# What's the point of providing a link to the mobile versions of the websites?

Often I stumble upon the so-called mobile links both in the comments and in the answers, e.g. URLs that lead to a mobile version of the website and often seen as https://m.<website_name>.<domain>. 95% of them lead to Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org) which is to me unusable in that form on the desktop. Some tools are hidden, font and images are bloated, large margins and tables not fitting page width don't make me happier either. Every time I need to go to the address bar and get rid of m. part in order to productively use the web page.

On the other hand, virtually any mobile browser would automatically switch to the mobile version (if there is one) when the "classic" URL is clicked. Also, even on smartphones mobile version is not always the best viewing option as most modern smartphones have screen resolutions higher that the 5-years-old desktops (that's also the case for the gadgets I use in my workflow: Moto G has 1920×1080 screen, whereas my old Thinkpad's screen resolution is 1366×768).

Can we please stop posting mobile links? Or am I missing something crucial about them?

• Probably people using SE from mobile copy-pasting the Wikipedia link from their browser. – orthocresol Jan 11 at 11:04
• Yes, indeed they are. It would be nice to find out why they think it's a good idea:) – andselisk Jan 11 at 11:16
• – Loong Jan 11 at 12:28
• I'd assume they don't really think about it... I have seen people post google search queries instead of the direct link to to the search result they want to link to... As always, there is not much we can do except for correcting these links and leave a comment. – Martin - マーチン Jan 11 at 13:11
• Would it maybe be better to reformat this question into 'Please don't link to mobile pages...'? – Martin - マーチン Jan 11 at 13:16
• How many people either know or think about that fact that the links are different on their desktop and on their phone? To many, their phone is their computer. So, it will keep happening... – Jon Custer Jan 11 at 15:10
• @andselisk pasting a URL on mobile can be a fiddly task (even Wikipedia article names can get a little long for a small edit box on a small screen - don't forget the lack of preview). Editing that URL is prone to breaking something, thus when I post on mobile I choose to post the mobile version. Thinking done once, decision made. Later on I may edit the link, if I'm editing anyway and remember, but IMO it's better to get the bare facts linked right first time. Written in first person singular but I know I'm not alone elsewhere on the network – Chris H Jan 16 at 9:40
• @ChrisH I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced. Posting mobile links benefits only one person – the one who posts it "as is" by saving a few seconds by not editing – and makes lives of everybody else harder. The m. part consists of only two symbols and it's practically always in the beginning of the address so that it's perfectly visible even on the old mid-2000s Symbian smartphones and can be edited out with ease. The question is not really about excuses for the "normies" doing what they find the easiest, but doing the right thing with long run benefits. – andselisk Jan 16 at 10:03
• @andselisk I disagree with your "everyone". The mobile version is quite nice for simple reading on desktop. It's only when you want to use various tools that you need the deksotp version ("popups" in my case) – Chris H Jan 16 at 10:08
• @ChrisH Yep, point taken, you are right. This was subjective since in my workflow. I've practically never felt an urge to use "reading mode" anywhere, neither with the office programs, nor on the web. However, if the user want to consume (e.g. "to read"), then why would this person decide to start producing (e.g. "to post links") content while in that "simple reading" mood? – andselisk Jan 16 at 10:18
• We can go ahead and decide that editing out the mobile part is a valid edit in itself, right? OT: Actually, wikipedia needs to stop using m. pages and rerender on the fly... – TAR86 Jan 21 at 21:38
• @Loong yes indeed. This answer seems quite reasonable. – uhoh Feb 5 at 1:33