4

I suggest to merge the tags and. They mean the same here.

The Oxford dictionary reports:

1.5 short for hyperlink

Update: There is also a similar tag . Should we add "avoid the tag links and use hyperlink or cross-referencing instead" to links?

10
  • 4
    links might also refer to cross references in the document. Even though similar, a hyperlink usually refers to an external resource. So I don't think they mean the same: -1
    – Henri Menke
    Commented Mar 18, 2019 at 3:54
  • 2
    If you want to suggest a tag synonym, just go to tex.stackexchange.com/tags/links/synonyms or tex.stackexchange.com/tags/hyperlink/synonyms and make a proposal.
    – user156344
    Commented Mar 18, 2019 at 5:43
  • @JouleV thank you. I searched for this functionality, without success. Now, I have not enough points on link
    – Jonas Stein
    Commented Mar 18, 2019 at 19:49
  • 1
    @HenriMenke I looked it up in the oxford dictionary. Looks to me, that it is really the same. I am glad there are no tags for cyberlink and link4.0 on .sx yet. ;-)
    – Jonas Stein
    Commented Mar 18, 2019 at 19:52
  • 1
    @HenriMenke Interesting... Is that a well known distinction so that people can be reasonably expected to (want to) differentiate the two? Does the distinction make sense for our (La)TeX purposes? I assume most link and hyperlink question would ultimately come down to hyperref. I also note that the links wiki has said "links is specifically about dealing with hyperlinks." for a long time...
    – moewe
    Commented Mar 19, 2019 at 12:15
  • @moewe and JonasStein It is completely irrelevant what the dictionary or the tag wiki says. The only thing of interest is how people use the tag. As long as questions about cross references are tagged with links, it cannot be merged with hyperlink.
    – Henri Menke
    Commented Mar 23, 2019 at 17:10
  • @HenriMenke Mhhh, I'm not sure if tagging can only be judged by current usage. It seems to be a sentiment shared by some on this site that tagging is not entirely accurate and a bit of hit and miss. I'm not entirely convinced that the tag wiki and dictionaries should have no role here, surely the tag wiki should give guidance about tag usage and surely people use their understanding about the (dictionary) meaning of words to decide how to tag
    – moewe
    Commented Mar 23, 2019 at 17:22
  • 1
    ... Ultimately I think the question is whether there is a substantial difference between link and hyperlink in the TeX world that seems worth preserving. Especially if the difference goes against common usage of the word (dictionary) or the guidance in the tag wiki. At the moment I'm not convinced there is such a difference. But I think that there might be an argument in saying that the synonym would require extensive re-tagging and would not be worth it.
    – moewe
    Commented Mar 23, 2019 at 17:25
  • @HenriMenke If users use the tag for anything it is the best to define the tag properly. I think it is good to make a cut and add link is not crossreferences (or link is a synonym of crossreferences).
    – Jonas Stein
    Commented Mar 31, 2019 at 16:19
  • 2
    I voted here tex.stackexchange.com/tags/links/synonyms
    – David Carlisle
    Commented Apr 6, 2019 at 19:23

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I agree link and hyperlink should be merged. the tag wiki for link says explicitly it is about hyperlinks, and I don't think (this century) people do (or should) refer to non hyperlinked cross references as "links".

I don't think the suggested distinction that hyperlink should only be used for external references is valid. An in-document link is a hyperlink.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .