Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:MOS linking tweak, part deux
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Imperators II(Talk) 07:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus. Imperators II(Talk) 07:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello folks - I noticed recently that on WP:MOS#Linking when discussing that we can't use #, it says: "To account for this, pipelinks can be used: Star Wars Adventure Journal #4." I'm suggesting we remove this sentence; not only do the vast majority of articles not include the # (edit: not quite accurate due to HNN articles), there is a precedent set by Laundry room 346 not to use it out of a concern that people will think that the # should be included when linking to it, which will not work properly due to wiki formatting. We will thus remove that sentence if this CT passes. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Support
- JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
- Hmmm. "not only do the vast majority of articles not include the #" — I don't believe this is accurate. You say that the laundry room article establishes precedent for not using the #, but there are also many, many status articles on subjects from the HoloNet News website (here's one at random: Kassido) that do include the #. Imperators II(Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, looking at the laundry room article, it by itself, doesn't establish precedent for not using the # on articles linking to it, just on its own title (for the same reasons). Imperators II(Talk) 18:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ooh, good point on HNN - I think that's something that should be changed due to the reasons given above, but you're right that I was quick to say majority. And yeah, you're right that the laundry room doesn't link to it, so I suppose that was a little inaccurate to say, but I definitely remember it being intentional not to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to include the # because of the same reasons above. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, looking at the laundry room article, it by itself, doesn't establish precedent for not using the # on articles linking to it, just on its own title (for the same reasons). Imperators II(Talk) 18:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, something to consider is that we already mandate elsewhere a way of formatting links that runs contradictory to the corresponding pages' actual titles - I'm talking about things like OOU media pages with parenthetical disambiguators, which the Layout Guide stipulates we denote (in Appearances/Sources) like Starships of the Galaxy, Saga Edition instead of the actual title: Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition). So I've got to ask this: in the aforementioned example, one could say we're already misleading readers/editors on how the page titles are spelled. Is it really that critical that in the cases of pipelinked #s we don't? Imperators II(Talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting point - I'd say the difference is that if one searches "Starships of the Galaxy", they'd still find the article in question, but if they see "SWAJ #1" and try searching for that or linking it, search and link suggest won't properly point them to that article. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 19:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really convinced by that... You're correct that "SWAJ #1" doesn't bring up any search suggestions, but "SWAJ 1" does. I'm not sure that I'd agree that it's worth changing the pipelinks that indicate actual titles of sources based on the assumption that the reader would be confused by and not try searching for the #-less variant of a search term. Imperators II(Talk) 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting point - I'd say the difference is that if one searches "Starships of the Galaxy", they'd still find the article in question, but if they see "SWAJ #1" and try searching for that or linking it, search and link suggest won't properly point them to that article. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 19:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with both keeping and removing the sentence, but if it's kept, the example should be changed to something that isn't against the naming policy: "Do not include the number sign (#) in article titles, in-line text, the Appearances/Sources lists, or any other instance when referring to comic book or magazine issues." 01miki10 Open comlink 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)