Talk:Boloria
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Selected species list, multiple links for same species edit
Just now I fixed hyperlinks for freija, frigga, jerdoni, pales, selene, so that when you click a hyperlink, any hyperlinks leading to an identical page for that butterfly look "visited."
Previously, there were multiple hyperlinks leading to different searchwords, so for example, an entry might say:
*SpeciesA - AlternateName1, AlternateName2
In the above example, SpeciesA led to the wikipedia searchword SpeciesA... AlternateName1 led to the wikipedia searchword AlternateName1... and AlternateName2 led to the wikipedia searchword AlternateName.
So every link led to the same exact page, but when you clicked the main entry, then returned to this page... it looked as if you had not visited all the links. Then you click the AlternateNames and find that you really already visited the page. The way I fixed it was to make each of those links lead to the searchword for the main scientific species name.
I wondered though, if in a list of species... should there even be 3 hyperlinks for one species if the species are in a list like this? Or should only the main scientific species name be a hyperlink in that case? It doesn't matter to me either way, but the list would seem to be less cluttered looking if there were not so many hyperlinks.
However, having the multiple hyperlinks may serve some good purpose, so thanks if anyone knows for sure. Fallendarling (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I found another page with a Selected species list which seems to have only one hyperlink per species. This one is a good example of what I was talking about, might look cleaner: Argynnini
- The Argynnini list shows the common name first. But for Boloria, I think the scientific name should be first (and should be the hyperlinked word), because in some cases, one Boloria species has multiple common names. I am willing to reformat this list, but unsure if it is formatted the current way for some good reason. Does anyone know? Thanks. Fallendarling (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)