Editing Talk:Fort Malden (section)

== Link titles, redundant links, and repeated citations ==

* [[User:Kaydetting|Kaydetting]], please explain your reversions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Malden&diff=635475503&oldid=635475065 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Malden&diff=next&oldid=635475503 here].  Per the [[WP:LINK#Link titles|Wikipedia Manual of Style]], "you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section", "Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative", and "The 'printable version' of a page displays all URLs in full, including those given a title, so no information is lost."  What is your reasoning for removing the link titles I added?  Also, I was not referring to those changes as "redundant links" in my edit summary, but as "link captions".
* [[User:Penningtonsarah|Penningtonsarah]], in your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Malden&diff=635542043&oldid=635540468 here], you reverted my removal of the second and third instances of the same wikilink in one section.  Per [[WP:OLINK]], "Generally, a link should appear only '''once''' in an article".  Is there a compelling reason for an exception to the guideline here?
* Also Penningtonsarah, you reverted my reference consolidation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Malden&diff=next&oldid=635542043 here]. [[WP:CS#Repeated citations|WP:CS]] recommends this method for repeated instances of the same citation. What value is there to having the same footnotes repeated multiple times at the end of the article?  The named references are just as easily found through the inline citations as unnamed ones, and no information is lost. I'm not sure I understand your mention of Turabian Style.  Neither of the links to it from [[WP:CITE#Further reading|WP:CITE]] mention any prohibition on this type of consolidated listing. [[User:Nick Number|Nick Number]] ([[User talk:Nick Number|talk]]) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)