 |
本页在英语维基百科的对应页面是一项格式指引，但在中文维基百科尚未达成共识，仅供参考。
请参照英语维基对应页面或本页的讨论页内容进一步完善本页，或提议和参与讨论本方针是否可以成为中文维基百科的正式方针或指引。
|
|
 |
總括而言：
只建立與內容相關的連結。 |
為所有可能的文字建立超連結並沒有幫助且將分散注意力。這個慣例即為過度連結[1]。連結的標示需要仰賴使用者的經驗，它們不應該造成閱讀文章的困難。过于密集的连结会分散读者的注意力，以致忽视最有用的连结。多餘的連結也會使得頁面變得凌亂並造成往後難以維護。A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. 試想如果百科全書條目上每個次要的文字都跟著'（參見：）'。因此，連結不應該多到造成閱讀文章的困難。
連結的比列通常不容易判定。在數字3建立三角形的連結可能是有用的，然而建立三國志的連結則不是。
本頁面是構築網路的普遍性抑制規則。參見英文版的討論頁可以擷取更多相關訊息。
[编辑] 通常不應該被連結的對象
一般來說，不建立以下的連結：
- 平易的中文字詞。
- 可能永遠不會被建立條目的次要標題紅字連結（連結目標不存在），像是書籍的章節。
- 一再出現的相同連結，因為多餘的連結會使得頁面變得凌亂並造成往後難以維護。重复一个在文章前面已经出现过的连结并非很少见，但是在同一节内重复一个相同的连结就很罕见了。
- 個別的單字，當片語有自己的條目時。例如，連結電視動畫而不是連結到電視動畫。對使用者而言會更有興趣與有幫助，並包含了這些常見的名稱（在本例中是「電視」和「動畫」）。
- 重定向連回條目本身的頁面。這些循環的重定向對讀者毫無益處。
- Words in a disambiguation entry other than to the disambiguation target itself. The general rule is "one link per entry"; additional links tend to confuse the reader.
[编辑] 通常應該被連結的對象
一般來說，應該建立以下的連結：
- Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
- 術語，除非這個術語沒有獨立條目，而且在這篇文章內被清楚定義。有時最適合的連結是利用interwiki link連結到維基詞典。
- References to a page with more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series." Linking items in a list of examples makes them easier to reference as well.
- Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker (or in another dialect). If the word would not be translated in context with an ordinary foreign language dictionary, consider linking to an article or Wiktionary entry to help foreign language readers, especially translators. Check the link for disambiguation, and link to the specific item.
- 地理位置名稱, since many places have similar names, and many readers may be from a distant place. Link to the most specific available article, or create a stub or redirect if the place deserves a new article (check similar nearby places for naming conventions and category tags).
[编辑] 其他建議事項
[编辑] 連結密度
注意連結密度的一致性。不要在一個句子裡連結八個條目，但文章裡的其他地方都沒有連結。The introduction of the article may require modification of this rule. For general interest articles, where the links are of the "see also" or "for more information" type, it may be better to not link in the summary, deferring the link until the term is defined later in the article. Numerous links in the summary of an article may cause users to jump elsewhere rather than read the whole summary. For technical articles, where terms in the summary may be uncommon or unusual, and linking is necessary to facilitate understanding, it is permissible and may even be necessary to have a high link density in the introduction.
過度的連結會使得文章難以閱讀。在英文維基百科上的Mean Red Spiders條目（這是一個舊的版本）就是一個例子。
[编辑] 分款
In general, try not to link to subsections, as the reader will arrive mid-article without context. However, sometimes there is a relevant discussion in a subsection that should be linked to. The format for a subsection link is [[Article#Section|name of link]]. For example, to link to the "Culture" subsection of the Oman article, type [[Oman#Culture|culture of Oman]]. When you name a piped link, think about what the reader will believe the link is about; in this example, the piped section-link should not be named "Oman", because the reader will think that link goes to the general article on Oman.
[编辑] 引用
- Note the wording of this section is currently being discussed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Links in quotations.
Many editors choose to avoid making links within quotations, instead placing links in the surrounding text of the article wherever possible. Do not link or update the formatting of dates inside quotations.
[编辑] 日期
Because of the date preference formatting MediaWiki software feature, "how" to link and "when" to link dates can not be treated independently one from the other. Unrelated to that software issue, there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a "year") should be abandoned, although most Wikipedians disfavour that habit currently.
There is consensus among editors that month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.
Details about when and how to link dates can be found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates. An overview of the most frequently occurring cases:
- Dates when they contain a day, month, and year —
[[25 March]] [[2004]] — or day and month — [[February 10]] — should be linked for date preference formatting.
- Stand alone months and days of the week should generally not be linked.
- Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.
- Dates in section headers should generally not be linked.
[编辑] 標題
"As a general rule, do not put links in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence or any section title." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles)
[编辑] 消歧義頁
"Don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries)
[编辑] 範例
In the article on Supply and demand, you should:
- almost certainly link microeconomic theory and general equilibrium as these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight;
- consider linking price and goods, which, although common words, have technical dimensions that are relevant to the article and that link to explanations that are specifically in relation to supply and demand;
- probably not link to the "United States" because that is a very large article with no particular connection to supply and demand.
- definitely not link "potato", because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on Supply and demand, beyond its arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.
[编辑] 過度連結的範例
一個極端的過度連結範例可以在英語版Hyperlinks條目的歷史版本上看到。
[编辑] 参考文献
[编辑] 關連項目
|
|
