Talk:Clean linking

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


  • Whatever Clean linking is. It seems that [[pagename| ]] is not equivalent to the corresponding clean link.
  • The links to "Special:RecentChanges" (with capital "C") at Clean linking#Internal clean linking: fail. Should it be "Special:Recentchanges"? [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri | T | Th]] 21:40, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

fixed the mistakes. Thx Gangleri. MattisManzel 13:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MattisManzel 16:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC): I use clean linking on wiki-nodes since quite a while now. I use as far as possible the camel-case word WikiNode, (clean linked wiki-node) as the pagename. Only on the engine docu-wiki it has to be wikinode, for all other engines it works with camel-case. Consequently the page title here should be CleanLinking. I hadn't been that far yet when I made it.Reply[reply]

Something wrong here? And what's a near link?[edit]

Here's what's at the top of the page:


[de]Sauberes Verlinken
[en]Clean linking
[fr]Connexité idoine

[de] Arbeitssprache: en
[en] Working-language: en

Why is it like that? What should it be instead? I'm very confused...

And, it mentions near links, but that's a red link...What's a near link? It doesn't say...o.O???

Also, I'm still not sure how a "clean" link differs from a normal link...Is there another explanation? O.o Thanks~ Zeniff (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This old page does not even speak about any Wikimedia page based on MediaWiki. It has been left unmaintained (and not even following our conventions.
My opinion is that it was copied verbatim from an old MeatBall page and left behind. I added a correct way to translate the initial part and minor cleanups of these extremely bad page supposed to speak about "cleaning" a wiki page to ease its reading or maintenance, but I think it should just be marked as old and archived, given the complete lack of interest on it...
I'm not even shure that what is reported here really applies to the other wikis presented here which may have developed their own conventions since long ! verdy_p (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry for late reply) It makes more sense now. Maybe it can be useful for historical info? Thank you very much for the explanation and edits!:) Zeniff (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]