Do these red links have a name? I used to call them "question mark links", but now they are "red links" instead. Saying "links to pages that don't yet exist" (LTPTDYE, the exact phrase actually gets 8 hits on Google) is just as tedious as "the artist formerly known as Prince" (TAFKAP). What about "empty links", "blank links", "open links", "future links" or "suggested links"? Is there a word that people frequently use?
BTW, could this wiki idea spread to science, so that a paper would cite other papers that might come into existence? :-)
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Do these red links have a name? I used to call them "question mark links", but now they are "red links" instead. Saying "links to pages that don't yet exist" (LTPTDYE, the exact phrase actually gets 8 hits on Google) is just as tedious as "the artist formerly known as Prince" (TAFKAP). What about "empty links", "blank links", "open links", "future links" or "suggested links"? Is there a word that people frequently use?
I call 'em "edit links". The code calls them "broken links".
BTW, could this wiki idea spread to science, so that a paper would cite other papers that might come into existence? :-)
Why not? It works in finance, where we call them credit cards. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Do these red links have a name? I used to call them "question mark links", but now they are "red links" instead. Saying "links to pages that don't yet exist" (LTPTDYE, the exact phrase actually gets 8 hits on Google) is just as tedious as "the artist formerly known as Prince" (TAFKAP). What about "empty links", "blank links", "open links", "future links" or "suggested links"? Is there a word that people frequently use?
I call them "ghost links" -- they lead to pages that don't exist.
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Do these red links have a name? I used to call
them "question mark
links", but now they are "red links" instead.
Saying "links to pages
that don't yet exist" (LTPTDYE, the exact phrase
actually gets 8 hits
on Google) is just as tedious as "the artist
formerly known as Prince"
(TAFKAP). What about "empty links", "blank links",
"open links",
"future links" or "suggested links"? Is there a
word that people
frequently use?
I call them "ghost links" -- they lead to pages that don't exist.
They are ghost links ''only'' as long as you ''don't'' click on them. Once *lead*, the page exist somehow, since you are proposed to edit it ;-) So, I call them empty links.
Contrarywise, the international links can really lead you to a "non-existant" page, which is rather embarassing from a conceptual point of view.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Impact_of_global_climate_changes...
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Do these red links have a name?
I call them "nonexistent links", which is patently false, or sometimes ""?" links" to be nostalgic. (Then "stub links" are also ""!" links".)
BTW, could this wiki idea spread to science, so that a paper would cite other papers that might come into existence? :-)
This is already done. The paper is cited as "to appear". You're only supposed to do this when you expect the paper to appear soon, but sometimes it never does, and several decades later, people reading your paper will waste days trying to track it down.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org