Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

RfC: Linking of three-part place names

There are two common ways to link to a place name with an "A, B, C" format where the article is titled [[A, B]]. Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to "link only the first unit".

1. Have the link span only the smallest unit, using piping if necessary

   Buffalo, New York, United States

2. Have the displayed text match the title of the linked article

   Buffalo, New York, United States

Which style(s) is/are acceptable? If both, is one preferable to the other?

Note: See previous discussion above and above. This is not a question about whether "New York" should be linked to New York (state) in this example; basically everyone agrees that it should not be. 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion re RfC: Linking of three-part place names

Pings to past participants @Gawaon, Khiikiat, Pi.1415926535, Michael Bednarek, NebY, Biruitorul, and Dahn. Cross-posted to WT:MOSACCESS. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Both acceptable, approach 1 preferable. Approach 2 is, no doubt, more common, but both approaches are used in good and featured articles without issue. As a matter of MOS:RETAIN I'll stop short of saying approach 2 should be proscribed, but I think approach 1 is preferable for two reasons:
  • Consistency: Having a prose guideline turn on the title of the article being linked to would be strange, given that the article title policy is informed by various considerations that do not apply to prose, such as disambiguation and the semi-arbitrary rule that is WP:USPLACE. To a reader seeing "Buffalo, New York, United States", next to "Boston, Massachusetts, United States", it is not at all obvious why the two are handled differently. It is cleaner and simpler to have the link span the exact place being referenced, not attached disambiguators like ", New York".
  • Accessibility: The only difference between "Buffalo, New York" and "Buffalo, New York" is the color of the comma. For anyone who, like me, struggles to distinguish between blue and black in small quantities, it looks like clicking on "New York" in the first example will take you to New York (state).
• The main argument made in the opposite direction is simplicity of markup, but that's usually the lowest priority in MoS decisions, certainly lower than accessibility. We should not make our articles more confusing to readers just for the sake of slightly shorter source code. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• None -- I struggle to understand why it wouldn't be necessary to link the first-level administrative division, in most cases outside the US (and even the US as well, but let's assume that Buffalo, New York is an accepted practice in that context). Who could be expected to consider Ialomița County or Simeulue Regency instantly recognizable terms across the vast expanse of the world? and if we're not linking unfamiliar terms, what is the point of having internal links at all? Seems like someone was peeved by having two links next to each other, and came up with this atrocious moratorium on having necessary links where they appear side by side (though neatly separated by a comma); this bewildering approach should not have been tried out at all, ever. Dahn (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The normal argument against linking the second-level entity is that it can be easily clicked from the first-level, if some wants. As discussed above, exceptions may apply when the first-level entity's article doesn't prominently discuss the second-level one, mostly in the case of former countries. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The exceptions are in fact the norm -- most subdivisions would be unfamiliar to anyone outside that country. Which is why "Buffalo, New York" is a misleading example, the sort of which has prompted some overzealous users to delete links to Olt County and Wallachia, thus leading to the absurd suggestion that Olt County has the same notoriety as New York, and Wallachia is a notion similar to the US. "It can be easily clicked from [somewhere else]" can be said about each and every bluelink out there, so I don't see why that was ever accepted as a valid argument in any debate. Dahn (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. It's also a normal unpiped link, without superfluous text: compare [[Buffalo, New York]], United States (five words) with [[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], New York, United States (eight words). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — there are plenty of situations where linking place, subdivision and country is appropriate, and I think the guideline should do more to encourage that. Examples: 1) Bogdana, Tutova County, Moldavia; 2) Haraklány, Szilágy County, Kingdom of Hungary. It’s more than likely the average reader will have no idea where any of these places are/were, so why not link them all? — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 because it's shorter to write and leads to linked text and linked page title being in agreement. Later addition: Also per WP:NOPIPE, as pointed out below by Bagumba – don't use piped links when you don't have to, and here you very clearly don't have to. Gawaon (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC), edited 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Both acceptable, do not specify preference for either. I personally prefer Option 2, which cuts down on redundant text that looks extremely silly in the editor and in diffs. I suppose it also matches linktext with article titles, which I care less about. I don't think we should enshrine a preference for best practice here. Agree with others above that in many cases it may be helpful to link multiple administrative subdivisions: not long ago I had reason to mention Yao Mangshan Ethnic Township (莽山瑶族乡), Yizhang County, Chenzhou, Hunan. Leaving out the container state, that's still four subdivisions. I left Hunan unlinked since it appears in User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms, but there are probably editors who would argue for linking that as well. Folly Mox (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Link only the most specific item—especially when the other two are so well known. Tony (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Makes no sense to pipe and hide "New York", just to type it again and display it. Per WP:NOPIPE:

  Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read.

  —Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 don't find any specific reason to leave out the state from the muncipality, as it is kind of self explanatory. Also creates redundant piping per Bagumba. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 In this specific format, it seems more intuitive to match the title of the article. I will also add that including the non-linked country at the end may be somewhat out of place/redundant in either option. Symphony Regalia (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• No preference. MOS should state this. I fully agree with Folly Mox here and would go one step further to say the style guide should be explicit in stating there is no dictated preference. It should list some things to consider, provide examples, and otherwise defer to editorial judgment. Things to consider might include MOS:NOPIPE and other rules or guidelines. A lot of this will come down to context-specific factors and personal judgment or consensus within an article. In nearly all cases it matters too little to mandate a single standard and doing so will likely result in more appeals for exceptions and workarounds. MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 22:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, but both acceptable, per Tamzin and link intuitiveness. I don’t want people clicking “New York” and being confused at being sent to Buffalo. I also think all arguments based on what looks best in wikitext or is easier to type for the editor are wrong. Style decisions are not made for the wikitext editor’s benefit. — HTGS (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t want people clicking “New York” and being confused at being sent to Buffalo: But that is exactly why we avoid consecutive links to begin with i.e. SOB. It is a single link to <city, state>, not consecutive links <city>, <state>. —Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  And avoiding links that span two page-level topics is another step we can take towards making links clearer. — HTGS (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right. Readers have no reason to expect that "New York" won't link to New York there: They don't know that MoS says it shouldn't, and in practice countless articles would link to New York there. Using a different state because the NYC/NYS ambiguity complicates things, there are 11,030 articles containing either [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] or [[<someplace>, Massachusetts|<someplace>]], [[Massachusetts]]. These links are distinguished from e.g. [[Boston, Massachusetts]] by the color of a character that is less than a millimeter wide at standard zoom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, the standalone link to Massachusetts should be unlinked per MOS:GEOLINK in all these cases. MOS:GEOLINK is already very clear on this and it's not something that will change. Gawaon (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Single link In almost every case the purpose of the link is to take you to the article of a single, unambiguous, location. The link should be written in it's natural format (no piping). The larger regions are merely so that a printed form will lead you to the same place but we don't really expect the reader to want to go directly to the articles for the larger regions - ie, we are listing a city for a reason, the larger regions are just to make it unambiguous and are not a target in their own right. So, we give the link to the city in its natural format (without piping), and then add whatever else is needed in plain text. If it turns out that some cities in a list have the link encompass different portions of the hierarchy (eg Paris, France vs Paris, Ontario, Canada) then that is okay.  Stepho  talk  01:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ooh, I really disagree with that last point. I’d rather a list be consistent regardless the choice between these two options. — HTGS (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  How would you list those 2 cities?  Stepho  talk  03:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming it’s a normal prose sentence, I would have something like: “However in 1894, the government of Paris, France decided to implement the change, while the mayor of Paris, Ontario forced the city to withhold …” But honestly I would still rather the opposite (… Paris, France decided to implement the change, while the mayor of Paris, Ontario did not…”) to the split styling you suggested. — HTGS (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  And for most lists, the same (with disambiguation pages being the exception). — HTGS (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but note that what you describe is in fact exactly Option 2 ("Have the displayed text match the title of the linked article"), so you're effectively voting for that. Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  the larger regions are just to make it unambiguous and are not a target in their own right: I'm not sure if "unambiguous" is the right word. For a large country, most people have never heard of most non-major cities, so a larger region is mentioned to provide context, whether or not the same city name exists in another region.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely Option 2. No pipe gymnastics needed, and the blue the reader sees tells him unambiguously where clicking will take him. EEng 00:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Link "Buffalo" alone. Tony (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  As in Buffalo, New York, United States? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi folks. I came here to raise a closely related point, then I saw this discussion and the previous ones. I think the examples should be changed to allow or encourage this type of thing:

Three very nice cities are:

• Madison, Wisconsin, US
• Terre Haute, Indiana, US
• Chicago, Illinois, US

That is, in many cases it's preferable to be consistent with how the links are presented, and in my view it's *not* necessary to have the visible linked text exactly match the article titles. So in this example I've coded [[Chicago|Chicago, Illinois]] to achieve that. Although coding [[Chicago, Illinois]] would achieve more or less the same thing, because "Chicago, Illinois" is a redirect to "Chicago". Edited to add: This suggestion does not match either option 1 or option 2. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• At least correct the description of what is recommended: To me, it is false to say "Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to 'link only the first unit'." In the string "Buffalo, New York, United States", there are clearly three units, and the first of those three units is "Buffalo". If we're going to say that "Buffalo, New York, United States" ([[Buffalo, New York]], United States) is the preferred format, we need a different characterization than saying that for "a sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit". For example, we could say to "link only as much of the name as is used in the corresponding article title" or "link only the initial parts of the name that form its conventional identification". (We might also need to refer the reader to MOS:USPLACE for the conventional form of US location descriptions). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: In most cases no one is ever going to link to "Terre Haute", as suggested above, just because the subject was born there. Who cares? (Unless that town had significant bearing on the notability of the subject.) So often we are faced with the logic of not linking because of insufficient relevance, or because the location is internationally known: the smaller and least consequential "village" ("Terre Haute") vs the too-well-known larger location ("Chicago"). In that case, nothing seems to need linking. Another example: "suburb of London, London, UK"—link nothing, unless the suburb has sufficient relevance to the subject (unlikely).

There are cases that could be linked as a matter of logic. Let's say the formative years were spent in the village of birth: Adalaj, Gujarat, India. Here, the article on Adalaj will reasonably contain a link to Gujarat, if the reader really wants to know more about the state. Remember that the one in 10,000 readers who really do want to know more, in situ, can spend 10 seconds typing a target into the search box. Otherwise we have systemic bunching, which MOSLINK discourages for good reason. Tony (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we have decided in the past to only visibly link to the smallest unit. The reason being that the difference between a link to the smallest unit and it's next superunit, and two links is merely the colour of the comma between the two place names. People will click on the superunit expecting to be taken there, and get a WP:Easter egg. I have done this myself. The priority needs to go to the reader, not the editor here. If you prefer less typing, go ahead, but don't oppose others improving it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC).

"I'm fairly sure we have decided in the past" is very much a weasel phrase. Assuming we did, supposedly there would be a rule somewhere that says so? Gawaon (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, for internal consistency within articles with links to multiple towns. Graham11 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• Both should be acceptable. Don't overthink it.--Srleffler (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

• This RfC was opened more than half a year ago – shouldn't it be closed? Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  I might leave it for at least a few days, as the discussion seems to be picking up a bit. But if it quickly dies down, probably. Graham11 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• It's been another half year, and I just came here looking for the answer to this question. GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed! I think we may safely conclude that the discussion has died down by now. Gawaon (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yet no one has closed it or revealed the outcome. I found this discussion when I came here to start my own that's directly related: the MOS:GEOLINK guidance seems contradictory in this regard. It says For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit. But then as a correct example it gives

  Buffalo, New York, United States ([[Buffalo, New York]], United States)

  Unless there's a special definition of "unit" that I haven't seen, this is three units ("Buffalo", "New York", "United States"), of which the first two are linked, an unexplained contravention of the guideline that was just given.

  I was going to ask for clarification as to what the passage should say and what should be linked to what, so as to have the guidelines fixed to reflect that, but I see here that that still hasn't been formally resolved. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a contraction. The whole point of the guideline is that there should be just one link, which is indeed the case here. The question of whether it's preferable to write it the way you have given or as "Buffalo, New York, United States" remains, unfortunately, unresolved. But I'd say that, as long as this RfC hasn't been closed, either form remains acceptable. Gawaon (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That isn't clear in the text. Again, how is the average reader supposed to know what "unit" means? Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe the wording could be clearer, but if it's not clear from the rest of the text, the "Buffalo, New York" example makes it clear (link to the first unit, even though it spans the second one too). Gawaon (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Easteregg: link to specific cabinet behind "Government"

Hello! I have been in a discussion about the fact that it has become standard practice in {{Infobox legislature}} to write down "Government" with a link to a specific cabinet (e.g. Schoof cabinet), so it becomes Government (See House of Representatives (Netherlands) for the specific example). I consider this a MOS:EASTEREGG, because I expect to be taken to a page like Executive (government). I have proposed to more explicitly mention the cabinet (see rev), but others have reverted these edits because it is against standard practice. Which is true, because many other legislature pages do this. Although there are some examples which make it even more confusing (House of Representatives (Egypt) also links opposition to general opposition article. And House of Representatives (Japan) links to confidence and supply).

I'm curious what the consensus is about this practice versus the guideline. Dajasj (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Not only is that the standard practice, it is also the information that the template calls for. But I see your point. It seems to me that the problem is the word "Government," which would require a change to the template. Maybe come up with what you think is a better label ("In Power"? "In Government"? "Controlling"?) and start a conversation on the template's talk page with that proposal? ("In Government" may not be the best, but it is probably the easiest to sell.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Strikethrough erroneous text. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Strikethrough erroneous text #2 (this is embarrassing, or would be if I had any shame). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but where does the template call for this practice specifically? I only see that you can list the political groups in Parliament, not even a suggestion that it should be split out by government vs opposition. Dajasj (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

(I have also notified the template talk page of this discussion btw) Dajasj (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought your issue is that the word "Government" made the reader think that the link would lead to a generic article regarding the institution, not the name of the governing body/party. Now it seems you are opposed to identifying the party/coalition in control at all.

I think that boat has sailed. The template has two "political_groups" lines, one for "list of the political parties/groups represented in house1" and one for "list of the political parties/groups represented in house2." It seems likely to me that the original purpose of the house2 line was for use in articles covering both houses of a bicameral legislature, for example Parliament of the United Kingdom, meaning it was not intended to have anything in articles about a single house. But, nature abhors a vacuum and, over time, it has been used in single house articles to identify parties out of power, suggesting that editors have found it beneficial to include that information. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

My issue is only with the link behind the genetic term "Government". The split itself is not a problem (which is often done within political_groups1). Sorry if that wasn't clear. My question was, where does the template imply that there should be the word government with a link to a specific cabinet? That's what I understood from your first comment but couldn't find. Dajasj (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry to send you on a wild goose chase. It looks like "Government" comes from taking taking the HM out of "HM Government" (where it makes sense as a term of art). I still think the solution is to change the word "Government" to something else. Here's a fourth alternative: "Governing." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem ;) 'Governing' would be better, but I still think it would be best to be more explicit about the link. Dajasj (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• It's an example of a highly misleading easter egg, and should not be used. Tony (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Government is the conventional term used, even in parliamentary republics. Glide08 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that "government" has multiple meanings. According to the Wikipedia government article: "In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary." I suggest that most readers would assume that meaning. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression that "Government" is the common term used to refer to the coalition in power in various parliamentary systems where multiple parties have to form a coalition for anyone to be able govern (i.e. definition 6 at wikt:government#Noun, and maybe also definition 5). In these infoboxes, the "Government" header is introducing the list of parties making up the coalition, and additionally is linking to the article about the coalition itself. The US doesn't have anything directly comparable, as its system selects the Executive separately and the two-party system means no coalitions are needed in the Legislative anyway. The UK seems to specifically qualify it as "HM Government" which makes it distinct from the plain word "government", but that wouldn't work so well for countries without a monarch or ones that separate the monarch from government more than the UK does. It's not clear to me that inventing our own terminology for the general cases would really make things more clear if English-language sources use "Government". Anomie⚔ 15:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Seconded. Glide08 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• I don't think the issue is "inventing" terminology but, rather, it's that the use of "Government" as a term of art causes sufficient confusion for those unfamiliar with that definition. We should use a more descriptive term that all readers can instantly understand without consulting Wiktionary). See also Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Lead_section
  Note: This issue wouldn't be all that important if the word was not linked to governing coalitions articles. But it is, and when the uninitiated see "government" they expect land at Government. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Any term could be considered a "term of art" for people who're unfamiliar with it. I think what we need here is for someone to do the research to find out what terminology publications actually use, if not "Government", instead of inventing something that you think might be clearer to some hypothetical uninformed reader. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  What sort of publications do you have in mind? And would they be local to each particular country or would the survey include international publications? For example, for the UK parliament governing party/coalition would you include US publications? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Open the egg

I agree that it is EGGy. I would standardise to Government (Schoof cabinet) (in this case omitting the parenthetical demissionary as detail to cover at the cabinet’s article). — HTGS (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• An elegant solution! (@Dajasj, see above.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will use that :) Dajasj (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  Don't forget there's an easy alternative: create a "See also" section after the main text. Then the readers will see what they're getting, and clicking the link is more likely. Tony (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t like that as much for a page like House of Representatives (Netherlands), where the article is agnostic to which government is in power. And I think there’s a good chance that that will get forgotten at the bottom of the page, or (worse), people will add every ministry that has ever held power. — HTGS (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Another benefit: Out of date links become obvious. For example, Senate(Egypt). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Some editors are resisting to this change. I guess it would not be unreasonable to consider a RfC even though it should be common sense. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why can't they simply participate here? I have no experience starting a RfC, but it feels like doing the same thing all over again. Dajasj (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, hopefully a RfC will not be necessary. I guess more people will just need to be familiar with this. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  It’s not usually helpful to characterise people as “resisting change”; it is possible they have legitimate concerns about the change in format. If so, they should participate here, so that we can find the best way forward. A simple note to say: “hey, this change is a result of discussion [here], and it affects the formatting for a lot of pages, so please say something at [this discussion] if you think this change makes the experience worse for readers.”

  I know we’re all experienced, and very familiar with WP:AGF, but it also really helps if we can keep attitudes (ours and theirs) pointed in the right direction (“making Wikipedia better”), rather than opposing directions (“I'm right and you're wrong”). Hope I’m not being too preachy! — HTGS (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also did the template documentation get changed? That can help, just so you have something to point to. (You can’t tap the sign if you don’t have the sign.) — HTGS (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I mostly point to this discussion. I have considered changing {{Infobox legislature}}, but it would be very specific for this parameter. The current documentation gives no guidance at all Dajasj (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Impru20 reverted an edit changing to this format with an edit summary saying Impractical, leave it simple." They have not accepted my invitation to bring these concerns here. So I am doing it on their behalf.

Is this solution to the Easter egg problem impractical or unnecessarily complex? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it avoids an easter egg, is more explicit and makes it easier to keep up to date. While only adding a few words. Dajasj (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't link to cabinet

I fail to see why a link to the cabinet is needed there? I would say this discussion is an enormously overcomplicated attempt to find a "solution" to a non-problem: just avoid linking to avoid easter eggs, links to cabinet articles are not needed in the infobox of a legislative chamber. In the edit I conducted, I removed some generic links to "Opposition" or "Parliamentary opposition" too; what is the point of linking that? See MOS:CIRCULAR when it says that The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. Impru20^talk 08:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ah my bad, I thought you had reverted the edit, but instead you simply removed the link. I have no opinion on whether to include the link at all, if no easter egg is created. Dajasj (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yep, I need to apologize as well. Now that I've figured out what you did, I think your solution is actually better. However, I'm guessing that we'd have strong headwinds if we started with that. So I'll continue to undo Easter eggs to, at least, expose the egg contents and then other editors can follow and say "hey, why is that even there at all?" - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have to agree; my understanding was that this discussion was about how to link, if a link is desired, not about whether to link at all. I personally have a weak preference for the link, but it seems sensible to leave that an open question for the article editors for now. — HTGS (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Hi there. I agree with @Impru20 on this. Most parliament pages also have a Politics template and the link to the current cabinet is there. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding possessive link guidance to MOS

Now that Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Possessive_Redirects_vs_Blended/Agglutinated_Links has closed with a definitive preference for [[Foo]]'s, explicit guidance should be added to the MOS. Thoughts on the best way to do this? Perhaps a new subsection under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § Specific cases? I've played around with simple guidance and I don't really like any wording I've come up with. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

And to be clear, someone should feel free to just boldly update this! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

A whole subsection would surely be overkill. One option might be to add it as a new list item to MOS:LINK#OTHER. I guess you meant "Specific cases" instead of "Special" ones, but it's not really a specific case, as such possessive links can emerge fairly naturally in normal text and for most kinds of links. Gawaon (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "Specific" cases. Will fix. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Crud, I just realized that the following example of a WP:PIPEd link was not brought up during the discussion. Is it assumed this is true?

[[Foobar (thing)|Foobar]]'s > [[Foobar (thing)|Foobar's]]

...Or do we have to have another discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

No, we won't have another discussion of that, the left one wins now, as a matter of course. That doesn't mean we need to explicitly mention it, on the other hand – it might rather go without saying. Gawaon (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, and was about to also bring up an example like:

[[George Washington|Washington]]'s > [[George Washington|Washington's]]

...But yeah, my thoughts as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon: "mean"? Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

(Resolved, nothing to see here...) Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This says that the preference confirmed here is better so I don't see that anything needs to be changed, although I would strengthen it so the consensus to not use Foobar's is clear. Also I can't find that example in the current version of Wikipedia:Piped link using Cmd+F. But if there are random examples there or on other pages (like Help:Link) those should be reviewed and updated to align with the current MOS consensus. The MOS guidance, once updated, and/or the RFC can be referenced in the edit summaries. There's no need for another discussion unless there is a new conflict or question that is not adequately resolved by the just-closed discussion. I do agree it would be good to have a piped example like you have with Washington's. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

How about adding a bullet point to MOS:PIPESTYLE:

* Possessives. [[apple]]'s should be used in preference to [[apple's]] (which would require a redirect to be created at Apple's), unless the 's is part of the article title (e.g. Jacob's). This also applies to piped links such as [[George Washington|Washington]]'s.

Rosbif73 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, though actually no piping is involved here, except for the "Washington's" case. Hence it rather add it to MOS:LINK#OTHER. Gawaon (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also it should be "in preference to [[apple|apple's]]or [[apple's]] (the latter would require ..." Gawaon (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done: see diff . Feel free to further refine the wording if necessary. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A cross reference from somewhere in MOS:POSSESSIVE / MOS:'S would be useful. Anomie⚔ 12:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done: see diff . I realise that this has created two hatnote lines, but (a) it doesn't seem to be possible to use a piped link with {{for-multi}} and (b) there are already MOS sections with two hatnote lines. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a few days ago, I created MOS:POSLINK as a redirect towards an anchor for that new guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks for doing this @Steel1943! Sadly for me I noticed this after making several edits and using the less specific shortcut MOS:LINK#OTHER. Happy to have a more direct shortcut moving forward! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Links in infoboxes

Just a query now, but if needed perhaps MOS:GEOLINK needs to be reworded: I have recently seen links to city articles removed from event infoboxes (e.g. MLS Cup 2022) because the stadium/venue is allegedly enough to provide context. In my view it does not, as many stadiums (especially in the U.S.) are in suburbs that are not well-known outside of their immediate area and providing that context would be helpful to readers. There seems to be an interpretation of MOS:GEOLINK that counts a stadium as part of the "consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units" despite stadiums not being a geographical/territorial unit. I think we ought to remedy this, as there are thousands of articles that already use the format. SounderBruce 07:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Why would you link the suburb, let alone a well-known city. In any case, a link to the stadium anchor will give the reader all they want. Tony (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't you normally use a connecting word such as "in" in such cases ("Banc of California Stadium in Los Angeles, California, United States")? GEOLINK only applies to comma-separated sequences, hence it will only apply after the connecting proposition, as it should. Linking Los Angeles may nevertheless be overlinking in this specific case, but that's unrelated to GEOLINK. Gawaon (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't you normally use a connecting word such as 'in' in such cases: The OP was referring to infoboxes (and the same might apply to tables). In sports, some readers might want to know the details of the stadium/venue, while others might just care about the geographic location. That's why some pages choose to present both, and not force the reader to click on the venue just to get to the city. —Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, in the infobox only the stadium or other actual venue will be linked in such cases, if GEOLINK is strictly followed. Seems fine to me, since people mainly use the infobox to gather facts, not links (I suppose), and since the link to Los Angeles or wherever the event took place can still easily be found in the lead paragraph nearby. Gawaon (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to link both the venue and city in infoboxes and tables. Seeing something like Intuit Dome (Inglewood, California), a reader can either click on the venue, or just Inglewood if they just wanted to know where geographically the event was without caring about the actual facility. Don't force a double click; thousands of pages already have this format.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's possible too and in perfect agreement with GEOLINK. Gawaon (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible, but a disservice to readers: the Intuit Dome article (far more specific) has ALL of the information you could want about its location. Tony (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a fine solution, and I'll bring it up at WT:FOOTBALL. Definitely prefer to have both the venue and city linked, but without "in", which would be out of place in an infobox row. SounderBruce 03:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a fine solution at all, as I've pointed out above. Tony (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

And as also pointed out above, some could care less about the facility and just want to figure out where it is, e.g. is it a home or away game? —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

OVERLINK-related dispute

Hi, there's an ongoing dispute over whether to link "Russia" in the body of Lena Katina's article. Could you guys please share your thoughts at Talk:Lena Katina#Overlinking? Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. How many readers don't know what Russia is? Tony (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

using the ill template for links to sister projects

The {{ill}} template can link to other projects just as easily as it can link to other language Wikipedias.

Welcome to discuss whether this would be appropriate or not at: Template talk:Interlanguage link#calling WikiData and other wikimedia projects Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CONTEXT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:CONTEXT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 3 § Wikipedia:CONTEXT until a consensus is reached. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we recommend editors to generally prefer targeted redirects over targeted links?

Should we recommend editors to generally prefer targeted redirects over targeted links?This seems like a good idea to me. For technical and normal reasons, targeted redirects are more resistant to being broken, so I think they should be preferred. For instance, if an editor links to Foo Bar (redir to Bar#Foo) instead of Bar#Foo, and then in subsequent edits it's decided that Foo should actually be its own page with no mention on the Bar page, the following benefits occur:

• In the "what links here", it is easy to see that the redirect links to the section that is being excised, which is for some reason impossible for normal targeted links iirc
• All inbound links to Foo Bar can be corrected to Foo with one simple edit of the redirect page.

There are other realistic scenarios where these advantages also attain, but admittedly in most of them editors are already not following best practices (e.g., they are wantonly renaming sections without adding anchors, etc). Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Good advice along these lines is given at WP:NOTBROKEN ~Kvng (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Also in this page's §Redirects to sections which may become articles. Really, the problem is that §Piped links to sections is in tension, presumably because these two sections were written independently. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS page actually seems to repeat itself repeatedly, causing confusion... Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"A list of incoming wikilinks can be generated using the "What links here" feature." ← this should probably be modified to explain the technical limitation. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Project info merger to article namespace guidline

Project info merger to article namespace guidline? this merger seems like it should go to Wikipedia:Piped link a how-to guide vs a article namespace guideline. Do we want to encourage interlanguage without Template:Interlanguage and category llnks in articles? It seems logical to merge Help:Colon trick, but not to make these article protocols. Moxy🍁 20:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we leave major cities unlinked in lead?

Hi, there's an ongoing disagreement on whether to link "Houston" in Beyoncé's lead, see Talk:Beyoncé#De-linking "Houston" in lead. Your input is welcome. Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

U.S. states as overlinks?

Added wording (boldfaced here) "Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese) or states (California, Missouri, Florida, etc.)" and was reverted. Since I can recall editing Wikipedia, linking the names of U.S. has been called overlinking, and editors have removed the links. There are likely millions of them, and I don't usually remove them unless they create a sea of blue, but they overrun many articles. Reading WP:OVERLINK I was actually surprised that U.S. states weren't used as examples, added the wording, and was reverted. Thoughts?, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In cases where the state is standalone, then it is appropriate; we cannot expect every reader to be familiar with all 50 U.S. states, much like we cannot expect them to be familiar with the thousand of national subdivisions globally. Relatedly, I would be in favor of amending the Settlements or municipalities line from MOS:OL, given how it has been applied poorly across many articles; it should only be used for major cities where the context is clear, rather than being removed at every use. SounderBruce 01:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, with the exceptions of California, New York State, Texas, & perhaps Florida, many global readers may at least want to check where states are. Amazing as it may be to Americans, most of the world won't have this at the top of their mind. Missouri for example. Randy, how about Ontario and Manitoba? Or Andhra Pradesh (pop. 50 million)? Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I definately do not consider states and provinces over links. They should be linked at least once. Even if a reader knows what California is all about, maybe he is curious about something he read in the article and wants to see the California article for more information or related articles (and doesnt want to type "California"). It's nuts to not link the state or province in some way. Taken straight from the Los Angeles article — Good: "Los Angeles (LA) is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California..." Bad: "Los Angeles (LA) is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California..." I even go so far as to say countries need to be linked too. Infobox is best for that. We don't need a slew of blue eg ...is a park in Toronto, Ontario, Canada... That is too much blue. Drop the hyper link for Canada and have Canada linked in the infobox. Anyways, while I revert a lot of new editors who link common terms like "water", "one", "name" (did those reverts yesterday), to say common terms should never be linked is silly.Masterhatch (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a thing called Link suggestions feature and I keep on finding inappropriate links added with this feature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes - how does we adjust these suggestions? Can we even do this? They are machine-generated apparently. There are about 30 countries and perhaps 20 cities I don't link, but for example Zaire and Bhutan need links. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The feature can be disabled, but only in a very limited way. If you add {{No newcomer task}} to Los Angeles, it will prevent the feature being used to add outward links to California. But I know of no way of marking California so that the feature is dissuaded from adding inward links from Los Angeles. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 226#Disable newcomer tasks on a particular page? and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 228#Can "link suggestions feature" be disabled for an article?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Slight adjustment proposal

Following on from the discussion just above on overlinking, I notice the current text includes this example in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#General_points_on_linking_style:

"For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit. For example, avoid:

• N Paris, France ([[Paris]], [[France]])
• Y Paris, France ([[Paris]], France)

"

but lower down we say not to link to " major examples of ....Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario)"

Surely Paris should not be linked either? I propose using a slightly more obscure example, perhaps "Chennai, India". Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

No objections, so I will do this. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we link both "Soviet Union" and "RSFSR" in the same sentence?

Hi, there's an ongoing disagreement on whether we can link "Soviet Union" in the "early years" section of Lena Katina's article (see Talk:Lena Katina#Linking "Soviet Union"). Your input is welcome. Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:GEOLINK dispute on figure skating articles

Bgsu98 and Wamalotpark are having a long running dispute about MOS:GEOLINK on figure skating articles. As far as I can work out, this concerns whether [[Stockholm, Sweden]] is preferable to [[Stockholm]], Sweden which is expressly allowed by GEOLINK.

Repeated reverts over this issue have resulted in two ANI reports. As I said in the first ANI discussion, I find the latter alternative preferable to the former, especially with European cities where the "[City], [State]" designation is comparatively uncommon. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Both of those forms are allowed. It is [[Stockholm]], [[Sweden]] (ie 2 separate links) that is not allowed.  Stepho  talk  15:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho-wrs. Has there been any discussion on whether one form is preferable over the other? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to User:AirshipJungleman29 for starting this conversation. As I said originally, "As has been stated repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, there is no provision against [[Stockholm, Sweden]] versus [[Stockholm]], Sweden as long as the style is used consistently in the article, since, again, only Stockholm, is being linked." I am aware that countries should not be linked, but I don't like the look of [[city]], country, so I find this a suitable compromise that does not violate the MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

GEOLINK discourages multiple links, but that example is only a single link. Something like San Antonio, Texas ([[San Antonio, Texas]]), instead of San Antonio, Texas, discourages a drive-by editor from being "helpful" and adding a consecutive link to "Texas" ([[San Antonio]], [[Texas]]).—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"Stockholm, Sweden" is preferable to "Stockholm, Sweden" as "Stockholm" does not have "Sweden" in its article title, unlike a small city or one that requires disambiguation like "Nora, Sweden".

Bgsu98 has been incorrectly linking over countries in these figure skating articles, in which (I forget their exact words but) they claim it is a personal choice and an aesthetic that they prefer, and simply because the MOS does not explicitly disallow it, they claim that ability.

Following MOS:GEOLINK is primarily the pursuit.

1. Not linking over the countries allows the reader to discern what articles they are clicking are major cities, and the ones that don't need to be disambiguated.

2. Following the article titles for link areas removes any dual linking styles.

3. It allows for separate links of countries that no longer exist, which is allowed. i.e. Bavaria, West Germany.

4. It is what exists and is understood on pretty much all major articles currently, user Bgsu98's case to use their preferred linking style on figure skating articles is quite unique to come across (they have been reprimanded for ownership and behavior issues multiple times now on the topic). Look at for example the late Queen Elizabeth II's article, they don't link over "London". It's "Mayfair, London,", because Mayfair does not have "London" in its title. Look at Donald Trump's, the link is only over Queens, not New York or US. And so on.

A link like Stockholm, Sweden, should be explicitly not allowed in the MOS to avoid this from now on. Wamalotpark (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Until it's "explicitly not allowed in the MOS", you can't continue to override this simply because you don't like it. Two editors above have said that this format is permissible, so your statement that I have been "incorrectly" do anything is, in fact, incorrect. The issue is not my "ownership" or whatever; it's your bull in a china shop/my way or the highway approach, where multiple editors have told you that you do not have consensus for these mass edits. But when you encounter a situation where you receive pushback, your approach is to edit-war ("I don't have to use BRD") instead of putting the stick down and moving on. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Your ownership issue has been raised by multiple people in previous threads and is an issue. My edit format is permissible as well, and you don't get to revert any edit I make to figure skating articles because you don't like it.

Do you not see the benefits of my points, which still stand? Why wouldn't you want figure skating articles to have the same format as virtually all other high quality articles. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There's English wikipedia wide consensus we do not require consistency between articles except when there's established consensus we do. If you want to establish that need for consensus for a certain subset of articles, you'll need to start a widely advertised discussion for it. Note a discussion on a wikiproject without being well properly advertised will generally be rejected as a WP:local consensus which doesn't bind anyone to anything. Any attempt at enforcement is likely to get the wikiproject a terrible reputation among the community & lead to blocks etc. While you're entitled to start a widely advertised discussion I would discourage it. I suspect the community will reject it because the community doesn't generally like the walled garden approach as it makes it too confusing for editors when one set of articles has a set of standard for which there is no good reason. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

While I, too, would personally use "Stockholm, Sweden" as the more straightforward form, "Stockholm, Sweden" and "Stockholm, Sweden" work too, and all are allowed by the MOS. So I don't see why one should edit‑war over this. Any of these used in an article is unambiguous and works, so there's no need to change it to something else – certainly not if another editor objects. Gawaon (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wamalotpark - Can you point to which discussion established it's preferably site wide? While you're entitled to your own personal preference you're not entitled to force it on others in absence of consensus for this. If there's no consensus on which is better by the community and both are allowed, then we'd fall back on the standard of consistency within article where needed (I'm not certain it's even needed here but I'm mentioning it in case it's felt it is) and following the first contributors preference. This means if Bgsu98 is the first add the term to the article and stylises it in a certain way, you're not allowed to change it without establishing consensus on the article talk page it's better for that article. This isn't ownership, it's just how Wikipedia works. Of course if you're the first to do so, Bgsu98 also cannot change what you have done. If you've modified something when you shouldn't have, Bgsu98 is entitled to revert you just as you are entitled to revert them if you initially introduced something and Bgsu98 changed it when they shouldn't have. Of course you shouldn't edit war over it but this is following BRD where one editor makes a bold edit and the other reverts and then discuss as need be. Note though while it might have been acceptable to be bold initially, now that it's clear the change you are trying to make is dispute you should not be bold any more. If you continue to make changes when you shouldn't do so, that becomes a behaviour concern which might have to be dealt with as we deal with all behavioural concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I see there is ironically an old but relevant and unclosed RfC above #RfC: Linking of three-part place names. That RfC also links to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21#Ambiguity in GEOLINK examples and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21#RfC: GEOLINK examples. While those discussions are concentrated on three part place names, my read of those three discussions concurs with others in this thread. Even when it comes to two part place names there's no previous consensus on whether Stockholm, Sweden is preferable to Stockholm, Sweden. There's only consensus you should not do Stockholm, Sweden. It's possible that consensus has been established in that RfC but it hasn't been closed & I don't think it's so clear that we can say there's consensus without a proper close. So at this time, it does seem to me that both are perfectly fine and therefore falling back to first contributors preference (with consistency within article if needed) is the way to go. If you are aware of a discussion which establishes consensus for one of them, please link to it. I'd also be helpful even if very belated if you link to it in the above RfC since some contributors were asking for it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"overlinking" list of examples should be removed

This list of examples would have us believe that in an article about a Christian thought-leader we shouldn't write "He was influential on Christian thought". It would have us believe that in an article recounting a historical event that involved a British diplomat we shouldn't write "he was then approached by Harold Exampleman, a British diplomat". As noted above, some would say that in an article about Beyonce we shouldn't say "she came from Houston" or whatever (although the article does still say and link this, and that apparently isn't the dispute about the linking in the page?). It would have us believe that if a material was primarily used in making airplanes, we shouldn't write "it is primarily used in making airplanes".

Those conclusions are worse for articles, so we should remove the list of examples from the guidance here. The prose guidance is fine, though.

MOS:DUPLINK covers most of what we want here, in terms of not actually oveerlinking the article. Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Disagree that DUPLINK covers most of what we want from OVERLINK - a link can be unique and still unwanted. We don't want to have articles that look like this sentence, even though I've made certain each link is unique. The section notes that links to common terms can be included if "particularly relevant to the context in the article". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Viewed in isolation, the list at MOS:OVERLINK would be read that way but I think the totality of the guidance as well as the preceding section MOS:UNDERLINK. All of your examples are covered by the first bullet at UNDERLINK: Relevant connections to the subject of another article generally should be linked. (I might quibble about British but I would probably leave it alone if I came across it.) I find the examples helpful and unless there is evidence of widespread misinterpretation or recurring disputes, it should remain as-is. I agree with Nikkimaria that DUPLINK covers something different. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The whole article "Christian" is too vague to be useful to the reader, so we're left with: who doesn't know what Christianity is? (Readers are always welcome to type in a target, too.) Tony (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:SPECIFICLINK

Currently, the syntax highlighting makes all examples in that section appear in green. The table in the section before that uses Y and N; perhaps this one should too? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Y and {{cross} could be put next to the entries in the "Specificity" column. But I'm not sure that's the intent of this guidance, which I've always found a little squishy. It's not clearly saying Y Do this; N Don't do that. Instead, it's more of a continuum from best to worst (or most to least preferred). I think the opening line (Always link to the article on the most specific topic) makes it clear that you should use the 'Specific' examples but the table itself could be more clear. Does the Related but less specific get a N or some other symbol? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How about for the "less specific" ones? Gawaon (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That could work. There's also ? Maybe and Maybe but I can't figure out how to get the text to go away. I think I like ({{Caution sign}}) best. I'm not sure it's even helpful to even include the Related but less specific example as it opens the question as to when it might be OK, without providing any guidance. But the most minimal change would be to add these icons and see how it goes. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding a pipe and a space seems to make the text go away: ?  . Gawaon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I added the pipe but not the space. Thanks! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)