 | Thisguideline is a part of the English Wikipedia'sManual of Style. Editors should generally follow it, thoughexceptions may apply.Substantive edits to this page should reflectconsensus. When in doubt, discuss first onthis guideline's talk page. |
| Manual of Style (MoS) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
By topic area
| |||||||
| Linking and page manipulation |
|---|
Linking throughhyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia.Internal links bind the project together into aninterconnected whole.Interwikimedia links bind the project to sister projects such asWikisource,Wiktionary andWikipedia in other languages, and external links bind Wikipedia to theWorld Wide Web.
Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Whenever writing or editing an article, consider not only what to put in the article, but also what links to include to help the reader find related information, and also which other pages should have links to the article. 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. For information about the syntax used to create links, seeHelp:Link. For links ondisambiguation pages, seeWikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages.
Wikipedia is based onhypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. The page from which the hyperlink is activated is called theanchor; the page the link points to is called thetarget.
In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in theknowledge 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 articleleads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells oftables, and infile captions. But as a rule of thumb,link only the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article.
[[Riverside, California]], which results inRiverside, California), orpiped ([[Riverside, California|Riverside]], which results inRiverside in the text, but still links to the article "Riverside, California"—although thepipe trick is an easier way to create this particular link).[[wingsuit]] [[combat]]) orchesstournament ([[chess]] [[tournament]]). Instead, consider using a single, more specific link such aschess tournament ([[chess tournament]]), or if not possible, consider omitting one of the links (chess tournament) or rephrasing the sentence (tournament ofchess).
NSydney,Australia ([[Sydney]], [[Australia]])NQuothquan,South Lanarkshire,Scotland ([[Quothquan]], [[South Lanarkshire]], [[Scotland]])NBuffalo,New York,United States ([[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|New York]], [[United States]])
YSydney, Australia ([[Sydney]], Australia)YQuothquan, South Lanarkshire, Scotland ([[Quothquan]], South Lanarkshire, Scotland)YBuffalo, New York, United States ([[Buffalo, New York]], United States)Kumrovec, then part ofAustria-Hungary(
[[Kumrovec]], then part of [[Austria-Hungary]]).An article is said to beunderlinked if unlinked words are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created for:
If you feel that a link is relevant to the topic of the article but does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a"See also" section.
Links may be created to potential articles that do not yet exist (see§ Red links). If an article exists on a non-English language Wikipedia but not yet in English, consider a red link that also links to the non-English language article (seeHelp:Interlanguage links § Inline links).
An article is said to beoverlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding.[1][c]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, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked. Be conscious of your owndemographic biases when determining whether certain terms have this level of recognizability – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less so for others. Examples include:
Y[[Moana (character)|Moana]] for the Disney character, which appears asMoana and leads to the intended page—instead of
N[[Moana]], which appears identical but leads to a disambiguation page.In addition,major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:
Links may be excessive even if they are informative. For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination. Balance readability, information, and accessibility when adding multiple links in one section of text. As of 2024, most stub articles average two links per sentence, or about 10 to 20 links total. Most longer articles average somewhere around one link per 20 words. The lead of an article usually has a greater density of links than later parts of the article.
Do not link to pages thatredirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to aredirect with possibilities that links to an appropriatesection of the current article).
The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect.
External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article (seeWikipedia:External links).
Link a term at most once per major section,[d] at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there. Other mentions may be linked if helpful, such as ininfoboxes,tables,image captions,footnotes, andhatnotes.
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]].
Inglossaries, 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(seeTemplate:Glossary link).
Duplicate linking instand-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 theduplinks-alt sidebar tool.
Too many links can make the lead hard to read. In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in thelead 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. (SeeWikipedia:Make technical articles understandable andWikipedia is not a scientific journal.)
MostFeatured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words.[2]
For example, in the article onsupply and demand:
The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context.
For example, a link to the articleRequiem (Mozart) should be clear that it is Mozart's Requiem in particular, rather than requiems in general. The link target and the link label do not have to match exactly, but the link must be as intuitive as possible (see§ Intuitiveness).
| Article text | Wikitext | Note | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y | When Mozart wrotehis Requiem | When Mozart wrote[[Requiem (Mozart)|his Requiem]] | Includes the word "his" to specify |
| N | When Mozart wrote hisRequiem | When Mozart wrote his[[Requiem (Mozart)|Requiem]] | Only word "Requiem" |
| Y | Previn conductedMozart's Requiem | Previn conducted[[Requiem (Mozart)|Mozart's Requiem]]or Previn conducted[[Mozart's Requiem]] | Specifying that it is "Mozart's" |
| N | Previn conducted Mozart'sRequiem | Previn conducted Mozart's[[Requiem (Mozart)|Requiem]] | Only word "Requiem" |
Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it generally contains more focused information, as well as links to more general topics.
| What you type | How it appears | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
[[Icelandic orthography]] | Icelandic orthography | Specific (preferred) |
[[Icelandic language|Icelandic]] orthography | Icelandic orthography | Related but less specific |
Icelandic[[orthography]] | Icelandicorthography | Unspecific |
the[[flag of Tokelau]] | theflag of Tokelau | Specific (preferred) |
the[[flag]] of[[Tokelau]] | theflag ofTokelau | Unspecific |
[[Requiem (Mozart)|Requiem]] | Requiem | Specific (preferred) |
[[Requiem]] | Requiem | Unspecific |
If there is no article about the most specific topic, do one of the following things:
When neither a redirect nor a red link appears appropriate, consider linking to a more general article instead.
For example, instead of
NBaroque hairstyles (an article which, as of 2023, had never been created),
write
YBaroque hairstyles (which provides a link to the Baroque era),
YBaroquehairstyles (which provides a link to the article on hairstyle),
YBaroque hairstyles (which provides no link at all, and which may be preferable depending on context),
or
Yhairstyles of theBaroque (which provides separate links to both topics);
however, do not create
NBaroquehairstyles astwo adjacent links because they may be misinterpreted as linking to a single article on that topic.
If an existing article has a section specifically about a topic, linking to that section takes the reader directly to the relevant information. Section-linking options arepiped links,redirects, and the{{Section link}} template, which also generates the§ character.
A problem can arise if the title of the section is changed for any reason, because this action breaks any incoming section links orexcerpts. (If this occurs, incoming links default to the top of the linked article.) Therecommended way to prevent this breakage is to use a{{subst:Anchor}} template specifying the section's prior name.
An alternative, supplementary method has been to add a hidden comment to the target section such as<!-- "Quark" links here -->[e] so that someone changing the title of that section can fix the incoming links. This method is weaker, since it puts the workload on the editor seeking to change the section title.
There are some bots aimed to fix broken anchors:cewbot,Dexbot, andFrescoBot.
Suppose you need to linkpoodle, 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 see:She owned apoodle. Follow the red link, and you are invited to create a new page forpoodle; enter (perhaps)#REDIRECT [[Dog]], so that readers clicking onpoodle are taken, for now, to the dog article.
The redirectis better in a case like this than a direct link like[[dog|poodle]], because when an actualpoodle article is eventually created (replacing the redirect), readers following thepoodle link are taken there automatically without anyone needing to review all the links todog to see which ones should actually go topoodle.
To link to a redirect page without following the underlying redirect, use e.g.{{no redirect|poodle}}.Avoid linking redirects that areself links (WP:SELFRED).
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 asHenry II.
[[apple]]s displays asapples, and this is simpler and clearer than[[apple|apples]]. Similarly:[[appeal]]ing,[[hyperlink]]ed,[[red]]dest. Some characters do not work after the link; seeHelp:Link for more details.
Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per theprinciple of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when following a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense.
A link's visible label does not need to match the exact title of the article being linked, such as in[[surgical suture|suture]] or[[Passing (sports)|passed the ball]]. However, avoid "Easter egg" or "submarine" links, which are links that unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label. 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 asparticle physics, not the hidden reference to the pageParton (particle physics), unless they followed the link or inspected the target title e.g. bymousing over it. If a physical copy of the article were printed, or the article saved as an audio file, the reference to the parton model would be lost.
Instead, refer to the separate article with an explicitsee 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.
Sometimes moving other words into the bluelinked text avoids surprise.
For example, in an article on the history of Texas:
In 1845, the Republic of Texas was [[Texas annexation|annexed]] by the United States.
appears as:
In 1845, the Republic of Texas wasannexed by the United States.
which looks the same as a link to the generic topic ofannexation would.
However:
In 1845, the [[Texas annexation|Republic of Texas was annexed]] by the United States.
appears as:
In 1845, theRepublic of Texas was annexed by the United States.
and is clear that the 1845 annexation of Texas is linked.
Do not place a link to a name within another name. For example:
| Write: | [[Columbus Avenue (Boston)|Columbus Avenue]] | →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 ared link; for example, even if there is no article titledLafayette Avenue (Brooklyn):
| Do not write: | [[Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette|Lafayette]] Avenue | →Lafayette Avenue |
|---|
See also§ Link clarity.
PerWP: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 pagePapageno is a redirect to the article about Mozart's operaThe Magic Flute (since Papageno is a character inThe Magic Flute). While editing some other article, you might want to link the termPapageno; 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", the character), fewer links need to be changed to accommodate the new article; second, it indicates that the article iswanted.
An exception to this rule is when linking to articles inDid you know (DYK) "hooks"on the Main Page, where piping links to prevent readers from seeing a redirect notice is preferable, and the hook is live only for a short time.(See alsoWP:Piped link § When not to use.)
Asexplained above, links to sections can take the reader directly to relevant information.
Using piped links to sections avoids the unsightlyArticle#Section name in the display text.
The format for a piped link is[[Article#Section|name of link]]. For example, to link to the "Culture" subsection of the articleOman, type:
[[Oman#Culture|culture of Oman]],which displays asculture of Oman. The section nameis case-sensitive, unlike article titles which are case insensitive.
Finally, consider adding ahidden comment to the target section so that future editors who edit the title of that section know they must search for and fix allincoming links, for example:
<!-- The articleArticleName links to this section. Should the section's title change, fix now mistargeted wikilinks, or use the {{subst:Anchor|}} template to create an anchor to keep the stability of external incoming links too. -->A list of incoming wikilinks can be generated using the "What links here" feature. As a general rule, it is preferable, particularly in cases where a section has a large number of backlinks, to use{{subst:Anchor}} in the HTML element of the header.
To link to a section within the same article, one can simply prefix the name of the section header with the pound sign ("#") nested in square brackets, for example ("#"):
[[#Promotion to rook or bishop|§ promotion to a rook or bishop]].Prefix the label of a wikilink that targets a section header with the section symbol ("§").
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 articleEastern Anyshire might have a small "History" section, but this does not prevent the articleHistory of Eastern Anyshire being written eventually. Aredirect page from such a sub-topic to a general topic may exist already; if not, a redirect 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. Thus:
#REDIRECT [[Topic#History]].[[history ofTopic]].[[Topic#History|history ofTopic]].SeeHelp:Interlanguage links § Inline links.
Wikipedia has categories of articles; for example, "Phrases". Adding the wikitext[[Category:Phrases]] to an article will add that article to the category "Phrases". (This will not create any visible addition to the body text of the article.)
If you instead want to create a visible link to a category, add a colon in front of the word "Category". For example,[[:Category:Phrases]] creates the linkCategory:Phrases. As with other links, piping can be used:Phrases.
The{{See also cat}} template can be used instead:
{{See also cat|Phrases}} creates:
Overlinking in general is a style issue partly because of the undesirable effect on readability. But if too manyblue links are distracting, ared link is even more so. Theunassuming 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 encourages contributions,[f] 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" policy.) Given a certain number of red links needed, if markingall of them could be overlinking, then justhow many should be marked could be a style issue, and justwhich ones are priority is a helpful contribution.
Inlists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item clearly qualifies for an article, asingle 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. Validrequests 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 byother 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 oftext processing.
Red links can also be removed if they violate policy or theguideline 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 simplestub, aredirect, or adisambiguation page. All of these require the certainty that the red link was legitimate in the first place, such as the conventions onarticle titles.
In prose refrain from implementing colored links, as these may impede users' ability to distinguish links from regular text. See the guides to editing articles for accessibility atcontrast andnavbox colors.
It's easy to create an erroneous link without realizing it. When adding a new link, it's a good idea to use the "Show preview" button and then (from the preview) open the link in a new browser tab to check that it goes where you intend.
By followingnaming conventions, an internal link is much more likely to lead to an existing article. When there is not yet an article about the subject, a good link makes it easier to create a correctly named article later.
Month-and-day articles (e.g.February 24 and10 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:
[[Timeline of World War II (1942)|1942]] might be linked from another article about WWII.[[1787 in science|1787]] 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, and1940s), 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.
Generally, a unit should be linked only if it is likely to be obscure to many readers or is itself being discussed. For example, thetroy ounce,bushel,hand,candela,knot,mho, ormillibarn might be considered obscure even if they are well-knownwithin their field of use. Other units may be obscure in some countries even if well known in others.
Wikipedia is not a link collection, and an article comprising only links is contrary to what the"what Wikipedia is not" policy dictates.
The syntax for referencing a web address is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets with a space between the URL and the text that is displayed when the page is previewed or saved:
[https://www.example.org Text to display]The text appears as:
The URL must begin with eitherhttp:// orhttps:// (preferringhttps://, where available), or another common protocol, such asftp:// ornews://. If no protocol is used, the square brackets 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 examplehttps://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] producesexample.org.
Citations templates such as{{cite web}} should not be used in the==External links== section.External link templates such as{{official website}} are used instead of citation templates.
Embedded HTML links within an article are a now-deprecated way to supply a bare URL as a source within an article, by simply enclosing 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 theReferences,Further reading, orExternal links sections. 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 ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/ (this is rendered ashttps://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 and domain names are ugly and uninformative; it is better for a meaningful title or description to be displayed rather than the URL or domain itself. For example,European Space Agency website is much more reader-friendly thanhttp://www.esa.int/ESA. There may be exceptions where the domain name is well known or is also the company or publication name. When a URL or domain name is given, putting both a plain-English title or description and the URL is often more informative: for example,European Space Agency website, www.esa.int.
If the URL or domain nameis displayed, make it as simple as possible; for example, if theindex.html is superfluous, remove it (but be sure to check in preview mode first). Many but not all sites can be trimmed of a leading "www."; test it to be sure. Usecamel case to make a displayed domain more readable, e.g.WashingtonPost.com versuswashingtonpost.com.
The "printable version" of a Wikipedia article displays all URLs in full, including those given a title, so no information is lost.
Without the optional text, external references appear as automatically numbered links: For example,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/]is displayed like this:
Numbered links of this type used to be used after the punctuation, like this,[3] with a full citation given in the References section. This style of referencing is now deprecated, because such links are susceptible tolink rot. SeeWikipedia:Citing sources andWikipedia:Verifiability for more information.
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 aboutcitation formatting andplacement in relation to punctuation.
Links that arenot 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 (seeWikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Headings).External links should always be the last section in an article. It precedes categories and some kinds ofnavigation templates.
If there is a dispute on the position of an embedded link, consider organizing alphabetically.
Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases:
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 or article or page title, consider indicating what language the site is in.
You can also indicate the language by putting a language template after the link. This is done usingTemplate:In lang by typing{{In lang|<language code>}}. For example,{{In lang|es}} displays as:(in Spanish). Seelist of ISO 639 codes.
When using one of theCitation Style 1 orCitation Style 2 templates, instead of the{{In lang}} template, use the|language= parameter. This parameter accepts language names or language codes; seethis list of supported names and codes. (Use of language codes is to be preferred because cs1|2 automatically renders language names in the language of the local Wikipedia.)
If the link is not to anHTML orPDF 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 abrowser 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 very large page (considering all its elements, including images), a note about that is useful since someone with a slow or expensive connection may decide not to visit it.
Using links towiktionary as an example, interwiki links can take the form of:
[[wikt:article]] which appears as:wikt:articleThe pipe symbol suppresses the prefix:
[[wikt:article|]] →articleAdding text after the pipe allows either the same or a different text (with no prefix):
To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions:Wiktionary andWikisource 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 ared link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia.
Floating boxes for links to articles in other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Wiktionary and Wikiquote can be added usinginterwiki link sidebar templates, for example{{Wikiquote|Jimmy Wales}}. These display as a shaded box with a logo.
(There is a related set of templates for some free content resources that are not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Rather than creating a sidebar link, they create text suitable for using as a bulleted entry in an "External links" section. A list of such templates can be found atWikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects.)
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).
Buttons should not be used in articles. If the desire is to "navigate" a reader to a new page, taking them away from the current page, a link is preferred. Buttons are used within Wikipedia to trigger an "action", such asShow preview orCreate account orReply orAsk a question.[3]
<!-- "Article" links here -->) must be added to the target section with a break between the header and the hidden message, or problems arise. Note the two lines:==Target section==<!-- "Article" links here -->Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the systemSee alsoWikipedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth.
