Forum:De-linking multiple links

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > De-linking multiple links
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 July 2010 by Calebchiam.

I was looking through the Style guide, and it says that:

Every time an article is mentioned on the page, you don't have to link to every single one. For example, lobster may be mentioned five times. You only have to link to lobster once. You can link to articles more than once if the page is very long.

My question is, should we hold to this? Many, many pages have multiple links to the same page. It would not be devastatingly hard to fix them (mostly through AWB), but if we are to fix them, we should set some guidelines. When talking about de-linking in the clan chat earlier, some points made were:

  • If a page is sufficiently long enough, then more than one link to a page is allowed.
  • All links inside of an infobox should be kept linked, instead of just one.
  • An infobox is separate from the article, so the link should also be made in the article itself.
  • If a page references the article (Such as "See the Lunar Diplomacy quest guide for more details"), that should also be linked.

The questions for us as a community to answer are:

  • Should we hold to this at all? Is a nearly solid-blue paragraph alright?
  • What deems a page "sufficiently long enough" to have more than one link?
  • Should all of the links in an infobox be kept?
  • Should the article be considered separate from the infobox in terms of links?

Please don't say "it's too much work", as I'm willing to do all of it. AutoWikiBrowser has a nifty tool that de-links quickly.

Thank you for your time. -- ʞooɔ 23:18, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Perhaps instead of a 'sufficiently long' page, we should have a character/page limit between duplicate links? The Pandorica will open. 23:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by a character/page limit? ʞooɔ 23:27, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant 'paragraph'. Stupid me. :P The Pandorica will open. 23:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's sort of what I'm thinking. We're not going to say "After 25,372 characters, you may add a duplicate link". But we should have some sort of guidelines. ʞooɔ 23:32, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe at least a page length or two between duplicate links? That way, no two duplicate links will ever be seen on the same screen (which is the general purpose of the above rule, correct?), but one of the links will always be easily clickable without scrolling too far up or down.  Tien  23:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's sort of the purpose of the rule. I'd like to sort of shy away from a set length for a duplicate length, and kind of eyeball it. Is Fifth Age long enough for another link? I think so. BTW, a page-length really isn't a set length, it depends on resolution and all that other great stuff. ʞooɔ 00:49, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Eyeball it and use a healthy dose of RS:UCS. For example Shooting_Star/Solo_guide is a couple pages in scroll length with not a whole lot of text, so there is not a lot of reason to multiple link the same items. Then take a Morian Smith written (mostly) article with a ton of text (I say this in admiration, that guy can write) Mahjarrat and you would not be wrong to multi to multi link the same item since it can be hard to find its' earlier usage.--Degenret01 01:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, there's that question maybe solved. What about the others? ʞooɔ 01:07, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Infobox - I think that infoboxes should keep their links, for two reasons.

  1. People are used to seeing the basic information collected there, and often will consider it separate from the article (at least on a semi-conscious level). On a monster page, if I wanted a link to Hit points, I wouldn't likely think to look in the monster's infobox.
  2. It's quite difficult to dynamically remove some of the links in infoboxes, but keep others, and I really don't think removing all links is going to be helpful at all.

You'll notice I took a bit of a different style than Comment, this is because this thread does not contain a proposal as far as I can tell, it is more of a discussion thread with multiple points to reply to. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:01, June 1, 2010 (UTC) 

Re: Solid Blue Paragraph - Compare this to Wikipedia (shoo, RS:NOT-ers). Wikipedia has pages associated with most words in the English language. They use common sense (per their own policies), like we should, and do not link every single word. Allow me to show you the first paragraph of the RuneScape article on Wikipedia:

RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in January 2001 by Andrew and Paul Gower. It is a graphical browser game implemented on the client-side in Java, and incorporates 3D rendering. The game has approximately 10 million active accounts, and over 130 million registered accounts, and is recognised by the Guinness World Records as the world's most popular free MMORPG.

And now with links added to everything:

RuneScape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in January 2001 by Andrew and Paul Gower. It is a graphical browser game implemented on the client-side in Java, and incorporates 3D rendering. The game has approximately 10 million active accounts, and over 130 million registered accounts, and is recognised by the Guinness World Records as the world's most popular free MMORPG.

Although this is a drastic example, it shows how linking anything and everything is bad (heck, I even linked most of the punctuation). If we reference several closely related topics, linking to each and every one of them may not be necessary, but by the same token, even an unimportant and brief reference to some other topic could still require several links. As mentioned above, use common sense. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:40, June 1, 2010 (UTC) 

You bold+italiced The game... White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 11:23, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - Personally, I find multiple links to be very useful, especially for longer articles (Per Degenret01) It would be annoying to scroll around the page trying to find that blue word. 222 talk 10:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think that it's saying when you make the page you don't have to link every single on but if it is already there then there is no point in getting rid of the links because all it does is take time and it's not actually disrupting anyone being there.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:34, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. If we have a large number of blue links on a page, it can detract from the important ones, as tLUL said. His example was incredibly exaggerated, but the point is the same. As I said before, you guys don't need to worry about doing the actual de-linking. I can do that myself if needed. I made this thread not to ask for permission to de-link (it's allowed per the Style guide), but to establish guidelines on how we do so. ʞooɔ 16:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
What i was saying was if there are like 3 links to the same page in 300 words approx then there is no point deleting them, but yes if there are 5 links in 100 words some should be deleted.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
If you try to use a solid "how often per so many words" standard, you will get people actually counting the words. Seriously. Some one (many) really would be that insane. And if he wants to remove some extra ones with his bot, let him. He is not asking you to participate in the work. I trust he will use good judgement in this.--Degenret01 07:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
What i am saying though is will this mean if there is a link to something 2 or 3 in a long articles will the second one be deleted? If no then i support you.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:40, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
No, duplicate links in longer articles will not be removed.--Degenret01 07:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, what about the infoboxes? ʞooɔ 00:52, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start doing this tomorrow unless anyone has a complaint, as I don't seem to be getting much of a response. ʞooɔ 19:11, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - I believe appropriate action has already been taken. Confirm and close please. HaloTalk 08:30, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Re-request closure - No comment 222 talk 23:48, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for De-linking multiple links. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

ʞooɔ 09:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Appropriate action has been taken. C.ChiamTalk 12:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)