Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Wikitravel talk:Internal links

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 19:38, 6 July 2010 by DenisYurkin (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this supercede by Wikitravel:Related articles? Should it be updated or redirected? Maj 23:54, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I don't think so, I think it should be expanded in fact, so that when we're judging a star nomination we have something to refer to. I'm curious what people think about internal links, especially excessive ones like on Pattaya - I personally don't like linking to other spots on the same page... and this page is in my opinion a little out of control... especially if it's about to become destination of the month, a lot more people will be seeing it and perhaps start copying that style of linking... ::: Cacahuate 09:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)
That page is crazy! Just one example. To have a link Do | Sports | "flying, paragliding & skydiving" under Pattaya#By_plane makes absolutely no sense. I think internal links to sections are fine, provided that they are used in moderation, when appropriate and never to another section within the same article. Linking within the same article is simply laziness and destroys the structure and readability of the document. Imagine someone trying to use a printed version of that article. A small amount of human readable text can easily replace 90% of those links and make the user experience a lot better. I got to Get In, By Plane, clicked the second link as I thought it would tell me where one would land, ended up reading about pool and fishing, lost my train of thought, lost my position in the article and still don't know how to get into Pattaya by plane. If google gave me that page as a "pattaya airport plane" search result I would close it within a minute and try the next page from the search results. NJR_ZA 09:43, 23 January 2007 (EST)
"Internal" here refers to links within Wikitravel, not necessarily links within the same page.. Oops. Apparently, I don't know the difference between this and that. — Ravikiran 10:16, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Same page linking proposal[edit]

So to further the above, I'm proposing adding "please don't link to other sections on the same page" to this article... any objections? I haven't really come across a good example that shows why we should ever do this...

I would actually even further propose that we don't link to specific sections at all even on other pages (Pattaya#See), but surely that's more contentious...

::: Cacahuate 09:27, 24 January 2007 (EST)

One thing at a time... but regarding links within a page, I agree that I can't really think of a very good reason to ever do this. Jpatokal 10:18, 2 February 2007 (EST)
I used it once in the Cincinnati guide (See Cincinnati#By_train. I linked to a short Taxi list since it's kind of hidden), but I agree that these links should probably be banned and make an exception for exceptions to the rule. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Two examples off the top of my head:

  • Pelikan hotel in Virpazar is prominent both as a hotel, as a restaurant and as a place for sightseeing. Should we list it 3 times, separately in each section?
  • same with Senator Ház in Eger--which is interesting both as a hotel and as a restaurant
  • the following piece in Budapest:
The Danube Bridges (see Orientation above), especially the Chain Bridge (Széchenyi Lánchíd) are really attractive
  • the following pieces in Eger:
"Valley of the Beautiful Women" - see #Drink section.

--DenisYurkin 13:35, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

For places with multiple functions, we're supposed to only list it once according to our policy (which I just came across a couple days ago and for some reason can't find right now). So either note that it's a restaurant (which also happens to have an ok bar) or a bar (that also happens to serve ok meals). The last 2 examples are exactly what this policy is hoping to avoid... see an old version of Pattaya for an idea of why I love the no internal links policy :) – cacahuate talk 23:24, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

New discussion on anchored links[edit]

Hmm, this one's a new one to me. It seems odd; linking to anchors is a very powerful feature of HTML and it seems useful. What's the rationale for prohibiting them. LtPowers 10:55, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I would approach it from the other view and ask for an example of their greatness? – cacahuate talk 12:38, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
"Greatness" seems to be an unreasonably high threshold, but for an example of usefulness, just off the top of my head: In Walt Disney World#Climate, I link to #Weather to provide an easy transition for the reader from reading about the climate to reading about what measures are in place to assist guests during severe weather. LtPowers 13:28, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
The example linked above ([1]) is indeed a disaster. But I've never seen that happen anywhere else, and I don't think a rule is necessary to deal with it. I use anchored links all the time (albeit rarely more than once in an article). --Peter Talk 18:16, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I think we've used them to good effect in the Chicago articles (albeit not to excess). It's handy when you're dealing with a really long article. Gorilla Jones 19:51, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Hm, this discussion dropped off my radar. Is it accurate to say we have consensus that linking to other sections within an article should be done sparingly but not avoided just for the sake of avoiding it? LtPowers 09:09, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I think that is accurate. --inas 02:01, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
But I wonder what is sparing enough; do we have any criteria when it becomes not sparing any more? --DenisYurkin 15:38, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Its nice to be able to read an article straight though. As a matter of writing good prose it should avoid breaks in the flow, and too many references to other article sections. Where we have seen that it makes sense to reference another section in an article, then there is no harm in internally linking to it. --inas 01:32, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Then, can we rewrite it to something meaning "any [[#section|link like this]] is fine (but not See [[#Section]]), as long as it's no more than one link per paragraph"? I still believe we need more clarity here. --DenisYurkin 16:09, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
It's impossible to anticipate all of the situations in which we might want to use such links, making any attempt at setting a hard limit problematic. LtPowers 17:00, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
Do you mean both linking style and limit on how often we should use them? --DenisYurkin 17:06, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
I suppose I do. Both linking styles are useful in different situations. LtPowers 20:01, 5 July 2010 (EDT)
Then I still need clarity on "should be done sparingly"--currently it seems not any more clear to me than "I know it when I see it", which is not very helpful. --DenisYurkin 15:34, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages