Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Wikilinking

Issue summary statement

There is much contention over the use of the status quo as a base-line, so that will be abandoned here and we will start from first principles. The options stated are not mutually exclusive nor are they exhaustive. Interpreted general consensus appears to be that a guideline is appropriate but a policy is too strong (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for information on the distinction).

• Option One-Only: one and only one wikilink per entry on a disambiguation page
• Option Many: as many wikilinks on a line as there are concepts presented
• Option One-Two-Three: typically one wikilink, but an additional wikilink (or two) for terms directly related to the target of the main target article
• Option Say-Nothing: No guideline is needed.

This is not a call for a vote. It is a call for identification of options and their discussion.

Break rules. Also keep in mind that any of these stances may be used in accordance with the "break rules" guideline listed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages): "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."

Comments on supporting statements

• not all supporting statements are presented; some have been excluded as being potentially redundant
• the statements are not meant to reflect views of specific individuals, which is why they are anonymous
• some minor copyediting has taken place in some cases
• signed notes added in-line have been moved to footnotes

Option One-Only

one and only one wikilink per entry on a disambiguation page

Supporting statements

• "(Dab pages are) a way to get to a specific place. (When I go to one), I'm not expecting to get an extensive list of alternate places I might want to go instead.
• "...single link per entry...is easier to read."^[1]
• "Anyone familiar with the topic will know to choose (a particular target) link, and anyone not familiar with it will click the (target) link if they want to find out more about it."
• "...in general the (target) article will explain subtle nuances and related topics much better than a dab page can do in one line."^[2]

Option Many

as many wikilinks on a line as there are concepts presented

Supporting statements

• "If I am not an expert, it is useful for me to click at these immediately, in order to make a selection."
• "(People) click links out of curiosity, and this is good."
• "A reader who clicks on a link in an article and gets to a disambiguation page may very well be...looking for interesting stuff and random detours."

Option One-Two-Three

typically one wikilink, but an additional wikilink (or two) for terms directly related to the topic of the main target article

Supporting statements

• "The key is to provide sufficient information for a person to move...from point A to point B...as easily as possible."
• "An other link in an item line might not exactly be what the title of the page says, but that does not mean that it would not be particularly helpful to the reader, and might actually be what he was looking for in the first place...."
• "...additional wikilinks on special terms (can) assist the reader in providing an alternative but related path to information."
• "If (a reader) searched for some random term they found while reading something...that person needs as much context as possible to find the information they are looking for." "context" interpreted as a small number of "highly relevant links"

Option Say-Nothing

No guideline is needed.

Supporting statements

• "...wikify only what you'd wikify in a good article, such that the user is helped.... If you use common sense, you don't need to worry about having too many or too few links."^[3]

Signed notes

1. ^ For a example that perhaps illustrates this, see User:jiy/DabTest -- jiy^Talk 12:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
2. ^ One example, Bad: A Disk Operating System is an operating system which resides on a disk. This is redundant in two ways (1) the article namespace is already quite descriptive, noting that a disk operating system is an operating system that resides on a disk and linking to those terms does not help anyone in finding the correct page (2) though it is not appropriate on the dab page, it is very appropriate to link to terms such as operating system and disk on the article Disk Operating System article. Having links to these topics in both the dab description and the article being linked to is redundant. In short, Good: Disk Operating System -- jiy^Talk 12:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
3. ^ Note by Quuxplusone: I didn't mean to say that the MoS should be silent on this issue, but it seems like something like "one link per concept" would be all right, as long as editors used common sense about what a useful "concept" would be, in context. Wikilink algebraic structure, but not machine.

Contributors (excluding persons adding notes)

• Courtland 03:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• jiy^Talk 12:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)