Talk:Delbert Gee

Linking

Here are some useful tips from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

From Wikipedia:CONTEXT:

Only make links that are relevant to the context.

• Provide links that aid navigation and understanding.
• Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links.

It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. This practice is known as "overlinking". A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. (Example: Lucy went to the store.) Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

In general, do not create links to:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement.
• Subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the names of book chapters.
• The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; in general each row of a table should be able to stand on its own).
• Individual words when a phrase has its own article. For example, link to "the flag of Tokelau" instead of "the flag of Tokelau". Such a link is more likely to be interesting and helpful to the user, and almost certainly contains links to the more general terms, in this case, "flag" and "Tokelau".

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Intuitiveness:

Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles. For example, do not write this:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions) back in to stay.

The readers will not see the hidden reference to Thomas Bowdler unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link—in a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly by using a "see also" or by rephrasing:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions; see Thomas Bowdler) back in to stay.

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were back in to stay, Thomas Bowdler being an exception.

Similarly, use:

After an earlier disaster (see Bombay Explosion (1944)),...

"After the earlier explosion in Bombay,...

not

After an earlier disaster,...

I have edited this article to be consistent with these rules. Ground Zero | t 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Intuitiveness

See also: WP:EGG

Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles. For example, do not write this:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few [[Thomas Bowdler|exceptions]]) back in to stay.

The readers will not see the hidden reference to Thomas Bowdler unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link—in a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly by using a "see also" or by rephrasing:

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions; see [[Thomas Bowdler]]) back in to stay.

...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were back in to stay, [[Thomas Bowdler]] being an exception.

Similarly, use:

After an earlier disaster (see Bombay Explosion (1944)),...

"After the earlier explosion in Bombay,...

not

After an earlier disaster,...

Ground Zero | t 03:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)