17
edits
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Temple of Concordia"
Talk:Temple of Concordia (view source)
Revision as of 15:23, 6 November 2007
, 15:23, 6 November 2007no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I just wanted to know if linking within the Article title is really necessary, it just kind of bugs me for some reason. I'd prefer the title be considered a single unit without having bits and pieces of it linking off elsewhere. We can link to any relevant articles later on in the article body. [[User:Corvax|Corvax]] 19:16, 5 November 2007 (GMT) | I just wanted to know if linking within the Article title is really necessary, it just kind of bugs me for some reason. I'd prefer the title be considered a single unit without having bits and pieces of it linking off elsewhere. We can link to any relevant articles later on in the article body. [[User:Corvax|Corvax]] 19:16, 5 November 2007 (GMT) | ||
:I agree that it's not nice-looking, but a good number of articles have done that already. Revert changes, or just not link in titles from now on? Also, it seems to be less irksome if a link happens in the middle of the title (i.e. the link has bold black words to both sides). --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 21:25, 5 November 2007 (GMT) | :I agree that it's not nice-looking, but a good number of articles have done that already. Revert changes, or just not link in titles from now on? Also, it seems to be less irksome if a link happens in the middle of the title (i.e. the link has bold black words to both sides). --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 21:25, 5 November 2007 (GMT) | ||
::The only obvious problem with that is if there are no similar words to link to later in the article body. Either we link for content or aesthetics (assuming no secondary word choice), and at the moment I think the latter is more important. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 15:23, 6 November 2007 (GMT) | |||