This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts WP:MOSLINK MOS:LINK

Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwikimedia links bind the project to sister projects such as Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia in other languages, and external links bind Wikipedia to the World Wide Web.

Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Whenever writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information, as well as which other pages should carry links to the article. Care should be taken to avoid both underlinking and overlinking, as described below.

This page provides guidelines as to when links should and should not be used, and how to format links. Detailed information about the syntax used to create links can be found at Help:Link. The rules on linking applicable to disambiguation pages are set out in the disambiguation style guide.

Principles

Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other pages easily. The page from which the hyperlink is activated is called the anchor; the page the link points to is called the target.

In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions. But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article.

General points on linking style

• As explained in more detail at Help:Link § Wikilinks, linking can be "direct" ([[Riverside, California]], which results in Riverside, California), or "piped" ([[Riverside, California|Riverside]], which results in Riverside in the text, but still links to the article "Riverside, California"—although the pipe trick is an easier way to create this particular link).


• Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a main article or see also template should be placed immediately after the heading.


• Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead.^{[nb 1]}

• Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. (If quoting hypertext, add an editorial note, [link in original] or [link added], as appropriate.)

• 
  When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue"), as in [[Ireland|Irish]] [[Chess]] [[Championship]] (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a single, more specific link instead (e.g. [[Irish Chess Championship]], which produces Irish Chess Championship).


• Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context.


• Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all. For example, a physicist speaking of barns is highly unlikely to wish to link to Barn instead of Barn (unit), and any reader needing to click on such a link almost certainly will struggle to make sense of what the system offers.


• Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid).


• Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.


• Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.


• The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.


• Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons.

Overlinking and underlinking

What generally should be linked

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked and are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created for:

• Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question.


• Articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background"


• Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwikimedia link to Wiktionary could be used.


• 
  Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers

Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist (see § Red links below).

If you feel that a link does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a "See also" section.

What generally should not be linked

An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly.^[1] A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention."^[2]

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context.


• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar—unless there is a contextually important reason to link:
  
  • This generally includes major examples of geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia), languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish), nationalities and ethnicities (e.g., English, British, Chinese, Turkish; African-American, Hispanic), and religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism).
  
  
  • Pairs of contrasting examples: Lake Xochimilco, mid-Atlantic Ridge; Aberbeeg, Tonga; Frisian languages, Middle English; Prussian, Tohono O'odham, Afro-Cuban; Zoroastrianism, Shinreikyo
    
  
  
  • These are two ends of a spectrum with a grey area between them, which varies by context; exercise common sense.
  
  


• Common occupations


• 
  Common units of measurement, e.g. units relating to currency, time, temperature, length, area, or volume. If both non-metric and metric equivalents are provided, as in 5 centimetres (2.0 in), usually neither unit needs to be linked, because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units.


• Dates (see § Chronological items, below)
  

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article).

The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect.

Duplicate and repeat links

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=[[The Guardian]].

In glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link).

Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list, treat it as normal article prose.

Duplicate links in an article can be found using User:Ucucha/duplinks.

Lead section

Too many links can make the lead hard to read. In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary. In such cases, try to provide an informal explanation in the lead, avoiding using too many technical terms until later in the article—see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and point 7 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.

An example article

For example, in the article on supply and demand:

• Almost certainly link "microeconomics" and "general equilibrium theory", as these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight.


• Consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic.


• Do not link to the "United States", because that is an article on a very broad topic with no direct connection to supply and demand.


• Definitely do not link "wheat", because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on supply and demand, beyond its arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.


• Make sure that the links are directed to the correct articles: in this example, you should link goods, not good, which goes to a page on the philosophical concept. Many common dictionary words are ambiguous terms in Wikipedia and linking to them is often unhelpful to readers; "Good" is a surname and the name of albums, companies, etc., and the article title Good (disambiguation) is used to index those.

Link clarity

The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context: for example, When Mozart wrote his Requiem (See also § Piped links on how to achieve this) rather than When Mozart wrote his Requiem, or Previn conducted Mozart's Requiem rather than Previn conducted Mozart's Requiem – this makes it clear the link is to the article on Mozart's Requiem in particular, rather than that on requiems in general. The link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible. Thus, one may have a piped link of "second-longest European river" with the target article Danube.

Link specificity

Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics.

If there is no article about the most specific topic, do one of the following things:

• Consider creating the article yourself.


• If an article on the specific topic does not yet exist, create a redirect page to the article about a more general topic, as described in section § Redirects. For example, if no article yet exists on the song "Sad Statue" from the album Mezmerize, create a new article called Sad Statue that is a redirect to the article Mezmerize.


• If there is no article on a more general topic either, then create a red link, but first, read § Red links below.

When neither a redirect nor a red link appears appropriate, consider linking to a more general article instead. For example, instead of Baroque hairstyles, write Baroque hairstyles, Baroque hairstyles, Baroque hairstyles, or hairstyles of the Baroque
(but not Baroque hairstyles as two adjacent links), depending on the context.

Section links

If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it, by following the article name with a number sign (#) and the name of the section. For example, underpromotion is a redirect to Promotion (chess) § Underpromotion, and in the article Quark, the link eight gluon types (typed as [[Gluon#Eight gluon colors|eight gluon types]]) links to a specific section in the article Gluon.

To link to a section within the same article, e.g. in the lead of Promotion (chess), write: [[#Promotion to rook or bishop|§ promotion to a rook or bishop]]. You can also use the section link template for this purpose.

Broken section links

A problem can arise if the title of the section is changed for any reason, since this action will break any incoming section links (if this occurs, incoming links will default to the top of the linked article). The simplest way to prevent this breakage is to add an anchor template just below the section title, listing the section title, and (optionally) any obsolete titles or alternative titles. This method is easy to understand, reliable, and straightforward to maintain and update. For example:
==Section name==
anchor
anchor

It is good practice to place an anchor whenever the section is expected to be the target of an incoming wikilink, either from elsewhere in the same article or from anywhere else outside the article.

An alternative, supplementary method has been to add a hidden comment to the target section such as <!-- "Quark" links here --> so that someone changing the title of that section can fix the incoming links.
The hidden message (<!-- "Article" links here -->) must be added to the target section with a break between the header and the hidden message:
==Target section==
<!-- "Article" links here -->

If there is no break:

==Target section==<!-- "Article" links here -->

problems arise; for example, the target section title is not added to the edit summary when the section edit button is clicked, and the article does not return to that section after editing.

Techniques

Redirects

Suppose you need to link poodle, and there is no such article yet. You might want to create a redirect from "poodle" to "dog" as follows: Link as usual: She owned a [[poodle]]. When you save or preview this, you will see: She owned a poodle. Click on the red link, and you will be invited to create a new page for poodle; enter (perhaps) #REDIRECT [[Dog]], so that readers clicking on poodle will be taken, for now, to the dog article.

The redirect is better than a direct link like [[dog|poodle]], because when an actual poodle article is eventually created (replacing the redirect), readers clicking on poodle will be taken there automatically without anyone needing to review all the links to dog to see which ones should actually go to poodle.

To link to a redirect page without following the underlying redirect, use e.g. no redirect.

Piped links

Though a wikilink defaults to displaying the title of the target article, it is possible to choose more specific or more appropriate display text for the intended context. This can be done with the use of the pipe character (|). For example, [[Henry II of England|Henry II]] displays as Henry II. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link is about without having to follow the link. Think about what the reader may believe the text refers to. For example, when seeing the link [[Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics|Archery]], which displays as Archery, the reader will probably expect this link to go to a general article on archery, rather than Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics specifically. An exception to this is when it is clear from the context that a link refers to a specific article; for instance, in Template:2008 Summer Olympics calendar all links go to articles about these particular games.

• 
  Plurals and other derived names. [[apple]]s displays as apples, and this is simpler and clearer than [[apple|apples]]. Similarly: [[appeal]]ing, [[hyperlink]]ed, [[red]]dest. Any "suffix" string can follow the closing brackets, except that it cannot begin with a hyphen (-), apostrophe ('), or capital letter (see Help:Link for more details).
  


• 
  Case sensitivity. Links are not sensitive to initial capitalization, so there is no need to use the pipe character where the case of the initial letter is the only difference between the link text and the target page (Wikipedia article titles almost always begin with a capital, whereas the linked words in context often do not). However, links are case-sensitive for all characters after the initial one.
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Shortcuts

  
  

  • MOS:EGG
  
  
  • MOS:SUBMARINE
  
  
  
  Intuitiveness. Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense. For example, do not write:
       Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[Parton (particle physics)|particle physics]].
  Here readers would see the link displayed as particle physics, not the hidden reference to the page Parton (particle physics), unless they clicked on the link or hovered their mouse cursor over it. If a physical copy of the article were printed, the reference to the parton model would be lost. Such links are sometimes called "Easter egg" or "submarine" links. Instead, refer to the separate article with an explicit see also X, or by rephrasing the sentence, as in:
       Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[particle physics]], especially the [[Parton (particle physics)|parton]] model.
  
  • Do not place a link to a name within another name. For example:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Write:	[[Columbus Avenue (Boston)|]]	→ Columbus Avenue
    Do not write:	[[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]] Avenue	→ Columbus Avenue
    Write:	[[Feynman diagram]]	→ Feynman diagram
    Do not write:	[[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] diagram	→ Feynman diagram

    The above applies regardless of whether linking to the full name creates a red link; for example, even if there is no article titled Lafayette Avenue (Brooklyn):
    

    
    
    
    
    

    Do not write:	[[Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette|Lafayette]] Avenue	→ Lafayette Avenue

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Shortcuts

  
  

  • MOS:NOPIPE
  
  
  • MOS:DYKPIPE
  
  
  
  Piping and redirects. As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. For example, the page Papageno is a redirect to the article about Mozart's opera The Magic Flute. While editing some other article, you might want to link the term Papageno; here, you might be tempted to avoid the redirect by using a pipe within the link, as in [[The Magic Flute|Papageno]]. Instead, write simply [[Papageno]] and let the system handle the rest. This has two advantages: first, if an article is written later about the more specific subject (in this case, "Papageno"), fewer links will need to be changed to accommodate the new article; second, it indicates that the article is wanted. An exception to this rule is when linking to articles in Did you know (DYK) "hooks" on the Main Page, where piping links to avoid readers seeing a redirect notice is preferable, and the hook will only be live for a short time. (See also WP:Piped link § When not to use.)
  


• 
  Links to foreign language pages. See linking help.
  

Piped links and redirects to sections of articles

Linking to particular sections of articles can be useful, inasmuch as it can take the reader immediately to the information that is most focused on the original topic. Use of a piped link here avoids the unsightly Article name#Section name in the display text (alternative methods are to use a redirect or Section link). The format for a link to a page section is [[Article#Section|name of link]]. For example, to link to the "Culture" subsection of the article Oman, type [[Oman#Culture|culture of Oman]]; this displays as culture of Oman (note that the section name is case-sensitive). When doing this, add a hidden comment to the target section such as <!-- The article ArticleName links here. --> so that if another user edits the title of that section, they can fix the incoming links (alternatively, use Anchor in cases where a section has a large number of incoming links).

• In a redirect page named "History of Topic", use #REDIRECT [[Topic#History]].


• In another article, use [[history of Topic]].


• Avoid: [[Topic#History|history of Topic]].

Many topics useful for linking may currently appear only as sections of other Wikipedia articles, but are potentially notable enough to become articles on their own. For example, the article Eastern Anyshire might have a small "History" section, but this does not prevent the article History of Eastern Anyshire being written eventually. Usually, a redirect page from such a sub-topic to a general topic will exist already; if not, they can be created when the occasion arises. It is bad practice to create links in article text using the format [[Article#Section]]; navigation then becomes difficult if the section is expanded into a new article. Instead, link using a redirect to the main topic; it costs little and makes improvements easier.

Links to Wikipedia's categories

Wikipedia has categories of articles like [[Category:Phrases]]; adding this to an article puts it into that category. You can link to a category by putting a colon in front.

For example [[:Category:Phrases]] links to Category:Phrases, and piping can be used: Phrases.

See also cat creates:

Red links

Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect upon readability. But if too many blue links is distracting (reducing the chance the article will be read), then a red link is even more so. The unassuming coloration of the text (probably black) is the most productive.

In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions,^{[nb 2]} and then use that fact to balance the perceived stylistic issues of "overlinking" the red links.
(Legitimate red links are titles to unfulfilled coverage of topics that do not violate What Wikipedia is not.) Given a certain number of red links needed, if marking all of them could be overlinking, then just how many should be marked could be a style issue, and just which ones are priority is a helpful contribution.

In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that. If the list is not uniform, the research effort to mark all possible red links is a risky investment: while red means "approved" status, "black" remains ambiguous, even though it meant "disapproved" after research. Valid requests for the future creation of each title in a list, or in prose, may also be a risky investment when the number of red links could be perceived by other editors as overlinking, and then removed before the investment was fruitful. The removal of massive numbers of red links from an overlinked list is best handled by an editor skilled in the automation of text processing.

Red links can also be removed if they violate policy or the guideline for red links, but otherwise red links do not have an expiration date. If you remain convinced there is overlinking of red links, consider turning some of them blue. The methods to do so are by creating a simple stub, a redirect, or a disambiguation page. All of these require the certainty that the red link was legitimate in the first place, such as the conventions on naming and titling.

Checking links as they are created

Errors in links can be difficult to detect without explicitly checking them as they are set up. After creating text that includes a new link, it is recommended that you:

1. Click on "Show preview".


2. From the preview, open each in a new browser tab, to check it goes where you intend; fix as necessary. (Note that some links are meant to be "red" at the time of linking.)

By following naming conventions, an internal link will be much more likely to lead to an existing article. When there is not yet an article about the subject, a good link will make it easier to create a correctly named article later.

Specific cases

Linking month-and-day or year

Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject.
For example:

• The date (or year) should not be linked in a sentence such as (from Sydney Opera House): "The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007", because little if any content of either June 28 or 2007 is germane to either UNESCO, World Heritage Sites, or the Sydney Opera House.


• The years of birth and death of architect Philip Johnson should not be linked, because little if any content of 1906 or 2005 enhance the reader's understanding of Johnson or his work.


• 
  Timeline of World War II (1942) might be linked to from another article about WWII


• 
  1787 in science might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year.

However, in intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s), links to specific month-and-day, month-and year, or year articles are not discouraged.

Commemorative days (Saint Patrick's Day) are not considered month-and-day items for the purposes of the above.

Units of measurement that are not obscure

Units should generally only be linked to if they are likely to be obscure to readers of the article, or if they are being discussed (see use–mention distinction). So, for example, the troy ounce or bushel, the candela, mho, or millibarn might be considered obscure. Units that are relatively common generally don't need to be linked. Other units may be obscure in some countries, but well known in others (such as metric system units, which are not well known in the United States) and so linking them may be useful, unless a conversion is present, as in 20 °C (68 °F) or 68 °F (20 °C)—practically all readers will understand at least one of the measures.

External links section

Wikipedia is not a link collection, and an article comprising only links is contrary to what the "what Wikipedia is not" policy dictates.

Syntax

The syntax for referencing a URL is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets with a space between the URL and the text that will be displayed when the page is previewed or saved:

[https://www.example.org Text to display]

The text will display as:

Text to display

The URL must begin with either http:// or https://, or another common protocol, such as ftp:// or news://. If no protocol is used, the square brackets will display normally – [like this] – and can be used in the standard way.

In addition, putting URLs in plain text with no markup automatically produces a link, for example https://www.example.org/ → https://www.example.org/. However, this feature may disappear in a future release. Therefore, in cases where you wish to display the URL because it is intrinsically valuable information, it is better to use the short form of the URL (domain name) as the optional text: [https://www.example.org/ example.org] produces example.org.

Link titles

You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article. Instead, when giving an embedded link as a source within an article, simply enclose the URL in square brackets, like this: [https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1650417,00.html] → [1]. However, you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section. This is done by supplying descriptive text after the URL, separated by a space and enclosing it all in square brackets.

For example, to add a title to a bare URL such as https://en.wikipedia.org/ (this is rendered as https://en.wikipedia.org/), use the following syntax: [https://en.wikipedia.org/ an open-content encyclopedia] (this is rendered as "an open-content encyclopedia").

Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative; it is better for a meaningful title to be displayed rather than the URL itself. For example, European Space Agency website is much more reader-friendly than http://www.esa.int/ESA. There may be exceptions where the URL is well known or is the company name. In this case, putting both the URL and a valid title will be more informative: for example, European Space Agency website, www.esa.int.

If the URL is displayed, make it as simple as possible; for example, if the index.html is superfluous, remove it (but be sure to check in preview mode first).

The "printable version" of a page displays all URLs in full, including those given a title, so no information is lost.

URLs as embedded (numbered) links

Without the optional text, external references appear as automatically numbered links: For example,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/]

is displayed like this:

[2]

When an embedded HTML link is used to provide an inline source in an article, a numbered link should be used after the punctuation, like this,[3] with a full citation given in the References section. This style of referencing is not recommended, because such links are susceptible to link rot. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.

When placed in the References and External links sections, these links should be expanded with link text, and preferably a full citation, including the name of the article, the author, the journal or newspaper the article appeared in, the date it was published, and the date retrieved.

Position in article

Embedded links that support information in an article are positioned in the same manner as any other reference in the article, following the usual standards about citation formatting and placement in relation to punctuation.

Links that are not used as sources can be listed in the External links section, like this:

==External links==

* [https://...]

* [http://...]

As with other top-level headings, two equal signs should be used to mark up the external links heading (see Headings). External links should always be the last section in an article. It precedes categories and some kinds of navigation templates.

If there is a dispute on the position of an embedded link, consider organizing alphabetically.

Non-English-language sites

Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases:

• When the website is the subject of the article


• When linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables (explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can interpret them)


• When the webpage contains information found on no English-language site of comparable quality, and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative).

If the language is one that most readers could not be expected to recognize, or is for some other reason unclear from the name of the publication or the book/article/page title, consider indicating what language the site is in.

• Example: Koha Jonë, an Albanian-language newspaper from Tirana
  


• Example: El País, a Spanish-language newspaper from Madrid
  

You can also indicate the language by putting a language icon after the link. This is done using Template:link language by typing link language. For example, link language displays as: (in Spanish). Alternatively, type xx icon, where xx is the language code. For example, pl icon gives: (in Polish). See Category:Language icon templates for a list of these templates and the list of ISO 639 codes.

When using one of the Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 templates, instead of the xx icon or link language templates, use the |language= parameter. This parameter accepts language names or ISO 639-1 language codes.

File type and size

If the link is not to an HTML or PDF file (the latter is identified automatically by the software with an icon like this: [4]), identify the file type. Useful templates are available: DOClink, RTFlink. If a browser plugin is required to view the file, mention that as well. If a link is to a PDF file but doesn't end with .pdf, you can put a #.pdf at the end to flag it as a PDF.

If the link is to a large file (in the case of HTML, consider the size of the entire page, including the images), a note about that is useful too. Someone with a slow (or expensive) connection may decide not to use it.

Interwiki links

Linking

Interwiki links can take the form of:

[[wiktionary:article]] which appears as: wiktionary:article

The pipe symbol suppresses the prefix:

[[wiktionary:article|]] → article

Adding text after the pipe allows different text:

[[wiktionary:article|Any text]] → Any text

To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource entries may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed), and Interlanguage link template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia.

Floating boxes

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Jimmy Wales

Floating boxes for links to articles in other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Wiktionary and Wikiquote can be done with special link templates such as Jimmy Wales. These will display as a box with a logo. Similar templates exist for some free content resources that are not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. These boxes are formatted in light green to distinguish them from Wikipedia's official sister projects. A list of such templates can be found at Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects.

Link maintenance

Linking and continual change are both central features of Wikipedia. However, continual change makes linking vulnerable to acquired technical faults, and to the later provision of different information from that which was originally intended. This is true of both "outgoing" links (from an article) and "incoming" links (to an article).

• 
  Outgoing links: These should be checked from time to time for unintended changes that are undesirable. If the opportunity arises to improve their formatting, appropriateness, and focus, this should be done.


• 
  Incoming links: Creating an article will turn blue any existing red links to its title (proper redlinks are created only in the hope that an article will eventually be written). Therefore, when creating an article, it is wise to check "What links here" to identify such redlinks, if any, and that they are appropriate.

See also

Notes

References

External links

• 
  Silvers, V. L.; Kreiner, D. S. (1997). "The Effects of Pre-existing Inappropriate Highlighting on Reading Comprehension". Reading Research and Instruction. 36 (3): 217–223. doi:10.1080/19388079709558240. MASID 3889799.
  


• 
  Internal link analyzer for automatic detection of redundant links in Wikipedia