CZ Talk:Definitions: Difference between revisions
imported>John Stephenson (Scotland/Related and United Kingdom/Related - comparison) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
::Further to this, I have also created [[Scotland/Related]] using some of the same definitions. Don't want to do any more in case I need to de-link the definitions, but the two pages can be compared to view the same definitions in different articles. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 09:17, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ::Further to this, I have also created [[Scotland/Related]] using some of the same definitions. Don't want to do any more in case I need to de-link the definitions, but the two pages can be compared to view the same definitions in different articles. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 09:17, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
Why not try removing the links from the definitions on one page? We can see what it looks like and invite comment. I suspect the links within definitions will be of limited value. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:37, 22 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 10:37, 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)
- Further to this, I have also created Scotland/Related using some of the same definitions. Don't want to do any more in case I need to de-link the definitions, but the two pages can be compared to view the same definitions in different articles. John Stephenson 09:17, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Why not try removing the links from the definitions on one page? We can see what it looks like and invite comment. I suspect the links within definitions will be of limited value. --Larry Sanger 10:37, 22 July 2007 (CDT)