User talk:Mlk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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).

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:

  1. http://yadayadayada.foo/
  2. homepage
  3. A Seinfeld fan page
  4. [1]
  5. 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:

  1. url - longer description should go here
  2. url (longer description should go here)
  3. Longer description should go here: url

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
  1. Example.org - Snuggle Bunnys

But then if the site has a "name", that should be used instead:

  1. Example Media Inc - Snuggle Bunnys

The styles

  1. Example.org/Articles/SnuggleBunny - Snuggle Bunnys
  2. [2] Snuggle Bunnys
  3. http://www.example.org/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) ~

[edit] 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 you will see the URLs do appear. ~ Mlk 15:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) ~

[edit] 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)

[edit] (X)HTML

See my edit of (X)HTML and the talk:(X)HTML page.

-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 04:52, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)