Help talk:Link
 | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The content of Help:Piped link was merged into Help:Link. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that ___location, see its talk page. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. | |
Wikilinking to archivable topics
editPlease add a section on linking to individual topics on archivable pages such as article talk pages or the Village Pump. If I link to such content using the current URL or Wikilink, the link would break when the topic is archived.
I remember being instructed on how to wikilink to an unbreakablelink for a topic. I cannot remember where those instructions were and cannot remember how it was accomplished.
For clarification, I don't mean the permalink to the topic content as of when I created the link, as would happen with the instrutions in Help:Permanent link. I mean linking to the current state of the topic without regard to whether it has been archived or is still on the active talk or special page.
I believe the instructions belong on this current help page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, User:Thisisnotatest. Unless I'm misunderstanding your request, this is difficult because the particulars of each page's archive can differ - there does not exist one given way of accessing a page's archives.
In particular, you can't predict the exact URL of where a topic will be found before its archiving has actually taken place. For instance, this talk page has bot archiving set up. Does this mean I can, as of this writing, create a link that will point to this very talk section ("Wikilinking to archivable topics") once the topic has been archived? No. First off, if I link into the archives, that link fails while this topic remains on the main talk page (=not in the archives yet). Secondly, while I could guess the (future) link to be Help talk:Link/Archive 1#Wikilinking to archivable topics (while this link is blue, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct; it only means Archive #1 exists, not that this talk section appears there. When I click on the link today, using a desktop web browser, I get a popup tooltip telling me "couldn't be found on this page, but does exist on Help Talk:Link".) that is far from a guarantee. The most obvious cause would be simply that Archive #1 fills up, and the bot archives this talk section into Archive #2 instead. But other things could happen too, even if they're much less likely, such as a future editor changing the way this Talk page is archived.
More generally, there exists several (as in more than one) archiving scheme. Each Wikipedia talk page has archiving set up individually, with no concern for consistency or how other pages are archived. Have a look at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. That page details at least three approaches to page talk archiving, and each one would lead to a different wikilink. And that's just one of the archive bots; others exist.
Yes is is slightly unfortunate and sometimes inconvenient that you can't link to any given talk topic in just one unchanging way. But I understand why no editor has attempted to tackle the subject on this help page. Especially since permanent links exist and does offer workable solutions for when you simply must be able to provide a singular always-working link. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- One of the archive bots actually adjusts links to archived topics from other talk pages once the archival had happened, I've noticed. I'm not aware of the details though, and I don't know how thorough it is. Gawaon (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp:, @Gawaon: Thank you both! I guess if it's handled automatically, I don't have to worry about it, although the archive how to page makes it clear things can go worng. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- It does sound like there is things to say on this subject on our help page. CapnZapp (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp:, @Gawaon: Thank you both! I guess if it's handled automatically, I don't have to worry about it, although the archive how to page makes it clear things can go worng. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Consensus on posessives?
editDoes this edit reflect a consensus that has been discussed somewhere or set down in a guideline? I always prefer to link the entire word: Washington's. Linking only part of a word is odd: Washington's. — Srleffler (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- The help page is a technical guide on how to make links and on what bracketings yield what resulting links. The bullet point in question is an example. It's not necessarily intended as a style guideline. Note the template at the top of the page, which displays with the text:
- "This help page is a how-to guide.
- "It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus."
- Also note a few sentences down from that: "For guidelines on how links should be used in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking."
- Monkeysoap (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- I take it then that you will have no objection to me removing the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style not supported by a guideline (as far as I know).--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, I have no objection (though I'm not sure a style prescription was what was intended). But if you're looking for consensus on your style question , a more effective place to seek it might be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking.
- Monkeysoap (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- It is not inconceivable User:Danbloch's intent was only to provide an illustrative example, not to prescribe usage. Note that while the MoS prescribes including the 's' in the link for plurals, it is silent for possessives. What I'm trying to say is: if you remove the text, please replace with another illustrative example. Merely
- I take it then that you will have no objection to me removing the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style not supported by a guideline (as far as I know).--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
[[a]]:bgives a:b since the rule doesn't apply to punctuation.
- ...isn't sufficiently clear in my opinion; it's not obvious to the layman that "punctuation" refers to the characters that aren't letters or numbers. The current example might needlessly carry an opinion, but it does hold value in illustrating "the s isn't linked because the apostrophe breaks the rule that text immediately after a link is included in the link text". Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not proposing to remove the illustrative example with 's, only the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style that does not appear to come from the MoS.--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not explicitly mentioned in the MOS, but it seems to be common sense, and that, surely, is good enough. Gawaon (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I do not agree that it is "common sense" to link part of a word for the reasons that have been described here. There are just two different opinions about which way is best, based on people focusing on different things. Consensus seems to favor your preferred way, though, and that is good enough. --Srleffler (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not explicitly mentioned in the MOS, but it seems to be common sense, and that, surely, is good enough. Gawaon (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not proposing to remove the illustrative example with 's, only the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style that does not appear to come from the MoS.--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- ...isn't sufficiently clear in my opinion; it's not obvious to the layman that "punctuation" refers to the characters that aren't letters or numbers. The current example might needlessly carry an opinion, but it does hold value in illustrating "the s isn't linked because the apostrophe breaks the rule that text immediately after a link is included in the link text". Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the original objection above against
This does the right thing for possessives
is misguided, and that phrase should remain. There's a difference in meaning between Washington's and Washington's. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)- I agree. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- The edit has gone unchallenged for nearly four years, so I'd say: yes, it's reflects EDITCON. It's also how I would always write such possessive links (the link goes to Washington, not to whatever Washington may have possessed), and it's technically easiest, so let's leave it as is. Gawaon (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I have boldly made an edit that cuts to what I don't see sufficiently discussed. The discussion focused too much, in my opinion, on what's linguistically correct, and not enough on what I believe to be User:Srleffler's original point: should a random help page issue linguistic guidance or take a stand on matters unrelated to the help page at hand?
My edit changes "This does the right thing for possessives:" to "This is often helpful for possessives:". Note the subtle difference. The new wording does not (or at least, isn't intended to) in any way shape or form disagree with the consensus above (and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Possessives, mind you), but it does avoid talking about right and wrong on matters unrelated to links and how to use them.
Feel free to improve further. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
"Wikilink" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Wikilink has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 8 § Wikilink until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to make text of WP:ANCHOR DEF more understandable
editThe text of WP:ANCHOR DEF is a bit confusing and overly detailed. It currently reads:
- The word "anchor" has two opposite meanings.
- In the context of a link from an anchor to a target, it is the starting place.
- In the context of the {{anchor}} template, an "anchor" is a landing place for a link to jump to. The {{anchor}} template automatically creates some invisible coding from certain text in the template in the "landing place". In this context, the word "anchor" may refer to:
- the text and parameters, in the template, from which the invisible code is created,
- the mostly invisible HTML code, or
- the landing place/___location/spot in itself.
I propose to change it to:
- The word "anchor" has two meanings, which are quite different:
- In the context of web page hyperlinks: for a link from an anchor to a target, the anchor is the starting place.
- In the context of the Wikipedia {{anchor}} template: an "anchor" is a destination for a link to jump to. The {{anchor}} template defines the destination ___location in some Wikipedia page. Links to the anchor typically look like
[[Article name#Anchor name|display text]].
The purpose of the revised text is to make it easier for readers to understand; and also to reduce the overlap with the following section WP:ANCHOR. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Reads OK to me. Gawaon (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I updated the Help page accordingly. Noleander (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I rewrote the section in a way that explains more and gets to the point. Feel free to improve further, or even (hopefully not) revert. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- To expand upon the change - you might be wondering why I didn't detail each change. I genuinely felt the most constructive way forward wasn't to critique each fragment of the previous phrasing but instead to start fresh. If you are curious why I left certain parts behind, feel free to ask. CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)