Talk:Lubbock, Texas
|
|
I'm not going to make a big deal out of Oliver's misunderstanding of the use of links, but the idea that somehow [[Lubbock County, Texas|Lubbock County]], [[Texas]] is somehow preferable is debatable. -- Zoe
Sorry, but I prefer it too. The reason we started to put the state after the county and town was for disambiguation. I don't see why we can't have a link to the state too. I've been doing it in my articles. Danny 03:40 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with including a link to the state, but I DO see a problem with hiding the real link. -- Zoe
It's what we do with most cases of disambiguation. For example, [[county (England)|county]] would look silly if we left the full title of the "county (England)" showing in the article. I know that's not quite the same thing, but it demonstrates that hiding the full title of the article is not always a Bad Thing. In the example under discussion, it would be obvious from the context that the Lubbock being linked to was the one in Texas, from the following word, and anyone who wants to see the article title in full can always go to the article to have a look. -- Oliver P. 03:52 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)