suicide among LGBT youth article, I reverted EChastain and cited the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline. Despite this, EChastain reverted me, stating, "avoiding clunky redirect is better (using Pipe trick)." I reverted again, adding. "No, it isn't, and WP:Edit warring over a clear guideline (WP:NOTBROKEN) is silly. Follow the guidelines, with few exceptions. And this is not one of those few exceptions; not a WP:Ignore all rules case in the least. Redirects like this help readers. If you don't know why, then ask at WP:Manual of Style. Or I will so that you are educated on it." EChastain reverted yet again, stating, "how does it help readers? just your presumption - readers don't tell you what they experience - please provide proof." Apparently, EChastain thinks that the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline exists just to exist and has no valid reason for existing. Either that, either the guideline is not fully clear on why it's beneficial, or EChastain was reverting simply because of the heated words that I recently left on the EChastain talk page. Will anyone else watching the Manual of Style/Linking talk page explain to EChastain why the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline helps readers? To briefly answer EChastain, it helps readers because not bypassing the redirect automatically lets them know that they are most likely at the right article; when they see the tell-tell sign, at the top of the article, that the term was redirected to the article in question, they know that they are most likely at the correct article, and that there is no article specifically for that term. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)