Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

WP:CONTEXT archives Support and opposition Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 – repeating links Archive 5 – links in quotations Archive 6 Archive 7 – final archive WP:BUILD archive Archive WP:MOSLINK archives Archive 1 Jul 2006 and earlier Archive 2 Archive 3 Sep 2006 – Jan 2009 Archive 4 Jan 2009 – May 2009 Archive 5 May 2009 – Jun 2009 Archive 6 Jul 2009 – Aug 2009 Archive 7 Sep 2009 – Feb 2010 Archive 8 Feb 2010 – Jun 2010 Archive 9 Apr 2010 – Sep 2010 Archive 10 Sep 2010 – Nov 2010 Archive 11 Nov 2010 – May 2011 Archive 12 May 2011 – Oct 2011 Archive 13 Oct 2011 – Apr 2012 Archive 14 May 2012 – Nov 2012 Archive 15 Nov 2012 – Sep 2013 Archive 16 Sep 2013 – Feb 2015 Archive 17 Jan 2015 – Jul 2015 Archive 18 Jun 2015 – Sep 2016 Archive 19 Sep 2016 – Nov 2019 Archive 20 Nov 2019 – Apr 2021 Archive 21 May 2021 –

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

When styling a label (in [[Main page|label]]), one can add the style code inside or outside the brackets:

inside

[[Main page|''ABC'']] → ABC

[[Main page|<span style="background: pink">DEF</span>]] → DEF

outside

'''[[Main page|GHK]]''' → GHK

<span style="background: pink">[[Main page|LMN]]</span> → LMN

Both options work as expecteed, and no WP:LINTER errors reported. Special:ExpandTemplates does not alter them. My question is: is there a preferred convention in this? DePiep (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, if we're going to have a preferred convention, it should be whatever the visual editor does, because editors using it don't get a choice.

I will point out, as @Jdforrester once pointed out to me, that when you want to write something with mixed formatting, such as [[Main page|OPQ<sub>2</sub>]] or [[Main page|RS''T'']], the formatting must be inside the label. Therefore if one wanted to have a preference, it might be a good idea to prefer the version that always works, rather than preferring the version that only works if the link label gets the same formatting throughout.

This, naturally, is the opposite of what many editors find aesthetically pleasing. I recommend not establishing a preferred convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with WhatamIdoing, except I think it would probably be good to recommend (or at least consistently illustrate) the "inside" style, for the [[Main page|RS''T'']] reason given above, but only if it's what VE does. If VE puts the markup outside by default, then all bets are off and we just have to throw up our hands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The visual editor always puts bold/italics on the inside of the brackets if a piped link is involved: [[This|''That'']] and on the outside if for a simple link: ''[[This]]''. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the edit summary for this edit should have been to wp:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Sorry about that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor keeps on doing this, across the project. I've discussed this with him, and pointed him to wp:overlink. To no avail. Suggestions? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:ACA0:80D5:F00F:2AA1 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely overlinking for anyone, let alone readers who can speak English, whether natives or non-natives. Tony (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One option is to provide some background here about the situation (e.g. a few relevant examples), and invite the user here to discuss further.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm inviting User:ElKevbo here, as follow-up to our dead-end discussion on the editor's talk page at [1] hoping to avoid a long drawn-out colloquy that wastes peoples' time. See also [2], (replacing one bad format w/another bad format --2603:7000:2101:AA00:ACA0:80D5:F00F:2AA1 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the application of this principle in this specific instance. It's more helpful for readers for us to be consistent in linking the location of a subject in the infobox and lede sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think anyone clicks on a link to such a commonly known location. The long-established practice is to minimise linking—for readability and, importantly, to avoid diluting the linking system. Editors normally use their skills to funnel readers to the most useful links only. One final point: no one is stopped from typing NYC into the search box. Tony (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to edit Wikipedia, you're choosing to follow Wikipedia's style. Linking New York City is specifically given in MOS:OL as a example of something not to do. There is no exception for the lead sentence. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the lead sentence, MOS:CONTEXTLINK may apply, and if so, it would override our normal overlinking rules. It'd be helpful to see the specific context of this dispute. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The locus of dispute may be Columbia Business School, an academic entity located in New York City. This is the exact type of article where you would want to link New York City, at the very least in the infobox. It's completely pertinent to the subject matter.

MOS:OL states it is usually not linked, but certainly genuine New York City topics can link New York City. There's no policy against ever linking it. Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"certainly?" Not the way I see it. That's quite a stretch. That's also perhaps a large number of topics - any person born there, etc. We all "certainly" are likely to already know what NYC is. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:140E:8D52:238D:9E20 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the unclear wording. I should have written genuine New York City topics can certainly link New York City. As to what constitutes a "genuine New York City topic", I agree that this does not include people born there and a vast array of adjunct topics, but I think something like an academic institution, a municipal election, a neighbourhood, a museum, a transit system, and so on— these should be allowed to link the city in which they're situated, regardless of which city it is. At least in the infobox. Probably not the prose. The fact that people know what New York City is doesn't mean they'll never have reason to navigate to its article, especially if they've just been reading one about a related topic. Folly Mox (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution would be to never link New York City. We could probably have the same rule for Paris, Rome and London (except where one might reasonably think of London, Ontario), etc. Almost no one clicks on such links and they are easy enough to type in the search box. Edwardx (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERLINK reads:

The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of...locations (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia)

—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Entirely with Edward; and entirely not with Folly Mox. I'm pretty confident that not more than one in a million readers is likely want to divert from the article they've arrived at to read the article on NYC. There seems to be a fallacy about linking—that if an item is not linked, its article is somehow inaccessible. No: that's why we have a search box. Every redundant link has costs. Tony (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tony1 What are those costs in your view? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was all covered in the huge community-wide RfC in 2009. I'm surprised to be asked this in 2023 (unless you come from another-language WP where linking is completely undisciplined). (1) It dilutes the system, whereas we editors know the topic and can be trusted to link sparingly only to items that are genuinely likely to be followed by at least a small number of readers. Undisciplined linking means that we can't communicate this to readers, who are more likely to switch off. (2) A patchy "sea of blue" doesn't make it easier to read, (3) Synoptically it looks messy and unprofessional. Tony (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that some articles should never be linked to is ridiculous. Articles are not meant to be orphans with no incoming links and readers are not supposed to navigate Wikipedia solely by searching for articles. ElKevbo (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked. I guess it's my perspective that geographic situation is often relevant to context for certain types of topics. Academic institutions are arguably pretty low on the list, unless the institution has major influence on the local culture, which I doubt Columbia University is an example of. But to argue that certain well known major cities are never particularly relevant to context seems like an extreme position.

Trying to understand the perspective of the people who hold that position (fairly well reflected in the guidance itself), it seems to me – and apologies in advance if this feels like a mischaracterisation – the mindset is that readers will only ever click on an article if they are totally unfamiliar with the topic, and Tony1 above in particular expresses this as diverting from the current article, as if people don't have access to multiple tabs, and can open an article in the background to read later or forget about for months until their browser crashes and then they reopen it like "why did I have this article open?".

My personal use case, which I suspect I share with a number of other ADHD people, is not "wait, what's a “New York City”? let me read that article instead", but "hmm, tell me more" (now closer to "I wonder what our coverage of Well-known Topic is like" and "I wonder what our sourcing at Well-known Topic is like", but these are definitely editor concerns rather than reading habits). Folly Mox (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC), with 97 tabs open in the background.[reply]

New York City will never become an orphan - removing such links is like a game of Whac-A-Mole. One could make a case for linking to New York City in articles on geographical subdivisions such as Brooklyn and Manhattan, but that is about it. We have 188,514 wikilinks to New York City. Surely that is far too many. Edwardx (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 💯, but claim that some subset of those incoming links is likely appropriate. Folly Mox (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks here are citing MOS:OVERLINK, but for the lead sentence, the pertinent guideline section is not that but MOS:CONTEXTLINK. And it's unambiguous on this point:

The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable.

For example, an article about a building or location should include a link to the broader geographical area of which it is a part.

If folks want to challenge the guideline, feel free to discuss, but there should be no ambiguity about how we currently define best practice for this situation.

The only other thing I'd note is that if something is located entirely within one borough, it might be possible to sidestep the issue by listing the borough and linking to that instead of the city. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both policies are pertinent, and they conflict to some extent, as is sometimes inevitably the case with the MOS. I edit far more London articles, and in the lead would normally link to the district and not the city itself, eg Hampstead, London. Edwardx (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward, that's good linking practice. Tony (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geez I hadn't really considered that, and I both fully agree with it and feel even more dumb than usual for my oversight. Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_Praggnanandhaa&diff=1171848036&oldid=1171845836

Is Rejoy2003's interpretation of MOS:GEOLINK correct? Khiikiat (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLINK says not to link larger units, whether they are countries, provinces, states, etc. And Buffalo, New York is a single link, not consecutive links. —Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLINK specifies larger unit, not unit(s). This pertains to the country, as demonstrated by the accompanying examples. In fact, this guideline only discusses the case where two geographical units are separated by a comma, with the second unit being specifically a country.

Regarding the specific case at hand, Tamil Nadu is a location that might not be familiar to the majority of readers. This validates the purpose of a link, as not doing so could potentially force readers to manually search or to open Chennai article and then open Tamil Nadu from there.

Since there's confusion and changes like this affect a vast majority of articles, I strongly recommend initiating an RFC. This process will facilitate a thorough discussion on whether "larger unit" should be revised to "country" or if it should encompass all larger units following a comma. In either scenario, seeking consensus through an RFC will establish a definitive guideline to address any future disputes.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had an RfC on GEOLINK, which did not pertain solely to the country but also to lower-level entities (thus the example of Buffalo). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I notice is that the guidance says generally do not link (emphasis added), while the hidden comment removed in the diff above shouts DO NOT LINK in all caps like it's some kind of core content prohibition. There will be cases where a link is warranted.

As a practical matter, a fairly large number of users run the popular script User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms to delink common terms, so anything listed in the regexes at User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js will continue to be delinked en masse forever irrespective of any consensus reached here. This includes most primary subdivisions of many countries, including Tamil Nadu. Folly Mox (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When linking to sections, but not piping the link(such as in see also sections or disambiguation pages), is Article § section preferred over Article#section? I ask this because there was a concern raised at my talk page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:SECTLINK and by example in the MOS itself, the § format is preferred. Whether or not you use the {{Section link}} template is different, although I don't see why you wouldn't. But I do agree that the guidance could be more direct. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Valjean Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gioachino Rossini
Rossini in 1865, photo by Étienne Carjat
Born	(1792-02-29)29 February 1792 Pesaro, Italy
Died	13 November 1868(1868-11-13) (aged 76) Passy, Paris, France
Works	List of compositions

Two days ago, I opened a discussion at Talk:Gioachino Rossini to debate the addition of an infobox. For those who may be unaware, WikiProject Composers has an age-old policy guideline that disallows infoboxes in composer biographies, but this has been changed in recent years. This question isn't about that; rather, this is about the inclusion of something within a possible Rossini infobox.

To the right is the infobox I proposed, similar in style to Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, etc. The inclusion of the article link to "List of compositions" in the works parameter has been the subject of debate. @Gerda Arendt and I state that the inclusion is justified because the link shows that Rossini was notable for composing and this is the standard on many other composer articles. @Nikkimaria countered that MOS:FORCELINK, which is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, disallows these kinds of links per the words, "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." I argued that the very bullet point Nikki quoted also says, "Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." (emphasis added) Infoboxes are certainly not sentences, but Nikki found this to still apply, since it "mak[es] it so readers could only understand the oeuvre of the article subject by following a link, which is what NOFORCELINK exists to combat".

So, now I am here. I understand the point Nikki is making and understand how it may apply to the infobox, but I want the input of people who frequent the MoS and deduce the sometime vague phrasing. Is the inclusion of the "List of compositions" link under the works parameter a violation of the MoS? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is also relevant: "key facts at a glance", without having to chase links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found links to lists in infoboxes slightly odd, but they're highly relevant to the subject, and reader data shows that having them is important for helping readers discover the list. The only alternative seems to be leaving them out, which doesn't feel optimal. And the NOFORCELINK argument seems rather weak per MyCat's argument. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a very widely adopted practice, used in FAs like Taylor Swift, so disallowing it would be a significant change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw from the meta research, but it does not show that readers either want to read those links, or that they find them useful. All eyetracking software does is see what parts of a screen attract the eyes. It's why anything in a box, or an image or bullet points will always draw the eye away from the text. That's different from the claim that readers want those links or actively seek them out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what @Sdkb is getting at is that these links are just helpful. Regardless of reader data, people on devices will be able to easily navigate to other information through this box, and those not on devices will see "Thirty-nine operas" (see the second box proposal below). If these links are in violation of the MoS, why was it not caught at the Taylor Swift FAC? Because these links are simply helpful, and that's what editors truly care about. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the sentence in question seems to have been conveniently forgotten: "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." Given the output without links is "Works List of compositions", I fail to see how that non-linking text fulfils the policy requirements. In other words, while some people will be able to use the link, a large number will not, and our policy is that it should not be allowed. Feel free to remove the non-compliant entry in Taylor Swift if you prefer, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot overrule policy. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is solvable if we created a new parameter for a list page link (|list_of_works=)) and set the data row class in the infobox code to class="noprint". From what I understand from the noprint class it will remove that piece of text from pinted versions. Template:Infobox television episode does it with its episode list link. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not for re-users of our freely available product it doesn't, or for those that read offline. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't win them all. I prefer a better user-experience for 80% of users, than a sub-par for 100%. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't stop the use being against established policy. If that is to change, that needs to be re-written after an RFC that specifically allows us to ignore a proportion of our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "policy", do you mean this piece of text: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. 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.? If so, that is a guideline, not a policy. Also, it says as far as possible, well, having the noprint class fixes most of the usage and that checks the "as far as possible" requirement. Unless you are referring to a different policy I missed in this discussion, there is no need for a RfC, unless you wish to start one. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy that to ignore a proportion of readers and not serve them, then there is little I can say - or would even want to say. I would say it runs counter to everything we do, and as such an RFC would be the only way to get the community's input on the proportion of readers we should serve against those we should ignore. It is a position that is even less constructive than endless pushing for IBs into a range of articles, but whatever floats people's boats, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How big of a userbase (those that don't read online or printed versions) are we ignoring? Do you have a percentage? I highly doubt that it is anywhere near what you inferring it to be. Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nikkimaria that this is not a helpful thing to put into this infobox. The first sentence of the lead of Gioachino Rossini says in part that he gained fame for his 39 operas, so we already know he's notable for composing. And of course the link to List of compositions by Gioachino Rossini is already in the article, under "Music" in a {{see also}}, so it's not something you'd have to hunt to find.

From a practicality standpoint, were this link to be added to the infobox, it would be a short time before uninvolved editors found it lacking in that it communicates no facts, and start adding examples they felt to be most notable while keeping the list as a link under the last example. This would evolve into an unpleasant argument between editors as to which examples to include, which compositions "most notable". Struck speculation not reflected in past events 15:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As to whether it's an MOS violation, I'd say that it doesn't comply with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE as noted. It's not a quick essential fact about the subject that Wikipedia has a list article about his compositions. Folly Mox (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that links to lists in infoboxes are not bad in all cases. Especially regarding my second paragraph, if there were a generally agreed upon subset of compositions that everyone knows are the most notable, it's not a problem. You have the best examples with the link to all at the bottom of that field. It is very helpful for discoverability as Skdb notes above in the edit mine conflicted with.

The problem for this case is that unless such an agreed upon subset of most notable compositions exists, you're going to end up back at none at all. Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thought: would something like Operas, cantatas and much else be sufficiently factual, or fall foul of WP:EASTEREGG or other good practice? NebY (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an MOS regular like User:MyCatIsAChonk is looking for: I just watchlist a few pages. Having had a look into how the infoboxes in liberal arts biographies have traditionally implemented this unproblematically, and given the usefulness argument presented above by User:Skdb, I feel like although just a bare link to another article doesn't fully comply with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it does serve the reader.

Having said that, for this case there is an additional issue in that List of operas by Gioachino Rossini has already been split from List of compositions by Gioachino Rossini, which links it as a "see also" in its first lvl2 subheading. If the lead sentence of the article says Rossini "gained fame for his 39 operas", that's what I'd expect to be linked in the infobox if a link is included in this parameter. If he's notable for the rest of his compositions similarly to his notability from operas, we could link both the articles and update the lead sentence to reflect that. Folly Mox (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gioachino Rossini
Rossini in 1865, photo by Étienne Carjat
Born	(1792-02-29)29 February 1792 Pesaro, Italy
Died	13 November 1868(1868-11-13) (aged 76) Passy, Paris, France
Works	Thirty-nine operas Other compositions

@Folly Mox, I was completely unaware of the list of operas, how silly of me. To the right is proposal two, with a similar format to Taylor Swift- thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be "Operas" and "Other compositions", however? After all, operas are compositions too. Gawaon (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense, thank you- updated accordingly. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Thirty-nine operas or some such, on the WP:EASTEREGG principle that Operas would normally be expected to link to Operas, and to make the magnitude clear even without clicking on the link? NebY (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the aforementioned Taylor Swift infobox, it doesn't say "10 albums" or "59 singles"; it just says albums, singles, etc. That being said, the general reader would likely be much more familiar with modern music practices than opera, but do you think the familiarity plays a part? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One trade-off there is that, if we list the number, we then have to update it whenever the number changes. That's obviously less of a concern with a BDP than with someone mid-career. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, I agree- updated MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of naming the link "Thirty-nine operas" elegantly realizes MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's principle "key facts at a glance". It may be worth inclusion here, or at least at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes, so I suggested it there. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks- I'll likely open an RfC at Rossini once the discussion over there is concluded. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement and “change spree ”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The MOS currently advises If quoting hypertext, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate. In practice, though, I almost never see this, as these parentheticals would generally cost more in terms of interrupting the reading flow than they'd provide in clarity benefit. Could we reconsider this advice? Perhaps not note "link added" and only note "link in original" when it's deemed significant to the quote's point? Or perhaps consider advising a footnote or some other less-intrusive means of providing the disclaimer? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just suggesting a "link in original" (if helpful) seems reasonable and certainly corresponds to the status quo. Like you say, everybody quotes from hypertext (that is, other websites) all the time, adds wikilinks as appropriate, and never marks them. Gawaon (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at changing the advice, and converted it to a footnote since it applies to a very niche situation.

Now excuse me while I go on an AWB spree to mass-change the, uh, one article that abided by the old rule. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Since it seems you were busy elsewhere, I completed the change spree for you . Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What generally should not be linked is written from an absolute point of view: It stipulates a selection of links that is the same for every article, by using only such criteria as “everyday words” and “countries”. But does that really make sense for an article about a specialized topic? Example: The article Z-transform currently links such articles as multiplication, real number and numerator. What is the use case for these? In other words: Do we really think such a specialized article will be read by people who will need to look these up? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really think such a specialized article will be read by people who will need to look these up? Yes. Wikipedia is for everyone. WP:TECHNICAL provides a more comprehensive guideline on highly technical subjects. 2A02:A44A:5C96:1:ECBF:6E49:898B:49CB (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation of “Wikipedia is for everyone”. Yes, Wikipedia is open for people who have never heard of such things as multiplication. But that doesn't mean that we have to dumb down each and every article to that level, thereby making it harder for the expected audience. If anyone who doesn't know what “multiplication” means wants to read the article Z-transform, they is free to do so, and they is free to enter “multiplication” in the search box. In conclusion: Wikipedia already is for everyone, no need to double these efforts in each and every article. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 09:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case by case basis following the consensus policy. But I would think that "multiplication" does not need to be linked in every math article and I wouldn't link it to Z-transform, my first impression without delving deeper in the context. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we want an absolute statement here, how about giving a proportion that works well in our experience, such as: “If an article contains more than one link for every 400 bytes (as can be seen from its latest history entry), it may be overlinked, if less than one for every 1200 bytes, it may be underlinked”? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that there is an algorithm that already has ideas about this, and is anticipated to be informing placement of wikilinks around the beginning of next year. Folly Mox (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it looks like we can put this question on the back burner for now. Please ping me when there is anything new. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 09:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. This topic isn't mentioned in the project page, and a brief search of this talk page's archives (not including the those in the sidebar) did not turn up anything relevant. In my opinion it is best to start with Wikimedia project links, followed by official links (edit: and then everything else), but is there any consensus on this? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELORDER Moxy- 13:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELORDER covers where in the article the external links section goes. The only thing it has to say about the order of the links within it is that an link to an official site should go first. However, the next section, WP:ELTEMP, says to put templates containing external links (such as for Wikipedia projects) after the external links section (or, equivalently, at the bottom of it). Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both—that was what I was (fruitlessly) looking for, in the wrong places. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]