FamilySearch Wiki talk:Linking

I would have thought this was in the manual of style already. I did not find it, but would interpret the style as implied as #1. Other links, such as WorldCat, FHLC, and others follow this style. This would be my vote. . . putting the actual link "hidden" behind the title as in #1. Thomas Lerman 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that number 1 is the best as the link text provides context. Number 2 in this instance is not completely so bad because it is somewhat readable even though it requires understanding about internet addressing. If the URL as link text was included in an article about a place/organisation and was being given as their website then it would be appropriate to use the URL as the link text. However in the majority of cases there are better alternatives than just using the URL as the link text, particularity if you are deep linking into a website. When doing so it is far better to use words that describe the destination. As for number 3, it looks neat but the context is separated from the link and does not meet accessibility best practise where links should be understood in isolation from the text around it. Therefore number 1 is the best of the 3. (see also Writing effective link text by Trenton Moss) --Steve 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)