User talk:Alt Melis: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Per our discussion on [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/wca-lexicon-discussion/xKZzEQYUaVs hard limits to linking] in the Discussion Group, please choose two of the 4 phantom links you chose and restructure your article to suit. You may have as many external links to other references as you like, however. Thanks! -[[User:Otter Jenkins|Otter Jenkins]] 08:32, 30 August 2012 (PDT) | Per our discussion on [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/wca-lexicon-discussion/xKZzEQYUaVs hard limits to linking] in the Discussion Group, please choose two of the 4 phantom links you chose and restructure your article to suit. You may have as many external links to other references as you like, however. Thanks! -[[User:Otter Jenkins|Otter Jenkins]] 08:32, 30 August 2012 (PDT) | ||
Aren't the limits on creation of new phantom links? The two beneath the dividing line are both ones created by other authors in other articles from the round. (I could delete the secondary references in the 'Phantom Links' subsection if that section is meant to only be the ones created by the article, to match [[One:Asynchronous co-terminality|Asynchronous co-terminiality]], the first other article I could find that included references to other players' phantoms. | Aren't the limits on creation of new phantom links? That's what the question that started that discussion thread was actually asking. The two beneath the dividing line are both ones created by other authors in other articles from the round. (I could delete the secondary references in the 'Phantom Links' subsection if that section is meant to only be the ones created by the article, to match [[One:Asynchronous co-terminality|Asynchronous co-terminiality]], the first other article I could find that included references to other players' phantoms. | ||
I mean, I could take out the older-articles links entirely, leaving the text unchanged, and that would seem to fit the rule as you're applying it without problem, but I don't see any sense in which that would improve the quality of the final document. [[User:Alt Melis|Alt Melis]] 09:19, 30 August 2012 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:19, 30 August 2012
Problems with Antarctic Superposition
Per our discussion on hard limits to linking in the Discussion Group, please choose two of the 4 phantom links you chose and restructure your article to suit. You may have as many external links to other references as you like, however. Thanks! -Otter Jenkins 08:32, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
Aren't the limits on creation of new phantom links? That's what the question that started that discussion thread was actually asking. The two beneath the dividing line are both ones created by other authors in other articles from the round. (I could delete the secondary references in the 'Phantom Links' subsection if that section is meant to only be the ones created by the article, to match Asynchronous co-terminiality, the first other article I could find that included references to other players' phantoms.
I mean, I could take out the older-articles links entirely, leaving the text unchanged, and that would seem to fit the rule as you're applying it without problem, but I don't see any sense in which that would improve the quality of the final document. Alt Melis 09:19, 30 August 2012 (PDT)
