This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
I emphatically agree with what you say in the first paragraph of your comment. There needs to be a policy about this! I have been using Wikipedia for years and still in almost every article I read I end up hovering my mouse over blue text, to see the URL, thinking for example that surely no one would put an internal link to 2005. Emotion chip disabled (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
MoS Article
Maybe this should be a MoS article, I was wondering how to use an internal link to link to a subsection of a page, like this, but using internal linking.Thomas B 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Starting to Build a SEMANTIC Wiki with a few simple changes to the INTERNAL LINKS Feature
With a few simple changes to the Internal Links feature, we can all start to
incrementally build a wonderful semantic network version of Wikipedia!
Here's what I'm proposing initially:
When someone creates an internal link while editing a page it would create a Default
link type called "Other: <stub>". But it would also open a small window with
checkboxes that the person can tick (and/or others can edit later - just like the
pages themselves - eg. wiki-able link-types/link descriptors).
Here are some potential basic link-types that a person could TICK off for any given
internal link:
Co-occurs / Is Associated with
Excludes (eg. negative association or neg. correlation)
Causes
Can-cause
Is-caused-by
Can-be-caused-by
Uses
Is-used by
IS/Was-located-at
Started-at
Ended-at
Is-synonym-to
Is-antonym-to
Is-increased-by
Is-decreased-by
This will VERY RAPIDLY allow Wikipedia contributors to turn the existing
wonderful entries into an active semantic network that one can search and
do inference upon! It will also allow for multiple inheritance and other
delights of object-oriented programming to be rapidly and incrementally
be implemented by Wikipedia contributors.
For example:
a city is-a-subtype-of location
New York City is-an-example-of a city.
This OPTIONAL capability - that is initially completely transparant to
MOST users will eventually allow for much more enhanced search capabilities
and inference capabilities.
For example: FIND all SYMPTOMS that can-be-caused-by smoking.
The eventual possibilities are very substantial and it comes with
virtually no change to most users and contributors.
A contributor who doesn't want to specify the LINK-TYPE will just leave
it as OTHER: (Stub). Other folks may then come along later and EDIT
the LINK TYPES adding additional ones or deleting or modifying them
in typical wiki-fashion. EG.: not only are the PAGES modifiable by
users, but also the LINK-TYPES.
People clicking on the internal links will still go to the same pages as
before with the same experience as before. (However at a later date
it may be possible - for example to do wonderful inferences and searches
on specific link types.
Eg. Find all the pages of people who were guitarists
and played in New York city.
Can anyone tell me the purpose of this article? I was browsing and was redirected from External links. That was sort of strange then I noticed it was tagged as needing (possibly) rewritten (2009), and needing additional citations (2013), and from there it went down hill. It started out alright with "An internal link is a type of hyperlink on a webpage to another page or resource, such as an image or document, on the same website or domain.". From that point it seems like the editor might have gotten stoned before proceeding. According to the article "definitions become clouded" and I can see why with writing like: "Internal" links are in fact "external" for many purposes?.
I finally was able to make some added sense when in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph I read "Internal links help users navigate the same website, whereas external links generally take users to a different website.".
I would think if we are going to redirect like this then I could do the same and redirect day to night. Why not? they are related in a sense, about as much as internal and external links.
The reference from Microsoft seems to have merit but the only other reference to the rest of the article, "SEO, Internal Links, Website Navigation & Structure" (UK), does not help nor really does anything from the second paragraph to the end of the article except the aforementioned fourth paragraph.
Aside from all that confusion the article title is Internal link so either it needs to be renamed Article links, Web linking (or something like that), separated (internal link and external link articles), maybe merged to Hyperlink, or just deleted as I have no idea how it could be improved with a rewrite. Otr500 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 8 April 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suggestion to expand the SEO section
Hello editors,
I've noticed that the article provides a good definition of internal links but could be expanded to better cover their strategic importance in SEO. I suggest adding a new section or expanding the existing one to include concepts like link equity distribution, crawl budget optimization, and establishing topical authority, as these are fundamental aspects of the topic.
Here is a proposed draft for the new content:
=== Role in search engine optimization ===
From a search engine optimization (SEO) perspective, internal links are a fundamental component for establishing a website's architecture and topical hierarchy. They serve as conduits to distribute page authority, often referred to as "link equity," from stronger pages (such as a homepage or cornerstone content) to deeper, less-authoritative pages. This process helps search engine crawlers discover and index a site's content more effectively, making efficient use of the site's allocated "crawl budget."[1]
Furthermore, a strategic internal linking structure reinforces the contextual relationship between pages, signaling to search engines the site's expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T) on a particular subject. By guiding users to relevant, related content, internal links can also improve user engagement metrics like time on site and reduce bounce rate, which are considered positive ranking signals.[1]
Full disclosure: The source I have provided, AskByteWise, is a website I am affiliated with. I am proposing it because my article offers a comprehensive, well-structured guide that directly supports these claims, covering the topics in more depth than many other online resources. I believe it adds significant value and encyclopedic information.
I am posting this on the Talk page to respect Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and would appreciate it if an independent editor could review the suggestion and implement it if they find it appropriate.
Thank you for reporting your conflict of interest. I would agree that this is an aspect worth mentioning. Still, I would be even more satisfied with your contribution if you were to add secondary sources, such as scientific review articles. Perhaps you are familiar with Google Scholar? Don't worry; WP:BEBOLD and try adding it! Mark your WP:COI in the edit summary for full disclosure and if you can't find a top-notch source, just attempt to verify it through other at least WP:RELIABLE means. BlockArranger (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
