Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

potato?

Why is there a link to potato in this article? It is a just common term with no particular relationship to the article on Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, beyond its currently arbitrary use as an example of common term in this article. This comment by 69.234.54.201 (talk · contribs)

Presumably you're being ironic, but: a link is relevant in this case even though it's being used purely as an example because the example is about the link itself; providing actual links lets people visit those pages and see why linking to them would be useless in that context, if it's not immediately obvious from the example itself. -Silence 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, Really!! It is exactly as you are saying: This is about links, not about potatoes. What's so hard to understand about this distinction? I fully agree with 69.234.54.201. The irony was in the article, which was a prime example of not praticing what one preaches; don't shoot the messenger for it. Moreover, as if this weren't enough, it also contained some unnecessary (misleading) piped links in the part where only unpiped links are discussed.

Your second argument "providing actual links lets people visit those pages and see why linking to them would be useless" has some more merit, but think about it: Do you really believe anyone needs to look up the article on potatoes to understand the example? If that were the case then the example would be very badly chosen. I can't believe you believe this yourself.

I found this article utterly embarrassing and removed about a dozen absolutely unnecessary links. However, as I'm thinking a bit more about it, it may make sense to distinguish the sample links from the sample article names. Maybe we should have something other than [[]] to mark the latter. Let me know what you think. Common Man 03:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I just noticed that this was the first of only two contributions by 69.234.54.201. Maybe it takes an unspoiled mind to call out the obvious? (See also The Emperor's New Clothes.) Common Man 04:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

recent changes

Tony1 just made a much-needed clean-up of this project page. I'm reverting a couple of the changes and wanted to explain my reasoning here.

1. I took out "unless of particular significance to the topic" from the line about plain English words. I think I understand your intent - to allow, for example, the linking of the in an article about grammar - but I'm worried that the clause as written would have been misused more than properly used. I would prefer to trust to the discretion of our reader/editors to deal with the exceptions.
2. Added back some of the old wording about years, decades and centuries. It seemed stronger with the example.
3. Pulled "faculties at a university" because even if the articles were promptly written, most of those people would fail to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.
4. Took out the caveat about redundant linking. It's been in the guideline for a long time but I'm not sure it's really necessary. Our articles are generally only a couple of screen-shots long. They very rarely get long enough to justify a second linking. As above, let the exceptions be dealt with as exceptions.
5. This paragraph is very well written but appears to me to be redundant with the opening paragraph. I left it in for now but we should probably merge the paragraphs.

   "Remember that a high density of links can make the text more difficult to read, and can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder in the edit boxes."

6. Wordsmithed the paragraph on "major connections" and the example. I hope I didn't change the meaning.

Thanks for taking the time to clean up the page. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rossami, thanks for that—you've certainly improved the page. I've just been through it again to make a few more minor changes. (All style guides allow 'that' for 'which', provided there's no preceding comma, dash or parenthesis, and some (US and other) style guides prefer it. I like 'that', because it's just slightly plainer than 'which' and is easier to say.) I fixed the link to 'partial equilibrium' (silly me), and 'potato' is still linked in the 'Supply and demand' article (it really annoyed me, which is why I used it as an example). Should I leave it, or do a phantom delink on it?
  But above all, can you advise why years of birth and death are helpful to link, as currently stated?
  Cheers Tony 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • PS I cut and paste this:

    See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context.

  • onto the discussion page when I edit articles, in an attempt to get the contributors to agree to delink years and decades. Doesn't always work!
  • PPS Should my recent additions be retained: '(keeping in mind that supply and demand occur in other countries too)', and 'beyond its currently arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article'. I added the second one so that readers can see that 'potato' is used cogently in the article, although it shouldn't be linked. Please delete one or both if you see fit.

The argument for keeping birth and death dates is that they are commonly shown on timelines published in traditional encyclopedias. Marriage dates, on the other hand, are not. To a certain extent, we do defer to and learn from the judgment of the cadre of professional encyclopedia writers who have gone before us. The underlying reason is, in my opinion, that the birth date helps the reader to more easily research other events occurring at the same time - events which can be presumed to have influenced the development of the subject of the article. The death of a notable individual (that is, one who is worthy of an encyclopedia article) is often a seminal event and influences the growth and development of other individuals. It is a judgment call and should be made based on the specifics of the case.

We should probably remember, however, that it will be moot for most articles. We already link the full birth or death date just in order to make the auto-formatting work. This clause only kicks in for historical figures where we know the year of death but not a specific death date.

I've always struggled with the best use of "which" vs "that". Thanks for the continued clean-up. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles?

On 28 Nov 2005, E Pluribus Anthony added the bullet below to the list of "what should be linked". I have to admit that I have no idea what he means. Titles to what? Books? Articles? Nobility? What does it mean to be "partially wikilinked"? Does that mean a broken link? I'm really struggling to figure out the intent of this clause. I'm going to pull it out temporarily until we can wordsmith this some more. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Initial instances of in-text titles can be partially wikilinked, particularly for complex or multiple terms; this also depends on the scope and content of an article. Ideally, terms at the beginning of an article should be sufficiently elaborated upon in-text.

Forgive the ambiguity; perhaps some wordsmithing is in order (and have edited the above). My intent is to propose that words or phrases of in-text titles upfront can be wikified just like other nouns, etc., not to prohibit it from happening. Consult the article Military history of Canada for what I mean:

• The military history of Canada comprises ...

there are other examples with such wikified titles. I do not advocate this occurring for all articles, but only when needed or if appropriate: I've found that many articles do not elaborate sufficiently about relevant terms or notions found in their titles, with relevant wikilinks appearing long after the introduction or not at all.

Make sense? I hope so ... merci!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh... So this is not so much a comment on what topics can or should be linked but a style suggestion on how or where the links can be shown. If that is the case, perhaps the bullet would fit better in the "Other Considerations" section.

Now that I understand your intent, I would argue that the in-text title should never be "fully wikilinked" since that would create a circular link. In your example above, you should never see "The military history of Canada comprises ..." in the article by that same title.

I've made my own attempt at word-smithing the clause but looking at it, I can't help but wonder if this is a problem in search of a solution. I've seen this done successfully in at least a few articles. Have others pushed back against creating such links? Rossami (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Many articles begin with a restatement of the article's title. It is acceptable to use wikilinks in that text, particularly for phrases or complex terms. For example, Military history of Canada may open with "The military history of Canada comprises ..."

Yes! I agree that a title should not be fully wikilinked (as this is circular), but (as you) have seen it done in the leads of other articles successfully. I think its placement in 'Other considerations' would also be fine. Moreover, I have all too often not seen it done at all.

I've also made editions to your and my text above, but we may need to work on them some more. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• To my mind article titles should never be linked - it doesn't look right at all. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's often the case that a term isn't (or needn't be) defined or rehashed ad nauseum in an article lead, thereby necessitating the judicious use of wikilinks. E Pluribus Anthony 20:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is issue is covered in the Manual of Stlye: "As a general rule, do not put links in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or any section title" (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles). — Reinyday, 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

readers' preference comment

The line

Full dates; i.e., those that include the day and month. This allows the auto-formatting function for individual users' date preferences to work. Editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it.

does not make sense to me. What does the reader's preference has to do with it? The editors are the one choosing to do it or not. How does a reader's preference influence whether on not an editor does it? --TreyHarris 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If a date is linked, the wiki software can recognize it as a date and will look in your preferences when rendering the page. It will override the editor's choice and present the date in your preferred format. If you prefer US standard (month day year), that's how the link will appear regardless of whether the editor actually typed the date in US standard or European standard (day month year).

Here's a test. Unless your preferences are set to "no preference", these should look the same.

Feb 21 and 21 Feb

Look inside the wikitext, though, to see that they're actually entered as "Feb 21" and "21 Feb" respectively. It works the same way with long dates such as 21 February. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand the technical side of linked versus unlinked dates quite well. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point is this: given the chance to either wikify February 21 or just write February 21 or 21 February, the passage I quoted says that "editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it." How can the reader's preference influence the editor's choice, at the time of typing a date, to wikify or not? Since when we talk about "readers" on Wikipedia, we're usually talking about those looking at only the article page, and the injunction against self-references would disallow visible comments like "readers: would you prefer this date to be linked so you can see the date in your preferred form?", I just don't understand why the "readers" have been brought into this line at all. What does the reader's preference about whether to have dates wikilinked or not (not the readers' preferences they've set in their account) have to do with the editor's decision to wikilink? Essentially, the editor is making a choice, when deciding whether to wikilink or not, as to whether future readers can assert their preferences via their account settings, or will be required to view the date as the editor typed it. --TreyHarris 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood. Please ignore the above and I'll try again.

I have always read that sentence within the context of this page as a styleguide - that it provides recommended practices with generally wide acceptance but which are deliberately not absolute rules. The extra caveat that "editors are not required to do this" meant to me that this particular clause is even less absolute than the other guidelines on the page - that there are more exceptions to consider and that it may be even more important to understand the reasoning behind the general advice.

I personally would prefer that dates not be wikilinked. I find zero value in the contents of the 21 Feb-type articles and I can easily switch between "21 Feb" and "Feb 21" even when they're in the same paragraph. In sections with many links, the linking of dates can obscure the really informative links that I want to find. However, people like me do need reminding that not everyone has that same experience. Some people have not had wide exposure to alternate date formats and find them very confusing. It also provides a justification to override the bullet immediately above about not linking subsequent occurrences. If I do decide to wikilink not because of the 21 Feb-like articles but solely to enable the date preferences, I should do so to all the dates so they are consistently formatted for the reader.

Now that I've tried to say it aloud, I'm not really happy with that explanation. Do you have a proposed revision? Rossami (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No; I have no proposed revision that would keep the intention the same, i.e. to allow editors to wikilink so that date preferences work, but also allow them to not do so, because I can't understand the gestalt that would drive such non-guidance. It seems to me that only two choices are reasonable:

1. Eliminate the date preference and wikilink only dates that are themselves especially relevant (i.e., "Smith's favorite day of the year was February 21, and he wrote in great detail about it in his book on...").
2. Keep the date preference and wikilink all dates that trigger that date preference (i.e., dates including both a month and day).

The current split-the-difference compromise seems to solve nothing except giving editors ownership over the dates they type. Am I missing something here? What are the benefits of the current anything-goes regime? --TreyHarris 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole debate will resolve when bug 4582 is fixed. Go and vote for it. ··gracefool |☺ 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move?

Why was this page renamed from "Make only" to "Only make"? The new title has "only" modifying the action "make", as if to warn us that we should make links that are relevant to the context, but we shouldn't do other things to them. Before, "only" modified the phrase "links..." which was correct. Melchoir 11:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! "Only make" is not correct English! Kaisershatner 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Make only links relevent to the context" and "Only make links that are relevent to the context" are both ambiguous, depending on how you look at them. The first can be interpreted to mean the only thing you can make is links relevent to the context, so you can't make bulleted lists or toys. The second can be interpreted to mean the only thing you can do, period, in all of your existence, is make links, so you can't sleep or read literature. The key word missing is when (or if), as in, "Make links only when they are relevent to the context".—jiy (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just "Make links relevant to context", "Make links within context", "Wikilink within context"? The modifiers are neither here nor there. E Pluribus Anthony 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How about just "Don't make links that are irrelevant to the context", since that's the intended meaning here. This page isn't about getting people to make more relevant links, it's about getting people to make fewer irrelevant links. Plus I'm sick of all the positivity in Wikipedia pages. -Silence 04:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Both previous titles are unclear, and awkward phrasings as well. Oh yeah and WIKIPEDIA SUCKS. (no, not really, just trying to solve your positivity problem...) Stevage 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Avoid irrelevant links"? Melchoir 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Parts of Speech

I have just been involved in an argument about a proposed edit to the article Commonwealth Realms. The proposal was to take the phrase "Canadian provinces" and to turn it into two links. "Canadian" would link to Canada while "provinces" would link to provinces of Canada. Since "Canadian" is an adjective, I thought this was obviously wrong and reverted it. The proposer immediately restored it, stating that it was unacceptable to him as a Canadian not to have this link. Although that justification is nonsensical, it was obviously important to him to have a link to Canada at this point, so I proposed changing the phrase to provinces of Canada, which he accepted.

In subsequent discussion (argument) it turned out that what he actually wanted to do was wikify the first reference to Canada that appeared in the article, and he regarded it as completely appropriate to use the adjectival form to do it, if the first mention was in that form. He cited this article as an authority for that.

It seems to me blindingly obvious that you don't link from standalone adjectives, you link from nouns or nominal phrases, since wiki articles are about things (nouns) not attributes of things (adjectives). This article doesn't say that, and until this argument it would never have occurred to me that it needed to be said. My antagonist argues that because the article doesn't say that you shouldn't link from adjectives its perfectly OK to do it.

So, I'm suggesting that there needs to be a statement that you should only link from a noun or a nominal phrase, not an adjective, verb, adverb, preposition or any other part of speech, unless there is a very special circumstance. Even though I personally think it's a statement of the obvious, apparently it isn't.

But, rather than just edit the page, I thought I'd first raise the point here to read other reactions. In case I'm the one holding the wrong end of the stick???

--Chris Bennett 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The policy should be changed to link the first instance of a given word or phrase when it is used as a noun, unless following this rule causes significant awkwardness. As an example of awkwardness, suppose the article mentions the first television broadcast. Linking the word "television" would violate the policy because the word is used to modify "broadcast" and not as a noun. If the word doesn't appear again as a noun (or appears much later in the article as a noun) then in order to follow the policy, the words "television broadcast" would have to be made into something like "broadcast using a method of transmission known as television" or some crazy thing like that. But in other cases, like your provinces of Canada example, the "nouning" of the adjective doesn't make the article more awkward.
--GraemeMcRae^talk 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The grammatical function of an item when it first occurs is irrelevant, IMV—that's the beauty of the 'piped links' mechanism. My question is: why link 'Canada' or 'Canadian' at all?

Why irrelevant? It directly affects its meaning. I agree that the mechanism can work from anything, my concern is using it wisely, so that it reads well to the user. I don't think that linking anything other than nouns or nominal phrase works well, at least not in most circumstances. Consider the following sentence: "The Canadian flag has a maple leaf." Doesn't this look like an error for "The Canadian flag has a maple leaf." to you?

No: it looks erroneous because it's unbalanced. In this respect, I'd propose any of:

"The Canadian flag has a maple leaf in it."

OR

"The Canadian flag has a maple leaf in it."

OR

"The flag of Canada has a maple leaf in it."

OR (simply)

"The flag of Canada has a maple leaf in it." (article name)

OR

"The National Flag of Canada has a maple leaf in it." (flag name as per statute, redirecting to article)

All are appropriate, depending on the context and the judicious use of wikilinks. Again, it's largely a wikifying issue, not a grammatical one. That's it for me. :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As to "Why link Canada at all"? That's a different issue, and the answer depends on the specific context of the article. As far as this particular article (Commonwealth Realms) is concerned, I think its appropriate to provide links to articles about the individual Realms, and I agree with the antagonist it is probably overwikified. If he wants to wikify Realms only on first mention, more power to him (though I would probably wikify when the Realms are listed even if there had been an earlier mention). All I wanted is that he wikify on the first appropriate mention, and that includes the Realm being named in nominal form. --Chris Bennett 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The linked article on Candaian provinces will have a prominent link to 'Canada' anyway. In the context, the meaning is perfectly clear. In general, try to minimise the number of links; then your readers will be more likely to follow up the high-value ones. (Not that the Canada article isn't high value itself; just less focused than the other one, and immediately accessible from it.) Tony 02:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Appending my earlier statement: any terms can be wikified further along in an article, particularly if in another section (e.g., first instance of Australia in this section, etc.) or particularly when making a point (of difference, etc.), but this should not be excessive or restrictive. E Pluribus Anthony 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagree It's good to build policy regarding such issues, but such a rule should not be restrictive. The grammatical function of an item when it first occurs is largely irrelevant; the meaning and context of terms are relevant. As stated:

(What should be wikilined are) [m]ajor connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully.... This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question. (emphasis added)

This is a statement about criteria for what is linked to. My concern is about what is being linked from. The grammatical function of the source term directly affects its meaning, and hence its appropriateness. An adjective modifies a noun, it doesn't stand alone. Linking from the adjective (the modifier) but not from the noun (the substance) creates conflicing expectations. the reader naturally epects the link to be relevant to the source object, which is governed by the noun. If only the modifier is linked its not at all obvious what to expect. --Chris Bennett 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hence, the use of 'piped links': as stated this is a wikifying issue, not one of grammar. E Pluribus Anthony 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For (the current) example, when describing political entities, the use of a noun (in this case, a nation) should be parallelled with use of other like terms. This was not initially the case: a noun and adjective (in this case, a nationality) were used upfront in reference to one entity; an adjective was solely used in referring to another. These were also amidst numerous other wikilinks and topics that have multiple meanings, like state. Given this, the suggestion was to wikify only initial instances of either the noun or the adjective for an entity (not both); the antagonist did not agree and subsequently rebuffed additional reasons. Later edits eliminated the first noun and resulted in a parallel structure of terms that is now not of issue.

Since the relevant adjective (nationality) was a major topical (and relevant) connection with the subject of another article (a nation) – more specifically, Australia and Canada as being federal Commonwealth Realms with different political subdivisions and viceroys – the cited example was previously awkward and unbalanced. It is a wikifying issue regardless of one's nationality (in my case, Canadian, which was parenthetically stated as a segue). Also note that such adjectival wikilinks (can) redirect to respective topics (nations; in this case, Canada), demonstrating the fallacy of the noun-restrictive position and proposal, at least in this instance and presumably others.

What can be done in wiki is different matter from what should be done in English. The key point here, relevant to the core issue of guidance on what parts of speech deserve wikification, is that both parties' requirements were met by converting the phrase into a nominal form. --Chris Bennett 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical and blindingly obvious? I think not. One thing is clear, though: what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Since he has joined this thread, readers should know that E Pluribus Anthony is my antagonist in the original dispute. --Chris Bennett 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and acknowledged. :) The requirement could or should also be fulfilled, however, by parallel use/wikification of adjectives (which redirect to their respective nouns/nations) in conjunction with other terms – Australian state ... Canadian province, thereby obviating the use of prepositions (of) in state of Australia ... province of Canada (note even the differences in the wikilinks between the two) – or not at all included. These are reasons why the proposal and position are restrictive. (As well, 'protagonist' is a more correct term for both parties, I think; I admit this.)  :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This exactly illustrates the problem. Ignoring the parallelism issue, which I think we agreed on at the time, a reader who sees text reading: Australian states expects a link to States and territories of Australia, because that is the meaning of the wikified text, which is a nominal phrase. He or she does not expect a link to Australia, because "Australian" is only an adjective in this context. The visual indication that two separate links are present invites the question "Why two links?", whereas the reaction we want to invite is "If you want to find out more about this topic, select this link". The nominal form -- states of Australia -- immediately makes it clear what each link is about. --Chris Bennett 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes: the current edition is fine; I am merely citing alternates that are possible.

More importantly, how is this problematic, grammatically or "wikifically" (?)? There isn't one when wikifying: 'piped links' redirect from nationalities to nations (at least for the two countries cited) and are clear, satisfying the principle of least astonishment; it'd be an issue if it wasn't clear (e.g., through the use of disambiguations), and these are actively corrected by users.

Another case in point: a melange and similar dichotomy (and guideline) exists with Wp categories, using both forms: "Topic of nation" and "Nationality topic", et al. So too can instances when wikifying. If a problem does exist consequently, it's an artificial one that's inherent to the concept of having redirects at all.

Actually, what reaction are we trying to invite? Your stated reason, though valid, is only one of many to incite learning. In addition, the extraneous use of prepositions can be construed as running contrary to George Orwell's rules of writing. (Of course these are not universally accepted but, nonetheless, serve as a guide to effective writing.)

Thus, limiting wikilinks to specific grammatical terms is restrictive. As well, I wonder whether or not the proposal is enforceable, and it will mean little to nothing if it isn't. E Pluribus Anthony 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I think it's safe to say that one reaction we don't want to invite is "Why did they create that link?" which, for the reason I gave, is the most likely reaction to a link based on an adjective that doesn't take you to an article about the noun that the adjective qualifies. That is what the problem is grammatically. If one approaches the problem from a wiki PoV, as you have expressed it, the difficulty is precisely that linking from the adjective does not satisfy the principle of least astonishment.

Your comment on Orwell points to a different issue. Wiki links are metadata which add connotations to the original English. The only reason it was necessary to use the preposition was to make it unambiguously clear what it was that the link was pointing to, an issue that doesn't arise if there is no link. This suggests that perhaps a better solution was either to wait till the first actual mention of Canada or to move the entire list of Commonwealth Realms to a much higher point in the article. Not that I'm advocating either solution.

As to enforceability, none of this is enforceable, its just a guideline.

But enough about our views. I know what they are. I raised the issue here because I want to read other views. So far I have seen one "Agree" and one opinion challenging the validity of the original issue. Not sure what the threshold is for a decision but I suspect it needs to be higher than this. --Chris Bennett 22:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes: a wikilink adds a connotation to English. How is said adjective related to said noun? If directly, the principle of least surprise is maintained. The adjective redirects appropriately/unequivocally to the appropriate noun/article, and that's precisely what the piped links and redirects are for. Moreover, the discussion and least surprise of noting specific countries upfront could've been obviated (and with implied solutions) through including a more general comment about viceroys within Commonwealth federations at national and subnational levels, without upfront notations of any one state or particulars, with appropriate links to nations in the next section and following. All of these are links relevant to the context (which is what we're discussing).

And if terms are not directly related or if they're unclear, a disambiguation is required and/or the article may need to be edited (as was the case with the Commonwealth Realms article).

Yes: enough said, and comments are invited from others. And until a consensus position is reached or adopted by Wp (policy, guideline, what-have-you), if at all, our personal-user opinions are to be treated as such. E Pluribus Anthony 22:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A Case for Whimsy

What good is the sum of human knowledge if the vast majority of it is inaccessible? Wikipedia is one of the last truly "surfable" places online, and in the interest of spreading knowledge, I view non-linking as a denial of information to a reader. Sure, there's something to be said for a hierarchy of relevence, though maybe that's an argument for each Wiki page having a Trivia section. The world would be a better place if everyone who looked up sociology also saw that it was one of the domains of the Nine Unknown Men. It seems like a lot of uptight anti-learning sentiment that fuels the anti-linkist mentality. Links should point people in directions they would not explore on their own. If I want to read about Orientalism, I'll find it on my own; but how am I going to learn about Miquelon unless someone just happens to hyperlink it? Amber388

While I'm all for constructing more silly labels and factions ("anti-linkists"?), I really think that, to the contrary, omission of links is a critical source of information. The choice of links allow a reader to avoid irrelevant, misleading, or too-general articles and quickly focus in on the related topics of immediate relevance, which for an unfamiliar topic is not always clear. If everything were linked, the reader would have to "hunt" for interesting related topics, which right now we're doing for them. Also, it's not like it's difficult to visit any topic they want - they just have to copy it into the search box and hit Go.

I think this proposal has attracted some opposition (including some from myself) due to wording that is too strong and trying to do much at once, but the essential premise that completely irrelevent links are stupid has attracted very few opponents, as far as I can tell. Deco 14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the argument that linking all terms is misleading is a spurious one. The astute reader will have no difficulty determining which links will proceed to relevant background or sideground information and which ones will not. For that matter, the preponderance of links already do not yield information specifically related to that in the article containing the link. If I say "Joe Blow was born in Canada but moved to England at an early age", neither of these links is going to tell me more about Joe Blow than is already contained in his article. It does not take long for someone who frequents Wikipedia to learn this. Personally, I think all words should be linked to something, whether it's another Wikipedia article, or Wiktionary, or Wikibooks, or wherever. The only reasonable argument I see against linking is that they generate text which can be messy to read. I solve this problem by turning off underlining in my prefs. I believe this ought to be the default setting for Wikipedia - who does not have a color monitor anymore which allows one to discriminate between blue links and black unlinked words? Denni ☯ 23:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Add optionality to not display links in article?

As many people here have pointed out, many articles have far too many links that are a frustrating distraction when reading. Is it technically possible to allow the reader to toggle these links on and off? If it is, then wouldn't this option be a useful feature for readers? I envision it like this: the default view would remain unchanged, but there would be a small button or other clickable feature at the top or bottom of an article's page which would toggle the links on and off. I think many users would appreciate the simpler and more straightforward view of the article that this would provide.--BlackBox 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use "my preferences" to change the formatting of all links on the page. But to me, that's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment

The current policy reads:

Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently.

I propose adding:

Exceptions to this rule exist, such as photo captions and other places which readers are likely to jump to without reading the earlier section where the term is linked.

Any objections/modifications? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was most recently proposed in this section above. Yes, there were objections. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)