Talk:Core competency/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Another accusation
user:Cimon avaro, I can't help but wonder why you create links for words like battery, flash light and coffee percolators. These concepts are incidental to the topic under discussion. Will the reader really benefit from a definition of "flash light"? I don't know the Wikipedia policy on this, but it seems to me, if we start linking all the ancilory words, it will distract from the message of the article. What are your thought on this?
Hmm. My thougts are that you are probably right. But I am not active in setting policy, and will not be if I can avoid it. I am currently putting free links everywhere I can. Maybe this is wrong, but I don't see any actual harm. Just correct my misdeeds if you consider them such, or bring the matter up to more general discussion. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 07:37 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I like lots of links. I say put them in wherever the linked word refers to the same thing as the article. As long as it's obvious to the reader what is going to happen if they click the link, I think it's generally okay. Also, links add emphasis, similar to bolding, so some discretion is needed to keep the text readable. -- Tim Starling 07:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It is the fact that, as you say, "these links add emphasis", that bothers me. In an article on marketing theory you no more want links to "flashlight" than you do to "dog" or "cat" or even "the". These are not substantive words, not directly relevent to the article, and their added emphasis is a distraction. That is my 2 cents worth.
Re the above - whilst I am not overly fond of unnecessary links either - no one is forcing anyone to click on them. Skratman 10:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is also a term used in education. Do we have any teachers here? Rmhermen 19:21, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)