| Forums: War Room → Link Distribution | 
|
Although this does not need a large debate over, a certain link layout among the pages of the Avatar Wiki has been recently been making me wonder - Should we split a link into separate parts for more ways to get to content, or should we keep a link as a whole? What I mean is, for example, when referring to the Military of the Water Tribe, should the wiki-text be [[Military of the Water Tribe]] or [[Military of the Water Tribe|Military of the]] [[Water Tribe]]? Another example would be when referring to Sokka's sword, should the link text be [[Sokka's sword]] or [[Sokka|Sokka's]] [[Sokka's sword|sword]]? While the first one is specific and tells what needs to be told about, the second gives more access to similar topics. I have seen both examples on many different pages of the wiki, created by a variety of users. As a frequent editor, I want to know what way to use, and if I should correct others when they use on way. --BlackMonkey Talk - Fire & Ice 23:45, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- In the rare case in which this would need to be applied, I say it should be [[Sokka|Sokka's]] [[Sokka's Sword|Sword]]. More descriptive, more official, and linking is highly important, for obvious reasons. Being more descriptive and detailed only furthers this cause. So, I vote for the double link. Here's me.
23:48, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Edit conflict: As far as I am concerned, linking as a whole should be the preference, and separate linking should only take place when there is no other opportunity to link one of the words of the link. Like: [[Sokka's sword]] should be the one used, but if Sokka is never mentioned anywhere else in the text [[Sokka]]'s [[Sokka's sword|sword]] could be used instead. Lady Lostris /
SOAP 23:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Side note: If you want to add " 's " to a certain link, the " 's " should not be included in the link, but just placed after is like [[Sokka]]'s instead of [[Sokka|Sokka's]]. The same goes for plurals: it's [[badgermole]]s instead of [[badgermole|badgermoles]]. Lady Lostris / SOAP 00:04, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with Lady here. I was at first thinking "er, no, not at all" but then she made sense with the mention of whether Sokka would then get a notice anywhere else in the article. That would be the only exception. It's just more sensible to link "Sokka's sword" as belonging to him/his sword, not just a sword in general while the other half links to his name. IMO it doesn't sound like a clean linking structure. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 00:21, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Side note: If you want to add " 's " to a certain link, the " 's " should not be included in the link, but just placed after is like [[Sokka]]'s instead of [[Sokka|Sokka's]]. The same goes for plurals: it's [[badgermole]]s instead of [[badgermole|badgermoles]]. Lady Lostris /
- Edit conflict: As far as I am concerned, linking as a whole should be the preference, and separate linking should only take place when there is no other opportunity to link one of the words of the link. Like: [[Sokka's sword]] should be the one used, but if Sokka is never mentioned anywhere else in the text [[Sokka]]'s [[Sokka's sword|sword]] could be used instead. Lady Lostris /
Per Lostris, breaking up different words of a phrase into links leading to different pages should be avoided where possible. It's quite confusing to the reader who isn't sure whether the brown text is one, two or even three links. It should be acceptable when it can't be avoided, however. The 888th Avatar (talk) 04:54, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lady L right up to the point where she says the possessive and plural s should not be a part of the link. To my eyes, Sokka's boomerang looks dumber than Sokka's boomerang (to pick one where a split link is necessary) If you're going to link a word, link the whole word, including any accessories. But, yeah, Sokka in the above examples should be linked only if it's the sole mention of his name on the page. DesertDog (talk) 05:48, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Leaving the 's out of the links avoids the use of unnecessary pipe links. It is hardly ever presented in the case that you gave as an example as it is mostly just in the form of [[Aang]]'s arrow, with only one word linked, so there is no need to have the whole word like [[Aang|Aang's]] arrow (to give a more common -albeit hypothetical- example here). Lady Lostris / SOAP 09:47, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Since the pipe links are invisible to anyone just reading the page, not editing it, I don't see how "unnecessary" pipe links make a difference. It's not like the page loads slower because of the handful if extra characters the pipe needs. I stand by my opinion: If you're going to link a word, link the whole word, including any accessories. DesertDog (talk) 11:48, November 9, 2011 (UTC)