CZ Talk:Definitions: Difference between revisions
imported>Alexander Wiebel (→Links ins definitions: new section) |
imported>Alexander Wiebel m (→Links ins definitions: sign) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Thoughts? [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 19:00, 14 May 2008 (CDT) | Thoughts? [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 19:00, 14 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Links | == Links in definitions == | ||
What about links in definitions? I would like to define Leipzig as "Capital of the German state [[Saxony]]." or Germany as "Country in [[Europe]]". Is that OK? | What about links in definitions? I would like to define Leipzig as "Capital of the German state [[Saxony]]." or Germany as "Country in [[Europe]]". Is that OK? -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 12:43, 16 May 2008 (CDT) |
Revision as of 11:43, 16 May 2008
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)
- Try Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Related versus United Kingdom/Related. I think it looks better without. John Stephenson 21:54, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
mulitple definitions on a subpage?
if an article could use mutiple things defined, is that ok?
So say you have a medical article: Yes, you have intra-wiki links to other medical articles which will help the user read more about a subject,
but what if the defintions page, allowed the reader to look up quickly any "hard medical word" in that article? You could open the definitions tab in a new firefox tab, and then go back and forth if you wanted merely the quick definition of a difficult word in the article, but didn't want to open a whole other article.
Thoughts? Tom Kelly 19:00, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
Links in definitions
What about links in definitions? I would like to define Leipzig as "Capital of the German state Saxony." or Germany as "Country in Europe". Is that OK? -- Alexander Wiebel 12:43, 16 May 2008 (CDT)