CZ Talk:Definitions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger (Should we be linking within definitions? Perhaps not) |
imported>John Stephenson (Hard to read) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
On the above: see [[United Kingdom/Related]] where there are liberal amounts of linking. The links make the definitions very hard to read; and they also seem to be distracting from the main attraction, which are the articles linked to. I'm inclined to think we shouldn't be linking within definitions. What do you think? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:49, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | On the above: see [[United Kingdom/Related]] where there are liberal amounts of linking. The links make the definitions very hard to read; and they also seem to be distracting from the main attraction, which are the articles linked to. I'm inclined to think we shouldn't be linking within definitions. What do you think? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:49, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Some of the links to the same article (e.g. to [[United Kingdom]] on [[United Kingdom/Related]]) certainly look distracting, but they might not on other Related Articles pages. But we obviously can't have it both ways, unless the definitions are written twice on the wiki, once on the actual Related Articles page, and again on a template. Arrggh... if we get a decision on this I'll fix them for the UK site. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 08:56, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:56, 22 July 2007
Question: should we either encourage or disallow links within definition templates? Links might be distracting; but they also might be useful. I don't know what to think... --Larry Sanger 22:59, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
On the above: see United Kingdom/Related where there are liberal amounts of linking. The links make the definitions very hard to read; and they also seem to be distracting from the main attraction, which are the articles linked to. I'm inclined to think we shouldn't be linking within definitions. What do you think? --Larry Sanger 08:49, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
- Some of the links to the same article (e.g. to United Kingdom on United Kingdom/Related) certainly look distracting, but they might not on other Related Articles pages. But we obviously can't have it both ways, unless the definitions are written twice on the wiki, once on the actual Related Articles page, and again on a template. Arrggh... if we get a decision on this I'll fix them for the UK site. John Stephenson 08:56, 22 July 2007 (CDT)