Help talk:Link

Wikilinking to archivable topics

Please add a section on linking to individual topics on archivable pages such as article talk pages or the Village Pump. If I link to such content using the current URL or Wikilink, the link would break when the topic is archived.

I remember being instructed on how to wikilink to an unbreakablelink for a topic. I cannot remember where those instructions were and cannot remember how it was accomplished.

For clarification, I don't mean the permalink to the topic content as of when I created the link, as would happen with the instrutions in Help:Permanent link. I mean linking to the current state of the topic without regard to whether it has been archived or is still on the active talk or special page.

I believe the instructions belong on this current help page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, User:Thisisnotatest. Unless I'm misunderstanding your request, this is difficult because the particulars of each page's archive can differ - there does not exist one given way of accessing a page's archives.

In particular, you can't predict the exact URL of where a topic will be found before its archiving has actually taken place. For instance, this talk page has bot archiving set up. Does this mean I can, as of this writing, create a link that will point to this very talk section ("Wikilinking to archivable topics") once the topic has been archived? No. First off, if I link into the archives, that link fails while this topic remains on the main talk page (=not in the archives yet). Secondly, while I could guess the (future) link to be Help talk:Link/Archive 1#Wikilinking to archivable topics (while this link is blue, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct; it only means Archive #1 exists, not that this talk section appears there. When I click on the link today, using a desktop web browser, I get a popup tooltip telling me "couldn't be found on this page, but does exist on Help Talk:Link".) that is far from a guarantee. The most obvious cause would be simply that Archive #1 fills up, and the bot archives this talk section into Archive #2 instead. But other things could happen too, even if they're much less likely, such as a future editor changing the way this Talk page is archived.

More generally, there exists several (as in more than one) archiving scheme. Each Wikipedia talk page has archiving set up individually, with no concern for consistency or how other pages are archived. Have a look at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. That page details at least three approaches to page talk archiving, and each one would lead to a different wikilink. And that's just one of the archive bots; others exist.

Yes is is slightly unfortunate and sometimes inconvenient that you can't link to any given talk topic in just one unchanging way. But I understand why no editor has attempted to tackle the subject on this help page. Especially since permanent links exist and does offer workable solutions for when you simply must be able to provide a singular always-working link. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

One of the archive bots actually adjusts links to archived topics from other talk pages once the archival had happened, I've noticed. I'm not aware of the details though, and I don't know how thorough it is. Gawaon (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@CapnZapp:, @Gawaon: Thank you both! I guess if it's handled automatically, I don't have to worry about it, although the archive how to page makes it clear things can go worng. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It does sound like there is things to say on this subject on our help page. CapnZapp (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on posessives?

Does this edit reflect a consensus that has been discussed somewhere or set down in a guideline? I always prefer to link the entire word: Washington's. Linking only part of a word is odd: Washington's. — Srleffler (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The help page is a technical guide on how to make links and on what bracketings yield what resulting links. The bullet point in question is an example. It's not necessarily intended as a style guideline. Note the template at the top of the page, which displays with the text:

"This help page is a how-to guide.

"It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus."

Also note a few sentences down from that: "For guidelines on how links should be used in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking."

Monkeysoap (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I take it then that you will have no objection to me removing the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style not supported by a guideline (as far as I know).--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I have no objection (though I'm not sure a style prescription was what was intended). But if you're looking for consensus on your style question , a more effective place to seek it might be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking.

Monkeysoap (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable User:Danbloch's intent was only to provide an illustrative example, not to prescribe usage. Note that while the MoS prescribes including the 's' in the link for plurals, it is silent for possessives. What I'm trying to say is: if you remove the text, please replace with another illustrative example. Merely

• [[a]]:b gives a:b since the rule doesn't apply to punctuation.

...isn't sufficiently clear in my opinion; it's not obvious to the layman that "punctuation" refers to the characters that aren't letters or numbers. The current example might needlessly carry an opinion, but it does hold value in illustrating "the s isn't linked because the apostrophe breaks the rule that text immediately after a link is included in the link text". Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not proposing to remove the illustrative example with 's, only the statement "This does the right thing for possessives," which prescribes a particular style that does not appear to come from the MoS.--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's not explicitly mentioned in the MOS, but it seems to be common sense, and that, surely, is good enough. Gawaon (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is "common sense" to link part of a word for the reasons that have been described here. There are just two different opinions about which way is best, based on people focusing on different things. Consensus seems to favor your preferred way, though, and that is good enough. --Srleffler (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the original objection above against This does the right thing for possessives is misguided, and that phrase should remain. There's a difference in meaning between Washington's and Washington's. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The edit has gone unchallenged for nearly four years, so I'd say: yes, it's reflects EDITCON. It's also how I would always write such possessive links (the link goes to Washington, not to whatever Washington may have possessed), and it's technically easiest, so let's leave it as is. Gawaon (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have boldly made an edit that cuts to what I don't see sufficiently discussed. The discussion focused too much, in my opinion, on what's linguistically correct, and not enough on what I believe to be User:Srleffler's original point: should a random help page issue linguistic guidance or take a stand on matters unrelated to the help page at hand?

My edit changes "This does the right thing for possessives:" to "This is often helpful for possessives:". Note the subtle difference. The new wording does not (or at least, isn't intended to) in any way shape or form disagree with the consensus above (and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Possessives, mind you), but it does avoid talking about right and wrong on matters unrelated to links and how to use them.

Feel free to improve further. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Crosslink: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Possessives CapnZapp (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Wikilink" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikilink 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/2025 July 8 § Wikilink until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to make text of WP:ANCHOR DEF more understandable

The text of WP:ANCHOR DEF is a bit confusing and overly detailed. It currently reads:

The word "anchor" has two opposite meanings.

In the context of a link from an anchor to a target, it is the starting place.

In the context of the {{anchor}} template, an "anchor" is a landing place for a link to jump to. The {{anchor}} template automatically creates some invisible coding from certain text in the template in the "landing place". In this context, the word "anchor" may refer to:

• the text and parameters, in the template, from which the invisible code is created,
• the mostly invisible HTML code, or
• the landing place/location/spot in itself.

I propose to change it to:

The word "anchor" has two meanings, which are quite different:

In the context of web page hyperlinks: for a link from an anchor to a target, the anchor is the starting place.

In the context of the Wikipedia {{anchor}} template: an "anchor" is a destination for a link to jump to. The {{anchor}} template defines the destination location in some Wikipedia page. Links to the anchor typically look like [[Article name#Anchor name|display text]].

The purpose of the revised text is to make it easier for readers to understand; and also to reduce the overlap with the following section WP:ANCHOR. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Reads OK to me. Gawaon (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I updated the Help page accordingly. Noleander (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I rewrote the section in a way that explains more and gets to the point. Feel free to improve further, or even (hopefully not) revert. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

To expand upon the change - you might be wondering why I didn't detail each change. I genuinely felt the most constructive way forward wasn't to critique each fragment of the previous phrasing but instead to start fresh. If you are curious why I left certain parts behind, feel free to ask. CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

2nd sentence - huh?

The second sentence on this page currently reads as follows:

A link has various (changeable) appearances on the "anchor" page, and the "target" page, which owns the "backlinks", and which can count the links to it with the ''WP:What links here'' tool.

Would someone care to take a stab at restating this in non-jargon English? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• This sentence tries to do (at least) four things at once; let's first agree on what it is trying to say - hashing out a phrasing should be doable after that. Here's my stab at parsing it, trying not to assume much technical knowledge on your part:

1. It attempts to tell the reader that links are associated to various characteristics, like being blue and underlined when you hover your mouse over them. What you can do is covered here: W3Schools' overview of the appearance of HTML links, but essentially you have full control over how a link should look when you just look at it, when you have already clicked it before, when you hover your mouse over it and when you actually click the link but before you release your mouse button.
2. These are not set in stone; you can change these characteristics. You can change them for yourself as a browser of internet and more specifically, as a logged-in Wikipedia user - the likely intent here was to inform users you can switch skins or make your own user style.
3. What does the anchor page mean? This is the kind of reverse thinking only a programmer could come up with :) It's simply the page you're on with the link. (Calling it the anchor page comes from the link being an anchor element in the underlying HTML). Call it the origin page as opposed to the destination page if we're speaking everyday English!
4. The target page would be the destination page - the page you arrive at after clicking the link.
5. If we're on some destination page, and we compile a list of origin pages linking to our page, those pages are sometimes called backlinks. A regular person might call them "incoming links to here". Remember: just because we call them links they aren't - they're not links, they're pages. They just contain links which we imagine goes both ways: the "backlink" would be the imaginary link you'd click on your page to get "back" to wherever you came from.
6. So if we imagine being able to return from a destination page by clicking something, that something could be called a "backlink" leading... to a backlink (page). In reality, the internet doesn't work this way because browsers have Back buttons instead. But from a maintenance point of view it is very helpful if you know which pages lead to your page, and if you just make a note "Page so-and-so leads here" (using HTML comments invisible to readers but visible when editing the source text of the page: <!-- Page so-and-so leads here --> that text doesn't do anything except inform anyone reading it, and thus can be considered a backlink. The page where you write this would then "own" that "backlink", if you're still with me...? ;) The system software, of course, can compile a list of backlinks for you, and this is what the provided link to WP:What links here offers.
7. The utter confusion about links and what we call links isn't the editor's fault. This confusion is built right into the Internet, since the term "anchor" is used for (too) many things. But that's out of scope for this discussion.
8. Or is it? Actually useful is to use the {{Anchor}} template - it not only provides a target for incoming links, it also tells editors "something is linking to here so I better not change the target or incoming links will break". (Just skimming the surface - read more about this here: WP:ANCHOR).
9. I honestly can't tell what the "which" in which can count the links to it is referring to. Neither links, nor pages, anchors or backlinks can actually count.
10. I have no idea why the writer of this sentence felt regular quotation marks weren't sufficient and had to manually force two apostrophes together like that.

Overall, I'd say this single sentence should probably be more four sentences or even multiple paragraphs. It should also probably lose at least half the technical minutiae not useful to the average Wikipedian. For example, I can't even imagine when it would be useful to actually count the number of backlinks. For example: This page (the talk page for Help:Link) apparently has 29 incoming links. I don't remember ever making use of such a number. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement that this sentence isn't useful in its present form, and it would take substantial work to fix. If I don't hear differently I'll delete it tomorrow night. Danbloch (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Will something terrible happen if we just remove the sentence? Gawaon (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've removed it. Danbloch (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Section links and anchors

Regarding ANCHORDEF and elsewhere, I feel a need to differentiate between what's useful for a Wikipedia editor to know, and what a web programmer needs to know.

From the perspective of Wikipedia, links to sections (section headers) are handled "automagically". There's no particular need to explain HOW these links work. They just do on Wikipedia.

If you need to link to someplace else ("anywhere" on a page), you use an {{anchor}}. Anchors (on Wikipedia) are thus manually inserted places to which you can link, when there's no section header available. You would do this in at least the following cases:

• When you need to link to a paragraph in the middle of a section (and you can't or won't add a section header there)
• When you want to fortify the permanence of a regular section link. That is, you want your link to keep working even if somebody else (that have no idea your link is incoming) later changes the section header (thus breaking the link). If you add an {{anchor}} at that section header, your link will keep working even after the section header changes.
  • Changing a section header is often made in good faith with zero malicious link-breaking intent. Changing an {{anchor}} on the other hand, without checking for incoming links, is either done incompetently or maliciously. Thus, adding an {{anchor}} provides real "protection" in most cases.
• (please add use cases for anchors I've overlooked)

The facts that we use the word "anchor" because of the underlying HTML, and that automagic section linking works because of that underlying HTML and browsery things in general, and so on... are things we should explain separately from the Wikipedia-centric explanation. Maybe not even on a help page for wikilinks?

I understand that previous editors wanted to explain the full picture in good faith, but this is just a case where programmers don't see how explaining too much just causes confusion.

The core issue is that our help page can't help itself; conflating several distinct meanings of "anchors", only some of which are relevant to a Wikipedia editor.

It's the same for the various terminology for links and their directions. I believe Wikipedia would be strictly better if it would use everyday terms like "origin link" and "destination link" and only those terms; actual programmer terms be damned. Backlink being a concept that isn't a link but a page (its the page the imaginary reverse link would have led to if it existed; its the page you get to when using the back button after following a link 🤡) is especially egregious.

I would like to rehaul the page with this in mind, scrubbing or at least compartmentalizing any mention of anchor in its technical meaning (such as "section links are actually HTML anchors") but I'll first hear thoughts on the matter. CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I think your remarks are slightly misleading. One shouldn't add an {{anchor}} before or after a section header to which one links in order to ensure that the "link will keep working even after the section header changes" since then the link target would be outside the section header, which isn't ideal. In my understanding, best practice is to "subst" the anchor template inside the section header if needed (i.e. if a section has been renamed and one suspects there may be links to it). But after it was substituted, the fact that an {{anchor}} template was originally used is no longer obvious – you have to know and recognize this, and only experienced editors will do so. Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I have never subst'd the anchor link. I want editors of the page to see that the template is used; that's the clue incoming links might exist. I will defer to your expertise as to the exact placement relative to section headers, though. CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so now I've tested what that actually does. Thank you for teaching me something new, I guess! In what way is it better to leave <span class="anchor" id="example"></span> than {{anchor|example}} though? To me, the former is something only a programmer could appreciate, while the latter is reasonably clear to the average Wikipedian. Also, that template's documentation really needs to be more clear (but that's off topic here of course). regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but my understanding it that unsubstituted templates in section headers should be avoided since they would lead to weird issues and errors. I think I can explain why the anchor should be placed inside the section header instead of before or after it: Before is bad because if you click the "Edit" link next to the section header, the anchor won't be a part of the edited section and so you won't know it's there. After is bad since it would lead users straight to the first paragraph of the section, but they would miss the section header itself, which will often be highly relevant to establish context. Gawaon (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree we should not place templates inside of section headers (as in between the opening and closing double/triple/etc equals sign). Akin to how we thankfully do not recommend making section headers into links. Since we agree on that, the only alternatives remaining, and I don't need to be a programmer for this :), are just before or after it. I do not agree leaving HTML code such as span tags is good wiki-practice though (anywhere). With all that in mind, my only remaining options are to suggest placing (unsubsted) anchor templates just before or just after the section header, and between those I choose before for reasons you bring up; since that sends the reader to a place where the section title is clearly close to the top of the screen. I realize that technically sends you to the prior section, and I know someone thought it a good idea for mobile users to only expand one section at a time, but I think that practice is obnoxious, and so I don't care much for choosing a solution that prioritizes compatibility with that. Specifically, I do not think it is a good idea to allow HTML fragments just so we can place it within a header without "it" being a template. To me, that's a hack, stereotypical of the programmer mentality that prioritizes "just get it to work" over newcomer friendliness or code maintainability. CapnZapp (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I support re-writing this page with the casual, non-programmer editor in mind. If we don't want to lose the higher-level content then we could move it to lower in the section, or even lower on the page.

With this in mind, after cleaning up the top, my next to do item for this page is to reorganize the Anchor sections. Getting into the weeds, I'd prefer "origin link" (on the "origin page") and "destination link anchor" (on the "destination target page"). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

After re-reading your post twice, I realize you aren't suggesting we rename origin pages or destination pages (and in fact it seems you are simply going with my proposal to actually use those terms). You are, however, suggesting we call it "links" and "anchors". This is reasonable on many levels (but what about "backlinks"?). Just make sure to first check related help pages. Rewriting this page does a newcomer zero good if it is the only one using a particular choice of terminology. If we substantially change what Wikipedia means by an "anchor" (to focus on the Wikipedia functionality and ignore its HTML roots) we need to do it on all related help pages (not including technical reference material aimed at programmers of course). You probably realize it would be a good idea to first invite editors of relevant other help pages to this discussion to avoid The Great Revert Wars :) So in summary, what would be a shortlist of other related help pages (I haven't checked but I can't imagine we're so lucky everything about anchors is explained here and nowhere else in the great void that is Help space?) CapnZapp (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, my intention is to reorganize a bit, not to re-write. That said, I will likely do some copy editing along the way. With regard to that, I note "destination" does not appear at MOS:L, while "target" appears 17 times (1 time as part of the phrase "target page"). And on the current draft of this page, destination appears 7 times (6 as part of "destination page"), while target appears 50 times (19 as part of "target page"). See also HTML element#Anchor ("an "anchor" can be either the origin (the anchor text) or the target (destination) end of a hyperlink"). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure people actually prefer certain terms, or they just use the terms in the html sense out of habit or because they're technical people? Without thinking whether that makes sense from a Wiki POV, I mean? We should not use confusing terminology just because HTML does. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Well I prefer two-syllable "target" because it is more succinct than four-syllable "destination." Do you prefer destination? If so, why? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been clear. My beef is with the use of "anchor" to mean anything else than its wikipedian sense as "something for an incoming section link to aim for", that is - we at Wikipedia allow links to contain the hashtag # character (there's also {{slink}}) If we want to link to someplace that isn't the start of a section, or we want to fortify such a link (so that it remains functional even if the section name is changed), we use a Wikipedia {{anchor}}. Any mention of anchors in their various HTML meanings need to be carefully curated and restrained. As for the start and end points of links, feel free to use whatever you agree on. As long as we increase consistency and avoid a) using several terms for the same thing and b) using the same term for several things, I'm good. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

---

For instance, our help page is still not crystal clear about the difference between a section link and an anchor. Within Wikipedia, I mean.

A section link is a link. That leads to a section.

An anchor is an alternate destination for a link - a section link that leads to an anchor. An anchor link, if you will.

Point being, a section link is not an anchor. In the HTML world the terms are all jumbled up, but that is a very weak reason for continuing this into Wikipedia.

Let us make anchors ONLY the targets for the links - where on the destination page you land.

CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Notes and refs

"See note." That's a reference tag, not a note. Any way to change this to an actual note ({{efn}}). I'm aware a ref tag was probably chosen because the rich content would be a pain to encode otherwise. CapnZapp (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Help:Footnotes is admittedly somewhat vague, but it treats <ref> and {{efn}} pretty much equivalently. Personally I prefer {{efn}} but I used ref here because that's what all the other notes used. Danbloch (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)