Talk:List of water supply studies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with '==WP:NOTLINK and cvillepedia== From the recent changes and comments thereto: User:1099047208 asks :I want hyperlinks to PDFs be active in list of reports ... Why should read…') |
(→bad link to 2002 integrated study.: new section) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:trying to come to terms with [[Wikipedia:WP:NOTLINK#LINK]], maybe there is a cvillepedia style exception? | :trying to come to terms with [[Wikipedia:WP:NOTLINK#LINK]], maybe there is a cvillepedia style exception? | ||
So, I'd refer back to that -- under current policy linked above, it's correct. Personally, I think it's the right policy, too, but this is your chance to stimulate a discussion on whether cvillepedia and wikipedia policy should diverge here. -- [[User:B.S. Lawrence|B.S. Lawrence]] 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | So, I'd refer back to that -- under current policy linked above, it's correct. Personally, I think it's the right policy, too, but this is your chance to stimulate a discussion on whether cvillepedia and wikipedia policy should diverge here. -- [[User:B.S. Lawrence|B.S. Lawrence]] 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== bad link to 2002 integrated study. == | |||
Removed the link to the study because it's a 404: if anyone finds it hopefully they can put it in. -- [[User:B.S. Lawrence|B.S. Lawrence]] 19:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:20, 10 February 2010
WP:NOTLINK and cvillepedia
From the recent changes and comments thereto: User:1099047208 asks
- I want hyperlinks to PDFs be active in list of reports ... Why should reader have to search for link at bottom when it could be at top inline in text??
From my prior edit's comment that started this up,
- trying to come to terms with Wikipedia:WP:NOTLINK#LINK, maybe there is a cvillepedia style exception?
So, I'd refer back to that -- under current policy linked above, it's correct. Personally, I think it's the right policy, too, but this is your chance to stimulate a discussion on whether cvillepedia and wikipedia policy should diverge here. -- B.S. Lawrence 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
bad link to 2002 integrated study.
Removed the link to the study because it's a 404: if anyone finds it hopefully they can put it in. -- B.S. Lawrence 19:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)