Forum:SH Archive/Number of times to link to something in an article

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, and it never actually made it's way into an actualy policy or guideline page. Here was the discussion:

sep 09 03:22:42 	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 	shoot, gonk sep 09 03:22:44 	Links in articles? sep 09 03:22:46 	How about *roughly* once per screen (assuming 1024x768)? sep 09 03:22:46 	New linking for each section. sep 09 03:22:47 	Appears fine on 1200x800 sep 09 03:22:48 	One time only. sep 09 03:22:52 	I say one per article sep 09 03:22:53 	Per Fourdot. sep 09 03:22:53 	One time only sep 09 03:22:53 	Obviously, I think you know my opinion. sep 09 03:22:53 	Not one time only. sep 09 03:22:54 	No way, Dot sep 09 03:23:00 	Why? sep 09 03:23:00 	One time only. sep 09 03:23:03 	How does it hurt? sep 09 03:23:03 	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 	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 	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 	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 	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 	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 	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 	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)