Wikipedia talk:Linking dos and don'ts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disambiguation, absolute rules and common sense[edit]

The prohibition against disambiguation links must reasonably be there to avoid links that miss their target and leave the reader to figure it out, and perhaps other cases which create an inconvenience instead of solving one.

But what about cases where a disambiguation page might be the best target? For example: if a disambiguation page only lists things pertaining to one subject (like things named for one and the same person or place), that subject has an article, some mention of and link to these things might be appropriate in the lead of the article, but each item mentioned and linked separately would make the lead too long and detailed?

I don't know how many such cases exist (or others when a link to a dab might solve an inconvenience) but I recently came across one.

I don't mean the rule should be abolished, but some common sense in using it – and some others? – could perhaps be recommended. The single little word "generally" is obviously too easily overlooked. (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All guidance on Wikipedia is to be taken with common sense. If such a link is valuable on a given page, add it; if it gets removed with good intentions, add a hidden note about why it's there. But I don't think I've ever come across a case like the one you describe, so I assume they are pretty rare. Dos and don'ts pages are here to summarize the most important points of the parent guideline only; caveats, if needed at all, belong in the parent guideline, in this case Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. There, MOS:OVERLINK allows for links to dabs in hatnotes. If you want to add an explicit allowance for the use case you're thinking of, bring it up on that guideline's talk page—but like I said, I imagine it's a pretty rare case, and there won't be a lot of support for mentioning it in the guideline. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your answer. No, perhaps it was an exceptional case and it's unlikely that the interest would be greater on the guideline talk page than here. But this is also about the general divide in attitudes towards rules/guidelines/guidances between (more of) following the letter and (more of) applying them with common sense. Oh well… (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Isn't it true that we also aren't supposed to bold links? I looked at MOS:BOLD, MOS:NOBOLD and WP:Linking, but I don't see it said there. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]