Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles/Principle of least astonishment

Rant: "Box of chocolates" linking considered harmful

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, uses plain and straightforward hyperlinking.

If a link has underlined text "Foobar", then almost without exception, clicking on it will take you to a page called "Foobar" (or "Foobar (toothpaste)" or "Foobar (floor wax)" etc).

Many of the exceptions are for brevity:

the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the United States

Here we realize from context that "2000" will not take us to the year 2000, but to the 2000 election.

This is a no-surprise, "'what you get is what you see" linking style that is basic to the nature of an encyclopedia. It makes using the encyclopedia easy and fully predictable. You always know where you're navigating to.

There is another linking style, sometimes seen on weblogs or popular websites, that you could call "box of chocolates" linking (from Forrest Gump: "life is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you'll get").

In this case, there's no obvious connection at all between the linked text and the linked-to webpage. In some extreme cases of this style, there is a "sea of blue" as many if not most of the words in each sentence are hyperlinked, including even adjectives and adverbs. The goal here is entertainment rather than information, with bored users clicking on links hoping to be amused.

This is fine for general websites, but in an encyclopedia it kills predictability and usability. Not to mention, it annoys many users, since what one person may find quirky and humorous is just irrelevant and annoying to another person, as in "give me the last five seconds of my life back".

An example is the following link:

it was revealed that some demons use kittens as a comestible currency

which is a link to a page about the 2003 provincial election in Ontario, Canada, from a page about Miss Kitty Fantastico from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Maybe it's marginally humorous, but it just doesn't belong, especially not as a "box of chocolates" link, and probably not even as a "see also" link. It's a non-sequitur. Linking in the reverse direction might be appropriate, but link relevance is not commutative: even if a B->A link was relevant or appropriate it doesn't mean that the A->B link would be.

It's a usability issue — every such link directly reduces the usability of an encyclopedia — and a feature much too easily abused if everyone started to exercise their "creativity" in this way.

"Box of chocolates" linking should never be OK on Wikipedia. Every link should be a WYGIWYS link.

If this isn't mentioned in a style guide, it ought to be.

-- Curps 01:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something similar is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Never use "click here" as the text for a link (since Wikipedia articles could be printed) - it conveys no information at all. The text of the link should be the subject to which the link leads.

You make a good point, though. Keep in mind that the manual of style is, of course, editable. -Etaoin 02:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Please see the discussion on the Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico page.

Keep in mind that the manual of style is, of course, editable.

Thanks. I will.

Never use "click here" as the text for a link

"Click here" is redundant (the opposite of "box of chocolates"). It has nothing in common with the MKF link...

"Some demons" links to an article which refers to one of those demons. Some readers may find the linked article amusing. The Miss Kitty Fantastico article serves exactly the same harmless purpose. The cat is only a Buffy character in Facetious World.

Wikipedia would be the poorer if it consisted entirely of chocolate hyperlinks.

It would be even poorer if it eliminated chocolate entirely from the menu:

• Wernher: Height of Freedom Tower linked to the United States Declaration of Independence [1]
• Nevilley [2]:

1. If we decide that no attempt at a tiny smile is ever allowed on Wikipedia it will be a very sad day. One of its delights is where people have allowed a tiny bit of humour to creep in, without spoiling the sense of the article. It adds rather than detracts.
2. I would give you examples of lots of places where other people - not me - have written things which express precisely what is meant in a perfectly, er, professional way but also permit me a small smile at their way of saying it or at an interesting metaphor. However if I did so this list would undoubtedly be used by some humourless person as an index of articles urgently needing attention to make them into proper WikiNoHumour(TM) articles, so I won't.
3. Professional - whatever it does mean (if anything) does not have to mean po-faced. Po-faced is boring and bad and pompous. Po-faced limits understanding and makes things grey and meaningless.

chocolateboy 03:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that box-of-chocolate links are annoying and misleading. They are occasionally humourous, but this is simply unprofessional, partly because the cracks are a form of POV. As another example, I once read an article somewhere on Wikipedia that referred to "friendlies" and "hostiles," both of which were linked to Native Americans. I mistakenly clicked on them, thinking it might actually tell me what it meant, with some more details, but it was just a dumb joke. Less of these. Derrick Coetzee 04:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the December 2003 page. The Freedom Tower page does it right, so I copied the wording from there.

The style guide says not to use a redundant, meaningless link text like "click here". It follows that it's even worse to use a misleading, falsely meaningful link text. The style guide should reflect that.

"Some demons" links to an article which refers to one of those demons.

It's not good enough to link to an article that refers to "some demons". If the link text is "some demons" it must link to an article on the topic of "some demons".

Some readers may find the linked article amusing.

The linked article is not the problem. Nobody is clamoring for its deletion. The link, and the "box of chocolates" form of the link, is the problem.

If we decide that no attempt at a tiny smile is ever allowed on Wikipedia it will be a very sad day.

Humor is not the issue, apart from the POV minefields and somebody somewhere inevitably taking offense. I'm not campaigning to eradicate humor from Wikipedia. I'm talking about the form of links.

In an encyclopedia, links must be WYGIWYS ("what you get is what you see"). Link text "XYZ" must link to a page on the topic of XYZ. This predictability and consistency is a basic usability requirement for encyclopedias. Weblogs and personal pages often use a "box of chocolates" linking style, but they're not encyclopedias.

-- Curps 04:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the December 2003 page. The Freedom Tower page does it right, so I copied the wording from there.

Thanks for fulfilling a prophesy:

I would give you examples of lots of places where other people - not me - have written things which express precisely what is meant in a perfectly, er, professional way but also permit me a small smile at their way of saying it or at an interesting metaphor. However if I did so this list would undoubtedly be used by some humourless person as an index of articles urgently needing attention to make them into proper WikiNoHumour(TM) articles, so I won't.

It follows that it's even worse to use a misleading, falsely meaningful link text.

"Some demons" is neither.

It's not good enough to link to an article that refers to "some demons". If the link text is "some demons" it must link to an article on the topic of "some demons"

The Manual of Style disagrees:

It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title, English for example.'

So do redirects.

In an encyclopedia, links must be WYGIWYS ("what you get is what you see"). Link text "XYZ" must link to a page on the topic of XYZ. This predictability and consistency is a basic usability requirement for encyclopedias. Weblogs and personal pages often use a "box of chocolates" linking style, but they're not encyclopedias.

I agree with this as a general rule, but that doesn't make it Wikipedia policy.

No demonstration of the supposed "irrelevance" of Clem to the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet story (or vice versa) has been given. In contrast, evidence has been given of a link between the two. [3]

chocolateboy 05:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a joke book. To actually engage in an edit war over trying to retain this ridiculous link is beyond the pale. OK, you thought it was funny the first time you did it, but why in h*ll would you keep doing it? RickK 05:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

The link wasn't a joke. The two articles, however, are. Wikipedians are not Gradgrinds. [4] [5]

chocolateboy 06:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "English" is "English language". The link text "English" points to a page on the topic of English. What point were you trying to make?

Your Google link shows that it's relevant to link from ERKEFAP to Buffy... but you already do that. Now try the reverse: Google "some demons" and tell me how many pages mention the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Again, what point were you trying to make?

In an encyclopedia, people expect a link that says "XYZ" to go to an article on the topic of XYZ, because that's the way encyclopedias work.

-- Curps 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "English" is "English language". The link text "English" points to a page on the topic of English. What point were you trying to make?

"Some demons" linked to an article concerning one of the demons. Redirects and the Manual of Style show that the link is not required to duplicate the title of the linked article.

Your Google link shows that it's relevant to link from ERKEFAP to Buffy... but you already do that. Now try the reverse: Google "some demons" and tell me how many pages mention the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Again, what point were you trying to make?

I didn't link the isolated words "some demons". I linked the demons referred to in the Miss Kitty Fantastico article i.e. Clem and co. What point were you trying to refute?

In an encyclopedia, people expect a link that says "XYZ" to go to an article on the topic of XYZ, because that's the way encyclopedias work.

Encyclopaedias typically don't have hyperlinks, so I doubt the problem arises very often. Adding value to a document by attaching germane links is, however, how web authoring, and Wiki authoring in particular, have always worked.

chocolateboy 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comments would be valid if the link were germane. It is not, therefore your comments are moot. RickK 21:31, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a joke book. To actually engage in an edit war over trying to retain this ridiculous link is beyond the pale. OK, you thought it was funny the first time you did it, but why in h*ll would you keep doing it?

Your comments would be valid if the link were germane. It is not, therefore your comments are moot.

Your spittle-flecked, apoplectic Gradgrindism is not Wikipedia policy and is therefore moot.

chocolateboy 22:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your ricidulous edit warring over an unimportant point got the article protected, didn't it? RickK 04:42, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

• It takes two to edit war.
• All edit wars are "ridiculous" to non-combatants, including yours: "Dammit guys, this is the stupidest edit war I've ever seen." [6]
• I suggested sleeping on it till a consensus emerged. As soon as one did, I accepted that consensus.
• Resurrecting a "rant" about an issue that has already been amicably resolved is more "ridiculous" than anything that took place in the original skirmish.

chocolateboy 10:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)