Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wegava Valley"

From AchaeaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 5: Line 5:


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)
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)

Revision as of 18:57, 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)