Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wegava Valley"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Added a reference, events news #300. Unrelated to previous discussion.) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Regarding the last edit: "[...] Also lots of redlinks. (I know some links are repeated, but it's good to have them repeated in-context per section)" Last I checked, there is to be only one link per word ( | Regarding the last edit: "[...] Also lots of redlinks. (I know some links are repeated, but it's good to have them repeated in-context per section)" Last I checked, there is to be only one link per word (e.g. if Maya is written in the article, it is not to be linked every time). The first one mentioned, usually, is the one linked. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I somewhat disagree, but let me pose a question. Why is it bad to have multiple links? I restrict the "multiple links to one article" to one link per section, and only in context. If you're reading about Razahr in the Flora and Fauna section, but the first link was up in the Society section, that seems very irksome to me. Of course I wouldn't do, say, "the [[Razahr]] leader lives in the [{Razahr}] caves to the south, with his [{Razahr}] mate [{Fela}]." That's incredibly idiotic (for many reasons), I agree. ^_^ | |||
:There really aren't that many repeated links here anyways, I made sure that if I put in another link it made sense. Like I skipped over the entire "Gnoll" and "Razahr" words in the inhabitants. ~[[User:Soludra|Soludra]] 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
It's been policy ever since the wiki started. I think it has to do with being too over-crowded or looking ridiculous with everything linked otherwise. I'm going to guess you'd like to recommend a new policy for link placement? [[User:Asara|Asara]] 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Ah, it's also part of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking: Wikipedia's Manual of Style]: "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" [[User:Asara|Asara]] 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Aha, that's pretty much what I just suggested. "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." Maybe not the 'much' bit for one of my Gnoll links, so I'll happily fix that. The point is to keep readers from having to glance around the page looking for their link. The table thing I wholeheartedly agree with, though I always wonder why the table has a link, but the article itself doesn't (which is where it would provide context!). And yes... you know me, I'd like to propose a change for future link placement. I suppose I'll be posting to the forums! ~[[User:Soludra|Soludra]] 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:For the record, I prefer to think of the "Inhabitants" section as a table according to that Manual of Style, which is precisely why I linked all the names in there, rather than blanking some due to previous mentions. ~[[User:Soludra|Soludra]] 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
===References=== | |||
*Events #300 - "Wegava Valley", Anonymous | |||
Latest revision as of 19:22, 28 April 2009
Regarding the last edit: "[...] Also lots of redlinks. (I know some links are repeated, but it's good to have them repeated in-context per section)" Last I checked, there is to be only one link per word (e.g. if Maya is written in the article, it is not to be linked every time). The first one mentioned, usually, is the one linked. Asara 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I somewhat disagree, but let me pose a question. Why is it bad to have multiple links? I restrict the "multiple links to one article" to one link per section, and only in context. If you're reading about Razahr in the Flora and Fauna section, but the first link was up in the Society section, that seems very irksome to me. Of course I wouldn't do, say, "the Razahr leader lives in the [{Razahr}] caves to the south, with his [{Razahr}] mate [{Fela}]." That's incredibly idiotic (for many reasons), I agree. ^_^
- There really aren't that many repeated links here anyways, I made sure that if I put in another link it made sense. Like I skipped over the entire "Gnoll" and "Razahr" words in the inhabitants. ~Soludra 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's been policy ever since the wiki started. I think it has to do with being too over-crowded or looking ridiculous with everything linked otherwise. I'm going to guess you'd like to recommend a new policy for link placement? Asara 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's also part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" Asara 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Aha, that's pretty much what I just suggested. "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." Maybe not the 'much' bit for one of my Gnoll links, so I'll happily fix that. The point is to keep readers from having to glance around the page looking for their link. The table thing I wholeheartedly agree with, though I always wonder why the table has a link, but the article itself doesn't (which is where it would provide context!). And yes... you know me, I'd like to propose a change for future link placement. I suppose I'll be posting to the forums! ~Soludra 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I prefer to think of the "Inhabitants" section as a table according to that Manual of Style, which is precisely why I linked all the names in there, rather than blanking some due to previous mentions. ~Soludra 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
References
- Events #300 - "Wegava Valley", Anonymous