Talk:Stay Together (Suede song)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Guidelines edit
Hi Synthwave.94—Thanks for your work on en.WP. It's appreciated. I don't understand why you're reverting the standard fixes that Ohconfucius has made to this article. He is one of our most respected "gnome" editors, who performs valuable maintenance on the site.
The community decided in a huge RfC in 2009 that linking had to be more closely regulated (there is was directly concerned with chronological units, but we already had in place guidelines about common dictionary-type terms). Among the reasons is the capacity of linking to self-dilute; in other words, the more you link, the bluer it gets, and the less we're able to use our knowledge and skills as editors to link readers to the more valuable targets related to an article. Words that are likely to be well-known by English-speakers, include CD, London, and New York City (and it's better not expressed, as you've done, as the name of the state too). If a reader doesn't know what "suicide" means, perhaps they should go back to the drawing board. Or they can look it up on their computer dictionary, or type it into the search box; the widely accepted practice is not to place a magic carpet in the prose just because one in 10,000 readers might just happen to want to divert from the article to another. We did also get to a stage where some articles were aesthetically pretty spotty; it becomes not the smooth read we really want to offer them.
Let's ration those to the targets that we might assume are less well-known ("7" vinyl", yup; "Riverside Studios", yup ...).
It would be great if you helped us to maintain good linking practice in other articles, too. Please ask me if you have any questions. Tony (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- One of Wikipedia's most respected gnome or not, it doesn't prevent him to use a specific edit summary instead of one of these auto-generated edit summaries coming from semi-automatic tools. Now I understand why some links were automatically removed by this user (eg. links to "rock" and "pop"). Maybe should he be a bit more careful about it ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)