This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was require adding links in references. —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For a while now, Wookieepedia:Sourcing has had "Do not add links to references, unless the source is not linked to elsewhere in the article" as a rule listed as "undecided." As a result, we have articles both with links and without, and occasional disputes on talk pages as to whether one way or the other should be used. I think it's time we addressed this.

Require removing linksEdit

This would make the undecided rule formal.

1. Although I can see where jSarek is coming from, I am of the opposite side of this matter. If the references are already linked in the article, such as in the Appearances and/or Sources lists, then linking in the references is kinda redundant. Linking in references should only be used when referencing something that is not in the Appearances/Sources lists. Greyman^(Paratus) 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I'm against links in refs. I often write footnotes explaining discrepancies in the refs and I think it looks cleaner and more consistent if none of the text is linked. --Eyrezer 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
3. The references section is immediately below the sources and appearances. The links for the refs are no distance at all from the refs themselves. Linking only those refs which are not sources or appearances, on the other hand, allows a reader to swiftly know when non-appearances are being referenced and not wonder why a ref isn't in the appearances section. It's by far a superior system. Havac 18:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
4. This seems like overlinking to me in most cases, since the article linked in a footnote would usually already be listed with a link in the sources or appearances section. —Silly Dan _(talk) 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
5. No need for redundant linking. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
6. I just don't see the merit of this. Why the blazes do we link to a title when it's sitting just above in the "Appearances" or "Sources" section? And do we just link on the first occurrence of a link in the footnotes, or do we include a repeated series of redundant links through the references. This is just superfluous coding. We also need to decide whether footnotes use "page 327" or "p. 327". --McEwok 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
   • Actually . . . footnotes don't use page numbers at all. And, typically, you only need to link an occurrence once, because it only appears once, because multiple references to the same source should all point to the same footnote; see, for an extreme example, here. jSarek 11:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
7. I can just agree with Havac and Silly Dan - it is needless (except the case Havac describes), and doing without linking would save precious key strokes... Domlith 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Require adding linksEdit

This would replace the rule with "Provide links in all references for ease of finding the source in question," or some similar text.

1. I think all references should have links. It makes it easy, after following a reference, for a reader to see what that reference is, instead of trying to find it in an (potentially quite long) Appearances or Sources section. Additionally, in my opinion, references look better with links, especially when a reference isn't linked elsewhere in the article and thus has to be linked anyway. I think both these advantages outweigh the concern that it might be redundant to have the references linked. jSarek 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Thanks for finally bringing this up. After seeing that undecided rule I wrote in action for several months, I now agree that having the links seems to work best. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
3. We should make things as complicated as possible for writers and as easy as possible for readers. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
   • The libertarian in me wants to vote for no policy, but since this is my personal preference, anyway... --School of Thrawn 101 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Thefourdotelipsis 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Slightly uglier IMO, but more useful. --Azizlight 05:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Readers shouldn't have to go hunting for a link. -- Ozzel 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
7. I want to say duh but the fact of the matter is you need the link to help smooth the verification process, as well as just general expansion of related information to the reader. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Per jSarek. Chack Jadson ^Talk 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
9. I've been doing this for a while now, so of course I'd support this. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
10. The ^[1] links go to the references section, not the sources or appearances sections, therefore the references should be linked so people don't need to scroll up to find the article for the source. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Yes. Unit 8311 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Starfighter combat is a shining example of why this option is best. Links in references, please (I don't mind providing them - really).--Goodwood 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Per Ozzel Kuralyov 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Huh. I'd originally started with links in refs, then was told not to do it. I'd like a solid policy to stand on. ^Jorrel _Fraajic 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No policyEdit

This would remove the rule from the page and not provide a replacement. Linking would be left up to the individual referencing the article.

1. No policy either way. -Fnlayson 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I've been thinking very seriously about my vote over the past couple of days. My libertarian principles have won out and I am altering my vote. While it is my personal preference that references be linked so as to provide a smoother research avenue for interested parties, I do not believe that it is necessary to establish any sort of official mandate requiring that editors adhere to such a preference. While I am a steadfast defender of policy as determined by community consensus, I do not wish to be associated with the creation of policy that needlessly burdens the creative processes of my fellow editors. --School of Thrawn 101 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Since neither camp has attempted to bribe me. KEJ 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Per SoT's AIC injunction. (No, not Alice in Chains.) This came up during the FA process for Bureau of Scouting and Exploration Services; if you look at its Ref section, the two that are linked also had to include an explanatory footnote to clarify. That may be a better way of doing it than relying on the "what is and isn't linked" method Havac explains above. And I like Culator's argument about making things as easy as possible for readers. I think we should encourage linking all refs, at least for really big articles, but not mandate it. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Because SillyDan's "overlinking" and INAN's argument for simplicity and usefulness make equal amounts of sense. If someone links and you can find an intelligent reason to remove the link, do it. If someone doesn't and you find it useful to link, go for it as well. It's not something I perceive to strongly require wiki-wide consistency. No policy. Wildyoda 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
6. I personally link in references, but only out of habit; I think it should be up to author/s of the article. Per SoT and WildYoda. -- dmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other optionsEdit

Think all of these are bad ideas? Make other suggestions here.

CommentsEdit

• I have a keen distaste for this entire forum, simply because the amount of conflicting refs means that I would have to go through any number of articles to adjust them for a new policy. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe in you, Ataru. --School of Thrawn 101 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Just in case, we should rule that "references contain/do not contain links" shouldn't be a criteria which will lead an article to lose good or featured status. It's really a minor formatting issue either way. —Silly Dan _(talk) 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, indeed. Per Silly Dan. Greyman^(Paratus) 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Minor enough that it should be the first thing fixed in the month-long grace period an article is given when its up for removal of status. I don't think it's that big a concern. jSarek 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Uh, if it's up for FA-removal, the Inquisitorius assigns a two-week probationary period. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, two week probationary period, I misremembered. Still, since even on our very worst articles it should be less than a half-hour effort to make those corrections, and an effort requiring no special knowledge at that, I don't see why it would be necessary to make this exemption. jSarek 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• What about sources that don't warrant articles on Wookieepedia? Or web sources, in the case of BTS sections? --Imperialles 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The latter are simply linked directly, if they don't warrant a Wookieepedia article. The former should probably go unlinked or be linked to Wikipedia articles. Note that this problem isn't unique to the References section; such sources are no more or less problematic in the Sources section. jSarek 00:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've noticed that, according to the official "Wookieepedia" definition, the reason people do not link references is because it creates double links within the article.^Source While my vote will remain the same, I figured I'd bring to light the original reasoning (which I have never agreed with anyway). ^Jorrel _Fraajic 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.