User talk:Mlk
|
|
| Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave criticism or question my judgement, that's fine, communication is important. If you want to have a chat, point out good or funny articles or leave suggestions or compliments, that's even better. Please add new comment threads at the bottom of the page in a new section (click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Mlk&action=edit§ion=new)).
Please sign your comments. |
| Archived talk pages: (none)
|
|---|
Hi, I see you often format the external links section of articles, so I thought I'd discuss a little thing with you. Wikipedia doesn't clearly suggest what links in the external links section should look like. I've seen these styles in many articles:
- http://yadayadayada.foo/
- homepage (http://yadayadayada.foo/)
- A Seinfeld fan page (http://yadayadayada.foo/)
- [1] (http://yadayadayada.foo/)
- yadayadayada.foo
I prefer form #5 for short, easy to recall URLs and #3 for anything else. I find that showing the domain name (while stripping the protocol stuff) can be quite useful for recalling the site. Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I find it surprising that Yahoo! doesn't even mention "yahoo.com". I think it would be easy to be clearly define a "simple URL": just a domain name, no sub-directories, no file type extension.
Plus, where should longer descriptions go? Options I've seen:
- url - longer description should go here (http://url.foo)
- url (http://url.foo) (longer description should go here)
- Longer description should go here: url (http://url.foo)
I prefer either #1 or 3 here. Eventually, we could mention this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style if you agree that there's a need to clarify or change current suggestions. Or maybe I'm just cranky that you reverted the way I formatted the links on LAN party. ;-) --Mrwojo 08:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to change the Lan party back, personal I really think that the URL should not be shown. It is ugly, and confusing. It would be acceptable to put
- Example.com - Snuggle Bunnys (http://www.example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny)
But then if the site has a "name", that should be used instead:
- Example Media Inc - Snuggle Bunnys (http://www.example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny)
The styles
- Example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny - Snuggle Bunnys (http://www.example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny)
- [2] (http://www.example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny) Snuggle Bunnys
- http://www.example.com/Articles/SnuggleBunny Snuggle Bunnys
IMO should never be used. I shall also post this on the Manual of Style thread, feel free to continue this there. ~ Mlk 00:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) ~
Obscuring URLs in printed articles
On 14 January 2004, I noticed you had "tidied the linkage" in Java Enterprise System. I thought this was a cool idea at first, but I just realized that when the article is printed, it would cause the URLs to be lost. Therefore, for what it's worth, I would ask you to reconsider the benefits/costs of doing that.
—Vespristiano 04:17, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
- this is actually how the manual of style recomends. And if you check the printable version (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Java_Enterprise_System&printable=yes) you will see the URLs do appear. ~ Mlk 15:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) ~
Code Fairy
I'm sorry I didn't ask you first as I now realise I should have, but I put your article on Code Fairy up on votes for deletion; I was unable to verify that this Code Fairy is actually a well-known legend. I'm assuming you made up the Code Fairy yourself and that the article was only intended as a joke. Derrick Coetzee 03:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shame (as it has gone), but it depends on who you ask. I know of a lot of coders who know of it, but this might be local. 04:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(X)HTML
See my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=%28X%29HTML&diff=0&oldid=8687771) of (X)HTML and the talk:(X)HTML page.
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 04:52, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)