Template talk:Deeplink needed

@Djr13, @Xpctr8: Maybe my brain is addled, however, I am somewhat confused by this template, and how you see it being used. We currently have anchors to every page that is transcluded for page 29 the anchor #29 is in place. Our standardised nomenclature of /Chapter nn/ is also meant to allow for deep links to be done ahead of time. We also have the use of {{anchor}} and {{anchor+}} to assist. What other examples are you consider that need to be undertaken, and how does this template assist? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The template encourages editors to use the best working link for a referenced text while still tagging that link as being insufficiently specific to what is actually referred to by the link. The basic reason is that once a link turns blue, it becomes much less likely that it will be realized that it isn't pointing to the correct text.

It is still possible...if you as an editor have a habit of clicking "what links here" on pages which are unlikely to receive links, you might occasionally notice errant temporary links; it's just unlikely. More likely is if you have a habit of hovering over every single link in a text and looking where it points, but still....

For example, if we have a page for "Volume X" of a periodical but not a specific issue within that volume, we can link "Periodical/Volume 10" and tag with this template. This template will emphasize to editors that this link is only a stopgap measure, and that if that issue/article/etc has been added, the link should be changed appropriately.

There is a major potential downside to this template. Since it encourages editors to use a working link [but for the same work!] where possible instead of a very specific red link (EG bluelinking a work title instead of redlinking a subpage) it means that the specific red link has one fewer reference to its "what links here" and "wanted pages" tallies. djr13 (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)