9

There is some support on SE for rewriting links to a question with the question title; for instance, if I add a bare link of the form https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49433/replace-trilogy-raw-links-with-the-current-question-title in the Markdown code it gets displayed as Replace trilogy raw links with the current question title? (see the link in the example itself for more detail).

It would be useful, in my view, to do the same for Wikipedia links; for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isserlis%27_theorem should be rendered as Isserlis' theorem.

EDIT: since it has been asked in the comments, I'm pointing out explicitly some potential gains for the network: improved readability (for the links that the OP didn't bother to beautify by hand), less work to create posts (for the links that the OP did bother), and more helpful content (in those cases in which OP did not bother to add a Wikipedia link because they thought it was too much work to make it look good). There are examples in which it is not obvious to get to the correct Wikipedia page for a technical term (disambiguation), and even when it is, a well-place link makes life easier for the readers.

  • 2
    Where would you draw the line? Which sites should get this and which shouldn't? – Lundin Sep 25 at 10:38
  • 6
    @Lundin Sounds like you're setting up a slippery slope fallacy. For now I am suggesting this feature for Wikipedia, which (in my view) is large and relevant enough for this to be a good idea. – Federico Poloni Sep 25 at 10:40
  • 3
    But why should SE favour Wikipedia in particular? Especially since the vast majority of such links are "let me wikipedia that for you" and don't add any value to begin with. It's enough to name a term in italics, and the average monkey is able to look it up on wikipedia themselves, without getting spoon fed the link. – Lundin Sep 25 at 10:49
  • 1
    I recall one such case from SO where wikipedia links were actually very harmful for the contents, example. Someone who didn't know the topic went in and edited all manner of Wikipedia articles to technical terms, many of them to the completely wrong topic. Turning the whole thread into gibberish. I'm concerned that we'll encourage such "helpful" vandalizing edits if we make Wikipedia links prettier. – Lundin Sep 25 at 10:56
  • 8
    @Lundin - I don't see that (Wikipedia vandalism) as relevant to the issue at hand; it would be more of a justification for someone to suggest/support barring Wikipedia links entirely, much as lmgtfy links are currently barred. – Jeff Zeitlin Sep 25 at 10:59
  • We had that kind of vandalism happen during SO's Documentation project, where "helpful" editors would start needlessly editing in links to Documentation pages, of diverse quality. Just because it was a new feature. – Lundin Sep 25 at 11:02
  • 3
    If you really feel the need for a link to display nicely, you should just do it yourself, like you did with your "example". Is it that much work to type two words, and 4 characters? [Isserlis' theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isserlis%27_theorem) – Luuklag Sep 25 at 11:10
  • 2
    @Luuklag - Do you really want to do that if you're linking to an article with a long title and URL, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_Concerning_the_Criteria_for_the_Discernment_of_Vocations_with_regard_to_Persons_with_Homosexual_Tendencies_in_view_of_their_Admission_to_the_Seminary_and_to_Holy_Orders? – Jeff Zeitlin Sep 25 at 12:34
  • 3
    @JeffZeitlin its an art to write a title, they clearly haven't got that figured out at wikipedia yet. You could also link to [Relevant Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_Concerning_the_Criteria_for_the_Discernment_of_Vocations_with_regard_to_Persons_with_Homosexual_Tendencies_in_view_of_their_Admission_to_the_Seminary_and_to_Holy_Orders) As this title is hardly of any use to anyone. – Luuklag Sep 25 at 12:45
  • @Luuklag - I could make the same comment about many SE question titles. Why is that value judgement justification for not prettifying Wikipedia titles while it's not justification for not prettifying SE titles? – Jeff Zeitlin Sep 25 at 12:54
  • 2
    @Lundin I find it very ironic that in a comment you write that, given a technical term, "the average monkey is able to look it up on wikipedia themselves", and then in the very next comment you provide a counterexample where this didn't work out well. – Federico Poloni Sep 25 at 12:59
  • 2
    @JeffZeitlin, That many SE titles are poor is a fact. However I never argued that it is not a justification for prettifying SE titles. But as that is already implemented there is no need to argue about that. Also OP provides exactly 0 arguments why this should be implemented, and what the potential gain for the SE network would be. He only feels it would be nice to have, not a really strong case if you ask me. Hence I countered with a simple workaround in my first comment. – Luuklag Sep 25 at 13:09
  • 2
    Chrome (and I imagine other browsers) has a "Copy as Markdown" extension. Right clicking on any web page offers a "Copy [Page Title](URL)" selection, which can easily be pasted into one's answer or comment. – Ray Butterworth Sep 25 at 13:37
  • 1
    @FedericoPoloni It's because whoever wrote the linked post didn't explain the term TTL, but just dumped a 3 letter abbreviation on the reader. If they had written Transistor–Transistor Logic (TTL) in their post, then the average monkey had been able to find it. – Lundin Sep 25 at 13:40
  • Just don't link wikipedia at all, then everything will be fine. – Lundin Sep 25 at 13:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .