mNo edit summary |
Cid Highwind (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::That was replaced with the globe icon that we now have, which is only used for external links. Wikipedia (and related wikis, like Wikiquotes, Wictionary, etc.) and all Wikia links are treated as internal links, so they don't get an external link icon. That Wikipedia arrow icon is just their version of our globe. -- [[User:Renegade54|Renegade54]] 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
::That was replaced with the globe icon that we now have, which is only used for external links. Wikipedia (and related wikis, like Wikiquotes, Wictionary, etc.) and all Wikia links are treated as internal links, so they don't get an external link icon. That Wikipedia arrow icon is just their version of our globe. -- [[User:Renegade54|Renegade54]] 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Well, I meant that adding the arrow (or globe) disrupts the flow of the sentence (where the inline wiki template is used) and thus another change - like color - would be better suited to show that the link goes to somewhere other than memory-alpha. — [[User:Morder|Morder]] ([[User talk:Morder|talk]]) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
Well, I meant that adding the arrow (or globe) disrupts the flow of the sentence (where the inline wiki template is used) and thus another change - like color - would be better suited to show that the link goes to somewhere other than memory-alpha. — [[User:Morder|Morder]] ([[User talk:Morder|talk]]) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :::I'm definitely in support of anything that makes the reader aware of the "external" nature of an inline link (and as an aside, as has been discussed elsewhere, I think we should avoid inline links to external pages in ''most'' cases anyway). However, I don't really like the suggested "double underline" style. It looks like this crappy "inline adlink" scheme that some websites have going. :) -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:48, 20 June 2009
We really need to style the inline wikipedia links differently than internal links. I don't think adding the little wikipedia arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/external.png) is a good idea but at least a slight change - maybe double underline - just enough to say - "hey, this isn't a link to a page on this wiki"... — Morder (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- We used to have a little globe bubble that looked like a blue egg, not sure what happened to it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was replaced with the globe icon that we now have, which is only used for external links. Wikipedia (and related wikis, like Wikiquotes, Wictionary, etc.) and all Wikia links are treated as internal links, so they don't get an external link icon. That Wikipedia arrow icon is just their version of our globe. -- Renegade54 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I meant that adding the arrow (or globe) disrupts the flow of the sentence (where the inline wiki template is used) and thus another change - like color - would be better suited to show that the link goes to somewhere other than memory-alpha. — Morder (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm definitely in support of anything that makes the reader aware of the "external" nature of an inline link (and as an aside, as has been discussed elsewhere, I think we should avoid inline links to external pages in most cases anyway). However, I don't really like the suggested "double underline" style. It looks like this crappy "inline adlink" scheme that some websites have going. :) -- Cid Highwind 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)