Talk:TMG

Number of Links per Disambig Entry
I see no problem with having two links per entry when the second link is the general subject category of the first. After all, isn't the whole point of a link to reduce the amount of typing and searching that's needed to navigate to where you want to go? If you don't want to navigate to a link, don't click there! So, IMHO, removing valid internal links does not improve wiki quality, it reduces it.

If changing from black text to blue text mid-sentence somehow bothers you, then perhaps that is an issue not with the link function, but with some other issue such as the graphical format that renders the link visible, and the psychology of why alternating text color may be distracting to some readers. (see: Obsessive-compulsive disorder). In theory, if more words were linked than not, then you might say that the unlinked words were the distraction! So, it seems you'd then push to make all words linked! Perhaps it's ironic that a highly ordered link structure would make a highly disordered color scheme. Hmmm.

As far as I'm concerned, the more links the better, and the more blue the better. I see no reason not to have lots of blue, unless you hate that color. I happen to like it, does that make me biased? Actually I like dark blue better. Perhaps it would be easier to read if the two colors were closer in gray-scale. Seriously. Mikiemike (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)--


 * Well that's all very philosophical, but Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Manual of Style (links) are community consensus, so until that consensus changes (and consensus can change), it's one link per entry if possible. The rationale for having only one link per entry on dab pages, where other places on the wiki can be linked as necessary, is that dab pages are not articles per se, but navigational aids.  The idea is that someone landing here already has in mind the topic they wanted to find, and the dab page that makes that target easiest to find by quickly scanning the page is one where the only visible links are the disambiguated articles. Links which are closely related to the topic should already appear in the first few sentences of the target article, where they don't encumber someone who might be scanning for a particular link completely unrelated to that topic. The fact that this results in one extra click to get from a dab page to an article on a related topic is not much of a problem, because it's assumed that if that article was the one the reader was immediately interested in finding, they would not have been on (this) dab page in the first place.  — Swpbtalk.edits 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)