Talk:Gerald Ford: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (useless links) |
imported>Richard Jensen (only helpful links) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Red links== | ==Red links== | ||
It is mysterious to me why RJ would remove carefully placed redlinks on major topics, given [[CZ:Article_Mechanics#Do_link_to_nonexistent_articles]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:44, 7 November 2007 (CST) | It is mysterious to me why RJ would remove carefully placed redlinks on major topics, given [[CZ:Article_Mechanics#Do_link_to_nonexistent_articles]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:44, 7 November 2007 (CST) | ||
::lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "[[Practice of law|law practice]] "[[Community service|community work]]", "veto," "secretary of state" [[International relations|foreign affairs]], [[Michigan]], etc. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] | ::lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "[[Practice of law|law practice]] "[[Community service|community work]]", "veto," "secretary of state" [[International relations|foreign affairs]], [[Michigan]], etc. I am following the CZ policy: '''Therefore, there is a general (not infallible) rule for determining whether a link is appropriate or helpful: If our target audience would find that the article linked-to illuminates the present article, then we should link to it.''' [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:00, 7 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 04:00, 7 November 2007
Red links
It is mysterious to me why RJ would remove carefully placed redlinks on major topics, given CZ:Article_Mechanics#Do_link_to_nonexistent_articles. Stephen Ewen 02:44, 7 November 2007 (CST)
- lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "law practice "community work", "veto," "secretary of state" foreign affairs, Michigan, etc. I am following the CZ policy: Therefore, there is a general (not infallible) rule for determining whether a link is appropriate or helpful: If our target audience would find that the article linked-to illuminates the present article, then we should link to it. Richard Jensen 03:00, 7 November 2007 (CST)