17
edits
m (was a typo but it works for me!) |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: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. ^_^ | :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) | :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) |