Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-07/External links
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I like the consistency of this idea, in theory, but with our current layout I wonder whether it might tend to waste vertical space with the inclusion of two headers for one or two lines each. Equinox ◑ 14:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well... For starters, if this vote passes and an entry only needs either a "See also" or an "External links" section, then it obviously won't have any problem with the waste of vertical space you mentioned.
- If, on the other hand, this vote passes and an entry needs these two headers, won't we want to separate their contents anyway? For example, please see the current revision of the entry Portuguese. I, personally, like how it has both headers. --Daniel 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- At least the vertical space is near the bottom of each L2 section, where the harm is not serious. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
References, too?[edit]
References are also "external". Should we even allow links, especially external to MediaWiki, that are not references? I hypothesize that calling sister-project links external causes us more duplication of encyclopedic content by casual contributors. As I intensely dislike the big sister-project boxes, I view See also as, by far, the best home for sister project links. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should allow external links that are not references. They complement well our work, especially a link from a dictionary to an encyclopedia. I don't hypothesize that "duplication of encyclopedic content by casual contributors" would be a particularly noticeable effect of this voting, because... I simply didn't notice a higher probability of having encyclopedic definitions in entries that have with "External links" sections. Please note that entries of languages (Portuguese, French, etc.) are proper nouns, very often have "External links" sections and still have small, concise definitions. (While proper nouns are especially prone to having encyclopedic definitions, if we let them.) --Daniel 03:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)