This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 00:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on some recent confusion on this issue, I dug this up (with the help of Acky). It seems that the issue was only discussed in a Mofference (in September 2007), and it never actually made its way into an actual policy or guideline page. Here was the discussion:
sep 09 03:22:42 <Imperialles> Links in articles: one time only vs. actually helping the reader find information. -- Ozzel 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
sep 09 03:22:42 <fiolli> shoot, gonk
sep 09 03:22:44 <Graestan> Links in articles?
sep 09 03:22:46 <Gonk> How about *roughly* once per screen (assuming 1024x768)?
sep 09 03:22:46 <The4dotelipsis1> New linking for each section.
sep 09 03:22:47 <Lord_Oblivion> Appears fine on 1200x800
sep 09 03:22:48 <Imperialles> One time only.
sep 09 03:22:52 <ChackJadson> I say one per article
sep 09 03:22:53 <LucidFox> Per Fourdot.
sep 09 03:22:53 <Ataru> One time only
sep 09 03:22:53 <Ozzel> Obviously, I think you know my opinion.
sep 09 03:22:53 <Havac> Not one time only.
sep 09 03:22:54 <Imperialles> No way, Dot
sep 09 03:23:00 <The4dotelipsis1> Why?
sep 09 03:23:00 <Jedi_Goodwood> One time only.
sep 09 03:23:03 <The4dotelipsis1> How does it hurt?
sep 09 03:23:03 <Enochf> How about instruction crêpe?
sep 09 03:23:03 <GreenTentacle> One time only...
sep 09 03:23:04 <Grey-man> One time per article
sep 09 03:23:06 <Havac> If something gets changed, it makes relinking a bitch.
sep 09 03:23:10 <Ataru> Use Ctrl+f if you really want to know
sep 09 03:23:10 <LucidFox> Bah.
sep 09 03:23:12 <The4dotelipsis1> Oh, boo hoo.
sep 09 03:23:15 <AdmirableAckbar> once in intro, once in infobox, once in article
sep 09 03:23:15 <The4dotelipsis1> Actual work.
sep 09 03:23:16 <Havac> What does it hurt?
sep 09 03:23:16 <Ataru> Or whatever
sep 09 03:23:18 <GreenTentacle> But if something is called by two wildly different names let's allow a second link.
sep 09 03:23:21 <Graestan> per Ackbar
sep 09 03:23:22 <Jedimca0> One time per article
sep 09 03:23:22 <AdmirableAckbar> *main body
sep 09 03:23:23 <SillyDan> GT: yes
sep 09 03:23:23 <LucidFox> All right. No policy.
sep 09 03:23:24 <Imperialles> It makes the article look cluttered.
sep 09 03:23:27 <Ataru> Per GT
sep 09 03:23:30 <LtNOWIS> Eh... for longass articles I don't see one time helping anyone.
sep 09 03:23:31 <Darth_Culator> Acky: That's what I've been doing on request.
sep 09 03:23:31 <Ozzel> Not everyone uses Ctrl+F.
sep 09 03:23:32 <Ataru> Yes, clutter
sep 09 03:23:34 <Havac> What if a link is piped much earlier, then linked again under its actual name?
sep 09 03:23:35 <Imperialles> Per GT.
sep 09 03:23:38 <Jedimca0> Per AdmirableAckbar
sep 09 03:23:38 <jSarek> Tent: That just confuses people that they are in fact seperate.
sep 09 03:23:39 * Skeith has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
sep 09 03:23:39 <Ineedaname> As long as it's not linking it every time something's mentioned
sep 09 03:23:40 <fiolli> i'm not opposed to an extra link on really long articles - i think i might help
sep 09 03:23:41 <Enochf> Some articles need a text expansion to justify the pics
sep 09 03:23:43 <Ozzel> I'd support linking once per section.
sep 09 03:23:44 <LucidFox> I don't want to enforce it in either direction.
sep 09 03:23:50 <Ataru> Enochf: Stay on topic
sep 09 03:23:51 <LucidFox> Links should be reasonably sparse.
sep 09 03:23:52 <Imperialles> Once per section is *far* too much.
sep 09 03:23:53 <Ozzel> But only allowing once an article is downright silly.
sep 09 03:23:56 <Enochf> Sowwy
sep 09 03:23:59 <Ataru> Bah
sep 09 03:24:02 <The4dotelipsis1> jSarek: The article should assert that they're the same.
sep 09 03:24:03 <Darth_Culator> How about no more than once per paragraph? :-P
sep 09 03:24:03 <LucidFox> One per screen, maybe.
sep 09 03:24:05 <The4dotelipsis1> If written properly.
sep 09 03:24:06 <Ataru> One per article is fine
sep 09 03:24:07 <Graestan> per Ozzel
sep 09 03:24:10 <LucidFox> But only as a guideline.
sep 09 03:24:11 <Ozzel> Not require 1-per-sect, but allowing it if need be.
sep 09 03:24:13 <Grey-man> Once per article
sep 09 03:24:13 <Imperialles> "Screen" is subjective, LF.
sep 09 03:24:18 <LucidFox> Not something to vigilantly enforce.
sep 09 03:24:20 <Enochf> Uch. One time only.
sep 09 03:24:25 <fiolli> If there is a major point being made involving an item that is not listed for a substancial time, relinking could be a benefit - I think it should be evaluated on a case-by-case;
sep 09 03:24:27 <Enochf> Except for userboxes.
sep 09 03:24:28 <LucidFox> Imperialles> Per our agreed-on LCD.
sep 09 03:24:28 <The4dotelipsis1> It wasn't on the last topic...
sep 09 03:24:29 <Havac> Once per section is too much.
sep 09 03:24:35 <jSarek> I say once per text of article, then again as needed in picture captions, appearances, sources, references, and so on.
sep 09 03:24:35 <Ataru> Keep current policy
sep 09 03:24:36 <Graestan> If piped, then once more in proper form?
sep 09 03:24:37 <Ozzel> We shouldn't be enforcing 1-per-article, but many do.
sep 09 03:24:41 <Imperialles> Consensus seems to be one time only.
sep 09 03:24:42 <Havac> It should be case-by-case.
sep 09 03:24:44 <Enochf> Per jSarek
sep 09 03:24:45 <Ataru> Infoboxes and captions have separate links anyway
sep 09 03:24:48 <Ozzel> No, it's not.
sep 09 03:24:50 <Havac> A hard only-once rule is shit.
sep 09 03:24:51 <The4dotelipsis1> And references.
sep 09 03:24:52 <Enochf> Captions don't count
sep 09 03:25:00 <Ozzel> What is the purpose of a link?
sep 09 03:25:01 <Ataru> Right, captions and boxes don't count
sep 09 03:25:03 <Havac> Ataru: those are being eliminated.
sep 09 03:25:04 <Ozzel> To help people find info.
sep 09 03:25:08 <Ataru> Heh
sep 09 03:25:16 <Graestan> Refine the issue.
sep 09 03:25:16 <jSarek> Ataru: Yes, but I'm not sure that's actually policy instead of practice.
sep 09 03:25:21 <The4dotelipsis1> Ozzel: Where have you been for the last 80 minutes?
sep 09 03:25:22 <Ataru> I say one link only
sep 09 03:25:25 <The4dotelipsis1> We're not interested in helping people.
sep 09 03:25:26 <Darth_Culator> intro | body | infobox | captions | quotes <- once per each
sep 09 03:25:27 <Havac> Why>
sep 09 03:25:29 <The4dotelipsis1> We're interested in being anal.
sep 09 03:25:30 <Ozzel> One link to Anakin SKywalker at the beginning of Luke's doesn't help them when they get to the ANH section.
sep 09 03:25:34 <fiolli> Wait . . . I agree with one time only as a guideline; there has to be wiggle-room for long articles, such as Lando Calrissian. I'm working on a copyedit, and there may be points later in the article where things could be relinked. It should be noted.
sep 09 03:25:37 <Havac> Per Culator.
sep 09 03:25:41 <Ataru> Per Culator
sep 09 03:25:45 <Ataru> I can tolerate links in intro
sep 09 03:25:45 <jSarek> Hmm, I like Culator's version.
sep 09 03:25:46 <Lord_Oblivion> Agree with 4dot
sep 09 03:25:48 <Ozzel> No, allow more in the main text.
sep 09 03:25:49 <Graestan> per Culator
sep 09 03:25:51 <Jedi_Goodwood> Per Culator.
sep 09 03:25:51 <Imperialles> I can agree with Culator's *as a guideline*
sep 09 03:25:56 <Darth_Culator> Yesp
sep 09 03:25:58 <AdmirableAckbar> Per Culator
sep 09 03:26:00 <Jedi_Goodwood> Natch.
sep 09 03:26:01 <jSarek> Except not quotes.
sep 09 03:26:01 <Gonk> Per Imp/Culator
sep 09 03:26:02 <The4dotelipsis1> Instruction Creep.
sep 09 03:26:02 <Darth_Culator> er Imp.
sep 09 03:26:02 <Ataru> Note: This is not a bannable issue
sep 09 03:26:03 <Grey-man> Yes, Culator's version works
sep 09 03:26:06 <Havac> Per Culator, with possible exceptions for specific issues.
sep 09 03:26:08 <Jedimca0> Per Imp
sep 09 03:26:12 <LtNOWIS> Nobody's gonna get into an edit war over this.
sep 09 03:26:13 <LtNOWIS> I hope.
sep 09 03:26:15 <Ozzel> Not per Culator.
sep 09 03:26:16 <Ataru> 9_9
sep 09 03:26:20 <ChackJadson> Per Culator
sep 09 03:26:21 <Ozzel> Nowis, I've seen it.
sep 09 03:26:21 <fiolli> i'm with ozzel
sep 09 03:26:23 <jSarek> We've already decided to not link in quotes, and I think that was the right decision.
sep 09 03:26:26 <Ineedaname> An admin needs to delete http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hidden5%25, BTW
sep 09 03:26:30 <Havac> Not in quotes.
sep 09 03:26:34 <Ataru> on it
sep 09 03:26:35 <Havac> In quote attributions.
sep 09 03:26:36 <Ataru> Not in quotes
sep 09 03:26:38 * Jakerl (i=469de07b@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.wikia.com/x-40a33e511c131692) has joined #Wookieepedia
sep 09 03:26:40 <LtNOWIS> Quote links were shit the way we set them up.
sep 09 03:26:41 <Ataru> In quote attributions
sep 09 03:26:42 <Lord_Oblivion> None in quote
sep 09 03:26:43 <Graestan> Ataru> Not bannable for overlinking, or not bannable for edit warring regarding this?
sep 09 03:26:44 <Lord_Oblivion> s
sep 09 03:26:45 <fiolli> not in quotes
sep 09 03:26:46 <AdmirableAckbar> Per Havac
sep 09 03:26:49 <jSarek> brb
sep 09 03:26:50 <Havac> Quinlan Vos to Tholme.
sep 09 03:26:53 <Havac> That kind of thing.
sep 09 03:26:56 <Ataru> Graestan: For overlinking
sep 09 03:26:57 <The4dotelipsis1> Buh.
sep 09 03:26:59 <The4dotelipsis1> No.
sep 09 03:27:00 <Graestan> Oh ok.
sep 09 03:27:01 <Jedimca0> per Havac
sep 09 03:27:01 <Gonk> Edit warring's always bannable AFAIK
sep 09 03:27:01 <The4dotelipsis1> Not in quotes.
sep 09 03:27:05 <The4dotelipsis1> Bad, bad, bad.
sep 09 03:27:10 <Ataru> In quote attributions, sure.
sep 09 03:27:12 <The4dotelipsis1> You're reading the article, not the quotes.
sep 09 03:27:12 <Ataru> Not in quotes
sep 09 03:27:13 <Ozzel> I think underlinking is far worse than overlinking.
sep 09 03:27:13 <Darth_Culator> Attributions si, in the quote no.
sep 09 03:27:15 <Graestan> Gonk> See my earlier item.
sep 09 03:27:15 <The4dotelipsis1> You should know who they are.
sep 09 03:27:26 <The4dotelipsis1> Not anywhere in the quote for me.
sep 09 03:27:28 <Lord_Oblivion> I'm not even sure if we need links in image captions
sep 09 03:27:30 <Ozzel> We want to help users find info.
sep 09 03:27:34 <fiolli> I would rather overlink than leave a person searching a very long page trying to find a relatively minor item - especially if it was a piped link
sep 09 03:27:35 <LucidFox> Per Ozzel.
sep 09 03:27:36 <Ozzel> Not keep them from it.
sep 09 03:27:41 <Havac> Underlinking is a far greater disservice to everyone involved than overlinking.
sep 09 03:27:42 <Ataru> We have consensus I think
sep 09 03:27:42 <LucidFox> Underlinking is worse.
sep 09 03:27:49 <Imperialles> What's the consensus?
sep 09 03:27:52 <Graestan> Okau, regarding piped links:
sep 09 03:27:54 <Ataru> Culator's idea
sep 09 03:27:59 <Enochf> fiolli: sounds reasonable, but I still say one link per article
sep 09 03:28:00 <Ataru> I thought anyways . . .
sep 09 03:28:03 <JMAS> I think liking in the attribution of the qyote is fine
sep 09 03:28:05 <Imperialles> Culator's idea adopted, moving on.
sep 09 03:28:06 <Graestan> Once piped, once more in proper form?
sep 09 03:28:07 <Darth_Culator> We'll turn it into a guideline.
sep 09 03:28:09 <Ozzel> No, because once in a biography is not enough
sep 09 03:28:13 <Ataru> Overruled
sep 09 03:28:14 <Ataru> Moving on
sep 09 03:28:15 <jSarek> Wow, mom actually took this kind of seriously. I'm schocked. And back.
sep 09 03:28:16 <Havac> Not always, at least.
sep 09 03:28:18 <Lord_Oblivion> Not in quotes!
sep 09 03:28:26 * Imperialles has changed the topic to: Yes, this is the Mofference. | The channel is moderated. Spammers will be devoiced. | Current topic: Appearances
sep 09 03:28:27 <jSarek> Per Ozzel - overlinking better than underlinking.
sep 09 03:28:29 <Enochf> Seems to me a careful reader seeing a new name can read back and find the link, or just type the name in the search box
sep 09 03:28:31 <Ozzel> Not always, yes.
sep 09 03:28:36 <Imperialles> Hello. First time doing this. I would like to propose that for a character's Appearance list, we list the appearance in which they died (if confirmed). Corellian Premier.
sep 09 03:28:41 <fiolli> exactly, the quotes should not be linked and the intro is not enough
sep 09 03:28:42 <The4dotelipsis1> Nope.
sep 09 03:28:42 <LucidFox> Well...
As you can see, it was decalred that Culator's idea...
sep 09 03:25:26 <Darth_Culator> intro | body | infobox | captions | quotes <- once per each
...was suggested to be adopted, but apparently just as a guideline. Anyway, I don't know if we want to write up an official guideline, or re-evaluate the issue, or what, but I'm just sticking this here for now so we at least have something to reference. -- Ozzel 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So, apparently Jorrel had something to say about this, but now he's on vacation. Thanks, Jorrel. :-P Anyway, how's about drafting this up into an actual guideline page? I'd also like for it to say that it shouldn't be followed so strictly on particularly long articles, as I think once you're in the 100k+ zone, one link doesn't cut it. Thoughts? -- Ozzel 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ozzel, I've drawen up a draft, but I'm afraid its very rough around the edges and sounds more like a policy then a guide line. If I upload it some were you can edit it into what ever it is your looking for, I'm afarid I don't have much experice in these things, if you'd like it just say where, cheers RC-1136Copy 06:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just write up Culator's idea and make an exception for Very Large Articles. --Imperialles 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd not support a policy of this nature, or even a strictly enforced guideline, for this reason: I don't see what need there is for links in the quote attribution if the same links can be found in the body and intro of the article. I'd almost say the same for image captions. It's just extraneous, if you ask me. Graestan(Talk) 04:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, that is my stance as well. If this whole thing is still up for discussion, then per Graestan. --Imperialles 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Same here, I'm not going to write up what is (to my mind) rather a complicated draft if there's not much support, anyone? also sorry for the delay, I'v been on hoilday. — RC-1136 Shout 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)