Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

The section on Piped links and redirects to sections of articles contains advice on creating links within articles using the format [[Article#Section|name of link]], and also says that it is "bad practice" to use the format [[Article#Section]] instead of a separate redirect since it can interfere with navigation. Any thoughts on resolving this apparent conflict? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie I think it means to say if you do a section link in article do a piped link, if you don't want to do piped linking then use a article section redirect to link as # tag can be confusing and interfere with navigation. VarunFEB2003 14:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I recently edited that section to try to make the wording clearer, but the part about navigation vis-a-vis [[Article#Section]] links may still be confusing. As of 14 September 2016, that part read:

Usually, a redirect page from a sub-topic to a general topic already exists, or should be created on demand. It is bad practice to make such links as Article#Section links explicitly, because navigation becomes inconvenient after the section is replaced by a summary of a new article. Instead, link through redirects, as it costs little and makes improvements easier.

As far as I can tell, this is trying to say that it's easier to manage links to a particular topic if a redirect exists for it than if references to the topic are buried within [[Article#Section]] links – piped links such as [[Article#Section|name of link]] would still have this problem. The question is, which method – use of the pipe or a redirect – is preferred? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a conflict, it's all about what the reader sees when they read the rendered text. [[Article#Section|name of link]] renders as name of link, and [[Article#Section]] renders as Article#Section. The hash sign in the second one is a straight "not nice to see"; not only does it not read well, the reader may not know what it means - worse, they may associate it with some facebooky thing, as in "click here to trend this!". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What about the part that reads, "navigation becomes inconvenient after the section is replaced by a summary of a new article. Instead, link through redirects"? This seems to be saying that linking from a "sub-topic to a general topic" should always be done with a redirect. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, the page says under "Section links" that:

If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it, by following the article name with a number sign (#) and the name of the section. For example [...] the link eight gluon types (typed as [[Gluon#Eight gluon colors|eight gluon types]]) links to a specific section in the article Gluon.

On the other hand, under Redirects, it says:

The advantage of redirects over piped links is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere, which in turn allows us to: Create a new article when a significant number of links to that topic exist (see WP:Don't fix links to redirects that are not broken and Redirects with possibilities); [and] Maintain links (e.g. by filtering incoming links and identifying related articles).

There seem to be two different approaches being described, with no consistent advice as to which is the preferred one. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither is "preferred"; the point is that if you do go through a section link, it should be piped so that it reads sensibly, with the hash being undisplayed. But you may find WP:NOTBROKEN useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any explicit documentation of consensus on this point, such as a previous discussion establishing that neither method is preferred over the other? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so; but normally, we would get consensus to prefer one form over the other, not to prefer neither. The way Wikipedia works is that we all carry on doing what we're doing until somebody shows that what we're doing is not a Good Thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article a redirect for WP:EGG? "EGG" looks like an acronym. I don't see this on the page. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

All WP: links like that are all caps, so it can be hard to distinguish between a shortcut and an initialism/acronym. Here, it is meant to be "egg" as in "Easter egg" in the section about so-called "easter egg links" (links that appear to be one thing but lead to another topic entirely.) --MASEM (t) 16:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should state unequivocally that linking numbers of any kind is not desirable. I have seen an editor repeatedly trying to link the numbers in financial figures, and WP:OVERLINK seems inadequate to use as it's not currently worded to explain why we don't link numbers. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that in articles such as Digit-reassembly number it would be useful to link some of the numbers listed there (at present they are not) to help the reader discover which of these numbers have other notable properties. Thincat (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of course talking about a guideline that applies in the vast majority of articles, not some exceptions like you describe. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies the rebuttal to your original request -- instead of "unequivocally ... any kind." Too many editors take this kind of statement as a hard-and-fast rule that excludes any exercise of judgment and common sense. I do not favor providing further fodder to such loose cannons. 18:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.56.27 (talk)

And that's why we write guidelines with specific examples. I have seen no rebuttal to the need to address the real issue I brought up. If you would like to answer further, I request that the answer be constructive. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's take this from another tack. If someone is linking a number in a financial figure, what guideline should I rely upon when reverting? Currently, all I can do is appeal to common sense as far as I can tell. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Offer a proposal. All I commented was that "unequivocally ... of any kind" is overbroad. Figure out "guidelines with specific examples" that's appropriately nuanced, that reflects the best judgment you know (see the archive pages), draft something up, and propose it. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the symbol pi might be linked, once, if appropriate. But not simple, natural numbers. Tony (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

50.169.56.27, I'd like to be confident there's not an existing guideline before I put that kind of effort into play. And it would have to wait until after the holidays anyway. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We have the following:

The simplest way to prevent this breakage is to add an {{anchor}} template just above the section title, listing the section title, and (optionally) any obsolete titles or alternative titles. This method is easy to understand, reliable, and straightforward to maintain and update. For example:

{{anchor|Section name}}
{{anchor|Section name|Old name|Alternative name|Other name etc.}}
==Section name==

It is good practice to place an anchor whenever the section is expected to be the target of an incoming wikilink, either from elsewhere in the same article or from anywhere else outside the article.

The problem here is that if an anchor name is the same as a section heading, the result is two different HTML elements that have the same id, which is forbidden - ids must be unique within a given document. See HTML5 - A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML - W3C Recommendation 28 October 2014, section 3.2.5.1 The id attribute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would just be bold and amend the text in question to note the uniqueness requirement. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just explain that a header itself creates a 'hidden' automatic anchor, and remove the bad {{anchor|Section name}}
from the example. Hopefully people will just realise you don't need to repeat what is already there. No need to get too technical, it's not like the browser really cares about duplicate ids. At most it will confuse a user script or something. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

They do care in that the browser only consumes the first instance, so it still fails rather gracefully if the same location in a document has two elements with the same ID. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64, TheDJ, and Izno: I was the one that tweaked the advice. I did so because if one were to anchor directly below a section, they would have to scroll up to see the section title. For the record, I have done a lot of work trying to anchor presidencies and premierships of US presidents and British prime ministers respectively, and I wouldn't have changed the text had I not been reverted at John Quincy Adams. I would prefer having the anchor directly within the section title markup, and I am dissatisfied with having to place the anchors directly above the section markup (since this adds a bit of whitespace directly above said header) but given a choice I would want readers to view the title of the section, that they have been redirected to. It doesn't really make sense otherwise.--Nevé–selbert 18:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Not a good idea to WP:BEBOLD with WP:MOS pages. People tend to enforce the RD part of WP:BRD pretty quickly, with annoyance. Much better to go straight to D, and people are calmer from the off.

@Neve-selbert: Although it was this edit (where you "tweaked the advice") that prompted me to start this thread, I was not objecting to the specifics of the edit, but to the paragraph in general; or if you want something specific, consider the phrase "listing the section title" which you did not alter. I am not concerned with the anchor position, but with its uniqueness. All section headings create anchors, it's part of the MediaWiki software, and has been for many years (although it was not an original feature, it was one of the first enhancements, in the early 2000s; Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) should be able to confirm). Therefore, creating an anchor that matches a section heading isn't just pointless, it's improper. It doesn't matter whether the manual anchor is before or after the heading - it matters that it mustn't be the same. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Is there any better way to add permanent anchors to headers, or is this really the best way to go?--Nevé–selbert 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just reading MOS:NOPIPE and decided to write here about something I have been wondering about for a while. It seems to me that there are two kinds of links. Some link to an article that specifically describes the term in question. Others to the more general category, or general meaning of the term in question. While looking for an example, I found one on WP:MOS itself. There is a link knowledge tree which does not link to an article at all about knowledge tree but instead to tree structure. Certainly that is often fine, and often what is needed, but sometimes not what I expect. The actual question here, is if it would be possible to have a different color for the two kinds of links. That would depend on editors knowing which kind they wanted, and a way to indicate it. Has anyone else noticed this, or now that I mention it, see the reason to mention it? Thanks all. Gah4 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that I look at the preview, I when I was expecting a red link for knowledge tree, it seems that there is such a page. Again, I am not against links to a more general page, but would just like to know what to expect. Gah4 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As another example, in the section Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Challenges_to_interpretation there is a link: violates. Since action at a distance (physics) is not a normal definition of violates, it would seem convenient for the reader to note this, possibly with a font or color change. Gah4 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:EGG is relevant. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just been removing some overlinking from the lede of the Charles Darwin article but have come across some links which, although they comply with the manual of style, don't add to the understanding of the article. By its nature, an article like this uses a lot of scientific terms which means that there are quite a few links required in the lede but I can't see that linking to sub articles of that article is desirable or useful when they are discussed at length in the article and linked there. As an example, if I came accross the link His five-year voyage why would I want to follow the link at that point when the second voyage is something that is discussed at length in the article and is linked at the top of that section? Could we say something about this in the guidlines? Richerman (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case, you have an article that might be of interest to both novices and experts. That likely means that there will be some compromise in the need for links. Some links might be redundant to experts, while important for novices. Some the other way around. If you really want an opinion, you might have someone else read it though, and see what that person says about it. Gah4 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Gah4. Links from the lede piped to sections of the same article are often highly useful. I think the fear of "overlinking" has itself become overblown -- if a link is relevant, how can it be "overlinking?"23:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.56.27 (talk)

I do agree that overlinking is a problem, but often enough lately, I have had a hard time finding a link after first seeing it. This gets worse as articles get bigger. Would it be possible to put a link index at the bottom of the page? That is, an alphabetical list of all links in an article? (Maybe only for larger articles.) This would reduce the tendency to overlink, as one would know where to find needed links. I presume this will need a lot of discussion before it happens, though. Gah4 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gah4: I assume that you are thinking along the lines of the lists that are seen when editing a whole page, or previewing any edit, i.e. one or more of: "Wikidata entities used in this page"; "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" and "This page is a member of n hidden categories". If so, this question is outside the scope of this page, which concerns textual style matters only, no technical aspects. WP:VPT would be better, but they are likely to say that although they can discuss the desirability and feasibility, they can do nothing to implement the proposal and so you would need to file a feature request at phab:, per WP:PHAB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gah4: I also agree that overlinking can be a problem, but it's just as much a problem when a reader has "a hard time finding a link after first seeing it." Isn't the fundamental problem that Gah4 raises (several times on this Talk page) really due to overapplication of the "once per page" guideline of MOS:DUPLINK? The literal wording of MOS:DUPLINK states "once per page" as only a guideline that "generally" applies, but way too many folks take it as a hard-edged "always" and remove duplicate links as a religious principle, rather than as a principle for application of judgment. Isn't the right solution to come up with some guidelines for duplicate links? Isn't the right solution to Gah4's question to establish guidelines around two principles--

• The test for linking, overlinking, duplicate linking relates to relevance and helpfulness, not number (After all, sometimes the correct answer is "zero" not "once per page." Then how can "once per page" be the right answer to the question Gah4 asks?)
• As an article grows in length and technical specialization, duplicate links for relevant concepts becomes more important.

50.169.56.27 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I might suggest that you can write a WP:User script for yourself which adds the links at the bottom of the page. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

In articles where different readers likely are interested in different sections, shouldn't links appear in more than one section? For example, in the nicotine page, the word "snus" appears in the Recreation and the Adverse Effects section. Readers going directly to the Adverse Effects section will not be presented a link.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 19:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur -- even though this is stated as a "generally" (which implies the exercise of judgment), some editors take this as a directive that all duplicate links are bad. I suggest that we add (a) an explicit statement that this is only a general rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule, and (b) list some exceptions. Proposal --

===Overlinking and underlinking===

Early in the history of Wikipedia (before 2006 or so), a practice arose of "linking everything that moves" just because you can. Every geographic name, date, number, or proper name was linked, no matter how relevant or irrelevant to the linked-from article. The result was that links themselves became less useful, and this section of the MOS was added to curb the practice of overlinking. The proper concern is not for number of links, but the overall quality and relevance of links. The purpose of a link is to help a reader at the point where he/she may have interest in the linked-to topic, not just "because you can."

====What generally should be linked====

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created to:

• Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
• Articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background"
• Articles explaining relevant words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwikimedia link to Wiktionary could be used.
• Relevant Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers

Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist (see § Red links below).

If you feel that a link does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a "See also" section.

====What generally should not be linked====

An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly.^[1] A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention."^[2]

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context
• The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...), languages, nationalities (e.g. English, British, American, French, German...) and religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism...)
• Common occupations
• Common units of measurement, e.g. units relating to currency, time, temperature, length, area, or volume (if both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit needs to be linked, because almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit)
• Dates (see § Chronological items below)

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article).

The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect.

Shortcuts

• MOS:DUPLINK
• WP:REPEATLINK

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but this is always subject to the "helpfulness" and "clarity" exceptions -- if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks.

Duplicate linking is permissible (even encouraged) if it significantly aids the reader, and there are specific reasons for doing so, that do not run afoul of specific overlinking concerns set out above. Again, the general principle is exercise of judgement from the point of view of the reader, not black-and-white rules -- does each link help someone understand the article you are linking from, without so over-linking a term that the links themselves rob the article of clarity (see the previous bullet list for examples of links that impair clarity). In an article on an everyday topic (for example popular culture), common terms should never be multiply linked. On the other hand, multiple linking may be appropriate in situations such as the following:

• in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
• In glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link)
• When a list presents information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list, treat it as normal article prose.
• When the linked-to article is long, and the duplicate links are piped to specific sections of the linked-to article (if the linked-to article were broken into smaller articles, there would be no objection to linking to the separate articles, so there should be no objection to separately-piped links).
• If the linked-from article is long, it may be appropriate to link a term once per section. A reader should not have to search for the single instance that is linked.
• To disambiguate, for example, when a single word with two or more specific technical meanings is used in multiple senses in the linked-from article (for example, if the two opposite-meaning definitions of "sanction" must be used together), or where an article discusses fine distinctions between two similar technical terms (for example, an article on abstract algebra might have multiple links for the terms "homomorphic" and "homeomorphic").
• Technical vocabulary of a field, especially for common words that have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic, or where the term or its technical meaning is not widely understood among readers not in the specific field.
• The introduction to a long article might have piped links to the specific sections in the article that give details of the concepts touched on in the introduction.

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article).

The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect.

end proposal. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Linking has to balance the dilutionary factor, with the ease of typing an item into the search box, with the expectation that readers are capable of scrolling up and down, and the expectation that they will make some attempt to come to grips with an article as a whole. Generally, repeat links are of low value and shouldn't be used. Tony (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement "generally," and your use of the word "generally" suggests agreement that there are exceptions. So let's find some recipe to fit specific facts so that "generally" doesn't lead to removing clarity in those exceptional cases. We're all in agreement that common terms should not be multiply linked. However, there are specific circumstances where multiple links for specific terms that are at the heart of the linked-from topic really do contribute to clarity and understanding. Let's recognize that Wikipedia has articles on the Kardashians (one end of the spectrum, where few links are needed) and on electroweak force and on legal topics where the everyday layman understanding is just not quite right (where most readers will find more links helpful). No "one size fits all" approach will cover the entire spectrum.

I write for a living as well. 20 years ago, I had the view that I should write to experts (almost all of my readers are very sophisticated, graduate-degree people with very high-end intellect and credentials, used to making 9- and 10-figure decisions), and that I could write in a way that relied on on their expertise and curiosity. Over time, after several post mortems over lost deals, I have learned that I can't afford that arrogance. It's not successful to assume that "readers are capable of scrolling up and down" or that asking them to "type into the search box." If I want to be understood, then it is always my job (as the writer) to enter the frame of reference of the reader, to bring the material to the doorstep of the reader, not the other way 'round. My understanding is that Wikipedia is for readers, not writers--correct me if I'm wrong. The sentiment I read in your remarks, Tony1, does not reflect concerns for a reader who's trying to learn something about an unfamiliar topic.

I took the existing list of exceptions, and added a few more that reflect my experience as a professional writer. I think the list of exceptions reflects the "balance" that Tony1 mentions. It would be helpful to engage with the specific listed exceptions, rather than give the entire topic a "generally" wave-off. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

IP, such a significant change to a longstanding guideline should have WP:Consensus first, which is why I reverted. Editors not responding to your proposal does not mean that they agree with it. What should be done in this case is asking editors at the WP:Manual of Style talk page to weigh in for more input, and/or proposing the change at WP:Village pump (policy). I do not think that this change should be the decision of a lone IP editor or registered editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored a small change that was caught in between the extensive change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. It seems to me I followed all of the instructions at "WP:Consensus first," indeed went beyond them. The proposal was on the Talk page for six weeks, got only a handful of comments, none of which expressed specific opposition, only general commentary -- which was adopted into the text of the proposal.

If this popped out of nowhere, I'd understand the revert. But after a six week comment period, with refinement to the proposal to meet the objections as they were raised, and in absence of a breach of an identifiable guideline, doesn't WP:Consensus suggest that "through editing" is the appropriate starting point to achieve consensus? The further procedures you suggest are indicated for "After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit" after impasse. I don't see anywhere on WP:Consensus that suggests your "what should be done" is a preclearance step, only dispute resolution after there's a reasoned statement of a good faith dispute that allows discussion, and consensus. I don't even see an observable disagreement that I can work to meet -- as I understand the written rules, that revert-with-no-substantive-explanation seems to be to be the breach of editing procedure, and the step that short-circuits the "consensus" process. Of course if I missed something, I'd love to be educated, but rules made up on the fly -- especially when they contradict the written rules -- are not helpful.

Does your reasoning apply bilaterally--should a revert with no articulated rule, with no articulated objection that allows an edit to achieve consensus, and without any identified procedural support in MOS, be the decision of a single editor? 50.169.56.27 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Flyer22. You need a clear consensus to make such broad changes. One doesn't need such to revert broad changes made without a clear consensus. If you want to demonstrate consensus, conduct an RfC for the proposal and publicize it well. The changes are too major to just throw up on the page and hope everyone can discern the changes properly so as to determine any objections. An apparent agreement between two editors is far from being strong enough. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a written guideline that specifies that a preclearance RfC is required procedure? It isn't stated in WP:Consensus, and in fact WP:Consensus specifies otherwise. I know there are instructions on how to conduct a request for comment, but I know of no guideline that specifies whether an RfC is required in this context.

Is the "version compare" on the main page insufficient to "discern the changes properly?" If not, why not?

WP:Consensus explains how to achieve the "clear consensus" you ask for, and it starts with "through editing", and revert is not encouraged until there's some impasse. But apparently the written instructions of WP:Consensus don't apply. If a preclearance RfC is required via a written guideline, then please let me know where it is -- I want to follow it. If reverting without a helpful explanation, and requiring an RfC after the fact, is a rule made up on the fly, then I'd like to know that that's the case. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I will not litigate our common processes here. This isn't an article, but a guideline that affects all editors. Linking is a fundamental aspect of wiki editing. The basic necessity here is to demonstrate that a consensus around broad changes has been made. Two editors here including myself have decided a consensus doesn't exist, partly due to only two editors apparently agreeing on changes (although one of them hasn't chimed in), and the lack of participation by others. An RfC that is appropriately publicized is a tool for determining consensus. Note that this would apply to a 13-year registered editor like myself as it does an IP editor. Major changes to a guideline everyone has to follow needs a clear-cut consensus. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not change the question. My question is "Is there a written guideline that specifies that a preclearance RfC is required procedure?" If so, then please point me to it, so I know what to do. The answer to that question is a URL, not an explanation. If there is no such guideline, then my follow-on question is "If reverting without a helpful explanation, and requiring an RfC after the fact, is a rule made up on the fly, then I'd like to know that that's the case."

Stevietheman writes "An RfC that is appropriately publicized is a tool for determining consensus." I don't disagree with that. My question is, where's the written guideline that make it mandatory?

I'd like to challenge your statement that "A consensus does not exist."

• First, I see no disagreement with the proposal from Stevietheman or from Flyer22 Reborn. I see only a process challenge, based on (so far) nothing other than personal assertion that some additional process is required. If you challenge consensus for the proposed text (rather than process), doesn't WP:Consensus ask you to "seek a compromise" either "through editing" or "through discussion" to bring the proposal closer to your preference?

• Second, take a look at a discussion from 2012 at [1]. The 2012 proposal is conceptually close to what I proposed here, and it got a "consensus" among those who actually read it and reacted to it with any precision. Several folks misquoted the proposal, or paraphrased it to exaggeration, and disagreed with those distortions, but that I don't think constitutes "non consensus." To be sure, support was not unanimous, but those who stated reasons that relate to the proposal seemed to coalesce.

I agree, consensus is necessary (please don't recharacterize what I wrote to suggest otherwise). WP:Consensus#Through editing is the only written guideline I know of that explains the consensus view for how that process starts. If there's another written guideline that specifies that your preferred process is mandatory, please let me know. If there isn't any other written guideline, then let's get that clear, and then we'll have a better idea of where to go next. 19:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.56.27 (talk)

Pls see WP:PROPOSAL--Moxy (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful. I appreciate working with adults. 50.169.56.27 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I am not litigating our common processes. Proceed to achieve a clear-cut consensus, or these guidelines will not be changed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Stevietheman, I'm asking you to demonstrate your assertion that a preclearance RfC is "our common processes." Is it in writing? If not, then what's your demonstration that you are acting by consensus? I am not asking you to "relitigate" -- if it's been discussed and decided by consensus, then a decision exists in writing, and all I'm asking you to do is refer me to that past decision. If there's no prior written decision, then I am not asking you to relitigate, am I.

Plese do not misquote me or misrepresent my question. Distorting what the other party said is a nice way to escalate a dispute, it's not effective at reaching "consensus." 50.169.56.27 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It should have been posted here, but an editor has started an RfC concerning WP:OVERLINK on the Village Pump. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RfC: remove the proscription against previously-linked terms in the "See also" section?

It's about a sentence on that page which says "...the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body...". A silly rule IMO but it's running 2-2 right now.

If a positive decision is made to keep and enforce that rule, we would probably want to add complementary text somewhere on this page, something along the lines of "...links to terms that are in an article's "See also" section should not be also linked in the body text of the article..."

IMO this would be fairly insane, but I don't make the rules, and the rules we do have should be described in all the germane places, and laid out consistently.

But right now we don't have guidance about what do when duplication is found, or about when duplication is considered (you are adding new material, and you want to link a term, but its already in the "See also" section, what do you do -- remove it from "See also", or refrain from linking the term in the body text?). "Leave it up to the editor" is an option. But we're going to have to figure this out if the RfC I pointed do results in a positive affirmation of the rule. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If something is called "The Trump Organization" is it better to link the definite article "the", i.e. to The Trump Organization rather than the Trump Organization. The page doesn't seem to cover that. Siuenti (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion at WP:VPP#Date links on portal date-specific pages. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know which words are considered “understood by most readers.”

Should “video game” and/or “multiplayer video game” be linked in articles such as Overwatch (video game) and Team Fortress 2?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I won't speak to those specific cases. We usually link commonly understood genres in album articles, but it's not common to see a link to "album" or "studio album" in those same articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would think that WP:OVERLINK shouldn't apply as strictly in the opening sentence of an article when linking to the parent article. A link to multiplayer video game in the lede of an article about a specific multiplayer video game is probably okay, but a sentence in a biography such as "He is a fan of video games" wouldn't need to link the term. The link should be as specific as possible, to something like multiplayer video game, Puzzle video game, or a specific genre from List of video game genres. A link directly to video game is less helpful. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Building on what Ahecht wrote, I think the most important issue to consider when it comes to overlinking is WP:EGG. It is important to link to multi-player video game, not multi-, player (game), video and game.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Ahecht and Codename Lisa have said. It'd be better to link "first-person shooter video game" to "first-person shooter" instead of "first-person shooter" being linked and then "video game" being linked. The linking of video game really depends on the context. Having thought about the linking or inclusion of multiplayer, that probably comes down to a case-by-case basis, depending on the features of the game itself. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. Linking really is an art that we've all been cultivating as editors. And critical to it is using our knowledge of a topic to ration down the links to what we judge is a reasonable compromise in terms of reader utility. Walter's examples of "album" and "studio album" are spot on: too well-known to be useful to readers in general. Those words are part of learning English. I think enough non-video players may read "Overwatch" for "multiplayer video game" to be just on the linkish side of the boundary. Yes. And thanks Papi for raising the question. Tony (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#"Bare" / "Raw" URLs in common style guides regarding how URLs in citations should be formatted. It relates to the part of this guideline (MOS:LINKSTYLE) that states: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." AHeneen (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK#Red links does not mention that adding red links to persons is forbidden, where WP:REDLINK does. This ban is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Personal names redux. If the ban is supported by the community, it should be mentioned more upfront here to avoid confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Tony (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could instruct on the legitimacy of a policy link in an article. In List of films in the public domain in the United States the word "notable" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:Notability in the second sentence of the lead. The MOS does not seem to prohibit this type of link but this is the first time I have encountered an article link taking readers under the hood of Wikipedia, so to speak. Is this an acceptable form of linking in an article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO the intent of either WP:EGG or WP:Self reference applies. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved in a dispute relating to this change, but should the following be listed as an example of a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem:

• Yes Anaheim, California ([[Anaheim, California]])
• No Anaheim, California ([[Anaheim, California|Anaheim]], [[California]])
• No Anaheim, California ([[Anaheim]], [[California]])

There is an unlinked comma, but I have to look carefully to notice the difference, even though I put it in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's more of a WP:SPECIFICLINK issue. The first of the three is best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Arthur Rubin Aha, so you revert me but you're not even sure of whether that was right or not, and then you report me for edit warring? You're an admin? Seriously? Bottom line is that it's not a sea of blue issue, and this is a preference, i.e. a qualitative view, nothing absolute carved into policy. Not to mention that in the same article you reverted me, there's "... and Nigeria, intervene in the Gambia's political crisis to... " and "... the Maldives, cut diplomatic ties with..." and "... is a common year starting on Sunday (dominical letter A) of ..." yet the only one you decided to pick up was the one I changed? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  In all except the common year example, and your unfortunate edit, there is no simple adjustment of the text that would resolve the issue, and the text seems unlikely as a single bluelink. I'll have to check common year .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Your unfortunate edit warring which clearly was pointed and involved, just to catch me out, overlooked the others. Simple adjustments aside, these are all sea of blue violations (per your own interpretation, not others I might stress). Yet you had to edit war over the one I addressed? How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: It's off topic to discuss your edit warring and Arthur Rubin's behaviour here. Yes, it's appropriate to discuss changes anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Walter Görlitz: it's off topic for an admin who has accused me of edit warring to drag me here with his ping. Highly inappropriate. Please resolve that before having a dig at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see you pinged. Perhaps you were alerted in a different way and are using that precise terminology incorrectly here.

  Please stay on-topic though. The topic here is linking and it is appropriate to discuss that here. Complain at the ANEW and pray for a WP:BOOMERANG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. I support Arthur Rubin's three verdicts, but this is already in WP:EGG. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding MOS:INFOBOX, there is an RfC about red links in infoboxes. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never understood the "problem" with overlinking, it's not as though it makes the article difficult to read, and the reader is not obligated to use the links, so what's the actual problem with these links? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The need to be selective in linking was resolved back in 2009. Two arguments among the array were that linking without discipline undermines the function through pure dilution—that is, it fails to allow editors to use their skills and knowledge to offer readers a selection of high-value links, that are likely to be relevant, focused, and helpful in the circumstances; that uncontrolled linking makes the text more difficult to read (and poor to look at synopically). Tony (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that with over 125,000 current editors that any issue in the English language Wikipedia can ever be truly resolved. I'm also pretty sure that most of the active editors of 2009 were not even aware of, let alone involved in, the overlinking discussion. I also believe that with the advent of smaller screened devices that duplicate/repeat links are actually advantageous to the user, as it negates the need to scroll up-and-down the screen looking for a link to an article that may/may-not exist. Best regards. 16:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The policy against 'overlinking' geographical features can lead to rather absurd results. For example, the article on Auckland was edited to remove all links to New Zealand. For someone who doesn't know much about New Zealand, surely a link to the country article provides helpful context in reading about the city? miracleworker5263 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand's North Island is linked in the opening sentence. Tony (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the country article. miracleworker5263 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Whole, general, all-embracing country articles are rarely of much use to readers of a specific topic. Tony (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion at the Village Pump.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

How do we handle a case like Major League Soccer records and statistics where teams and player names are repeated in separate lists? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly there's a case for repeat links in such individualised tables. Tony (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And then when prose are linked immediately after, do we link there as well? We end up with a sea of blue. The most egregious issue is when players are listed and their teams (or nations) are listed beside them and you have multiple entries in the same table for each. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd make a judgement call on linking the names in the main text as well. Probably not, from what you say. Tony (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This version looks fine to me. Tabular data and long lists, especially arranged categorically in sections people are likely to link or ToC-jump to, are places where "overlinking" is useful for the reader. We (and they) expect such material to be "seas of blue" because it's data, not regular prose. The "sea of blue" readability concerns do not apply, and the severe usability problem of hiding links in a different, higher-up-the-page table one would have to scan for laboriously certainly does apply. This all comes down to the WP:COMMONSENSE meta-policy, basically.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Earthly language serves two contradictory purposes: to facilitate thought and to prevent it." -- Garrett Hardin

Fixing booby-trapped jargon might be kinda easy, but above our pay grade. It's a specialized problem among specialists who may or might not know they are miscommunicating to the general population. The article mentions economic jargon, which in this case is a perfect example, and by no coincidence...economists are the worst offenders, IMO.

For lack of a better term I call it booby-trapped jargon; words that don't look like jargon but have highly specialized meanings, sometimes almost the opposite of the lay definition. They look like something common but are something else. Perhaps over half the economic words we all use such as price and scarcity are actually booby trapped. (I'm sure they must be common in other disciplines, but I can't think of any.) If the guilty specialty were astronomy or astrophysics, who cares? that's the scientists' problem. But economics affects us all, it's what we do most of the time, plus we often hear from economists. Economics strongly affects us. Not just for Truth, this is also important to Joe Sixpack for practical reasons.

Wiki's problem is the better communication of knowledge. An honest economist would link say, "price," knowing it's specialized jargon. But Reader would think "I already know that," and never follow the link. Communication failure. But what if booby traps were a different color?

addendum: Rats! a complication. I'll try to broaden without loosing focus. I thought of another specialty with misunderstood terms; government. And especially when gov talks about the economy. Ironically, in this case it's normally Economists who have the term or concept right.

For example, "growth," is a politician's bread and butter. But largely from politicians the general population believes "growth is good;" —population growth, economic growth, GDP growth, etc. Why that's self evident!   But, No, unvested economists will say, those terms are neutral, —could be very bad or good. (Hurricanes, war, low wages, pollution and list, all cause the economy and GDP to grow.) So again, our typical reader will not click on the hypertext because he already "knows" the term. Library shelves are devoted to debunking government and economic mythology. (Some debunkers are even economists; think Herman Daly, Garrett Hardin, or on the Left; the newsy Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.) People can smell an odd unmentionable falseness, get confused, maybe get hurt, elect a Trump. Is there a word for the terms of our beloved myths?
"If I have the dictionaries, I don't need the armies."   These are huge philosophical, and more on topic, epistemological problems that are right up Wikipedia's alley.   Any ideas?
CHEERS! and Hi Hopes!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:5FC:276:7014:F61A (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Doug Bashford

Re: "The article mentions economic jargon" – I'm not sure what article you're referring to. In general, I agree with the gist; cases of this need to be rewritten for clarity, to make it abundantly clear that a term of art is being used with a specific meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm so glad Wikipedia has a decent policy on lazy links, but its abuse is ruining Wikipedia's core mission of efficiently communicating all that stuff. I seriously don't think "ruining" is hyperbole. It's the pits. So I wonder if the policy needs...Stronger wording?

Linking is now easier than good writing.
Lazy Links: A form of overlinking: The abuse of these policies:

1. Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
2. Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
3. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.

For just one example; I would change to "1. Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if any highly technical term can be simply explained with very a few words, do so."...
Why all the weaselly mush-talk? It's almost as if Wiki is saying; "Go ahead and be a lazy, sloppy, imprecise writer if being a good communicator seems like too much trouble." (Patting on head.) (Perhaps a soft, loose policy made more sense before we had hypertexted popups, which can be a better de-cluttering tool for writers? If so, could that be suggested here?)

Conflicted? Seems so.. Elsewhere (and here) Wiki says to restrain the use of jargon. But here it sounds OK, just hypertext it away. ...at least that's what writers en mass are doing, wheeee. (links look so professional! so scientific!!) That linked jargon is an exception should perhaps be over-emphasized?

The text needs to make sense, otherwise it is just plain poor writing. Forced linking rarely corrects that, but time, care, and effort will.

"...as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link ..." is so true; "forced." Forced down a rabbit hole to read another article dripping with other lazy links and time-wasting rabbit holes——when 3 to 30 words would have actually been a far, far better explanation. It seems to me that the tone of this article coddles the writer while devaluing the reader's time and his Wiki-experience. These are not the things that build good reputations or recommendations. ...Not just a drag, but table-pounding frustrating...with just a little more discipline Wiki could be so good!

Also please, when I go in and correct a lazy link, I leave a note to that affect: "corrected lazy link." It would be nice if we could shortcut/link to Wiki guidelines "lazy links," or some such. We need more ammo. This form of overlinking deserves its own heading or whatever. It really has become a plague. Linking is easier than careful writing, it gives the surface appearance of professionalism, and sadly, is almost always worse. But beer in a nice shiny can will always beat work gloves.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:A4FD:E769:F629:1C2D (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I don't have an objection to this idea in principle. You can try to just go directly change the wording in question to remove weaseling like "highly technical" and "simply" and "very" and see if it sticks. Or propose this change at WT:MOS if you don't get sufficient discussion on this one (this isn't one of the more-watchlisted MoS pages, I don't think).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

Hi,

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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask there! − Pintoch (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  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)

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

And your point would be ...?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  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 [2]. Hopefully it will stick.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  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" [3]; 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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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. 50.64.119.38 (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. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Um... Did you actually try them? 50.64.119.38 (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)

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

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

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

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

No, not official deprecated or anything. It's just unnecessarily lengthy when the context makes it clear we do not mean an external link.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What with the present state of things (full term 'wikilink' out of vogue here) I'm thinking it might be better (least 'surprise', clearer for readers) if the Wikipedia:Wikilinks redirect were to target Help:Link § Wikilinks (internal links) as that section starts off with relevant terms in bold while also linking other pages offering further elaboration.

Basically, as things stand, Help:Link § Wikilinks seems to me more what one might expect to land on when offered "WP:Wikilinks" as a shortcut.

--–A Fellow Editor– 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• the White House
• the American Revolutionary War
• the Mona Lisa

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've memorialized some of A.F.E.'s wise words [4]. EEng 05:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. "Please stop"? I'm not picking a fight. My change was reverted, I didn't challenge it, and checked what the consensus is.

So the logic is indeed that the article is titled "The Holocaust" rather than "Holocaust" (even though both pages go to the same place, so it's not like it disambiguates anything). I therefore don't see why the page title includes "the" when the Mona Lisa and White House articles don't; these things are also always referred to with the definite article, so why does WP:ASTONISH apply here? I also note that the Holocaust article only bolds "the Holocaust", excluding the definite article, so I'm even more confused. edit: consulting the Holocaust article archives, there was already a discussion about this. I shouldn't have brought it up here in detail.

But these are all points to be discussed somewhere else, I suppose, and not here. That is if I have the guts. I might have to find an example less likely to have me likened to a totalitarian regime that murdered millions of people. Popcornduff (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If being compared to Nazism is the worst thing that happens to you as a WP editor, you're doing pretty well. Back to the point at hand, my gating question on additions to MOS, always, is: show me evidence that this has been a problem on multiple articles that editors have been unable to settle for themselves. See User:EEng#mossy. EEng 06:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is purely something I've wondered a few times. A MOS entry would have been useful for me to know if there was a right way of doing it. If no one else finds it confusing, hey ho. Popcornduff (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Popcornduff, a discussion elsewhere (regarding WP:SHORTCUTs) brought my attention to wp:NotBroken/DoNotFixIt which—though specifically addressing a slightly different context—may offer something of value in relation to wikilinks of articles as well. Perhaps try mentally amending the section heading to § Do not "fix" links to redirects [and articles] that are not broken.

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

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

• Don't include "the" unless it's part of the title, e.g. The Lord of the Rings, or The The. "The" is often included in a piped link for contextual clarity to avoid a MOS:SUBMARINE link, e.g.: The team then published [[Report on the Progress of the Underwater Basketweaving Proposal|the report]], where using the [[Report on the Progress of the Underwater Basketweaving Proposal|report]] would misleadingly imply a link to the page Report.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  Man, I wish we had a way to steer people away from links like that. EEng 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  That might be a sunk proposal. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

We could be out of our depth. EEng 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to ... "sinking The Belgrano". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

From a technical standpoint, this is all that need be done [5].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought about asking if we should perhaps make them subsections of WP:Overlink, but I wondered if that would help much since the title being smaller would not look that much different than the title being slightly bigger. Anyway, it's better than nothing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And MOS:LEADLINK was already its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. "Duplicate and repeat links" is logically a subtopic of undesirable links, while "Lead section" is not, so I just left that one as-is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand leaving that section as is, but it's also about excessive links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I want to add a name of notable person in the notable people section in my district wikipedia article. But the wikipedia article of that person doesn't exist. So, Can I add a citation to that person's name which links to a webpage informing that person belonging to respective district? Rishi Muni (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, as long as the webpage constitutes a reliable source you should be fine. Thanks for checking! DonIago (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:EGG currently links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Piped links § Intuitiveness. WP:EASTER and WP:EASTEREGG (and who knows how many others) currently link to Wikipedia:Piped link § Transparency. The two sections do not link to each other. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 11:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I don't think anything needs to be done about this. The broader section of WP:EGG does link to Wikipedia:Piped link, and Wikipedia:Piped link has a hatnote at the top of the page to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Piped links. In other words, they're both subsections of a sufficiently linked larger section that I think is able to be adequately navigated. Daask (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I believe SMcCandlish was referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 202#RfC: Linking to wikidata. See also the currently active revised RFC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata. Daask (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me by Verbcatcher that there is a guideline as follows: "To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. ... {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia." In my opinion, this is far more confusing to the reader than the straightforward inclusion of the link. I create a lot of interwiki links to Welsh-language articles, and I can't see how Dewi Emrys can possibly be more confusing than plonking Dewi Emrys in the middle of the text. Do others really feel that the average reader will know what "cy" means and that it will help them if they aren't able to read Welsh? Also, do others believe that a red link is more "helpful" than a link to an article in another language which they actually may be able to read? Deb (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a reasonable interest in WP:Building the web, which includes providing red links in our articles so that we can build our own web. Simultaneously, we clearly also recognize that sister content may exist when ours does not, so we also have an interest in providing that link to our readers. I think that if you are working in a topic with a deep connection to a non-English language (as you have here), that we have a rather fair chance that someone will prefer the non-English wiki's version. There is a reasonable question you ask: does cy mean anything to the reader? I would suggest that the code is less likely to be valuable than the expansion of such [e.g. Dewi Emrys (Welsh)], but I am supposing, and that is a change for the talk page of the template anyway, not here, since it pertains to a specific template's improvement. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not very clear, is it. And ... in my view red links are very disruptive to readers. I do wish they weren't quite so stark a colour. Tony (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the colours, I think missing links should be less prominent and active links more prominent, particularly recently-visited active links.

Another problem with the [[:cy:Dewi Emrys|Dewi Emrys]] syntax is that missing articles do not show as red links, for example Dewo Emrys, which shows as blue in my browser. This confused me when editing this old version of Missions (TV series), where a list of blue links consisted mostly of links to missing articles in French Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

To answer Deb's question, the average Wikipedia reader will not know what 'cy' means, but most readers of an article on a Welsh-language poet probably will, particularly if they can read Welsh. The same applies to many articles with a clear link to another language. It is frustrating to click on a link and find nothing useful to you.

Interlanguage links are likely to become more useful as computer translation improves. Wikipedia could offer an option where these links open with a computer translation. If these links become common then more readers will understand what (xx) means. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking is not usually controlled by us but is at the browser level. When I check out a page without being signed in all links, are blue. Visited links are a darker blue, but still blue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Link colors are controlled by CSS, which while browsers have defaults (of those rough orders), websites can change their link colors accordingly. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A red link is not more helpful to me than a blue link on another Wikipedia that I may be able to read, but hiding the foreign link by making it blue is not the way to go. An {{interlanguage link}}-based red link which contains a parenthetical lang-code link to another wikipedia is much more helpful than a blue link to some unknown language article, for multiple reasons. For one thing, the red link serves the purpose red links are supposed to serve, namely, to indicate which articles are needed in the encyclopedia. In my view, turning such links blue using a hidden language prefix is doubly misleading: first, as Verbcatcher implied, it violates WP:POLA by taking me somewhere unexpected when I click it, and second, if I don't click it, it misleads by failing to point out the lack of an article that I might have been interested in creating. Secondly, who cares if most people don't know what the (cy) text in a link means, a priori? There are all sorts of linky-doodads on Wikipedia pages that I never knew what they were, until I clicked them for the first time. Now I know. Those who are afraid of melting down their laptop by clicking scary-looking links, simply won't click them.

The lang-code (or codes) provided by {{ill}} do what blue links are supposed to do, they inform us that more info about a topic is available, and provide the opportunity to access it one click away. Who is Johann Joseph Benet? When I go to Golden age of alpinism, I'm ecstatic that someone has taken the time to link the missing article as Johann Joseph Benet [de; es; fr], so I have the opportunity to read more about him if I wish, and furthermore, bless their heart, that they've given me a choice of languages in case only one of them works for me.

Regarding aesthetics: I sympathize with the fact that it bothers you, though, and if that's the case I'm sure a javascript hacker could easily put together a brief script that you could include in your common.js that would turn them all blue, or even selectively only those that use {{code}} or {{ill}}, if that's what you desired. Maybe a script exists for this already; try WP:VPT. But please don't argue that your sensitivity to certain colors of the spectrum should suppress a highly useful feature to everyone else. If you want to turn the red color less red for some reason, I personally have no objection as long as I can differentiate the colors, but there might be a reason that it is that color; maybe the Accessibility folks could speak to that (or again, js could do it).

I do care a lot about UX at Wikipedia. Where I do see a potential problem with the current representation of {{ill}}, albeit minor, it's that by default the lang-code suffixes are in full-size font. Especially in the case of multiple codes like the example above, I can see that being an interruption in the smooth reading of the text. However, there is already a possible solution for this, if the community wants it: the {{ill}} template already contains a feature to make the codes into superscript, and to my eyes, seeing Johann Joseph Benet  ^{[de; es; fr]} like this is easier to read in running text. (Another option might be linked hover text, with an even smaller footprint.) An Rfc might gather support to switch the default to superscript.

Although it is decidedly not the case with Deb, I can't help feeling that this is mostly a monolingual's complaint, and doesn't serve the majority of users. Millions of people in the world are bi- or multilingual, and many of them come here to en-wiki for numerous reasons. It's not their fault, if those with English as their mother tongue are less likely than others to be able make use of an interlanguage link, and it feels like a disservice to argue that we shouldn't have something highly useful to many readers, just because it's maybe not that useful to the rest of us. (I would love to see a pie-chart showing provenance of page-views by IP-geolocated country. I wonder if even half the views come from English-speaking countries.) Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC) duplicate sig (left) added by Mathglot (talk) at 00:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC) due to interpolated comment below; the original comment continues after the box.

...continuation of 21:11, 6 June 2018 comment: I think things are fine as they are. The very first paragraph of the lead names the purpose of a blue link as bind[ing] the project together into an interconnected whole and specifically calls out Wikipedia in other languages as a part of that goal. WP:REDLINK says, Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.^{[emphasis in original]} I'm all for sticking to the current guideline and not suppressing the utility of red links in interlanguage links. All the stuff about exactly what color they should be, and whether it's about active links or some others, are all personalization issues imho, and should be resolved in one's Preference settings, where possible, and with the use of common.js otherwise. Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I also use {{ill}} regularly, and I agree with everyhing Mathglot wrote; "I think things are fine as they are." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's an issue for readers, who can't personalise their settings. Tony (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question: I notice that interwiki links to Wiktionary don't have the same restrictions as interlanguage links although I guess that's understandable. If people really prefer having a red link, is there any possibility that we could allow the replacement of the abbreviation with a more meaningful alternative such as "(Welsh)" or "(German)" for readers to select - as Izno suggests above? This can of course be achieved with the present tools and it would look like this: Dewi Emrys (Welsh article). Alternatively, the :cy :de :es: etc prefix could be replaced, e.g. Welsh:Dewi Emrys? Would people object if I tried this out for Welsh links to see what, if any, reaction there is? Deb (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Two thoughts: first, I know a casual reader won't be able to change link colour, but there is User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js which allows a registered user to customize their colours. Takes some getting used to but it's super-helpful (and customizable).

Second, the issue with converting Dewi Emrys to Dewi Emrys (Welsh) is that it would require a fundamental change in the template coding; right now the language code is the input because it is the prefix used for the ILL itself. Inputting as either {{ill|Dewi Emrys|Welsh}} or having the template output the code would mean a 200-line switch statement incorporated in order to properly output/link. It's not impossible, but it's a huge waste of time and effort to fix something that is (technically speaking) not broken at the moment.

As for the initial question - I most definitely agree that an {{ill}} is better than a hidden ILL (e.g. Dewi Emrys) mainly because of the SURPRISE/EASTER aspect - I'd rather go "oh what's this cy link do?" then end up on a Welsh page trying to figure out what just happened. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

No offence, but what are the chances you would actually care whether there was an article on Dewi Emrys or not? And would you be likely to be reading an article on Dilys Cadwaladr in the first place? Deb (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

it would require a fundamental change in the template coding; right now the language code is the input because it is the prefix used for the ILL itself. Inputting as either {{ill|Dewi Emrys|Welsh}} or having the template output the code would mean a 200-line switch statement incorporated in order to properly output/link. It's not impossible, but it's a huge waste of time and effort to fix something that is (technically speaking) not broken at the moment. I am skeptical, seeing as that time and effort has already gone into both Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Lang. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

On a related subject, can anything be done to make links to missing articles in other wikis show in red, for example cy:Missing article? The problem also applies to the Interlanguage link templates, e.g. Missing article [de; es; fr; cy]. This could be used by vandals to hide vanity names in lists of people. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That technique could also be used, by vandals who wanted to stuff beans up their nose. Uh-oh, I goofed! Too late now; it's on the internet. Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is possible, but would require adding yet-another link to the Ill template, which is the Wikidata item, which could then be checked against the links on the ILL in question. (Better yet, if you're going that route, is probably just for the Wikidata ILL to automatically populate a list of languages, say, up to 5 other languages.) --Izno (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Responses: Deb, some responses to your questions:
  1. Would people object if I tried this out for Welsh links?
     • A: Am I correct in assuming you don't mean to do this solely for the Welsh case? I wouldn't object in the case of Welsh, since I don't speak it. Given the two choices you offered (Dewi Emrys (Welsh article) and Welsh:Dewi Emrys), I'd pick the first, even though it's wordier, because I would interpret "Welsh:Dewi Emrys" as the output of a {{lang-cy}} template and expect the underlined, blue "Welsh" to link to Welsh language, and expect the second part to be a Welsh word explaining some English word preceding. However if the Welsh try-out is a prelude to suggesting it as a general solution for all languages, then I would object strenuously.
  2. what are the chances you would actually care whether there was an article on Dewi Emrys or not?
     • A: Chances are zero, in my case, and quite low overall. But what's your point? Are you implying, "Even if it's a bad suggestion let's implement it anyway, because nobody will be affected by obscure Welsh poet articles?"
  3. ...interwiki links are a much fainter blue than "real" links...
     • A: Not certain, but active links that you've never clicked on can be a different color than ones you've visited. You can change the color of visited and unvisited links to your liking in most browsers.

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Some answers: You're correct in thinking that I am not as bothered about the articles in languages I don't speak myself. I would normally only create links to French and Welsh articles. However, I have created huge numbers of these links over the years, especially in the "Year in Wales" articles, and I don't really like the idea of having to change them to no useful purpose. I have never customised the colours of links in my browser - I am pretty sure this is how it's meant to be, and a couple of people also mentioned this in the discussion above. Obviously it would help everyone if an interlanguage link was a different colour, i.e. not red or blue, but you can't rely on individuals to do this so it would have to be automatic. My main concerns about {{ill}} are (a) it looks ugly and (b) it's unhelpful. I don't actually know how off-putting it is to people and I imagine there is no way of finding that out. The numbers are bound to be very small either way. Deb (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Deb, I became acquainted with your dogged insistence on linking years and dates in some articles you claimed stewardship over (though that concerned internal links). It seems to me that you discount the disruptive effect on readers of blotches of colour in the main text. Perhaps that's simply a matter of perceptual variability (it does exist among us). But please be aware that most people do find them more distracting than you do. Tony (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you're agreeing with me that red links are bad. Deb (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• A remark: @Deb: the behavior of {{Ill}} differs slightly in Wikipedia in other languages. If you open fr:Ynys Dysilio, a tooltip appears when you hover over the (cy)/(en) links in the lead section, saying "Équivalent de l'article « x » dans une autre langue", which means "Equivalent to the article « x » in another language". In the Spanish Wikipedia (and at least the Catalan Wikipedia and the Portuguese Wikipedia), the tooltip is more precise: if you open es:The Apartment, a tooltip appears when you hover over the (en) link in the lead section, saying "x en la Wikipedia en inglés", which means "x in the English Wikipedia". --NicoScribe (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As NicoScribe points out, the Spanish Wikipedia template es:Plantilla:Ill generates hover-over text that includes the name of the language. The full name of the language is not specified when using the template, and it appears to support all 301 Wikipedias, see my Spanish sandbox. It would be good to adapt this for English Wikipedia, which would change the hover-over text of Dewi Emrys from cy:Dewi Emrys to "Dewi Emrys" in the Welsh Wikipedia, or something similar. This could be done in the template code, and require no changes to the use of the templates. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds worth exploring. Hover-over would solve one aspect of our massive overuse of internal links—the impediment to smooth reading and the messy look. But it wouldn't solve the dilutionary effect, where editors' use of their topic knowledge to ration links to the most important is diffused in a sea of links. Tony (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hover is essentially useless to mobile users. Like it or not, more users are moving to devices that do not have a separate way of tracking mouse motion and clicking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It does sound worth exploring. Deb (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

But, ouch, Walter's point is significant. Tony (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully this is something that the interfaces themselves will be upgraded to account for (some already do; it isn't true that zero mobile browsers have way to track "focus" on the page).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Should possessive and contraction suffixes be included in wikilinks? For example, [[Goethe]]'s (Goethe's) or [[Goethe|Goethe's]] (Goethe's)? Suffixes beginning with apostrophes aren't included in the link automatically. I reckon whatever the conclusion of this conversation is, it should be added to MOS:Linking#Piped links. Daask (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Daask for bringing this up for comment. 😊︎ Although it takes an extra step, I prefer encapsulating the whole word into the wikilink as a matter of aesthetics.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 14:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love: This urgently needs a section in the Manual of Style. I see disparity in this practice far too much – no one can agree on what it should be, and this has even caused a minor revert war (Beyond My Ken). I am of the position that "'s" should be hyperlinked, because it is grammatically part of the word; it's an inflectional genitive case ending that was abbreviated, and a simple search of its etymology (English, Old English) will reveal this. Given this, it is known that links on Wikipedia should not incorporate only part of a word and also that link text doesn't have to correspond to link destination. Given this still, all "apostrophe s"es should be hyperlinked. It's just a shame that the only formatting which allows this is one which duplicates the link into a piped link. SUM1 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you really thing this "urgently" needs a MOS guideline, you've lost all perspective. EEng 22:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've got a 55-gallon drum of popcorn ready for popping. EEng 00:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• British empire units, EEng? I've not thought about this issue much; but it seems much better aesthetically and more logical grammatically to include the possessive apostrophe in a link/pipe. Tony (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

US Customary, silly. Now look, everyone, we've been through this before (and no doubt there are more threads than these two):

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_18#What_a_waste_of_time
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_182#What_are_the_rules_on_link_possessive?

(In the first link I'm directing y'all, modestly, to my personal summary of the situation.) EEng 13:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support and set the bots running. This should become the sixth pillar of Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Genitives and possessives are not part of the word in the way a plural or compound is. This has been settled long ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Um, why not? Tony (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• No it hasn't, otherwise we wouldn't be here, with multiple discussions on it in the past. SUM1 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes it has, but some, who clearly don't even know the basics of editing (see WP:LISTGAP) don't like the current consensus and want it changed. Being settled long ago and not accepting that change are two separate issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• There was no need for the personal attack, and you haven't provided any evidence of any consensus. SUM1 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Nor was there a personal attack. I simply stated that ignorant editors (that's a class, not an individual) are allowed to have opinions, but they should actually look at the links provided to see where consensus is, but the links were provided above by Eng on 13:09, 5 June 2018. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well I don't know how well you were reading the two links, because they both don't contain a consensus. We're still here, without a policy on it, and I didn't even start this discussion. The statement of "not even knowing the basics of editing" was still unwarranted. SUM1 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Before discussing what any potential guideline should be, I first want to see evidence that there's substantial, recurring debate about this on multiple articles. See User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 22:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Though not necessarily an active debate, I've noticed inconsistencies at the following pages, with some examples provided:

• Arthur Schopenhauer: "a method comparable to [[Zapffe]]'s" and "about [[Sigmund Freud|Freud's]] concepts"
• Richard Wagner: "elements of [[Carl Maria von Weber]]'s opera" and "by [[Friedrich Engels|Engels's]] book"
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: "at [[R. B. Braithwaite|Richard Braithwaite]]'s rooms" and "it did in [[Otto Weininger|Weininger's]] case"
• Thomas Mann: "of [[Christopher Hampton]]'s play" and "by [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler's]] regime"

I think that the inconsistencies are probably everywhere if we look.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the inconsistencies are everywhere, but I'd bet only a tiny fraction of editors or readers notice, and even fewer care. I'm asking for evidence falsifying that. EEng 03:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I see! Hmm.. I mean, certainly we care, but perhaps there's a place with a bigger audience that we could ask. Any suggestions? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should stir up concern where it doesn't already exist, as seen (or not seen) on article talk pages. One last time I'll offer my philosophy on adding things to MOS: User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. Because if MOS does not need to have a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 04:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Refer to my comment above – I see this disparity everywhere, constantly. It's about a 50/50 or 60/40 split. It needs normalisation. SUM1 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I already said I'm sure the inconsistencies are everywhere, but as I also said, I'd bet only a tiny fraction of editors or readers notice, and even fewer care. I'm still waiting for you to address that last bit. EEng 04:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I just showed you an example of a minor edit war. Yes, it was the first time it's happened to me, and yes it was ridiculous, but can't you see? There have been at least 3 discussions on this thus far – it needs a policy, plain and simple. SUM1 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If every minor edit war led to a new MOS provision, MOS would be literally bigger than all of article space. The two discussions I linked (i.e. two of your "three") are one person apparently wondering about the question in the abstract, and one who foolishly started "fixing" this issue (in one direction or the other) using automation, and was told to stop that. That's so far from what justifies a new MOS provision it isn't even funny. And so, tiresomely referring yet again to my personal standards in these matters, I ask for evidence that...

1. There is a manifest a priori need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. -- things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers); OR

2. Editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles, either

(a) with generally the same result (so we might as well just memorialize that result, and save all the future arguing), or

(b) with different results in different cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary, and not worth all the arguing -- a final decision on one arbitrary choice, though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions on each article should be made on the Talk page of that article, is worth making in light of the large amount of editor time saved.

I claim that (1) doesn't obtain, but am open to evidence. (2a) clearly isn't on. Any evidence of (2b), other than your one minor edit war? EEng 17:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait for more discussion then. SUM1 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Confused - what is the proposal, exactly? I only see a question, and personally my approach is to leave the prefixes and suffixes outside the link, per Walter. Deb (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – Something about, er, ...hobgoblins, um, er.. little minds..., um.. Oh look, there's a squirrel! Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  WP:EMERSON.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above. SUM1 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Use "Goethe's". It's more concise code and it correctly identifies the subject of the article. Using "Goethe's" implies weirdly that we have an article on things that belonged to Goethe. (This problem doesn't arise with plurals, because the topic Manx cats is the same topic as Manx cat, and we expect plurals to redirect to singulars, or vice versa occasionally, already). This actually satisfies EEng's criterion no. 1, above, as does the frequent occurrence of conflicting styles on this in the same article. However, I strongly agree with him that adding new MoS "rules" without a real need to do so is a bad idea. For something like this, it's much simpler to just lead by example, i.e. for MoS to illustrate only links in "Goethe's" form. We use this technique to good effect elsewhere. E.g., MOS:LIFE compresses a tremendous amount of potential "this, and this, and this, and this ..." verbiage into nothing but carefully selected examples (and some HTML comments indicating why the examples were chosen). PS: None of this should not be interpreted any kind of prejudice against link piping to avoid redundant wording, as in "The Hustler is a 1961 film based on the 1959 novel of the same name" (and note the avoidance of a misleading link like "novel" which implies the article Novel).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the term "de facto" sufficiently unfamiliar to readers that it should be wikilinked in general articles that are not primarily about law, domestic relationships, terms of Latin original etc.? Thanks Nurg (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is sufficiently familiar that a link to the wiktionary is not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's next to de jure, which usually does need a link, then linking de facto to the dictionary is not unreasonable. If it's used in isolation, then it's sufficiently common that a reader doesn't need a definition. Use common sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Walter and Hawkeye. Tony (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That confirms my opinion. BTW, I wasn't talking about linking to a dictionary - I meant linking to the WP article "de facto". Nurg (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the policy on directly linking to template namespace from article namespace? Or rather, template namespace directly linking to template namespace. I'm talking about articles using navboxes like {{1877 shipwrecks}} and {{2014 railway accidents}}. Both link to the previous and the following year's templates.

It's weird to land on a blank page with just a navbox (or template documentation) and I can't imagine this is how it was intended. Jay D. Easy (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The right place for this discussion is probably WT:CLN. That said, we've discussed WP:EGG links and these links are EGG links, which we concluded should generally be removed or reformatted such that they point to mainspace. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there izno good reason for articles to link to templates like this. EEng 19:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the links to the relevant categories instead. That would be useful for navigation and a more normal link behavior than linking to another navigational template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories are just as bad in this context per the same principle as templates. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'd suggest removing the piped links and replacing them with direct links to the categories. I think that would satisfy WP:EGG. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Never mind that. I didn't realize there were list articles. Much better to link directly to the list articles. --Bsherr (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The section "What generally should not be linked" as written is rather unclear.

First, "This generally includes major examples of geographic features". It's a bit confusing because the word "this" could refer to "names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar" OR it could refer to "unless there is a contextually important reason to link". I think it means the former, but the ambiguity makes this a bit hard to understand.

Second, what is meant by the sub-bullet "Pairs of contrasting examples:". This isn't clear at all. Can someone explain? What pairs? How is "Prussian" a pair? How are these contrasting?

Third, what is meant by "These are two ends of a spectrum"? Does the word "these" refer to the previous two sub-bullets?

It would be great if this whole section were written a bit more clearly. Coastside (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to get more information about WP:OVERLINK. I think the policy is very much like MOS:BOLD and similarly people can't get used to overdoing it. I think one or two links per sentence should in most cases be more than enough. Particularly I see people linking to "review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes" and it seems to me a very clear example of overlink, since if readers need an explanation they'll get it from the Rotten Tomatoes link. Similarly editors refer to Metacritic and then explain that it uses a weighted average, and I think most readers know what an average means, and the weighted average article is too generic to be really useful.

I discussed this case overlink in film articles before with the people active on WP:MOSFILM and there was a weak consensus in favor of continuing to link to weighted average. Others seem to think this discussion amounted was a consensus in favor of keeping both links, I don't see that at all. I'd like to know more about the reasoning from those who are behind the Overlink policy and if they think it should apply and if a (weak) local consensus is enough to ingore it. -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Creating a WP:SEAOFBLUE is not what OVERLINK is about. OVERLINK is about linking common terms like "film", "movie" or "actor" in your example; "singer", "guitar" or "song" in a band or album article; or generally "United States", "Himalayas or "Christianity". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

IP, you were told there by Betty Logan and others that linking terms that readers are likely not familiar with is not overlinking. In what way do you think general readers will usually understand what "weighted average" is? As for linking "review aggregator," that's on the iffy side since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will already be linked, but I don't consider it overlinking when Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are also linked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, we've have readers not understand when we state "average rating" (instead of "rating average" or "weighted average"). Some have thought that we are simply stating that the rating is so-so/mediocre. Linking in the case of "average rating" is definitely helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In reply to the well considered opinion of User:Betty Logan in the previous discussion, I said that we can reasonably expect readers understand "average" (even if it is a specific type of average). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are the most relevant links possible, and those are already linked, so call it OVERLINK or SEAOFBLUE but my point is that those additional links are redundant.

Frankly I don't even think the boilerplate explanation of aggregator scores are helpful either, but linking the terminology seems even more unnecessary. Flyer22 keeps saying "helpful" links but we don't know for sure that those links are helpful, or that people click on the RT and MC links either. -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep debating you on this. I am not the only editor who has stated that the links are helpful. Here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, another editor was even clear that they can be helpful. Except for WP:SEAOFBLUE issue, which is easily remedied by changing "review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes" to "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator," you have not shown how they are unhelpful. You removing these links deprives some readers of understanding; we know this not only by common sense, but by the "average rating" example I gave above. And, no, I'm not going to go digging through histories or my contributions to point to examples in that regard. Here's the thing: You do not have the MOS support or the support of film editors to keep removing these links. And the benefit of keeping them outweighs the rationale to remove them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 disagrees with specific changes I've made, and doesn't want to discuss this further. I'm am looking for further discussion, and different opinions. So far the comment User:Walter Görlitz suggests I shouldn't worry about it, but perhaps he could clarify with a follow up comment. I don't think he was saying that the MOS doesn't discourage redundant linking, just that what I was saying wasn't specifically Overlink. I'd welcome other opinions too, I'm don't expect rapid response to any discussions at this time of year, or for the discussion to be over without a few more opinions to make things clearer.

I think a lot of editors use linking to indirectly address other problems. What this discussion has made clearer to me, is that the underlying reason this bothers me, is the tedious and pedant boilerplate text attempting explain details about aggregators that I don't believe readers even care about. Flyer22 says the link is helpful and that user need the terms explained with a wikilink, but to me that makes it looks like the boilerplate is not actually helpful and readers end up needing to look at the Metacritic article anyway and that is best to just link the key word in the sentence. The redundant linking is a scab on an underling greater irritation but that doesn't make either of those things good.

I'm reminded by MOS:BOLD, because Wikipedia used to have lot of bold text all over the place and it seemed harmless, and took a while for me get behind that guideline and to see that after people had removed so much bold that less was more. So reading the linking guidelines and seeing phrases such as "links compete with each other for user attention" it seemed crystal clear, a reminder that less is more. Maybe I'm being overly strict but it seemed like that too when editors started removing all the excess bold formatting, and only in hindsight was it obviously an improvement. -- 109.76.149.139 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I never stated that "the user need[s] the terms explained with a wikilink," as if all users do. I stated that linking a term such "weighted average" is helpful, and I've already noted why. Obviously, some won't need "weighted average" linked. I don't want to discuss this further because you've WP:Forum shopped this topic around to three different places now (well, two if considering the fact that I started the discussion at WP:FILM about you) looking for the support you want and haven't gotten it (except for Tony1 below), and that is due to your arguments for de-linking being weak, especially with regard to "average rating," "weighted average" and "rating average." Linking that is not redundant linking. I don't agree with your "boilerplate" reasoning, or see this as the same as unnecessary bolding. The next step is for you to start a WP:RfC on this, preferably at WP:FILM or MOS:FILM. If I see you continuing to try to enforce your style across Wikipedia, I will revert you for WP:Disruptive editing. You need to stop edit warring to get your preferred style to stick. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at UNDERLINK for contrast "An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked and are needed to aid understanding of the article" and to understand an article about film, a reader does not need to understand the score system, be it 4 out of 5 stars or 83% or 22 out of 100, so I come back to my point that the not only is the link unnecessary but the boilerplate explanatory text is also unnecessary. I want to make it clear that an article definitely wouldn't be underlinked by not including these links.

Stylistically and from my personal experience with SEO, I think more than one link per sentence clause is bad, and I would aim for less than one link per sentence or less. Again from SEO I would generally link to nouns, occasionally to verbs, and very rarely adjectives. (So link to the proper noun RT, MC, not the descriptions, review aggregation website).

I would still very much like the people who came up with the OVERLINK policy in the first place to make it much clearer and provide a much more specific metric or provide an objective measure or tool that would allow us to settle this conclusively. I wish we didn't even need to have this discussion and it could be decided less by opinions and more by facts and evidence and ultimately I find the lack of clarity in the OVERLINK guidelines severely disappointing. -- 109.76.149.91 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I generally agree with the IP. (Please consider registering ... it only takes a few minutes.) Tony (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So Flyer22, your reversions would not be disruptive—is that it? Tony (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Because, as seen here, the IP would be enforcing a style that has no WP:Consensus, and actually contrasts the style that most or many of our film articles use. The IP in this recent edit points to the 2010 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores discussion. That is the discussion that made it so that "normalized" was replaced with "weighted average." And we can see at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Overlink that there is no WP:Consensus on the de-linking arguments that IP 109.76 favors, and that more editors lean toward at least keeping "weighted average" linked. I would revert the IP at the articles once, then take the matter to the appropriate talk page or noticeboard, just like I first took the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Removing helpful wikilinks from the Critical reception section for the IP and others to discuss. In that discussion, we can clearly see Erik stating, "I do not support going around with the express purpose of de-linking them." And I've stated similarly. I've reverted a number of editors (IPs or otherwise) trying to enforce their style on Wikipedia articles and edit warring with others while doing it; I reverted for disruptive editing, and then took the matter to a talk page or reported the editor to the appropriate noticeboard. I was never the one to get reprimanded or blocked for reverting the disruptive editing; and it wouldn't happen this time either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

While I hope this discussion isn't dead, it has had even less participation than the MOSFILM discussion, and realistically I don't think anyone can claim consensus based on any discussion involving only 3 people.

I reiterate my call for OVERLINK to include more objective measures and clearer evidence based rules. -- 109.76.149.91 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

From the lack of interest in your proposal and two opposing voices, I'd say that there is no consensus for change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Reiterate .. what? You started this discussion with: "I'd like to get more information about WP:OVERLINK." Which sure looks like a simple request for information, and why should more than one or two people be involved? If out of that discussion you come up with an idea that might warrant more discussion, that is a separate discussion, which needs it's own thread, outside of an insignificant request for information. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

When to link common terms

I have been flummoxed by this as well. Usually, this comes up in the context of album articles for me: I will link all of the instruments played by musicians in the personnel section and others will remove some of the links citing this page. But if we remove links to guitar because it's a common term, then when we we ever include any links to it? I don't include links to guitar in standard running text but a list section within an article seems like a perfectly appropriate place for it. What am I missing here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The reasons that linking to such a commonly known term such as "guitar" is discouraged are that: (i) it dilutes the linking system, which is stronger if rationed to items that readers might be slightly more likely to click on, such as technical/specialist terms and articles on much less-well-known musical instruments; (ii) if spread everywhere without editorial judgment, linking becomes visually disruptive to readers. So, no, please avoid linking to all but instruments that are uncommon. Certainly not the ubiquitous "guitar". You'd save us a lot of trouble if you followed the guideline. Thanks. Tony (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not appropriate in a list section either. That it's done there more often is simply because of sloppy editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to overlinking, but I must admit that a list of linked uncommon terms interspersed with an unlinked common term look very odd. I think that should be left to editorial judgment without rigidly insisting on the guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point, Michael. What I think we called the "patchiness" issue was discussed in some depth when en.WP got serious about smart linking practices, back last decade. It's true, the look isn't ideal, and yes, it does come down to editors' judgment to balance patchy visuals with the need to optimise link functionality. As an example, I've just unlinked my umpteenth "singer-songwriter" in an infobox, but left the intriguing author song linked. I thought it might have beena typo, but no. AND I delinked my umpteenth "vocals" and "piano", but left linked gusli. Fair enough? Koavf, don't be flummoxed: selective linking (using our editorial skills and field knowledge) is a service to readers. Tony (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1 and Walter Görlitz: You are misunderstanding or ignoring my point (maybe I am not making it clear): If I followed this guideline, then guitar would be orphaned, no? As I asked above: when should someone link to guitar? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did miss that point. It wouldn't be orphaned because of album personnel listings not linking it, but close associations, like with notable guitarists, would all link back to the article. But do we need to link to the instrument that Ryan Hedgecock played on Lone Justice (album) to know what a guitar is? It goes against OVERLINK. It's the same reason that American and 1985 are not linked in the lede of that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd link it in any article specifically on musical instruments, or when "guitar" takes on a technical or historical dimension. But in those cases, it might be best to link to a section of the article on "guitar". Tony (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The article sequence begins with "In mathematics, a sequence is an enumerated collection of objects in which repetitions are allowed." In this sentence, is the term "enumerated" common enough that it should not be linked? There is an article on enumeration, but it can be argued that the word can be understood in context. Shawnc (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried hard but can make no sense of the following under "what generally should not be linked". Here is the bullet point including the (for me) opaque comment:

• Pairs of contrasting examples: Lake Xochimilco, mid-Atlantic Ridge; Aberbeeg, Tonga; Frisian languages, Middle English; Prussian, Tohono O'odham, Afro-Cuban; Zoroastrianism, Shinreikyo<!--Good mix, including temporally and across definitions of things like "nation".-->

Are these words that should not (normally) be linked? If so, was it a good idea to link them? Or should they be linked? Or are they pairs where one should be linked and the other not (the next bullet point says "These are two ends of a spectrum")? If so which way round? And why, scrutinising the punctuation, is there a threesome in there?

I've been pondering this even more before posting and I wonder if these are things that should normally be linked, in contrast to the items in the previous bullet point that should not. If so, the way this has been expressed is not at all clear. Yes, I think that is what is intended but what do others think? Thincat (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've always found this section puzzling. It's especially weird that the bit you quote is introduced as names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the idea that "most" readers are "at least somewhat familiar" with (or have even heard of) Lake Xochimilco, Aberbeeg, Tohono O'odham, and Shinreikyo reflects a vast overestimation of most readers' breadth of experience. I have no idea what the "contrasting examples" thing is. EEng 23:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• @SMcCandlish: who, I think, added this originally, @BeenAroundAWhile: who, somewhat doubtfully, changed it and @EEng: who changed it again. Does anyone have any second thoughts? My feeling is that this bullet point (and the one following} should be removed. Such obscure topics generally should be linked and yet they are so obscure that they are not helpful topics to illustrate the point. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't know what this is supposed to mean either. I know what I used to mean. The early version made sense (though was possible to misinterpret if you tried hard). I've reverted to that version, then clarified the iffy phrase. This had nothing to do with "pairs of contrasting examples"; rather, the entire block is "do link things like this", in contrast to "don't link things like the prior list".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• I am similarly confused. How did these examples ever make it into the guideline? Tony (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a set of examples of what not to link, like "New York" and "English" and "African American" and "Buddhist". This is followed by a list of counter-examples, of places, languages, peoples, religions not so commonly known that we shouldn't link them. The examples are pretty random. Someone later came along and somehow mistook the second list for something completely different, a list of link-this-one-but-don't-link-that-one pairs, despite them all being obscure to at least some subset of readers, and not actually being in pairs. Whatever the cause of this, it's been repaired and clarified; no more issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Requested move 12 March 2019, a proposal to move that page to be a subpage of MOS:LINKING or just merge it directly into MOS:LINKING#Interwiki links.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:Internal links has this point: Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid) - what about links to templates which act as pseudo-articles, such as those linked in the season column here? --Gonnym (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Would it hurt to give a bit of context? I have no opinion on the significance of the context, which I will leave to others, but it's surely relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone of the watchers here with a comment? Would really appreciate if I don't have to open a RfC just for a simple answer. --Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We should never link directly into the template space as a matter of surprise, unless a) it is obvious the link goes to the template space and/or B) the link is provided for maintenance purposes. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you count as an obvious link to a template? Does it need be spelled directly as Template:Template name? If that is indeed the case, then how is that a valid option and not just transcluding it? --Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It either needs the exact title or it needs something like Template. I prefer the former to the latter, but neither to the other option which is transclusion; if it is indeed material to be transcluded, it should be transcluded. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a live example you know of a template linked the way you say is valid? I'm not quite sure I understand how that link should work like (again, from main space and not from project-space). --Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not confuse "better than bad" with "valid". :^) The latter "maintenance" case is for e.g. the VTE links Template:navbar. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The VTE links weren't my issue as those are valid links, was refering more to how links in here appear. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely wrong-headed linking to templates. The obvious fix is the create an article and transclude the templates with sections (or at least anchors) and link to the proper part of the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with Big Sky Conference#Big Sky men's basketball and other recent TfD discussions similar to this was that editors argued that linking to template directly is ok as there isn't any place that says otherwise. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I.e., WP:WIKILAWYERing. We don't link to template pages from mainspace. It's just not done. A site-wide consensus on what we do and don't do that's this self-evident doesn't need to be written down. This is one of those WP:AJR situations. We can write it down if someone's going to light WP:Common sense on fire to get their way, but if it's not actually happening on any kind of scale, we're better without adding yet another written rule, and fixing the few instances of people being boneheads by linking to templates from articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Instances like this are unfortunately not uncommon, with at least one walled garden of medical navboxes linking directly to other navboxes (and some inadvertent similar activity of year navboxes linking to navboxes in the next year). --Izno (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I could try and start linking this discussion to new TfD that have this problem and see if it works, but I really don't understand the reason not to add "templates" to Do not create links to user, template, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles [...] (bolding mine) as it would just make what you call (and I agree with) common sense, more noticeable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If you and Izno think it's happening enough that it needs to be addressed, I rescind my objection to adding it. I'm just averse-by-default to adding new stuff to MoS at this stage (for WP:CREEP reasons and because after about 18 years it already says most of what it needs to).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Izno, any idea on how to address it in the guideline? --Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a live discussion, about a mainspace template with links to other templates - Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Links to template space from navboxes (again). --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a {{main article}} or {{see also}} template should be placed immediately after the heading. Does anyone know why this rule was made? I am interested because the reasoning may apply on another Wiki. Please ping with reply. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: {{main article}} should probably be updated.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It used to break edit summary links. Now though, I think it's simply unaesthetic. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As Izno says, it looks ugly. It's also unwieldy to use the # notation to link to sections with embedded wikilinks. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Izno. Tony (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I could've sworn there was some accessibility-related reason. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, I will ask at accessibility. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a link to the Main Page in this section header

We can make a link to the above section header here:

• Link to #There is a link to the Main Page in this section header

If we now examine the rendered html for that line, we get:

• Link to <a href="#There_is_a_link_to_the_Main_Page_in_this_section_header" title="">#There a link to the Main Page in this section header</a>

I can't see anything that might cause a problem for anyone using a screen reader in that html, although someone else might know better. The MediaWiki software now strips out the [[]] characters from the header text in order to create the actual link (and the id of the target), and I don't think that problem has existed for many years. Nevertheless, many of us older editors avoid putting links in section headers through habit or for aesthetic reasons (the MOS advises not to use links inside bold text). HTH --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS and Pbsouthwood: Links in section headers used to cause problems with earlier versions of JAWS because they would stop reading the heading title when they encountered a link, so the example header would have read "There is a link to the". However, this is not an issue now and those screen reader versions are no longer in use. I don't think links in section headers were ever that common to start with. Graham87 14:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. The query is for English Wikivoyage where they have been used quite extensively in some travel topic articles and we have no guidance about it at all there. It seems that technically it is a non-issue, just a matter of style, and I will report back there that it does not really seem to matter. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware this has been discussed at length before. My earliest memory of editing is of encountering such a discussion. But that was five years ago, and I think enough time has passed to invoke WP:CCC. An RfC would be in order, but first I wanted to test the water on this (i.e., there is no point in !voting; save that for the RfC if any).

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

The current guidance seems predicated on two assumptions: (1) That articles are read top down, rather than using the table of contents to skip to a section of interest (why make links of TOC entries, then?), and (2) that the reader will generally follow the link upon first reference (or first reference after the lead) if they don't know what it refers to. Unless both are true, upon encountering an unfamiliar term that is not linked, the reader is forced to (1) somehow know that it was linked earlier, despite not having read that part, and (2) go find that link. It's easier to just use the Search box, defeating the benefit of links—and either way, you lose your place in the article unless you open a second window or browser tab.

Even if the reader reads top-down and follows the link upon first reference (or first reference after the lead), are they expected to read the entire target article? What if they read only the first few sentences, and then want to know more when they encounter the term again later? Is that an implausible or uncommon scenario?

The guidance just doesn't make sense to me, and I suspect a large part of the reason it's ignored so much is because it doesn't make sense to other editors, either.

"First reference in a section" wouldn't be perfect (I doubt anything would be), but it would be a substantial improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some issues to be ironed out (section? subsection?) but I've often thought along similar lines. EEng 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, you write: "It's easier to just use the search box, defeating the benefit of links—and either way, you lose your place in the article unless you open a second window or browser tab." Do you mean that clicking on a link in situ does not make a reader lose their place in the article?

In any case, the problem with changing the guideline in this respect is that there would be no end of multiple linking. Remember that surprisingly few links are clicked on, and for every one that is, probably hundreds of readers don't want or need a slightly disruptive splash of blue. As for encountering a word one is unfamiliar with via a section link ... well, why not scroll up after finishing that section? Most readers, I'm sure, wouldn't mind quickly surveying the larger context before the link-targeted section, if they really can't find it within themselves to type the word into the search box—especially to where the item is first linked, which may well avoid the need to divert to another article in the first place. Tony (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony1: I can middle-click a blue link and that will open a new tab in the browser; I'm not aware of any method that uses the Wikipedia search box that allows that. // I, too, often find that I have to go back to locate a link for a term that was clear from its context before, but later baffles me. There used to be a bullet point here that allowed repeated links "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first" until it was removed by User:Maunus on 27 November 2011. I can't find any discussion that led to that edit, but it was discussed between February and May 2015. According to the closing statement there, that discussion reached "consensus for allowing when far enough apart." But I can't find any edits that implemented it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Maunus had replaced all bullet points with a generic statement "Exaggerrated link repetition within an article should be avoided.", and said "feel free to implement simplification differently". His simplification was replaced by having links "once in the Lead and once in body.", which was replaced by the current "a link should appear only once in an article, ... and at the first occurrence after the lead.". Trying to address the issue of overlinking, the concept of repeat linking has been lost. The original guideline "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." made sense, and should be re-instated as it was removed without discussion. I like to click on links as I read, and open them in a new tab, and the current guideline restricting the repeat linking is making it difficult. The purpose of links is easy navigation within Wikipedia, and the repeat guidelines should not be preventing that. Jay (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean that clicking on a link in situ does not make a reader lose their place in the article? Yes I did, but I suppose it does. Stricken, not that I feel that tilts the scale in the other direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

When I encounter a sea-of-blue article, I'm generally not inclined to spend my time making it conform with a guideline that makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm a believer in respect for consensus, but not absolutely so. So I leave the sea-of-blue alone, while "first reference in section" would reduce the blue significantly. So your argument self-defeats per the Law of Unintended Consequences. In any case, surely providing some reasonable minimum ease-of-use comes before minimization of blue. No, it's not reasonable to ask a reader to go find a link when they need it, and if they are to use the Search box we can eliminate all blue very easily. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"When I encounter a sea-of-blue article, I'm generally not inclined to spend my time making it conform with a guideline that makes absolutely no sense to me" – OK, so you're for maximal linking of WP's article text. The lobby for that usually comes from techie people who don't understand why you wouldn't maximise "utility". The argument against comes from people (like me) who (i) value reading text without undue obstruction by bright blue splashes, (ii) feel that the linking system is degraded/diluted unless it's carefully rationed, (iii) find little value in catering to readers who might article-hop, browsing superficially by links as one might when shoppping online—particularly given that clicking on a link goes against the whole notion of article cohesion and structure, by diverting suddenly in the middle of a text; (iv) are suspicious of the notion that internal links are used more than marginally by readers, and (v) wonder why it's such a pain to spend five seconds typing a target into the search box ... that's what it's there for. These issues were discussed ad nauseum in 2008–09, and community consensus was in favour of carefully limiting linking. If you want to see examples of uncontrolled, undisciplined, scattergun linking, take a look at some of the non-English WPs, where the sea-of-blue tech lobby has been too daunting for development of a more disciplined system, as en.WP has done. Tony (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you're for maximal linking of WP's article text. No, what I said was "first reference in a section". That's less than maximal.
Most of the sea-of-blue problem comes from linking things that don't need to be linked at all, not from repeating links of things that do. There are many editors going around linking everything in sight, with virtually no sense of what's really useful, and there are a lot more of them than there are of us since that's something one can do with very little learning. If DUPLINK were changed as I suggest, that would still be the major cause of sea-of-blue. But I accept that there are competing philosophies and conflicting goals that will forever remain unresolved, resulting in very little site-wide coherence or consistency in linking. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm against changing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a compromise position here, which would actually reflect observable practice (in good, well-developed articles that are long): It's okay to link something again if it's important in the context and if it was last linked much higher up in the article (like several sections, or after a very long section). This is basically why we permit re-linking something after the lead in the first place. But it should be based on wide separation between the mentions; just a count of "sections" isn't it, since many sections are very short.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support SMcCandlish's compromise proposal; the trick will be in finding clear and unambiguous wording that is resistant to wikilawyering by editors trying to argue in favour of oceans of blue, low-value internal links...--BushelCandle (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• As usual the actual solution is to not have a rule, but just encourage the use of good sense and avoidance of overlinking.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Well, yeah. SMcCandlish, the problem lies in defining how far apart. We've been there before without resolution, and as BushelCandle says, wikilawyering would be a problem. There's still a small residue of editors who have no problem linking all over the place, and who would object to taming multiple linking of the same item. The current wording seems like a compromise to me. Tony (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be defined. People can in fact occasionally think for themselves and reach reasonable conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, avoiding the "wikilawyering this to mean anything I want it to" is always the hard part. If we think it's the direction to go, I don't doubt that we can do it, given how much practice some of us have had at crafting policyspeak on WP. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Very occasionally, one sees links from the lead section to sections of the article, perhaps with piped text such as "see below". I remove these links when I see them; "see below" is inherent in the concept of a lead section, everything in the lead is expanded upon in the article, and I don't think anybody needs any help with finding the main text.

Recently I encountered an editor who persistently readded links from a lead section to sections of the article. They claimed that this page explicitly endorsed such links as useful, though it merely states that they can be made. The text is not entirely accurate, referring to a link from a lead section which does not exist, and I think clearer guidance is needed. So I would like to propose a change to the second paragraph in MOS:SL, from this:

To link to a section within the same article, e.g. in the lead of Promotion (chess), write: [[#Promotion to rook or bishop|§ promotion to a rook or bishop]]. You can also use the {{section link}} template for this purpose.

to this:

Links to sections within the same article may occasionally be useful if the article is very long. To make such a link, e.g. within Promotion (chess), write: [[#Promotion to rook or bishop|§ promotion to a rook or bishop]]. You can also use the {{section link}} template for this purpose. Links from lead sections to later sections of the article are not necessary.

210.55.232.218 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work removing those within-article links, and good reasoning. Tony (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggest: Links from lead sections to later sections of the article should not usually be necessary, as the table of contents immediately follows the lead. EEng 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: the IP who opened this discussion is now blocked as the "Best Known For" troll, and is referring to my actions at Bogdanov affair. Opening a discussion to change the documentation without notifying me through any of the many available channels seems less than cricket. That article had section links in the lead when I first found it, though I did revise them as part of overhauling the lead to better summarize the article as a whole. I strongly disagree with the idea that such links are redundant. As I discovered, there is an accessibility isssue: mobile browsing does not even always show the TOC, so section links in the introduction of a long and wordy page can ameliorate a lot of screen-jabbing. (Moreover, they echo the genre convention of physics articles, where the introduction ends with a spiel that is hyperlinked whenever the authors know that the LaTeX package hyperref exists: "In section II, we define the key concepts. We prove the main theorem in section III. Section IV discusses a possible experimental implementation of our proposal, and we conclude in section V with a request for continued funding." This style of writing is commonplace even for papers which include TOCs, and for whom the intended audience is clearly intelligent enough to "find the rest" of the paper.) Examples of pages which currently include links from the introduction to later sections may be uncommon but definitely do exist (example, another, a third, a fourth). There are also links from infoboxes to body sections (example, another, a third, a fourth, a double-header).

Pinging @Xxanthippe who restored those links with the edit summary Seems reasonable and @StarryGrandma who said On a case by case basis this is a matter of individual editors' tastes and open to discussion. I agree with that take; I simply think that the page which prompted this dispute is one of those cases where lead-to-section links are more than justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll notice I suggested that the text read should not usually. EEng 17:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I was about to make a second comment thanking you for your proposal, which seems a step in the right direction. How about this? Links from lead sections to later sections of the article should not usually be necessary, as in desktop browsing mode, the table of contents immediately follows the lead. I don't like to see accessibility issues fall by the wayside. (The software behavior seems rather variable: when I open the "mobile version" on my laptop, the TOC is there but collapsed, while on any of the browsers on my phone, it just isn't shown at all.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. If we worried about mobile's erratic behavior in this area we'd flood every lead with links. Why WMF wastes their time on pie-in-the-sky and won't attend to basic problems with the interface 50%+ of readers use is a mystery above our pay grade. EEng 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• As a separate point, I'm not sure you guys are right about this article being an exception. In the first place, I really dislike links (whether intr- or inter-article) such as [[#Media reports and comments from scientists|spread from Usenet]], which gives readers only a vague idea of where the link would take them; I'd much rather it was something like spread from Usenet (see {{section link||Media reports and comments from scientists}}), which renders as (see § Media reports and comments from scientists), but then the TOC already has an entry Media reports and comments from scientists, so the link seems unnecessary. Similarly for the second link. EEng 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Bogdanov affair is in multiple ways one of the more unusual articles I've ever had to deal with — long, not very wieldy, running the boundary of WP:SPS in places, and with a section about its own ArbCom case (!). It's hard to tell just what to do with such a thing, but I lean in the direction of providing navigational aids rather than omitting them. Part of my changes there (see the Talk page for my proposal) was refactoring the lead, and this changed the lead-to-section links ([[#Media reports and comments from scientists|spread from Usenet]] is awkward and vanished, let me check, here). I think the links currently in the last graf of the lead aren't too WP:SUBMARINE-y, though to be more consistent, the one about criticizing their pop-science should point to the second subsection of the "Aftermath" section rather than to "Aftermath" itself. (The first subsection is short, so I didn't notice that until now.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can certainly understand removing the intra-links from the lede prose (if you need them, then that's badly written prose), but what about in an infobox? For example there may be details that are fleshed out in body prose that don't summarize well for the purposes of an infobox, and it would be nice to provide a link from the simplest/concise version down to the proper area where more detail can be explained. This will not always be a section title and may be an anchor within a section. --Masem (t) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  I found several examples of infoboxes (infoboxen?) which do that by running an external search engine on the query site:en.wikipedia.org "section below". It seems to be moderately common for military ships, which one perhaps would expect to have lots of details of that kind. I did not, however, try to survey this practice at all systematically. (The prose in the article which started this tiff — happily now a much nicer discussion, thanks everybody! — would read the same with or without the blue; if it's badly written, that's a fault of mine that neither linking nor its absence could ameliorate.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that we should retain the long-standing wording in the guideline. If it's altered, I don't think it should be altered in a stern "should not usually be necessary" way. And I call that "stern" because I know that editors often take "usually" in a guideline or policy in a stricter direction than intended. I've seen the aforementioned style used in various Wikipedia articles, including lower in the article, and I've occasionally used it. It can be helpful in vaguely-worded cases that are vaguely-worded cases because the lead is meant to summarize. If someone is looking to add a "weasel word" tag to a piece of text even though WP:Weasel words is clear that some aspect of the lead may be vague, the style is helpful in that case. It's also helpful in the case of lead text that does not have a section that clearly identifies the matter lower in the article. And Wikipedia analytics have demonstrated that most or many people don't read past the lead. If they want to know what the vague matter is about, they can be quickly taken to the aspect lower in the article. And, like Masem stated, this style is also helpful in the case of the infobox. We should try to avoid the WP:Self reference "see below," though, whether it's in parentheses or not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Good points, particularly editors often take "usually" in a guideline or policy in a stricter direction than intended. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The subsection "General points on linking style" consists of a bulleted list, in which several of the bullet characters are detached from the text that they are supposed to delineate. I suspect that this has to do with use of the Shortcut template. Items that don't use that template look just fine.

So, should we say there is a bug in the Shortcut template, or would it be more appropriate to say that the Shortcut template should not be used this way? If the latter, then how should this section be reorganized to avoid this problem? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How old is the browser that you are using? Recent versions of Firefox and Chrome should be fine. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, also looking at this in Vector. Is it that the shortcuts are detached from the bullets (all of them should appear on the same line as the bullet for which they are appropriate), or that they are detached from the side of the browser viewport? I was trying to correct an actual accessibility issue (WP:LISTGAP), so I don't simply want to revert the change. --Izno (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is a browser issue, I shouldn't worry about it. It's bad in IE 11, looks fine in Chrome. But at my office, it looks just as bad in Edge as in IE. So, hmm.

What is Vector? A browser? The name doesn't ring a bell.

In IE and Edge, the bullet appears on one line, then the text and the shortcut box start on the next line.

I didn't know you (or anybody) had been making changes, but now I have looked at what you did, and I see what you are up against. Let me know if you need help testing things in Edge (or even IE). Bruce leverett (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I know why this is happening after two seconds of investigation (I can reproduce in Edge). Let me take a minute when I get home to try out the 'fix'. I had a suspicion this was IE/Edge but I'll see what happens after I try testing the fix. I have access to both Edge and IE 11, but I try not to open them if I can. :)

Regardless of the source of the error, Edge should be fixed soon since they'll be using the same rendering engine as Chrome sooner rather than later.

Vector is the default Wikipedia skin. (See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering.) I use Timeless, so sometimes I forget that appearances might differ due to my fixed-width-main-content view of the world and thus have to remind myself to ask people what skin they are using. --Izno (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: I think this is due to the TemplateStyles style and link elements being injected directly into the body here; IE and Edge are apparently coughing on the elements. Moreover, the CSS I thought might fix it makes the li bullet style disappear of all things, rather than the targeted whitespace:

link[rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style"],
style[data-mw-deduplicate^="TemplateStyles"] {
	display: none;
}

Is there anything to be done to fix the appearance in those browsers? --Izno (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a bug in Edge. Reminds me of phab:T214805, although it's even less clear what exactly it's doing here versus the situation in that task.. Anomie⚔ 10:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: Ah, nope, but it is another Edge/IE difference in behavior. Those browsers don't interpret "empty" divs the same way. See the follow-on discussion. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to get clarification on the guidelines as it relates to linking multiple times in tables. I have been told repeatedly that if a table is sortable then it is not subject to overlinking since we cannot predict the order the table would be read in. non-sortable tables are subject to overlinking. Am I thinking correctly on this? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS:REPEATLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So yes, links may be repeated in tables; in a sortable table I would argue that it's a good idea to link the first occurrence in each row. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry not sure I understand, are unsortable tables subject to "overlinking"? MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll answer your question as asked and the answer the question I think you're asking.

An OVERLINK is when you link words understood by most readers in context, subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar, etc. So yes, a table can have OVERLINKs, but just like in prose, they should not be present.

A REPEATLINK is when you link the same word multiple times in an article. Yes, a table can have REPEATLINKs, but just like in prose, it's best not to have them.

What editors should attempt to do is answer the question, "will adding a link here aid a reading in understanding the content". It does not matter if the table can be sorted or not.

I see you edit a lot of wrestling articles. Like most sports, I suspect that there are too many links present, particularly to nations (complete with national flags). You asked about NWA Power on my talk page. In the table there, I would not link Atlanta (I wouldn't even write it as Atlanta, GA for several reasons). The episodes should be quoted, not italicized. With the format of the contestants (multiple matches on the card) I think linking them with each appearance would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, that all makes sense and I agree with it. An example of what led me to ask the question is found in MLW Saturday Night SuperFight#Matches, where the term "singles match" is linked in four rows. I unlinked three of them, this was reverted with someone stating that this was not against "overlink". I did not want to get into a revert war, instead I figured I'd get independent input since the policy could be interpreted either way. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Note, this post here is a continuation of a conversation which started here User talk:Galatz#Overlinking. In that location MPJ-DK quoted This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. MPJ-DK, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is you are reading from this that only sortable tables have repeat links because the top to bottom changes. However my focus is on the particular bits of data line. In the example MPJ-DK gave, just like most professional wrestling results tables, a person is likely to come in and just want to review what happened during one particular match, not the entire event.

If you look at 2019_New_York_Yankees_season#Regular_season_2 Tanaka or any other Yankees pitcher is linked every time he is mentioned in the table(s), because a person is likely to look at just one game, just like they are likely to look at one match. The Red Sox are linked each time, even if they play 4 games in a row. Same thing applies to 2019_New_England_Patriots_season#Regular_season and 2018–19_Los_Angeles_Lakers_season#Game_log. Every single sport related page I have checked repeats the links in the exact same fashion as this table, with links duplicated in each row.

Also note that professional wrestling has a style guide located at WP:PW/PPVG, which shows duplicating the links in the way this page had prior to the removal of the duplicate links by MPJ-DK. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Style guide says that it follows "Overlinking", it does not say one way or the other beyond that. And yes it is the reading of that quote that has led to two different opinions on the matter. I see your point and from a "wresting fan" perspective I guess that makes sense, I am thinking about a general reader who is reading the article, not just jumping to one section for one line in the table. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also - I don't have a preference, I just want to avoid needless revert battles between people who have one interpretation versus the other. I really don't care which way it is, just that it's one way. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a table (its hidden behind the green bar in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Results), which shows "singles match" linked in row 1 and 8. Cesaro is linked in rows 2 and 5 as well. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Individual MOS should not superseed the general MOS - so based on the feedback here the PW MOS may have to be updated. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont think anywhere is attempting to supersede anything. Its a style guide, not an MOS. Its a consensus based interpretation of MOS and how they relate to PW articles. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Can we please focus on getting clear answer instead of getting sidetracked in the minutia of where what is stated? The important part here is sortable vs. not. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Undid revision 922835925 by Cobaltcigs (talk) - I don’t think that this definition is what the passage had in mind)

Which definition, then? ―cobaltcigs 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, putting aside the methodological and definitional problems, what you linked related to editors, not readers. EEng 10:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

By making the above distinction, are you suggesting that (a) the demographic pie charts of these two groups may be quite different, (b) that this might weaken one group's qualification to judge which topics are familiar vs. obscure to the other group, and/or (c) that an MOS guideline that says to assume total familiarity with U.S. states/cities (but ignorance of those in, say, India or Nigeria) while writing articles is—just maybe—an engine to perpetuate systemic bias? Sorry I don't mean to put words in your mouth, lol. Has this been discussed before? ―cobaltcigs 11:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(a) Yes

(b) I wasn't saying that, but it's probably true

(c) I can't understand what you're saying, though I will note that the guideline doesn't assume total familiarity with U.S. states/cities (though it does assume readers will recognize the names of US states, Canadian provinces, English counties, and about 50 major cities worldwide).

EEng 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Cobaltcigs, and thank you for coming to the talk page. I agree with EEng across the board here. Unfortunately I don't think we have a good documented definition of what "most readers" means, and I'm not sure we have the capability, or the need, to do so. If we did define it, however, I don't think it even remotely resembles a technically inclined, 18-49 white male from a developed majority-Christian country. That may be our average Wikipedian, but it shouldn't be our target demographic, or else we'd likely be reinforcing rather than countering systemic bias by specifically advising editors to cater their writing to an already overrepresented group. I think the MOS:OVERLINK already gives us some excellent advice: try to be conscious of your own demographic biases; what is well-known in your culture, age-group, profession or country may be unknown to others, and vice versa. Rather than a strict definition, I'd much rather provide this kind of useful advice and supplement it with guidelines such as WP:TECHNICAL. CThomas³ (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

My computer is too feeble to load EEng's TP so asking here ;p. On Stiki I came across this edit where drainage basins was changed to include the plural "s" in the link. The plural link is a redirect to the singular article, so is this good practice, something to avoid, or up to editor's discretion? The MOS section on piped linking isn't clear as this isn't a piped link, and MOS:PLURAL didn't contain the insight either. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Either is fine, though it's just good luck that the plural existed as a redirect -- you couldn't always rely on that. EEng 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we like to avoid redirects where convenient. I've fixed it, I hope. Tony (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)