Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-130447-20150805164743

Johnathan has been adding links in the OTL portions of the articles which is fine since many of the linked articles were created after the original was written. However, some seem to me to be misleading since they are within bigger items. Some examples from the top of my head:


 * "Treaty of Paris" had Paris linked that tells the clicker nothing about the Treaty.
 * "Dying Earth genre" had Earth linked. Not only is that pedantic, but it tells you nothing about the genre.
 * "British Civil Service" had British linked. If the article were a Wikipedia one, it might have had a useful sub-section but not an article written for our purposes.

Others are marginal and I left them alone such as the belligerents in various wars we hadn't had a need to write-up. Others were railroads whose name included a particular city or state. The second one I would remove in some cases if I knew enough for it to be misleading. As an example, we do have an article on the "Canadian Pacific Railway" but if we didn't then a link to Canada would be fine but one to the Pacific Ocean would be misleading. Similarly, there were several articles on ACW generals with links added for various OTL armies that didn't have articles so were lined on the place name (e.g. Army of Northern Virginia would have Virginia linked). Again, I think this is misleading so removed the links.

I raise this because I am unsure if I am being too particular or not. What do the rest of you think? ML4E (talk) 16:47, August 5, 2015 (UTC) 