Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

UniWiki:Manual of Style/Linking: Difference between revisions

From EVE University Wiki
Djavin novienta (talk | contribs)
Djavin novienta (talk | contribs)
Line 185: Line 185:


===Red links===
===Red links===
{{Main article|Wikipedia:Red link}}
{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Red link|Wikipedia:Red link]]}}


Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect upon readability. But if too many ''blue'' links is distracting (reducing the chance the article will be read), then a ''red'' link is even more so. The ''unassuming'' coloration of the text (probably black) is the most productive.
Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect upon readability. But if too many ''blue'' links is distracting (reducing the chance the article will be read), then a ''red'' link is even more so. The ''unassuming'' coloration of the text (probably black) is the most productive.


In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions<ref group="nb">Academic research has suggested that red links may be a driving force in Wikipedia growth; see {{cite journal
In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions<ref>Academic research has suggested that red links may be a driving force in wiki growth; See also ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth|Wikipedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth]]''.</ref>, and then use that fact to balance the perceived stylistic issues of "overlinking" the red links.
|last1=Spinellis |first1=D.
(Legitimate red links are titles to unfulfilled coverage of topics. Given a certain number of red links needed, if marking ''all'' of them could be overlinking, then just ''how many'' should be marked could be a style issue, and just ''which ones'' are priority is a helpful contribution.
|author1-link=Diomidis Spinellis
|last2=Louridas |first2=P.
|author2-link=Panagiotis Louridas
|year=2008
|title=The collaborative organization of knowledge
|journal=[[Communications of the ACM]]
|volume=51 |issue=8 |pages=68–73
|doi=10.1145/1378704.1378720
|quote=Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system
}} See also ''[[Wikipedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth]]''.</ref>, and then use that fact to balance the perceived stylistic issues of "overlinking" the red links.
(Legitimate red links are titles to unfulfilled coverage of topics that do not violate ''[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]''.) Given a certain number of red links needed, if marking ''all'' of them could be overlinking, then just ''how many'' should be marked could be a style issue, and just ''which ones'' are priority is a helpful contribution.


In [[WP:lists|lists]], overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a ''single'' red link (or blue link) could indicate that. If the list is not uniform, the research effort to mark all possible red links is a risky investment: while red means "approved" status, "black" remains ambiguous, even though it meant "disapproved" ''after research''. Valid [[Wikipedia:Requested_articles|requests]] for the future creation of each title in a list, or in prose, may also be a risky investment when the number of red links could be perceived by ''other'' editors as overlinking, and then removed before the investment was fruitful. The removal of massive numbers of red links from an overlinked list is best handled by an editor skilled in the automation of [[text processing]].
In [[Wikipedia:WP:lists|lists]], overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a ''single'' red link (or blue link) could indicate that. If the list is not uniform, the research effort to mark all possible red links is a risky investment: while red means "approved" status, "black" remains ambiguous, even though it meant "disapproved" ''after research''. The removal of massive numbers of red links from an overlinked list is best handled by an editor skilled in the automation of [[Wikipedia:Text processing|text processing]].


Red links can also be removed if they violate policy or the [[WP:red links|guideline for red links]], but otherwise red links do not have an expiration date. If you remain convinced there is overlinking of red links, consider turning some of them blue. The methods to do so are by creating a simple [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]], a [[WP:redirect|redirect]], or a [[WP:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page. All of these require the certainty that the red link was legitimate in the first place, such as the conventions on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming]] and [[Wikipedia:AT|titling]].
Red links can also be removed if they violate the [[Wikipedia:WP:red links|guideline for red links]], but otherwise red links do not have an expiration date. If you remain convinced there is overlinking of red links, consider turning some of them blue. The methods to do so are by creating a simple [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Stub|stub]], a [[Wikipedia:WP:redirect|redirect]], or a [[Wikipedia:WP:disambiguation|disambiguation]] page. All of these require the certainty that the red link was legitimate in the first place, such as the conventions on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:AT|titling]].


===Checking links as they are created===
===Checking links as they are created===