Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 10

8505:

doing that, and when I'd done it in relation to other posts. I am not an "extremist" or "tendentious" on this issue, nor am I fishing or forum-shopping for anything other than a genuine, agreed, broad consensus. That's the whole f##king point of this RfC, which, as they unfortunately often do, has simply seen the same old faces, myself included, appear and disagree. As you must know if you've read anything of my - admittedly somewhat voluminous postings - I have consistently said "I agree with most of the delinkings" - I've even agreed with some of the examples you yourself have cited. I've also always said that in some cases, eg nationalities and professions, I'm ambivalent. I make very few link-related edits either way. I have never touched or edited the guideline itself, and never would do without clear and explicit agreement for any change I tried to make. It's a very odd world you live in - possibly one without dictionaries - if that's what you think being "extreme" or "tendentious" is. Persistent and a bit verbose, maybe. But we need wider input than from the echo chamber in here. I'd have thought you'd be grateful for that attempt, especially if the result turns out to be that it confirms your assertions about where WP-wide consensus might lie, rather than mine on some points. Then, the next time someone like me pops up asking "hang on a second, where is the consensus for all this", you can point them to here rather than obfuscating and making bold assertions about what everyone supposedly thinks without any evidence to back them up. I'm as bored of this debate as I suspect you are. However, despite what you say above, we don't seem to have moved forward one way or the other yet. Nothing has become "rapidly clear" as a result of this RfC except that the same names still disagree, and that you and I seem to have developed the habit of having pointless arguments.

1962:

and nor is anyone else. You've been asked politely to stop this and have ignored it again and again, so this time I was a bit more forceful. I don't claim that you want to "remove every link", because I read what you say, I understand what you say and I do not feel the need to misrepresent what you say. I explicitly said above that links should be to relevant and related pages. I said links to France where the country is mentioned in passing are, in my view, not needed. However, I've pointed out for example in the past articles about a BBC producer where every single link to "BBC" and "TV producer" were removed, even from the infobox. An article about a French Algerian, where the initial link to "France" was removed but that to "Algeria" retained. These are the things I am taking issue with, along with the exclusion of links to the article on the United States - a page that has 3m visits this month, which suggests at least that some readers here would like to see it - in, say pages about its neighbour Canada or things from the US, not efforts to remove supposed links to "the". Which, of course, in reality is virtually never linked, and which doesn't even have its own page anyway, which clarifies quite what a red herring it is anyway. Now, if you want to have a sensible discussion about the role that the general concept of relevance might play in the linking debate, and where the thresholds might lie for what is relevant and, indeed, for what constitute "common terms", feel free to enter that debate, although it will probably be with someone else. I've discovered again what a futile effort it is. As it is, oddly, to maintain any form of consistent talk page indenting with an MoS guru.

6911:. Despite the fact that wp:link explicitly mandates links to relevant common terms. And also says that links should help readers "find relevant information" and should "bind the project together". Or where, and on what basis, it is being decided that some terms are "common". These are the key questions that have been asked over and over, and just ignored I'm afraid. I would go straight to ArbCom with this, but that's an expensive waste of time and I know where it ends up. And Greg, to be quite frank, everything you've posted since I last looked in is fairly base invective or an utter falsehood - eg that I am "clearly opposed to the guidelines" and that I am making "outrageous personal attacks" - which shows you have not understood a word I've said, even though I've been very explicit, clear and detailed in what I've written. Repeating it all yet again obviously won't help. I'm used to seing my position completely mischaracterised and twisted, but it's still boring. Please stop lashing out with wild claims like that. By contrast, I have certainly not mischaracterised Tony or his actions. One error I will admit - and have already accepted - is that I was sidetracked into commenting on the ANI issue and the events that led to it (which simply corrected some misleading claims in respect of it), but I have struck my comments there. 7777:

overlinking of common terms. Scripts are useful for that purpose, when used by individuals who are making an effort to properly assess link value on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, there is a small group that is using the guideline in a manner far beyond what any reasonable individual would support, purely to serve their own purposes. It began with a heavy-handed attempt to rewrite the guideline without discussion, continued with a coordinated effort to swat down opposition, and is carried out in a manner that attempts to hide the excessive delinking behind misleading assertions of policy and patronizing dismissals whenever an opposing voice is raised. Even the list of so-called "common terms" is buried away in the depths of personal script pages. Terms are added (and then delinked from articles) with no discussion or consensus. There is no practical means in place for the average Wikipedian to even access these lists, let alone have any realistic opportunity to read and modify them. Despite untrue claims to the contrary, the people who are trying to rationalize this mess are not seeking to "link everything", but instead to stop the uncontrolled race to strip away valid links. --

7883:

terms that are described in the current guideline, as well as many dictionary words. I use AWB regexes to make these delinkings, but I'll some times reinstate a link because I judge it is in fact useful in its context, and I'll sometimes perform some further delinkings, as well as other gnoming on the article. The question of script usage is a total red herring - I take responsibility for my edits, as does every other editor; I've merely scripted them for convenience in handling such a large and repetitive task. There's no secret about the content of my AWB regexes - if anyone cared to ask (no-one has) I'd be happy to provide a copy of my current AWB regex file, built up over several years of gnoming (beware, it's very large). Very occasionally, another editor will question my judgment about whether a link is worthwhile, and then we discuss the issue. The RFC seems to be advancing the completely unrealistic proposition that no-one should ever perform a scripted edit that someone else might object to - no edit, scripted or not, can be guaranteed uncontroversial. It's how you handle the disagreement that matters, not how you made the edit.

2700:

said all that, the guidelines a) discuss navigability as well as usefulness, narrowly defined; b) say more specific links should be "considered", not that they are "required"; and c) do not rail against "less focused" links being in the same area of text as "more focused" links, again, however we would define those anyway, (to respond to a point from your previous comment). I fully support people going through articles removing redundant, trivial or repetitive links, or links to things mentioned in passing, and improving links where necessary so they point to a more focused target. I occasionally do it myself. But I do not, for the fortieth time, support the removal of every single link to so-called "common terms", however defined, when they are relevant or related to the main topic. Please, remove 20 repeat links to "France", "BBC" or even "Hastings-Thompson syndrome", as part of a normal copy-editing process. But please, also leave just one of the former, where the term is plausibly relevant or related. They're likely to be useful to some people, and are not that distracting really to people who don't wish to use them.

6335:

today" situation. However, the overwhelming attitude presented here by certain people is one of "we're right, you're wrong" - which is completely out of sync with Knowledge's standards. It is ridiculous that we have this situation where editors who dare to question the scope of the delinking are inevitably dismissed, slapped down, or quite simply ignored. You ask for evidence of drawn-out disputes over links, but the simple fact is that they do not exist because it would be counterproductive to engage in such actions. Speaking for myself, I've got too much to do in real life - and far more things I'd rather be doing when online here - than to patrol the thousands of edits Tony, OC etc are doing. At best, it is work enough to try to catch the mistakes and "overdelinking" that pop up on one's watchlist. None of the editors - N-HH, myself, the others who have added their comments in recent months - are pushing to "link everything" in a "sea of blue", despite the outlandish claims that are used repeatedly in an attempt to shut down debate. What people

7929:. One of the typical positions heavily supported was "Year articles ... should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year". I believe the same logic applies to common terms as it does to years, and I'd suggest that "germane and topical to the subject matter/not incidental" is the test to distinguish the minority of cases where a link to a common term could be judged appropriate. It would work even when the terms are not considered common as well; the location of sucralose manufacturing in Jurong or McIntosh is much more likely to be incidental than having an intrinsic relevance necessary to understand the production process. As for scripts, surely the usual conventions apply: the user takes no less responsibility for the edit than if no script were used; if the edit is poor, you blame the editor, not the use of a script. -- 8244:

some of the comments above, I should clarify that to "remove the terms in their entirety ... from pretty much every article". That *is* what we're talking about, as my examples show, often justified by very limited and subjective criteria as to what a link is for or what people might or even should be linking to. As noted I support 90% of the removals of US, France etc, eg where they are mentioned in passing and have often been linked casually. I suspect most other editors would too. There is too much overlinking, but we need a redline on too much delinking as well, and we need to know where other less involved editors stand on it. I note "delinkers" who have commented say they do review and restore sometimes. Not to say it doesn't happen, but I've never seen that - could anyone provide examples? More often than not I see people return to edit war if anyone else tries to review or amend one or two of those delinks.

7478:, cited in previous discussion, and there are many, many similar ones, where some of the delinking within each of those seems to have gone too far and to be more detrimental than it is in any way helpful, despite rationalisations. Nationalities & professions I am more agnostic about - at least in main text, although I see little point in removing them from infoboxes - eg "Michael Douglas is an American actor". But either way these issues need wider review and a genuine broader consensus, not just decisions made and enforced by the actions of a small number of editors who are - like myself, as of a couple of months now - regular contributors to this talk page or other MoS pages (note for clarity that this second para was added at the point when other comments had already been posted by Greg, Michael, Art, HWV258, OhConfucius and Tony - who all, also, fall within that definition). 6266:"What are you asking for - evidence of an edit war over linking that I've lost? Or of interminable linking debates on individual article talk pages, which rightly irritates other editors?" Well it seems that you are asking for that. I don't have any, fortunately. Why that should be a criticism, I don't know. As noted, I gave two examples above of pages that I have not touched, but where the delinking seemed crazy and in breach of guidelines. They were intended, as examples are, to illustrate the wider problem. I have also highlighted the specific points within wp:overlink - eg about related info, navigability - that are being ignored in a lot of the editing that goes on. Nothing to do with "I don't like it", which seems to apply more to others' wholly arbitrary attitude to links to certain terms. I'm not sure what your experiment has to do with anything either. 4830:, but I hope you aren’t suggesting it is me. I know you mean well. But like any club with an open membership (Knowledge so qualifies), it gets a small but regular stream of people convinced they have stumbled upon a better way to spin gold yarn and who can’t fathom why the natives here don’t start hoping up on down with our spears exclaiming how “The dude in the pith helmet has shown us the light.” All the other-language Wikipedias are experiencing a drop in the link percentage and en.Knowledge’s rate of decline is right smack in the middle of the pack. You wanna change the world and are acting all frustrated. I can’t help that. A handful of us bother to give you the time of day; I guarantee you there is an ocean of others out there who quietly embrace the reasoning and aren’t suckers for coming to this talk page to get a belly full of witty banter with you. 7861:. The problem is not in the words "most articles" and it is not primarily in the delinking scripts, or even in their careless use. Overlinking is a widespread problem and I support effective counter-measures even if they may cause obvious underlinking in some instances. What I do not support at all is when an editor misreads "most articles" as "almost all articles with practically no exceptions" and, based on this misunderstanding and a complete ignorance of linking context, does not simply remove a small percentage of perfectly appropriate links along with the silly ones, but insists that they stay removed. I am not going to wade through edit histories to check to what extent this problem exists. But the examples above, and the way some editors argue about them, together make it likely that the problem does exist. 6767:

worry about who is right and wrong right now. And I'm going to point out again, I strongly favor the limited version (I still am working best how to insert my "tourist agency" analogy into this discussion), so this is not a matter of shutting out N-HH, Ckatz or others that question that approach, but as a means to make sure that WP-wide policy is not being set by only 5-6 people, the regulars on this page. There is a fair question of "where did this consensus come from" that either can be easily answered by pointing to a talk page discussion from the past, or otherwise we've just discovered that this just happened to gel without any real discussion - which certainly can happen but the calls of concern suggest we may want to revisit and clearly establish consensus on it. Linking, when and how much,

7583:, apparently because all the other references to the U.S. were unlinked, but they missed that one. A link to U.S. history in the lede would make sense, but not the way it is. Since most such links should be unlinked, scripts are a more efficient way to unlink them, even though some United States links should remain. A misconception is that the alternative to scripts, is careful consideration of each link that will come to the same conclusion you would have come to. No. The alternative to scripts is represented by my examples above. There are plenty of articles I haven't run my scripts on at all, so that would be a more efficient use of time than trying to guess what the consensus here would be for each link, beyond briefly glancing at each, especially in the lede and infoboxes. 7269:. But, as I keep saying, I accept broadly the current wording, which says - as well as that "links bind the project together" ... "include help the reader find related information" ... "think before removing a link - it may be useful to other readers" - that common and geographic locations can be linked when they are "relevant to the topic of the article". My point is that the current wording does not mandate the removal of pretty much all links to a set list of "major" countries, professions etc. You tried to insert that point in 2008, with support from one other editor as far as I can tell, and you did not get consensus for it. The 2009 discussions do not seem to contradict or supersede that discussion, and the guidelines still do not include that wording. 7614:" is precisely the intention of the hard-working and skilled editors who have undertaken this task—solely with the aim of improving WP for all readers. The use of a script (note: not a bot) is the only practical way to identify and remove links that don't deepen the understand of the article in which they have been placed—as long as the result of running the script is checked manually (which the editors involved have given an undertaking that they do). Linking is a difficult skill to master, and the delinking in question serves two additional purposes: to prune an article to a new baseline (from which local editors can continue to evolve the article), and to remind local editors to carefully consider the value of links they add in the future. 5883:: I know you tend to do these things manually rather than by script, however, often the results exhibit the same issues in my view. One problem is that you spend a lot of time editing here, and, as you say, go through lots of articles one after the other, seeing the same terms linked over and over, which prompts you to think they are not worth linking. However, is it not worth bearing in mind that this is a very artificial way of looking at the site? Many or even most readers, especially those who do not edit, are as likely dip in and out of WP and have a very different perspective. The links that appear frequently are often those to the most viewed pages (eg United States). Per wp:link, we should be providing navigational aids to those pages 6424:

Now maybe some of the editors there will be won round, but it's a further indication that consensus across the wider site - not to mention the guidelines themselves as currently drafted - is not with any over-zealous delinking of every single link to "common terms", regardless of context; equally that most people will broadly disagree with it, but will also more or less shrug their shoulders and not make as big a deal of it as perhaps I and a couple of others have. That is, do not take the relatively small number of editors commenting at length against the more radical delinking on this talk page - just as the numbers in favour are also small - as proving consent. It does not, by itself.

5702:), when there is already a plethora of more specific links to the topic in terms of Australia? (3) Are you attempting to provide for readers who don't really want to read about Perth, but are more interested in wandering through a fairly unfocused, even random pathway, in en.WP? If so, it is at the expense of the wikilinking system as a whole—or at least in the specific place—where the link density is so high that readers are likely to ignore the whole facility and read on (which is why the article was written, actually). (4) What is it about the general article on Australia that the reader would so urgently seek to know, that isn't in the current article on Perth? I note that the reader 2061:

worth linking). Also, basing decisions on relevance is far easier than trying to work out en masse what terms and/or detailed information is definitively "known" or "common" when we are talking about millions of readers. However, a) we need to get to the point of accepting the principle at least; b) we need to read and accept where the guidelines call for the inclusion of links to other relevant pages, whether common terms or not; and c) I would argue we should err on the side of retaining a link if it's a 50-50 case, since more "harm" arises from removing the options for navigability than from having the odd extra blue link (and we are usually talking only about one or two links).

7904:. Per Chris. He hits the nail on the noggin on both counts. One, it makes sense. Two, since it makes sense, the script answer is clear -- people should be encouraged to use scripts more to do intelligent edits. The time is approaching to question why we don't have bots doing this. Lots of good editors, as usual, in the discussions on this talk page. I wish we could free 100 per cent of you up to use your time to address the more substantive and POV issues which I see abounding on wikipedia -- that's where I see the real risks of your spending your time here, and where the rewards would IMHO be greatest from all redirecting attention elsewhere.-- 1833:- says this. Yes there can be debates over how to apply this in each case, but there's a certain degree of objectivity there, and it's far easier than trying to assess what is "useful" or "deepens understanding" for people as a whole when we are dealing with millions of readers and editors, who have massively varying degrees of knowledge, who use WP for a hundred different reasons and in a hundred different ways, and who may be first time visitors to the site. With the examples raised, a link to France in an article about a French thing seems reasonable. A link to France when the country appears in passing mention, almost certainly not. 7693:. Scripts must be supplemented by further manual effort, as purely mechanical link-removal is often inadequate, and links to some words can only be removed (or reinserted) through interpretation of relevance (read 'germane'); they reduce workload. Also, some articles have links which are so tortuously piped in order to squeeze in an extra link or three that manual unlinking is unavoidable (I believe Tony cited one about an Australian location the other day). Editors objecting to removal of certain of those links are always free to relink those instances they believe jeopardises the understanding of the article. In fact, 1561:. It is the very job of the lead to explain, summarize and put into context the article's topic, while this is not at all the purpose of the average sentence in the average article paragraph, which is to elucidate some detail. The point of most of the prose is to present information as a stream, and excessive linking does impede the flow (not as much as come claim, in my opinion, but I do not deny that the effect exists). The lead is nothing like this at all, but is something of a one-stop shop for the gist. (The fact that infoboxes are like this on steroids is why stuff should be linked in them as well). 7750:

featured content, standards that have become well-established (take a look), is a challenge for the whole project. Human-supervised automation is an important part of this, given the scale of the problem. Sometimes mistakes are made (not the examples above, I must say), but overall, this is the right way to go. It would be productive if editors who who have qualms about it engaged those who work to reduce overlinking not WRT obvious examples of overlinking, but WRT the occasional grey area. Skill, insight and hard work are the keys for all parties in collaborating to improve wikilinking system.

5257:, but there were only five countries, and in this context neither Argentina nor Peru will get jealous, so it doesn't seem worth going to war over. Similarly for languages. Given that this is a plausible interpretation of OVERLINK, what benefit is there? There's no obvious way to describe the benefit of OVERLINK without upsetting you over an azure body of water you don't believe in. How relevant are "city", "town" and "England" to "Mayors in England"? Oh, more than in most articles I suppose, though of course not as relevant as some other nearby links in the article like 4497:(...) by looking at your counter-proposal, with its detailed exceptions and exceptions within the exceptions, I cannot help but think that what you wrote there is a bot. In other words, it's simply calling for somebody to say, "Hey, that's a nice functional specification, I'll write an AWB after it." Which is exactly what you don't want to happen. The counter-proposal boils down to: "Avoid linking to the same article twice within a single article and use common sense." Since the latter part is implied in any WP guideline, the present version is the one I support. (...) 6067:

about the "particularly relevant" clause, even though I somehow didn't connect it to Bolivia; this has been a long debate. More importantly, I have occasionally undone major country unlinks that my own AWB software proposed to me, as part of the manual review AWB recommends. That is, I don't unlink all major countries in practice, regardless of how you interpret my words. And the link I'm pretty sure you can't provide is anyone saying anything like "Let's delink all major countries, regardless of context; the 'particularly relevant' clause doesn't matter."

5893:: "town" and "city" are related and relevant terms when looking at mayorships. For some people, they no doubt will aid understanding, in terms of providing details about the different status that different urban areas can acquire. And, as pointed out previously, that is not the sole criteria for linking anyway - see also the words "links bind the project together" and ".. help the reader find related information" and "navigability". Meanwhile, I've never understood the relevance of "WP is not a dictionary" to this issue, and I still don't. 7442:

arbitrary basis and regardless of context and of the relevance of the terms to the main topic. This reduces the core functionality of an online encyclopedia, and introduces random inconsistencies, especially to infoboxes and tables. The guidelines are to me quite clear that where a term is "relevant to the topic of the article", there is no requirement to remove a link to it. And scripts are fine as a tool, but they are a blunt tool, and their effects need to be reviewed on each occasion to take account of the context of each page.

3773:

remove them because.... ...it is not the absolute rate of a link's selection that is relevant, but the selection rate / reading rate. Obviously if only one reader in a million reads as far as a link at the end of an article, but then always clicks on the link, then that link should be retained - even though it may be the least used link in the article. All the talk of metrics I've seen around here (including User:Piano non troppo's contribution) seems to talk about absolute click rates, which is simply not the relevant metric. --

3916:. It seems to me that in this relatively short article, you'd be pushing the boat out saying that such links are 'life-savers'. These links are but repeat links of a secondary subject already very prominently linked in the lead, and I feel are strictly unnecessary. More specifically, I feel that the choice of links to be included in the 'See also' section ought to be those which are relevant but cannot be worked into the article, or which are inadequately piped, but whose inclusion would add value to the subject -- 6990:

been so hard to get straight and simple answers to the questions I asked above: the record indicates that despite vague assertions to the contrary there is no such consensus to delink all common terms, regardless of context, or that there is any consensus as to which terms are indeed "common" in the first place. If the links I found above had showed that consensus, wouldn't someone have rushed to point me and others to them? Now, of course anyone can continue to argue the toss over what the content of guidelines

3603:

forst in the consumer's mind) – a concept better understood by marketeers. Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero, much like for a second copy of any given newspaper. You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness, as would be measured by 'utility'. If you are suggesting that we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end, our current linking propensity already achieves that. --

3620:, I am suggesting the reverse - namely that link density should be more evenly distributed across an article - so there is obviously some major misunderstanding going on here. The metrics that Tony always cites skew the density towards the beginning of an article, because they don't take account of the fact (which no one disputes) that the beginning of an article is read more than the end. My point is that this is no reason to weight the link density towards the beginning of the article. 35: 7828:, so the two should have the same number of incoming links to within one order of magnitude, though since there are roughly fourteen times as many articles mentioning Argentina than articles mentioning Pink Floyd, the fraction of times "Argentina" should be linked should be about one order of magnitude lower than for "Pink Floyd".) So if the questions read "from almost all articles" and "careless use of scripts" instead of "from most articles" and "use of scripts", my answers would be 425:

year just like in 2005, and life goes on. I'm amazed at the level of sheer frakking hysteria on this page. Everyone needs to calm down and go do something else for a while, like go outside or read a book, and quit obsessing over nitpicks in a guideline no one pays attention to anyway. People link, refrain from linking, and unlink based on common sense and experience, pure and simple. I doubt that even 1% of editors with over 5,000 edits have ever read this page. I did some

5420:" is the wrong question. It is on the MOS (and has been for ages) so consensus is deemed to exist. I recognize that you don't like that, but it's a fact. Also a fact is that the associated delinking, which has been happening for a long time now with many, many thousands of edits and no significant backlash, reinforces the current position. No one has stated that every single edit has been correct (this is a wiki so we fix the problems as they happen), but the wording of " 8003:

intrawiki link, being that they stand out from text and require readers to click-thru to learn more, possibly breaking reading flow or the like? If they are highly valuable - we want readers to be able to read w/o distraction, a subdued approach to linking where only essential terms make sense. If they are "cheap" in that it doesn't break flow, they we can allow for linking a lot more common terms. But I don't know the answer on a global scale (I know, however, that

5740:"common term" delinking that is the problem, it is the insistence by a very small group that they know best. There's never even been a response to repeated requests for an explanation as to why the list should be secreted away, with no opportunity for the average editor to have any meaningful input. There are countless examples of delinking that lack any apparent rational thought, such as the removal of neighbouring states in the lead of the geographical article 5425:" has broad and deep support (time and edits have proven that). It is that wording that has lead dedicated and experienced editors to act to improve WP for our readers—and that is their right (and I thank and encourage them for their hard work). If you are unhappy about any of the edits, take it up on the particular talk pages affected. Have you considered that the edits (although appearing like a deep pruning) are designed to set a new baseline in an article, 376:" point is just sea of blue (=contiguous links) recycled. More time wasting. As for "which consumer", offering choice caters for most or all readers. Same answer for deepening the understanding of the article. Deepening is relative to a reader's current understanding, which varies from reader to reader, and from time to time. The one-size-fits-all approach that the delinkers take just doesn't work - it fails to recognize the diversity of readers. -- 6207:

review each edit and each link removal, or even get involved at all in individual cases? The onus is of course on those trawling hundreds of pages removing links to think about and justify what they do on each occasion, not for others to follow them round page by page and delink by delink. All I am asking for, at a central discussion point, is the general application of a bit of common sense and for people to actually follow the guidelines they cite.

4159:, and there is such a thing as link pollution for web pages. Fortunately, we don't actually see much of a problem elsewhere in cyberspace, as the commercial world is well aware of potential problems caused by excessive linking. It's one important function of webmasters, who optimise linking among other things. Only here, at 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit'©™ are there still a significant minority which appears to be ignorant of that fact. 5476:©™® so that the *real* community just woke up one morning not realizing that a fast one had been pulled on them. Does N‑HH think the current guidelines were not the product of vigorous debate and compromise over an extended period and was the product of a general consensus? And now someone has to prove to N‑HH’s satisfaction that all that outcome was legitimate because he is experiencing a sense of wholesale dissatisfaction with it??? 2847:

an example; it is more important for readers of this guideline to absorb these points quickly than to provide explanatory links for these terms immediately. Linking a second, explantory appearance of an item is most common when the first occurrence is in a list, table, quotation, formula or complicated passage, or where it would result in two different links being side-by-side giving the misleading appearance of a single link.

7723:

embracing more than just "navigation" in the decision-making process: now, the focus and likely usefulness of each link to an English-speaker, and the link-density (with its corollaries of diluting high-value links, adjacent "bunching", and unnecessary reader distraction) are widely accepted as balancing factors. The notion that article targets should be linked just because they are somehow similar to the current topic (e.g,

6832:

to look; I only started following this MOS relatively recently where the language of minimal links was already present. A casual search of the archives don't clearly bring up results. It should not be that hard, if this was discussed, to point to that. If it wasn't discussed but simply mutually agreed on without comment, it's probably worth discussing. Very simple, straightforward, and the path of less aggression. --

1691:"The vast majority of editors and readers apparently do feel that an opening line in an article lead certainly is an appropriate use of a country link." You use the remnants of the pre-existing practice that grew for the first four years or so in WP's history—of linking without thinking about selectiveness—as evidence for your claim that editors, let alone readers, like them. Come now, you know this is not logical. 649:, so be as incredulous as you like. Not everyone has eidetic memory for celebcruft. I'm even a movie buff (I have over 500 DVDs and Blu-rays, and probably at least as many films/shows on some 1.5TB hard drives reserved for media rips) and I cannot right now name a single Tomei film from memory, nor can I form a clear picture of her in my mind. I remember her being pretty and brunette and that's it. — 5872:, especially its "relevance" qualifications. I'm not taking issue with any past changes to the guidelines, although I appreciate that is an issue - it's just not one that I've ever looked into or commented on. I don't know where you got that idea from Greg, or why you feel the need to then rave at me for it with words like "ludicrous" and "puuhleeze". What I am asking is where is the consensus to go 1220:

article. Each entry in a glossary (or glossary style list of some other sort) is for practical purposes a stand-alone mini-article. I do get your point about link density in everyday WP prose, but part of this document's failure is that it is worded already in too blanket a fashion, such that too few editors know what sorts of exceptions can apply, or even believe that there are any exceptions.—

9009:: "If you have a URL (webpage) link, you can add it to the title part of the citation, so that when you add the citation to Knowledge the URL becomes hidden and the title becomes clickable." So the question becomes whether to remove the word "can" from the guideline. (Actually, there are lots of guidelines that don't say what everybody means, and I complain regularly.) "inline" presumably means 7265:

particular thread within it, or tried to explain what you are arguing it shows. I scanned it quickly, and can't see much specific discussion about the near-blanket exclusion of links to specific terms, let alone any consensus on that. OK, so it's a more recent example of wider discussions that got us, along with the 2008 threads that I pointed to, to where we are now with the overall wording of

3420:" on the ground that Manchester happens to be on some list of cities the readers are presumed to already know: even though a reader actually had already heard of Manchester but not of Coventry, Leicester or Wolverhampton, they'll still wonder why Manchester is not linked, and maybe even suspect that there was a previous linked mention of Manchester in the article that they've somehow missed. 2456:“BBC One” was linked in the template-based sidebar (which I seldom read) and that was the basis for his not having it linked in the body text? Do we really need to have atomic-level nuances spelled out in MOS to settle edit disputes? Common sense seems to have been sufficient in this case since the article seems to have come out all right after a consensus view on that article was achieved. 7277:

that, but it's certainly not my point). I also have to say it is noticeable from the 2009 discussion that most of the names who are not familiar to me are asking for less rigidity in delinking and make uncannily similar points to the ones I and others have been making more recently, which gives me some confidence as to the views of the more disinterested editor and of other great minds.

7470:

am referring very specifically to, for example, whether it would be preferred to link to "France" in the following page leads - "Rouen is a town in France"; "Germany is a European country that borders France". Or, say, to World War II in the page lead "The T-34 was one of the main battle tanks used by the Soviet Union during World War II". On that point, I am thinking of edits such as

6986:, that discussed the issue more generally and was split pretty evenly numbers-wise, and which seems to have led to the broad wording that we more or less have currently, subject to any later minor changes. The current wording of course has no proscribed list and also clearly excludes common terms that are "relevant to the topic of the article" from any non- or de-linking requirement. 3892:

understand the need to delete them in so many articles, or to bar links found above from being repeated in them. To me, the logic of keeping these sections and allowing them to have doubled links in them seems to weigh heavily in favor of this, rather than the apparent logic that we might possibly consume too many gigabytes for this, or possibly make an article 'look' overly long.

5957:

down in this thread isn’t so bad. So let’s cut to the chase without the flowery oratory of how “Links preserve Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way.” Why not post a green‑div below with a freaky-concise nucleus of a guideline you’d like to see. Or is this about how you fully agree with the current guidelines, but think Tony’s activities aren’t sufficiently adhering to them?

5927:

slightly tortuous route, which saw Tony shouting at others on their talk pages, to one of his blocks, which was not reverted once admins realised there was "consensus" or that he was right. I'm very over it, and discussing this is very off-topic and needless personalisation, but if we going to have hagiography, we can also have fact-checking. Cheers, and apologies to Tony.

5856:? People are doing it, as my examples showed. You - despite saying people don't say it - say it yourself when you assert that "overlink says to unlink major countries". It doesn't, not without qualification at least. If Peru is relevant to Bolivia and worth linking, so is Argentina. Sorry, end of story by common sense editing principles or by wp:overlink as read properly. 3783:"The delinking argument says, in part, links later in articles are clicked on less often and, therefore, they should be removed." Sorry, whose argument is that? I'm not sure I agree with the notion that links are less likely to be clicked on the later they occur in an article. I suspect there are a number of factors at play: one of them is likely to be that readers are 2401:

that are mentioned in passing and/or are not directly related to the topic at hand. The problem I have is that I often see de-linking that is pushed much harder than that, leaving inconsistencies, or taking out every single link to pages that are pretty clearly, by any standards, relevant and probably - or maybe just arguably - worth including. There are some examples

4799:. You think the current practices on Knowledge are unwise. Well, that’s all *extra special* but doesn’t matter since precious too-few people share your view that everyone should start re-linking the living snot out of articles. And why do they feel that way? Because doing so would be an unwise, lousy technical writing practice. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. 5977:"tendentious" is beyond me. I suggest you go and look back at that issue, as well as the posts Tony left on various editors talk pages after he felt they had crossed him at ANI before rushing to judgment. Also, I thought your point was that Tony very much would give people the light of day if they went to his talk page, which you now seem to be contradicting. 4947:

I'm not sure what it's called but can find related topics -- incidentally, by saying that, it just occurred to me: how about separating "see also" sections from a "related topics" one? I think this might well mitigate the issue in discussion! (I, for one, wouldn't mind under which name these links were, as long as they're findable). What do you think? --

8596:

regarding an edit on the relevant talk page. It would be unlikely that I would care one way or another unless someone engaged me in discussion. Anyone seeing a gnoming pattern on my contributions list would know to make a bee-line for my talk page. Important point for the record – there are precious few such talk page messages about unlinking. --

8779:

appropriate. I also intentionally linked to the redirect in the franchise's navbox, on the grounds that we wouldn't need to replace the link when filming started, just turn the redirect into a separate article. Sure enough, once filming was confirmed, such an article was created, and is properly linked from the navbox to other related articles.

6642:

opinion that matters. It's a classic game that is being played; "our way is right, you're just wrong if you don't get it". Anyone who objects is misguided or simple; apparently, the entire French Knowledge is a lost cause because they didn't accept the shiny new Gospel of Delinking, at least according to some here. That attitude has to go. --

6973:. It now seems that some people are interpreting the guidelines as if that text, or some version of it, were still there. It is, of course, not there anymore. It was temporarily struck with a request for discussion - there appears to be have been no detailed discussion or consensus before it was added, other than the inconclusive debate 7677:' in the one on Paul McCartney, relevant though the terms may be. The extent of linking in en.wp, although comparing favourably with our sister wikis, can still be improved. I don't quite understand this nebulous concept of 'navigation', and Nick's example of 'Italy' does not shed any light on how this dichotomy can be easily resolved. 4464:"the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links", Tony says. But the point is to add high-value ones (if they're important enough to be mentioned in the article text, they certainly don't lose their importance by being repeated. They might become redundant, but not uninmportant -- and arguably still remain useful) 2485:

that are being made minute-by-minute across the site without consensus. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through them all and reinsert individual links or argue the toss over each of them. Why should I, or anyone else, have to? Wouldn't it be easier if people just held off making some of them in the first place?

7312: 751:, you then failed to explain the utility curve for any useful good or commodity starts at a non-zero value; as x tends to infinity, y tends to zero – only for links, x does not need to tend to infinity, and I suspect x only needs to reach two before utility starts tending to zero in the vast majority of cases. -- 5862:: I agree with your points about the Sucralose article. Those places are mentioned in passing in an article unrelated to geography - I don't think it's wrong as such to link them, but I'd never argue with someone who took them out. My issues don't relate to those sorts of links, as I would have thought is clear. 2353:

grader from somewhere in East Africa where they power the village computer from a solar cell. The vast majority of our readership that will be visiting this article already knows what “scientist,” “scientific paper,” and “U.S.A” are, and the “1966” article has precious little else to do with “scientific goofs.”

5744:. There has never been any consensus for the heavy-handed approach that this small group is using, as you are well aware. Again, this nasty affair would be much easier to resolve if only there were some willingness to compromise, rather than the current climate of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". -- 1457:

actually do have a valid point, especially with regard to places. And it's not just noobs that overlink in this case. Here's a passage I pulled from a billiards article largely written by a good and experienced editor (and admin), and also worked on by me and various other people for several years now:

1260:

to try one of these links in this excellent article, they'll soon realise they're not being taken for a ride. Having said that, I just removed a few silly ones, such as "economic system" and "capitalism" and "private enterprise"—these are dictionary links, and spoil what is otherwise excellent practice.

1841:- this also encapsulates the problems I've seen since I first looked at this. You know, to answer your question, people might. As noted, people come here from all sorts of different places and for all different sorts of reasons, and use the site in all sorts of different ways. I don't have to show that 8595:

frequently edit war over these things? I don't follow ANYONE around delinking relinkings. Most of my gnoming is done with me rarely revisiting an article, so with the exception of edits to the 400+ articles on my watchlist, I would not know if any of it had been reverted, or if someone left a message

8046:

Sigh. Can we please just address the issues, and stop speculating in a mildly insulting way about other people's motivations and views? The whole point of an RfC is the posing of a question, in order to get some wider input from uninvolved parties on the substantive issues, not just for people who've

7749:

All of this is born out in the wording of the style guide, while at the same time it extols the virtues of the system as a whole. Gnoming activity is essential if linking standards are to be improved, since we have a legacy of past poor practice to deal with. Matching the high standards of linking in

7688:

has been linked more than 30 times in the reference section alone! – go figure. At present, there is no way to identify overlinked articles; I wish there was. Removing the overlinking manually, or even by using the standard module of AWB, is painstakingly slow and inefficient. Use of scripts (but not

7518:

The guidelines on linking are well drafted and are a reasonable compromise that best serves our readership. There is always room for interpretation but the editors N-HH has a problem with are doing a good job of adhering to the spirit and word of the guideline. This is just a content dispute over the

7055:

Nobody is "interpreting the guidelines as if that , or some version of it, were still there". I have a list of countries, religions etc. in my AWB software, but I have never claimed that list is a guideline; it's just my own interpretation of the words "major countries ...". OhConfucius uses a longer

6939:

ps: by contrast, Greg, you have left for example your comment standing that I was being "tendentious beyond all comprehension" for, yes, deigning to attempt to point out a trail of formatting errors a couple of months ago on another editor's talk page. I struck out my bid to explain the facts of what

6766:

s attitude is above reproach right now from what I can see. And if it keeps up, history will repeat itself, likely with another Arbcom case over this. It can be avoided, let's assume both sides are working good faith to understand where this claimed "consensus" for limited linking came from, and not

6533:

out for the aforementioned behaviour (although it would certainly be better for all if you avoided the snarky insults). My post doesn't even suggest anything about personal attacks, let alone accusing you personally. You made a post, I responded and rebutted. Deal with it, and perhaps please actually

6400:

a reflection of global consensus, which is what I believe N-HH is looking for. It might be a true reflection, it may be out in left field. There is fair argument that Tony, Greg and others provide that there is a lack of edit warring over link removals, but it's impossible to prove that the approach

5876:

than those - evidently disputed, at least by some - changes seem to allow. Nor am I going around adding links, as some kind of mirror to those going around removing them. People aren't delinking things I've added, they're delinking things 100s of other editors have added. And I'm sure that no one has

5782:

Ckatz, you have not yet responded to my question: why did you insist on linking "Australia/n" in that sentence? It seems to degrade rather than improve the linking. I note also that "Australian" is jammed up with "state", yet they are two different links; the style guide has long before I ever posted

5662:

behaviour would simply demonstrate a willingness to compromise, then we might actually be able to move forward. No-one is questioning their concerns about blatant overlinking. The problem lies in the attitude that only they can decide what warrants a link. They are using the current wording, language

5387:

Only two terms or words are valuable ones that are necessary to help the reader understand the subject “sucralose” (hydroxyl groups and chlorides). Cluttering up an article with more blue so a reader can stop what they’re doing and go learn about McIntosh, Alabama is just not using the noggin. One in

5183:

removed links to "Argentina" and "Brazil" from the lead. But left "Chile" and other neighbouring countries. It also removed a link in the infobox to "Spanish language", but left another - admittedly more obscure language - linked. Why? These are all relevant terms/topics to the subject of Bolivia. We

4551:

I'm sorry, but even though we agree on the issue, I must say that "I like X" is precisely the kind of language I was hoping to avoid with this subsection. You say that they are useful (which I agree with) but don't back your claim with specific examples/use cases. That unfortunately makes it easy for

3644:

You are now suggesting that we somehow weight links towards the end of the article – is this to encourage readers to get to the end? I have often found it difficult, with the 'link only the first occurrence' rule, to lighten the load on the lede. For me, it sort of defines the 'natural link density'.

3523:

link in an article, or for the sum total of links in that article? You've introduced another issue, which is the probable fall-off in reading as you go through the article. What are the implications of this? When you say "link density at WP should be governed by the utility of a link, I mostly agree,

3505:

rate of click-thrus (=money) that are significant. Naturally such rates decrease as we progress through an article because most people stop reading at some point before the end. Link density at WP should be governed by the utility of a link = absolute rate / probability of reading the linked term -

3279:

I am quite unconvinced of the calls for repeat linking based on "a long way down" or "nonlinearity"; these are nefarious concepts. Should we then call for acronyms and initialisms and all other abbreviations to be spelled out on a similar basis? This is not practical and defies standard practice. For

3246:

While we're on the topic of the linking policy, I think there's another important exception, which is symmetry. If a sentence or a list contains links to a number of similar/related concepts or words, you shouldn't not link one of them just because it was linked earlier (say in the introduction). For

2846:

It is occasionally better to link a second rather than first occurrence of an item, when both are very close to each other, and linking the first would distract from readability or focus. Not linking "transclusion", "infobox" and "glossary" in this the above list but in the follow-on prose instead is

2842:

with entries that are mostly linked to directly from other articles, and which is not principally intended to be read from start to finish, but referred to piecemeal, should use repeat links: Each entry should appropriately link to terms both within and outside the page as if entries were independent

2580:

Whilst I accept that I may err in unlinking some words, but when, as it appears, there are complaints about the entirety of an edit, then I would take issue that I was acting within the bounds of WP guidelines. If it's a case of someone believing one or two links were overzealously undone, I can also

2352:

This latter example is rich with extraneous links that do not help our readership to understand the subject of “scientific goofs”. This assumes we define “the middle of the bell curve of our readership” with some common sense and that we are not writing for the lowest common denominator such as a 4th

1961:

Tony, it is best not to make things up and fling wild accusations about what other editors might want. You personalised this by suggesting, for oh, about the 98th time, in both your edit summary and your comment, that I "want to link every word", when you know full well that I'm not calling for that,

1940:

It is best not to order other editors around and make personal attacks in edit summaries, and not to use aggressive language in posts. I stand by what I said; I'm surprised it seems to upset you—that was certainly not my intention. If you want to link France in such contexts, then why not link "the"?

1832:

I've repeatedly argued, ever since I came across this issue, that relevance and navigability are the key issues for linking, rather than the idea of what is puportedly "useful". The guidelines say this. Common sense says this. Editor practice - even excluding the much-derided overenthusiastic linkers

1714:

SMcCandlish, the problem with your second example is that it rests on the premise that editors linked nationalities because they thought it was a good idea, which may not be true. Based on what happened with date autoformatting (piggybacked on date linking), it is equally likely that editors just see

1259:

mind that it dilutes high-value links; no, it's piped to "corruption in India". Nice one. The only problem with such piping is that the pipes are "deceptive", and likely to suppress clicks because readers are so used to the silly targets that WP can be littered with. You hope that if a reader bothers

1194:

While link density does indeed vary a lot according to the type of text, it's still a quite useful indicator. If you have a very high link density (say, over 3 links per hundred characters) but you find that all the links are vital and none of them has already been linked before, odds are that you're

424:

argument (another fallacy) that because noobs tend to make stupid links like this that more and more restrictive anti-linking language has to be adopted or the sky will fall down. The sky isn't falling down, and never will. Experienced editors undo the mistakes of noob editors, today just like last

9069:

because "other characters are linked that way". The other characters in question do not have their own page, and that is why they are linked that way. The editor says "it's to keep consistent", but I thought that we should be linking to the most directly relevant page. In this case, my assumption is

8563:

be a bit stalker-ish if they did. Say I took the view that this issue was so important to me and WP that I went around with a script that re-linked lots of words - would you think it was OK for me to say that someone else could always follow up and de-link some of them, I promise not to revert them?

8562:

Fair enough, but I have seen quite a few edit wars over this sort of thing. Also, I think it's harder to point to wp:brd when changes are being made to so many pages, as opposed to when people are looking at a specific edit on a specific page. No one's going to follow all those changes, and it might

8318:

is the first such example I found. In the lede and infobox, I reviewed and restored links to Italy, which is on my list to be delinked. I also must have restored some links in the table, rather than leave it inconsistent. Looking at it now, I don't see why I came to those conclusions, but anyway you

8243:

When I drafted the RfC to suggest that terms were being removed from "most articles", I was being generous to those doing the delinking, in a bid to avoid misrepresenting their views or actions, since that's something that's afflicted this debate, mostly the other way round. On reflection, following

7949:

I think RFC is too simplified for an encompassing discussion of linking. It definitely cannot be answered by a simple yes/no answer. We need to establish to exactly what degree interwiki links in prose, and separately in infoboxes, are to be doing for our readers. Only once that question is fairly

7882:

When I'm examining the links in an article, I ask myself two questions: 1) Is a reader to likely to click on this link?, and 2) would it improve their understanding of the article if they did? A huge number of wikilinks fail one or both of these tests. Those generally include all the types of common

7441:

to the use of scripts for appropriate delinking. The push to reduce overlinking is a good idea that has gone too far. Relevant links that aid navigation for both casual readers and regular editors, and which bind related and often very popular pages together, are often being removed, seemingly on an

6994:

be - anyone and everyone, whichever side they stand on and whether you want slightly more or slighty less delinking, is entitled to do that. It's not a criticism surely to accuse someone of disagreeing with them as they stand. As it happens, despite claims by others who presume to know others' minds

6989:

All that might explain why both "sides" are arguing that the guidelines support their case: one is reading them as they found them as of a couple of months ago, the other is reading them as they wish them to be and as they tried - unsuccesfully - to make them two years ago. It also explains why it's

6943:

pps: in your numbered list, I am at point 1. I have no opinion on the changes to the guidelines, because I was not involved in that issue and have not looked into it now. I'm just reading the guidelines as they are. If the changes didn't, on a true reading, go as far as some people had intended them

6831:

I would consider this overreaction to the simple starting point of working on good faith. I don't challenge this MOS at all, but realize that the basis of the complaints about it, is that no one that is defending this is pointing out where the discussion occurred about this. I would if I knew where

6796:

Reading between the lines, it appears Masem is suggesting his position is #3 (the guideline is there but somehow managed to get there without a proper consensus). But others here seem chronically incapable of flat laying their cards on the table and prefer instead to berate other editors for editing

6682:

with the guidelines. In fact, N-HH is clearly opposed to the guidelines. Nothing more. Nothing less. That much is infinitely clear. So please don’t hop right atop your whiter-than-white stallion in a transparent attempt to seize the moral high ground here by talking about muddying the waters. I want

6423:

a recent section from another discussion page, which I think highlights the usual reaction of most disinterested and uninvolved editors when they come across this sort of thing. I've seen many similar comments on other talk pages, although usually from individual editors rather than a group of them.

6395:

What we need is some type of pointers to past discuss that includes more than just the regular MOS members (as such would come from an RFC or the like) to show there is wide-scale consensus for minimal linking. There may be something already for this; I dunno. If the discussion of limiting links as

6339:

asking is for a more measured, reasonable approach, minus the obvious personal agenda. This is a guideline discussion page, so we are trying to keep it from being personal. That aside, I think it is clear (through actions and attitudes demonstrated here and on other Wikimedia projects) that there is

6235:

I gave you an opportunity to be specific so the community could see if we have a chronic edit-dispute problem because of incorrect interpretation of the guidelines by Tony, or by you. Rather than point to a single edit-diff that had been discussed with Tony and was unresolved, all you come back with

6180:

edit‑dif that has gone full-circle with the other editor (that is, the edit has been clearly communicated to the opposing editor and his views were clear and he stuck to his guns) and which was not resolved to your satisfaction. I assume you are going to chose a humdinger where the link is important

6037:

link such terms (possibly because they never would, QED) - although I can't provide links to a negative of course. By contrast, I've given examples of when, in my view, they should and when they shouldn't. Not that I assume I'm right, but at least I'm engaging with the issue and offering one opinion

5956:

I see. Tony deleted your post and didn’t give you the time of day. There is no chance your arguments didn’t reflect the consensus of the community and you were being tendentious beyond all comprehension, is there? Tony was simply being mean and bad and unreasonable and all that, right? Your behavior

5657:

pull a fast one on the community by unilaterally changing the guideline to support a personal viewpoint about delinking two years ago. Said change was then vigorously defended by a small group on this page, and it is being implemented through an aggressive (and often careless) delinking script and a

5430:

my experience has been that the delinking editors have been more than happy to take the time to politely discuss the edits. I'm asking the community here to debate with the context of the entire project in mind, and not just the handful of editors that can bring no significant real-world examples of

5429:

to instil a paradigm (hopefully causing the localized editors to take note and think about their future linking)? No one denies the right of localised editors to relink on their favorite pages, but it must be observed that in an overwhelming number of cases, they don't. If any local issues do arise,

4209:

Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot 9 days old. Well some like it hot, and obviously others like it cold, and since four like it cold and only three like it hot that apparently makes us three a bunch of orangutans, at least in one person's view. Let them have their cold

3812:

Recognize this quote? "At any rate, some substantial number of readers do not scroll past the first screen, and most do not scroll to the bottom. This suggests: Links placed toward the bottom of an article are far less likely to be seen than ones at the top, and even more unlikely to be used." Note

3602:

I don't think a non-germane link would have any greater 'utility' if it is the first word linked in an article or the last. Yes, a word placed and linked earlier on would be more likely to be clicked on than if that word appeared and was linked later. This has more to do with being first in line (or

3477:

Hi Michael, I'm posting here to inquire in greater depth into your views on the density of internal links in WP article text. Am I right in thinking that the differences in view might have something to do with the extent to which an individual (i) finds that every additional link signal is likely to

3317:

I'm against repeated links in table columns. I've had a lot of experience with table editing at WP, and the repeated linking of column entries (irrespective of sorting) is not desirable. There are almost always better ways to handle the problem of repeated links in tables—it just takes more time and

2869:

I *get* what you’re driving at. But what you propose here seems too complex and wordy. It also seems to be a prescription for too much re-linking; maybe that is just an unfortunate side-effect of trying to be so detailed and definitive. I think the tweaks to the basic principle can be addressed with

2811:

Always bear in mind that content may be repurposed in ways not immediately envisioned by editors of linear articles (e.g. in a mobile computing version that displays only one entry at a time with no ability to present the full article at all). With restricted screen sizes (e.g. mobiles, again) some

2624:

have a link to the less focused at their opening. How many times would a reader want to divert from an article directly to both broad and focused topic? It is a textbook example of diluting a system that needs to applied with some care if readers are to click at all, on anything, in the first place.

2479:

Well, yeah my position overall is that a lot of the mass de-linking is blatantly in breach of the guidelines, as currently written, quite apart from any debate about changing them. And just a bad edit, regardless of any guidelines (although the guidelines are, as it happens, usually invoked by those

1110:

Excluding all links to some of the site's most commonly visited pages, even when they appear on pages for clearly related and directly relevant topics is not justified. Yet it happens. Nor is it clear that it helps otherwise inept readers focus on the "better" links - however, again, we would try to

1084:

Absolutely. The guidelines do not reduce the purpose of linking to that single concept, which is then to be interpreted in the most limited way possible, so as to exclude *every* link to so-called "common terms" or things where "everyone knows what they are", however we would attempt to define those

8770:

I'll try to clarify. The idea is that it's better to create a redirect from a more specific page to main one, and intentionally link to that redirect, than to link to the general page and use a pipe to have it appear as the desired word, as a)it's a misleading pipe, and b)the redirect can easily be

8432:

a moment before your expansion. You wrote of a new-found epiphany that “But either way these issues need wider review and a genuine broader consensus.” Translation: I didn’t get what I wanted here so I’ll go fishing elsewhere.” It seems exceedingly likely that you would have seized upon a favorable

8002:

But it is a very deep issues, not one that can be waived away by a yes/no question. And it affects the entire WP population; if you're calling for an RFC and wide discussion, we need to come to a wide consensus on the nature of linking. Effectively, there is a simple question: how "valuable" is an

7741:

Nowhere is poor linking practice more obvious than when whole country articles are target-linked without thought. Show me one, and I'll usually suggest a more focused target to a daughter articles or a section—or that it should not be linked in the first place. It is damaging the wikilinking system

7469:

As a clarification, I would highlight the note to the RfC question - this is *not* about linking to terms that crop up in passing, or frequent repeat linking in close proximity; or to much of the delinking that does happen, eg to trivial terms of dates etc. When talking about countries/geography, I

7321:

from the discussion here with a comment that fails to address the actual issue (as noted above, the issue is primarily about whether there is consensus for certain actions and whether they follow the guidelines, not consensus about the content of the guidelines themselves), and then continue to for

6808:

I am profoundly disillusioned with the lack of candor and the tactics being used. Some editors seem to prefer evading discussing the central issues and instead specialize in criticizing other editors’ conduct—and quite selectively so in a highly biased fashion. It is a cheap tactic, useful for when

5896:

No one has answered the two simple questions I asked clearly and concisely. Views seem 50-50 split on this page about issues with delinking (especially if you focus on the more occasional passers-by), and most times I check in on delinking editors talk pages, the comments that I see about delinking

5826:

Tony knows what he is doing and is reasonable enough. If you have a concern, bring it up on his talk page. If you two can’t come to an understanding there, don’t jump to the conclusion that Tony’s full of shit and needs his beak blown onto the top of his head again; just bring the concern here. And

5808:

Tony is actually rather remarkable for a Wikipedian. Considering how exceedingly active he is, and for as long, and how he hasn’t ever shied away from controversial issues, I would have expected him to have a half dozen blocks by now if he were as close-minded as you make him out to be. In reality,

5766:

Effective linking is not about doing it in a scattergun fashion. Does the example Tony cited above look like a mistake of script-based delinking? To me, it looks like a very carefully crafted, if overly so, attempt at giving four links which could be of interest to the reader should (s)he choose to

5598:

when I unlinked Argentina and Brazil. I say this only half in jest, because the fact is it is simpler for me to delink them than to replace them with higher value pipes. What is more, even those I didn't unlink are low value links that are increasing link density in the lede; their value would only

5198:

Now I may be repeating myself here, but that is because the problem repeats itself. Edits like this are still being made all the time by a small group of editors, marked as "minor" or "fixes", and justified by reference to wp:overlink. But I still can't see how edits like this - or that highlighted

4946:

Re: "The name says it all." -- that depends on whether you interpret the "also" as "apart from this topic" or as "apart from the text above". Both interpretations are valid, IMO, and there's no reason to cater to only one of them. I personally visit articles this way when I am looking for something

4514:

my formal training was in computational linguistics, so I've thought about these issues a lot—and that background makes me very conscious of the limitations of technology when dealing with natural language. I don't think my counterproposal is very amenable to a bot. You're right that it's a careful

4115:

is nuts, flat out bonkers. Knowledge should be easy to use, for everyone...and that includes easy to find links. Anyone reducing see also lists overly aggressively is imposing their personal reading style and usage habits on everyone reading Knowledge...it's not up to you to train our readers, it's

3891:

After having seen many helpful "See also" and "External links" sections deleted by well intended editors, attempting to "tidy up" articles, I personally have often been frustrated by this. Often in lengthy articles, these sections are life-savers (well actually huge time-savers) for me and I don't

3649:

the utility of links in the later sections of the article, so what's the point? Your notion of utility appears to be from the viewpoint of commercial sponsors, who would naturally like their links to be put earlier in any given article. My notion of utility is from the reader's viewpoint. It places

2931:

When you say, "It is clear that the current version of the MoS does not reflect consensus.", it contradicts the fact that the current text is long-standing and is the result of carefully worked-through consensus. The fact that a few editors have been voicing objections to the current practices does

2459:

The distinction between sidebars and body text is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about when I wrote about readers parachuting directly to a section. IMO, even if it’s linked in a sidebar (or caption), the first occurrence of a key word or term in the body text should still be linked. And

2455:

This seems more like a content dispute over different editors’ views on how best to adhere to the spirit of the guideline as it applies to a particular article than it is a dispute over how the guideline has any shortcomings. Am I missing something here? Is all of this an issue originating over how

2445:

you provided. There was a lot of much-needed cleanup Ohconfucius addressed in that article and there is room for honest disagreement on some of them. Ohconfucius was educated in England so maybe he thought it blindingly obvious that the target readership ought to know what “BBC One” means. Or maybe

1624:

They don't have to divert to them immediately; they could open them in new browser tabs and read them after finishing reading the Vignaux article. (That's quite unlikely for such links as "France" and "United States" in a bio, but it's something to keep in mind in general.) Note that (at least with

768:

Strange, I thought it was the delinkers who were trying to blind us with science, with all their talk of metrics, webmaster experience and degrees in psychology. Yet, upon examination, it is their arguments that are exposed as pitefully lacking. If my position is so obviously crap and bad science

509:

red-links, so it is possible for editors to spiral into the depths of linkitis (and many do). What's worse is that there are always the tinkerers—who believe that they can squeeze one more link out of the tube (well, an article isn't really finished while there's something else to link, is it?). On

456:

The time wasting occurs because you haven't distinguished consumer choice from the ultimate choice offered by the sea of blue. Whatever semantics we use, some links are more useful than others, and the least useful links should be delinked. When we get past that point, we can discuss why linking to

8400:

Because the above RfC is not just a !vote, it is a collection of statements of position accompanied by thoughtful reasoning. It is becoming increasingly clear that the consensus of the community is that the current guidelines need no major revisions, and perhaps only some tweaks to some details to

7968:

But how would we do that? Surely the point is that different readers use links in many different ways at different times - for basic navigation, to move on to related topics of interest, to read into or "drill down" to a more specialised or technical page etc. I'm not sure we'd ever pin that down,

7776:

to the abuse of scripts to strip away useful links). Knowledge's guidelines are meant to better the project, and are not to be used as justification for implementing a personal vision to strip away a nonsensical "sea of blue". Most people who delink are addressing the real issue, that being actual

7271:

Hence, it is quite clear that consensus was then - and remains now - against such rules and actions. Yet a small number of editors - in my reading of what is happening, I accept you dispute that Art - argue and delink in thousands of articles across the site regardless as if it did and as if there

6793:

There still seems to be too much impressive oratory going on and insufficient laying out the cards as to where different editors’ opinions really lie. I would very much liked to have seen a succinct and honest declaration as to whether it was #1–6, above. But such a straightforward question is met

6771:

critical issues so it is better to caution on checking what the community wants than to play dictatorial games with one's personal opinion of how they should be handled. And just like date delinking - there is no rush to answer these questions; no one is about to sue WP for having a sea of blue or

5441:

Personally, I'm surprised that Example 2 was raised above as it is a sensible delinking that addresses a number of problems, and four days after that edit no one has blinked a revert-type eyelid at that page. If that's a counter-example demonstrating some type of "problem" then I can can rest easy

5228:

I agree. The choice of links to unlink in your two examples makes no sense, and if the examples are typical then there is a problem with the way these two editors go about it. I am guessing that they simply have a list of overlinked words, and that both are using a script that mechanically removes

4748:

the different-language Wikipedias to reduce the links in articles to just those required to enhance the readers’ understanding of the subject matter. After rising to absurd proportions, the proportion of words linked in articles has declined on en.Knowledge by one-third in the last four years. The

4032:

I too like to read an article thoroughly once. But when I remember that there was a certain link in an article I read yesterday, or last month, I feel a bit cheated when some well-intended cleaner-uper has removed or pared down a previously good "See also" section, just to assure that I must once

3757:

Can we keep the discussion more concrete? Not having a degree in economics, I had to read it three times before getting everybody's points. :-) Anyway, we're not selling anything, so whether the readers just prints down a copy of the page and reads it without giving a damn about the links, or they

2699:

Well, we're still going round in circles. Useful in what sense? Useful to whom? Who are we as one or two individuals to assume anything about how to define those concepts anyway, uniformly for millions of users here? As it happens, I wouldn't object to more specific links where appropriate. Having

2484:

de-linking - the example we're looking at here is just that, an example. Yes, I restored some of the links there because I happened to spot it. Those partial reverts stuck and so a resolution of some sort was reached. But we are talking about thousands of articles, and arguably problematic changes

2060:

Now there are going to be disagreements on links in each case of course, and as to whether they are relevant or not. But those debates are manageable and can be part of normal copy-editing (and probably won't include discussions about whether the word "the" is a relevant/related topic that is ever

2025:

Linking France: "Where is your evidence that people want some higher minds to point them to certain pages and not others?" Linking "the": "Editorial judgment". See why we're going in circles? Of course some links shouldn't be made, and some should. Phrasing OVERLINK is a hard question, but getting

1838:

Who is going to click "France" and the "United States" here? Who? You seem to cast our readers as leisured browsers who want to wander through the site at random. That is patently unfair to those who want to be pointed towards valuable links. Have you read the huge, encompassing articles on France

1540:

link to a country was harmful, only that he'd never bother clicking it himself. I also can't remember anyone on "my" side of the debate suggesting that WP would fall apart if we didn't always, always, always provide links to a country just because it's mentioned in passing. From countries we can

1219:

This claim is far too over-generalized. Some text is link-dense on purpose, and has to be that way, such as glossary entries in stand-alone glossary lists, which are not usually read from top to bottom, but only referred to for clarification of a single term, linked to from its context in another

874:

MCP, did you come to the conclusion somewhere in your experience that not dropping an issue and setting your egg timer to remind you to pound away on your keyboard some more on this issue or that somehow pulls out a win? The most tendentious editor gets his way?? A lot of middle-of-the-roaders are

827:

In this case, I saw someone who I thought was a scientist opposite me. I'm not thick, but were just not quite on the same wavelength – and I'm sure there are plenty others in a similar situation. You gave up trying to explain to me above, remember?? My repositioned argument is merely a response to

182:

We need to examine another term we see bandied around, link "dilution". Assuming that it means that the occurence of neighbouring links reduces the incidence of clicking on an individual link, why do the delinkers think this means links should be removed? To use an analogy, the occurence of many

8981:

What I was looking for was guideline support for the assertion, "We are not supposed to show the 'raw' url, whether in the refs or EL section". AFAICS, this guideline only supports the "EL section" portion of that assertion. Also, I'd like to see guideline support for an assertion that 'raw' urls

8963:

We don't use ref tags in the 'External links' section because the tags will eject the entry into the footnotes/references section. We are not supposed to show the 'raw' url, whether in the refs or EL section. The rest of the format is correct, AFAICT, except for the unitalicised journal name (now

8362:

Thanks. Actually that did occur to me after I made that observation that I might not notice such examples, for precisely that reason (ie that they are restored pre-save). And it's not an investigation! I know some don't believe me, but I genuinely want an answer as to where broader consensus lies

7369:

as currently written for every individual link to "major" or "common" terms, countries, places, professions, nationalities etc - however those are to be defined exactly - to be removed from most articles, both main text and infoboxes? And, as a secondary question, is the use of scripts to do that

7238:

The merger was a hard negotation by many editors, as you can see from the diff I provided. You will note that Kotniski merged the three pages, then there were objections, and they were unmerged. Negotiations continued, and I can't recall whether they were merged and unmerged again, or just merged

5585:

was the result of a fair amount of deliberate manual work – a good half hour, IIRC. Yes, I do have a list I work to. Many articles suffer from overlinking of the same group of terms, so it is no surprise that my systematic work may look automated. It did cross my mind, and I'm sorry that I didn't

4460:

This was argued against, above, as being a rationale that would remove all links. Besides agreeing with that, I add that sometimes the reader might not remember (or even know) the precise title of the article they seek. A navbox would serve this purpose, but what about when there's only a handful

4318:

My statement was not a breach of WP:CIVIL. It is not much to ask that people treat each other politely. Suggesting that the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links is a perfectly valid argument; I'd like you to consider it. There is the matter of diluting high-value links, which

2680:

You raise the "why not link France at the top of the article on Champagne (that is, the wine)". Because "France" is just to broad to assume that it is useful. I keep asking why you wouldn't link to a more specific article (or even section), than "France". Like "Wine production in France", or less

2400:

Broadly I would agree with most of that, subject to previous comments about the problems inherent in focusing on what we think might help the reader understand the subject (eg how do we know? which reader? what about other criteria? etc etc). We don't need, usually, to repeat links or link things

2057:

have for months, despite being raised on many, mnay occasions. The point about editorial judgment is, as noted, key. And it needs to be applied in the context of each page, not by blanket assertions that "everybody knows what/where X is", therefore the links to that term are going to removed from

1817:

Dunno, the town of birth needn't be relevant to one's life. For example, after the age of a few months I've never lived in the city where I was born. (I think that's why the MoS discourages writing the place of birth in the first sentence, though I think that's too strong because there'll be many

1353:

is totally absurd. The entire field the article is about is fraudulent nonsense, pandering to the lowest common denominator fanbase. The article, like any article about a pop-culture topic, is frequently if not mostly edited by its random fans, not by neutral parties much less experienced editor.

704:

And someone reading that article might want to read about "profit"? How low do you go? Do you link "matches" in the second sentence just in case? She does not deepen the understanding of the wrestling article sufficiently to warrant a link. There's also the issue of chain-links (e.g. she would be

8504:

Greg, stop impugning my motives and launching these bizarre tirades. It is getting to the point of being abusive. I quite openly added an extra paragraph to clarify my points that was entirely consistent with everything I have said all along in this debate, and my post included a note that I was

8110:

in everything but its most technical sense? As for the substantive point at issue, you've made a leap from my general comments in a meta-debate about why some people might sometimes use links to make somewhat over-simplified assertions about what I think should or shouldn't be linked in an ideal

7973:

to be using links, which surely isn't the point of WP unless we're all at school here. And even without any such agreement, I think people can still offer a general judgment or opinion as to whether, broadly, it is OK to have links to "England" or "China" on related pages. Anyway, let's see what

7276:

the actual consensus as formulated over the years in the guidelines - that's the *whole point* of my argument that opened this subsection. Nor do I read anyone else's comments as them saying this all proves there is "no consensus for the current page", as you suggest they are. Maybe they do mean

7138:

selecting, but I was? This is not a US election full of spin. I've provided a diff of negotiations that went on over three months, early 09, involving many editors. You are pointing to discussions more than two years ago. We could go back further and ask where the consensus was for widely liking

6464:

shows only that some editors were unfamiliar with the linking guidelines with regard to how a common place name like “British Isles” should not be linked. With 48,019,745 registered Wikipedians, there is no way—even via e-mail if it were desired—to educate them to proper linking practices. Quite

6206:

to neighbouring countries, before someone else, correctly, restored them). What are you asking for - evidence of an edit war over linking that I've lost? Or of interminable linking debates on individual article talk pages, which rightly irritates other editors? Why should I - or anyone - have to

6201:

I see plenty of fairly pointless link additions. I also see plenty of pointless link removals, as well as quite a few link removals that are, in my view, outright detrimental and that go far beyond the requirement of wp:overlink. I don't comment on or revert each and every one of them, in fact I

6134:

As noted, I agree. I did not wish to see comments about "daffy ducks" and somewhat inaccurate - by my experience at least - claims about talk page welcomes go unnoticed. I should have done, as I should have let go further, bizarre, claims that on that occasion I was acting "against consensus" by

6066:

OK, I said "OVERLINK says to unlink major countries", and I didn't say "except when particularly relevant to the topic". That was for the same reason I didn't mention religions, languages, and quote the rest of the rule verbatim. I didn't mean that was the full text of OVERLINK. Of course I know

5926:

Point of fact, Greg - I once went to Tony's talk page, for the first time ever, and he simply deleted my post without reading it, even though it was raising legitimate concerns of this sort and also directing him to outright delinking errors (ie those that buggered up formatting). That led, by a

4270:

Could you two avoid emotive, exaggerated statements and analogies? Accusing other editors of being "nuts, flat out bonkers", is not helping calm, rational debate. And Ohconfucius, I wouldn't use the word "ignorant" for a second. People have their own point of view. Please tone down the language.

3481:

I suppose it is with a balance-sheet mentality that I approach the decision as to whether to link or not to link, not unlike my attitude to the use of optional commas in prose. I'd be interested to discuss your perceptions of linking, visually and in terms of utility and "dilution". Perhaps I am

2052:

use a link to the US or France or whatever, I was simply responding directly to Tony's question - "who would clink on such a link?". That specific response was not intended to answer the more general question "what is the criteria for linking?" nor was it phrased as such. The rest of my post was

1044:

WhatLinksHere is not correct, but don't agree that some sort of localized density is the criteria for inclusion or removal. Sometimes a high density of links may help to deepen the understanding of the article, and other times it might be fine to remove a single link in a long paragraph—if it is

8116:

different users, some regular, some passing by. That's not the "lowest common denominator", that's just being flexible and open-minded, while at least hopefully having some thresholds and standards. In any event, as noted, the point of the RfC is to ask *other people* what *they* think. Cheers.

7515:

This RfC was poorly crafted with a two-part question that the poster only answered with one “No.” Moreover, RfCs are ideally crafted by an uninvolved admin; either that, or a better job is done by the poster to achieve unbiased wording. The wording of this RfC was crafted in a slanted manner to

7194:

I'm not claiming that anything is "fine" or "not fine", but that the subsequent extensive negotiations among many editors over a period of months in early 09 settled the wording well and truly. You seem to be claiming that there is no consensus for the current wording. I have limited time to go

7111:

Hardly "ancient history", given that they are directly relevant to the principles involved in this dispute (and also central to the discussions you've highlighted). When you factor in that many of the same participants from those discussions are still here today, it emphasizes the importance of

6641:

in a geographical article about a neighbouring country; there is no need to use a scattergun approach and selectively delink some countries while leaving others linked in the same sentence; and there is no certainly no reason to presume that their opinion as to what is a useful link is the only

6576:

Oh, and the bit about your stunt of riding in all tall, proud and handsome on your steed was spot on, as was the bit about your being quite partisan on this issue. So I’d appreciate that you dismount from said stallion, sheath your saber, and spell out for the record if you think Tony delinking

6509:

personal attacks (via mischaracterizations of fact) against Tony no end here on this page. So your selecting me out for a facefull of humble pie on the “civilized discussion” front is laughably partisan. We all know where you stand on delinking. If you don’t want an unsound and non-factual post

6334:

One of the central problems here is that there is a real pattern of behaviour that fails to meet what one would expect in a civilized discussion. We're all adults (at least I'm presuming most of us who bother to participate here are) so it is not a playground-argument "oh, he's not playing nice

6012:

Answering my own section: Now you say no one has answered you "clearly and concisely". Much better than just pretending nobody answered. I haven't seen anyone argue for delinking "regardless of context"; show me a diff if I'm wrong. Instead, we're arguing about which contexts are sufficient for

5976:

Sorry, the consensus of the community is that editors should wreck category lists and other formatting - ie introduce uncontroversial and outright errors to pages - and ignore attempts to bring that to their attention? That's what happened on that occasion. What on earth it has to do with being

4956:

By the way, does anyone oppose if I collapse the discussion above (starting at "You're welcome to your opinions")? They don't really contribute much to advance the topic in discussion, and again, I started this subsection precisely to avoid this kind of discussion. I mean no offense, of course,

3990:

So far this looks like I lose. One for, one neutral, and three opposed. Argh! Apparently I'm in a small minority on this. My wife says I must have OCD, because I always like to have things in the same places where I can easily find them. Perhaps she is right. Now where were those slippers

3772:

Okay, let's start again. The term utility is misleading here, so let's drop it. The delinking argument says, in part, links later in articles are clicked on less often and, therefore, they should be removed. My point is that, they may be clicked on less often, but that doesn't mean we should

1845:

will use a link to justify retention. I'm not sure how many would get there from any one specific link, but France and US are probably among the most viewed pages here. And I can pose some questions in return - why reduce the options for getting to them, from a related and relevant page? If the

1735:

I'm striking my words "back up claims of consensus" because that isn't what I meant. It has been argued that major country links throughout the article don't count because only noobs do that. But if that's so, then the same noobs presumably link major countries in the lede also. So if we ignore

8942:

I did not find such support here because the guideline explicitly limits the relevant advice to the "External links section". I suggest that this be changed to read, "External links" and the wording modified as needed to make clear that the guideline applies to external links wherever located.

8397:

I’m counting 57 posts by you on this page. That is exceeded only by Michael C. Price, who has 66. If the rest of us grew fatigued of the high number of postings you two are making here on this issue and stopped responding to you, would you interpret that as indifferent acquiescence and a tacit

7264:

Thanks for that link to the 2009 discussion Tony. My request was a genuine one, as to whether I'd missed anything. As you know, I am more recent entrant into this dispute. However, I don't see what it actually shows - it's a very long discussion, and as Michael says you haven't highlighted any

7059:

As for robo-delinking, AWB allows and strongly encourages manual review of each change. If my manual review isn't considered sufficient judgment, that won't make me meditate for hours on each link. It would make me remove the unlinking section from my software, and assuming others do the same,

6032:

another - the removal of a link to "Australia" from an article which even has Australia in the title. You yourself said, as I pointed out, that "major countries" should be unlinked . That's the very definition of an assertion that disregards the possibility of taking decisions according to the

4711:

Oh, well… since you don’t seem to be in a constructive mood today, Michael and apparently seem anxious to come here, make oodles of waves, insist on having things your way, and flippantly dismiss others’ opinions as being “just opinions”; you, sir, are welcome to be tendentious, as long as you

3870:

Ditto. Me too: Out of here. Adios. And thanks for giving your endorsement of sorts to my suggested guideline for re-linking. It’s actually a practice I and some other of the “de-link jihaders” do (or whatever the heck we’re referred to). I thought I’d throw out there as it seems to reflect the

2806:

links, to things that most readers are at least somewhat familiar with, are typically repeated less. But even nagivational links may be helpful to repeat in particularly long or complicated articles, as readers often use the table of contents feature to jump from section to section and do not

1882:

relevant to a topic. If you want to link every word, get the developers to make a system that does link every word (without colouring it); this is what my desktop Encarta dictionary does. I don't mind that on Encarta, and it would be preferable to undisciplined linking on WP; except that in WP

1595:

some real (though quick) statistics: 7 out of 10 random articles with major countries in the lead linked them, and 4 out of 10 random articles with major countries further down linked them. Of course the statistics don't try to distinguish what data doesn't count because of alleged noob edits.

1456:

have unreasonably and fallaciously suggested both that the noob practice of linking just about everything will spread like wildfire and that the more moderate or "inclusionist" or "pro-linking" editors of WP:LINKING have actually advocated such linking – both of these are abject nonsense, they

8778:

articles, prompted by the announcement of the fourth film. At that time, per our long-standing conventions to not have articles for films not yet in full production, it didn't have its own article. A redirect to the film series article, which did have a nascent section on the fourth film, was

8159:

in the section above. If you have issues with the wording of the RfC, feel free to say exactly where the problem is. I did answer my own supplementary question - which seems a fair one - just without a simple yes or no. And could you provide links, or evidence for the statements in your last

8115:

navigational links, which I believe are fairly easible identifiable by relatively objective standards in the context of each page. You and others favour what you call "better" or "more useful" links, whereas I don't see how you can objectively define that, for an encyclopedia with millions of

7722:

Per Ohconfucius above, who puts it well; Masem, below, makes good points, too. Wikis (at least this one) have been evolving more sophisticated approaches to intralinking over the past five years, after the first four years in which no one really thought much about the issue. This has involved

7272:

was such consensus (note: Tony when you comment here, you seem to be conflating the issues of consensus for the guideline wording and consensus in respect of some aspects of delinking practice. The point being made is that there is no consensus for the latter, and that indeed those actions go

3095:

This latter example is rich with extraneous links that do not help the vast majority of the readership to understand the subject of “scientific goofs”. The vast majority of our readership are coming to the article to learn about scientific goofs throughout history and they already know what a

3578:

Surely the utility of a link, if anything, should be the product of absolute rate and the probability of reading the linked term and not divided by the latter; the probability of reading the linked term is clearly related to how common-garden the linked term is, irrespective of how relevant.

6596:

You can interpret the use of your name any way you like, I suppose. For the record, though, your current guess is completely incorrect, however. My post followed from several comments you'd made, and was directed to you because it felt like the natural person to speak directly to. That, and

5193:

removed links to "England" plus "town" and "city". Again, navigability is reduced as links to rather obviously relevant terms - when discussing local administration for *urban areas* in *England* (the clue's in the page title) - are removed. And, again, what benefit is there to this loss of

4637:

piped to "France", which I assure you no one will click on). I don't quite see your difficulty in "hunting down" links. Do you mean you've thought of the link target before you've come across it? My advice would be to read the article as a whole, or use the search box instantly if you wish.

3964:

I also tend to remove or reduce See Also sections when they simply repeat links unless they are important major topics directly related to the primary subject but which have not been directly mentioned in the article. It's also important to keep in mind that external links are governed by

3182:

for an RfC (a rhetorical question that is in fact a solicitation of support of the proposal) shows to me that you exhibit a fondness for wikidrama and needless confrontation. It seems all my effort here at finding a middle ground was utterly pointless and a waste of my time. Happy editing.

1535:

ambassador" - his country is intimately connected to his relevance as an ambassador in whatever context he's likely to be appearing in, so identified.) I think a clear compromise is in order here. If I remember correctly, even Tony1, who feels strongly about this stuff, didn't say that a

2651:

to so-called common terms, on the basis that "well I know what it is, and I guess maybe most others probably do as well, so we shan't be linking to that article at all. Even though it is relevant, related, and the page carries more information on that second thing than simply a dictionary

2899:

Well, I didn’t mean “so simple that what we currently have suffices.” I meant “simpler than your proposed addition.” Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m editing on the road with a laptop, don’t have my standard macros or even a mouse, and everything is awkward. See my below green‑div.

8546:

would come into play in cases like this. I am extremely unlikely to editwar over an article and changes such as this, except to negotiate the most optimal solution for all concerned, above all the encyclopaedia. My talk page would have been infinitely more suitable venue than this page.

6995:

better, I'm broadly happy with them; others are not so keen on every aspect. But, for now, we have to deal with them as they are and with the apparent consensus that got them there. If I've missed anything in the historical record or in my observations on it, I am happy to be corrected.

2233:

In the above example, I wouldn’t bat an eye if I encountered that “French” link in the first paragraph in the lede of a biography. But at all times, I try mightily to avoid linking words and terms—particularly in the main body text—if they are in any way tangential to the *real* subject

6963:

Having not been involved in the debates over changes to the wording of the guidelines a way back, as noted above, I did some research, which sheds some light on the current debate about common terms, especially geographic ones, and on the broader issues of "consensus". What I found was

7742:

as a whole to throw such generalised, vague links before the readers in the hope they will generate a click. Readers soon switch off our valuable links when we dish up distractions like that. Past linking practices have also led to carelessness in piping. These are reasons I developed

6489:

as the guidelines require. That much is clear from your rhetorical question, above, about “Where’s the consensus?” I can’t help it if you weren’t active when the consensus was arrived at. Your railing against Tony for properly implementing the guidelines is a pure and simple case of

1201:(though there might be different reasons to remove it, e.g. "it redirects back on this same page, as it should" or "it is so irrelevant to the topic of this article that most readers following it would mutter 'WTF?' and hit 'Back'/close the new browser tab within 500 milliseconds") 8007:

prefer considering them valuable to avoid high link density, but that's just me), and if you're going to RFC anything, getting at the core of the issue makes more sense than a challenge to what some are currently practice; that is, addressing the cause and not the effect of it.

1354:

Given the nature of that fanbase, anyone intelligent enough to not be a part of that audience should automatically expect that article to engage in overlinking (as well as bad grammar, spelling errors, original research, fancruft, unsourced statements, vandalism, violations of

8900:

Rindermann,H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 6 67−706 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract</ref:

6242:

Now, I happen to be in the middle of an medical trial surrounded by people with Ph.D.s wearing white lab coats as we get some pills fired up that transmit pH, temperature, and pressure from inside the gastrointestinal tract. Any time there is a break, I was coming here. And

5887:. If I may, your comment about readers being "numb" to links is a) conjecture, as are a lot of claims about linking that are made; and b) probably says more about how regular busy editors see links rather than casual readers, if I may indulge in some conjecture myself here. 1527:. On the other side, the perhaps increasing (certainly existent and certainly alleged to be increasing) frequency with which the former, in-middle-of-random-sentence country link is deleted without dispute (or never put there to begin with) is strong evidence that there is 5253:, but I did notice the questions (after I joined the discussion) better than you noticed my answers. OVERLINK says to unlink major countries. We don't define "major", but Argentina and Brazil are the most obvious choices in South America, because they have more population. 674:

It's interesting that a sense of humour is the first casualty in this. I was joking (didn't the smiley help you to detect that?). The point being that Marisa (lovely, and apparently anonymous, as she is) does nothing to deepen the understanding of an article on wrestling.

4737:

My “departure” was in regard to the threads at the bottom of the page, on which no progress was being made because no one wanted to do what you insisted on: begin linking the holy crap out of articles again. I see that your nonsense springs eternal at old threads on this

8824:

I think so. It certainly isn't an example where the redirect is already a separate article, so it works in that regard. It is a bit obscure, but I think that may be necessary at this point, considering that obvious examples probably already have their own articles. Like

7400:: The purpose is not to ask for comment on the removal of more obviously trivial, irrelevant or needlessly repetitive links, or links to major/common terms - eg "Italy" - where they are mentioned in passing in an article and have no immediate relation to the page/topic. 4419:

Some above say we should demand effort from readers; some say we should make it easy. Personally, I don't think we should be making judgments on the amount of effort readers should have, but rather on the practical usefulness of being able to skip reading the article. A

5163:

shunted the thread into the archives, which acts as effective deletion, on the second occasion bizarrely claiming that there was "nothing productive here but diatribe and personal insults" - I'm going to ask them again, and give people another opportunity to answer.

8404:

Accordingly, the time is rapidly approaching to abandon your practice of railing daily on this issue and of trying a new tact the moment an RfC you just started appears stillborn. After the community declines a big hearty bowl of half-cooked tripe, half-cooked tripe

3846:

I thank you all for wasting my time. There have been more than two dozen edits to this page since my last one and hardly any of them did contain any useful idea to improve the guideline. I'm unwatching this page; if you need me (which I think you won't), you know

1656:

The guideline resists the bunching of links that might well be seen as a single link. This is precisely what you've shown here. Why are the names red links? That seems deceptive, in this instance. Please replace them with blue-link names so we can see the effect.

902:

in a atheist world is making me laugh and cry at the same time. The tactic adopted by MCP seems to be to filibuster about his point(s) not being addressed, even when they patently have been, albeit not to his satisfaction. It seems his 'non-acceptance' more like

1139:

And it is just unbelievable chutzpah to assume that we, the superhumanly intelligent magically empowered editors of this largely ignored guideline of supreme universal importance are in any position to decide what is a "better" link for any given reader.

8160:

sentence? Or, better still, avoid outright falsehoods ("outspokenly opposed to the guidelines"), cheap labels ("extremist") and prejudging an RfC ("not shared by the majority of Wikipedians")? Half your comment engages with the issues, the rest does not.

9032:

Let me put it more directly: I propose that the section of this MOS guideline currently headed "External links section" be re-titled as "External links", so that the guidelines therein apply to all external links wherever located. Comments? Objections?

6673:

Hmmm. Your real message point gets lost through all your high-road posturing about “cutesy insults” and “muddy waters.” It is not an insult to expose fallacious arguments for what they are. And with regard to *muddying the waters*, you stole a page from

5698:(1) This opening sentence is already fairly crowded with blue, so the reader is presented with an awful lot of choice within three seconds of starting the topic. (2) Why would we want to add yet another link to the most general article thinkable (unless 4523:

These points, and the fact that the current rules are indeed being applied my many as hard-and-fast principles (and yes, made their way to AWB), make it clear, imo, that a specific exception is in order for cases where the benefit exceeds the drawbacks.

4406:

I would like to see a clear listing of pros and cons of repeated links in see also sections, since the discussion above got a bit astray. I'll try to provide some below from the statements above and my own opinions. Please add more if I missed anything.

5877:

re-linked in example 2, or often elsewhere, because no one ever looks at the page. And most of those who do wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other. Plus there's the broader point that many of these delinking edits are made to look semi-official.

3949:

I also tend to disagree with Scott. I am one of those editors who reduces or removes See Also sections when they do nothing but repeat links already included in body of article. I have gone ahead and reverted your additions to the MOS until we reach

1612:

3886: 3011: 6027:

Sorry, we're going round in circles here - I've shown examples of delinking what are arguably "common terms" where is it self-evidently being done regardless of context, eg the removal of a link to Argentina in the article of a neighbouring country.

395:

the deletionists in this discussion have been using as a crutch the entire time this "debate" has been ongoing (it's not really a debate, which requires logically sound arguments from both sides; it's just a bunch of chestbeating and pissing). This

4816:

But if you're so sure consensus is with you, why the hysterical reaction and violation of AGF to the suggestion of an RfC? I'm not the only one to have pointed out that a small cabal of 4-5 editors here does not amount to a consensus. We shall see.

1590:

Better. I would have unlinked "Frenchman/French" in both those situations, but surely the lead is a more arguable case for linking it because it says the whole article is in some sense French, and we're no longer arguing in contradictory absolutes.

2950:

And people have been telling you that it is wrong ever since you and a few other editors rammed it through. The number of unanswered points on this talk page should shame you. I predict that my apples and oranges argument has joined the list....

5979:

As for now, on the more subjective issues, yes, I believe a lot of the delinking - by Tony and two or three others - goes further than the current version of the guidelines suggests it should. I have said that five times now in this thread alone.

828:

you, as you appear to have started to make rather POINTY and sarcastic statements of positions you do not actually support or advocate – statements which are not conducive to a healthy debate. Please indulge me... how are my arguments "pitefully (

2539:

Well, I just don't think I would have anything to say to anyone who suggests that, where the BBC – the most well-known organisation in the world – is linked to many fold in an article about a sitcom, these multiple links should not be removed by

4598:

The name says it all. It implies that other subjects which may be relevant to the article's subject, but are not dealt with or linked to, may be linked there. Using this as another place to bury repeat links is really stretching tde definition.

5485:

that is Knowledge. I elect to contribute my time to the project in the manner of my choosing and certainly don’t intend to spend any of it taking N‑HH by the hand and guiding him through the months-long blow-by-blow that got us to where we are

4085:. I don't know how far I should go in Scott's edit history to find the sort of concrete example used to justify adding repeat links to the 'See also' section – a large article with a link so deeply embedded it would be difficult to find again. 132:: I object to this undoing of my archiving. This page is now in excess of 200k. The threads I archived are as good as dead. Ys, perhaps some questions have remained unanswered, but that is the nature of threads... Filibustering isn't going to 7326:

to "Catholic" and "Italy" from a page about an, er, Italian trade union with Catholic roots, marking those edits as "minor" and with an edit summary claiming that they are simply "fixing dashes, unifying date formats and removing date links."

3061:…it might be better to also link where the scientist came from because the demonym, which is for someone from Vanuatu, has an odd construction and Vanuatu is much less familiar to the majority of our readership than is a country like America. 1018:), but: 1) the threshold before this happens is much higher than some people here claim (I think it's about one link (excluding superscripted links to footnotes) per hundred visible characters, paragraph-wise); 2) the solution is not going to 3204:

No matter, the principle is quite clear. If the article on "oranges" mentioned "apple", I would expect it to be linked, yet reading about apples doesn't "deepen my understanding" of oranges - but a reader of one might like to read about the

2145:

Well, I'm not sure what exactly your main objection was, or what exactly you mean by saying that I relieved it. Sorry, not being pedantic, just confused! Either way, we seem to be settled as far as I can tell, so probably no need to keep on.

709:

movie link). Lastly, anyone who is really interested in her, can copy and paste her name into the search box. These are concepts well understood by most of the editors here, so we all need to move on with more concrete aspects of the debate.

1901:

Ugh. You're still doing this strawman crap and just making stuff up about what I have said or might even think, despite my being very clear about my view, and despite being asked not to about 1000 time. This is the other 50% of the problem.

4844:

GregL has a point although I don't like the way he expresses it. If you want an RfC so much, you don't need anybody's permission, especially after this much discussion. Whether anyone wants to comment further at the RfC, is something else.

7056:

list. That is to be expected when the guideline leaves the list undefined. Of course there is no consensus on what should be in the list; if that oft-repeated explanation isn't a "straight and simple answer", I can't imagine what would be.

220:

Everyone else is against a "sea of blue", but if you would always notice a link you want, then a sea of blue would be ideal. But I don't think you would notice. Thus linking should only be done when its value exceeds its dilution effect.

2625:

And the notion that then "BBC" should be linked again and again through the article is going to turn back the clock to the days when wikilinking was blue paint spattered through our text, and rightly ignored with irritation by readers.

2799:

links to terms, concepts, places, etc., that many readers may not be knowledgeable about or familiar with at all are often helpfully linked more than once in an article (e.g. in the lead, and again when they appear in context in later

8782:

The idea falls flat a bit when people use bots to bypass redirects, forgetting that redirects are cheap and not always wrongly placed. But that's a tangentially related topic more about the bots than the underlying links. that's what

5199:

portion of them - make sense in any way, whether by reference to basic editorial judgment or to the guidelines we have here. I can only assume that were they put to the broad mass of editors, they'd be scratching their heads as well.

4790:

Period. Get that through your head. And “consensus” does not equate to “Whatever Michael wants ‘cause he hangs onto issues like a pit bull on someone’s throat.” You don’t get your way be being tendentious beyond all comprehension and

4427:

The "See also" section may repeat very important links from the article's body, but only if it is judged likely that a reader may use the page solely to find the other link (and hence, may not read the entire article in order to find

1799:, France, in 1905)". Also, SMcCandlish, I find instances where "professional" is also linked. It all ends up a jumble of links. We owe it to our readers to be specific in both our wording (as John has exemplified) and in our linking. 6974: 3787:

willing to divert at the top of an article, just as they're getting into the topic (unless there's a technical term they really need to know more about, and which isn't briefly glossed in the text—I actually believe technical terms

6813:

nothing more to do with this. Don’t leave messages on my talk page about it. Knowledge is supposed to be a fun hobby and I have free will and the right to say I want nothing more to do with this when things are like this. Goodbye.

6632:

taking far too much of a hard-line approach with the guideline; it does not endorse the militant manner in which they've chosen to operate. Many of their edits do serve some purpose; we don't necessarily need so many links to the

6391:

Having watched this debate, and while favoring the minimal approach taken by Tony et al for linking, I have to agree with Ckatz that this discussion is far from civilized - this is almost the date-delinking stuff all over again.

2310:…I’d link where the scientist came from because the demonym, which is for someone from Vanuatu, is oddly done and that country is much less familiar to the middle of the bell curve of our readership than is a country like the U.S. 8693:

Someone has just added another sentence to it. I am still totally confused about what it means, so I suppose a lot of other users will be too. At the very least, the example of piping "poodle" to "dog" is unsuitable, since there

4749:

downward trend has been consistent as editors all across the project realized we had created articles that looked seas of blue turds. These statistics apparently don’t please you. As they say in the military: “So sad – Too bad.”

1358:, and every other article flaw, often many at once), except when periodically cleaned up by experienced, non-fan editors. Using that of all articles as some kind of test case makes this entire thread as absurd as something from 804:

Are you trying to win arguments here? Stay on point. You seem to want to link the living crap out of articles and that’s considered by the community to be three daddy steps backwards. Give it up; come back when your position is

7606:. The current wp:Link wording has been in place for a considerable time, and has led to thousands and thousands of edits—the overwhelming majority of which have been well received in article space. Common and dictionary links " 1315:

Yes, I agree that the India article is a good example (and thanks Tony1 for taking the time to improve it). "Dictionary links" is a good term to use as we move forward with the common goal of improving the quality of articles.

3280:

a long time, WP articles have been treated as whole, integral entities WRT a number of major stylistic aspects. Suddenly changing tack just for wikilinking is a departure from this that would need the bigger picture examined.

3722:, with something like 50,000 edits here, is an ex-webmaster, and has interesting things to say about his professional experience of this matter. I can dig up some diffs to what he has said, if you like. (But off to bed now.) 6981:

and has not been seen since as far as I can tell. Nor, as far as I can tell, has any discussion about the contents of such a specific list, and certainly no consensus on it. The only discussion post-removal I could find was

5069:

in the last year, with an increasing number of editors leaning toward permitting links inside quotations when they will be very helpful for reader comprehension, and removing links where they don't add much. E.g. a link to

4110:

This is nuts....why are you making Knowledge harder to use? If someone can't find a link because it's been tidied up, you've done a real disservice. Not all out readers are familiar with how best to use Knowledge, and to be

2565:

before Knowledge, so that should surely be linked. But just once. Well, at least not repeatedly in the same paragraph. (Oh, and you were the first to mention anybody's orifice, so I consider that an unnecessary escalation.)

6627:

As for your cutesy insults, again, it would help a lot if you could just avoid them. They add nothing at all to the debate, and serve only to muddy the waters. Enough about that, though. Yes, Tony (and OC and a few others)

3404:" if "red" has already been linked; this is akin to the standard practice of giving the full name for people being mentioned the first time and the last name only for people already mentioned, even in coordinations. What I 1461:

This marked the demise of professional straight rail in the U.S., which only had a six year run from 1873 to 1879. Meanwhile, straight rail professional play continued in Europe, with high run counts consistently climbing.

5493:

be linked to even though they don’t have jack to do with helping the reader to understand the subject at hand, that is his prerogative. He shouldn’t act all surprised though when others de‑link all those extraneous links.

4000: 3906: 2972:

led to reverts and wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth-type edits. Of course we're all happy to discuss change, but we must stay grounded and be careful how we introduce creep into the MOS wording in order to solve a "problem".

2544:" – such is this classic case or Overlinking, and the reason I see for the built-in search and replace tool. If anybody thinks that is a breach of the guidelines, I'd retort that you were talking out of your rear orifice ( 2058:

thousands of articles at a time, often by scripts and seemingly without review. There has never been any cross-WP consensus mandating a small number of editors to do that, and make it look like some semi-official clean-up.

1254:

targets; for example, "agriculture" goes not to the lame target you commonly see in country articles, but to "agriculture in India". "Corruption" is not the annoying dictionary link that is so irritating, where you really

897:

The whole approach adopted by Cavendish appears to be to discredit the guideline as one that nobody bothers to read, let alone follow. The assertion that the guideline somehow came into being through some equivalent of

6983: 1452:"is" "helpful" to "readers". I "scare-quote" all of those because definitional devils are in the details of all four words. While I think it is very clear the more "deletionist" or "anti-linking" subset of editors of 6968:

back in 2008, where a very specific list of deprecated or even proscribed links was added, along with the unqualified suggestion that they should pretty much never be linked at all. It was expanded by the same editor

6175:

Very well, N-HH. Unlike Michael C. Price, who doesn’t like the current guidelines, your issue is simply a content dispute over how the De-Link Jihadists were overzealous. Let’s start out really simple. Please provide

6100: 6033:

context in which those links are found. Equally, I can't recall any response where anyone on your "side" has offered a discussion on specific contexts or principles, or when they've given an explanation of when they

3740:

I simply don't believe that, based on my own usage - and it is irrelevant to my point about maintaining constant link density through out an article. But anyway, I was responding to your claims, not someone else's.

5175:.. and also add a couple of newer examples that highlight the problem here (disclaimer - I'm not necessarily rejecting these edits in their entirety, nor am I necessarily condoning those that I have not picked out) 4421: 2740:

It is clear that the current version of the MoS does not reflect consensus. There are many areas that do not reflect practice, nor the views of the majority here. In order to develop a consensus, and in line with

1488:(they're not even a consistent type of target!) are not particularly useful. I know for a fact that some editors find them a "sea of blue" distraction and a devaluation of linkage, since they've said so. What I'm 183:

flavours of ice-cream lowers the purchase of any individual flavour, but that is not a justification for only selling vanilla. Consumer choice is paramount here. Why does not the same principle apply to links? --

8541:

We're digressing. One of my edits seems to have been controversial—that involving "Bolivia". I'm not saying I'm absolutely right or wrong, but as I said in my vote earlier, I would expect the iterative process of

6736:, I assume you are once again not directing that towards me or any one particular partisan side to this debate? Because your post seems to not be very clear that you disapprove of how N-HH has been in breach of 2827:

content. Items should be linked appropriately in main prose as if the infobox did not exist, and in a navbox or sidebar as if the main prose were not there, since they are all separate, stand-alone entities.

1552:

of the debate would be settled. And it would probably take very little additional wording in the guideline text to explain the difference between these two kinds of links – as someone said elsewhere, they are

3592:

Not the utility, but the link density. A link at the end of an article may have little overall utility since few readers get there, but to those that do it may as useful as a more-read link at the beginning.

2239:

Our practice towards linking has certainly changed over the last two years and the general principle nowadays is to link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter

5015:

Are there any special rules for linking in quotations (quoted passages)? Should they be avoided altogether? I give here a random example. In an article about, let's say, "Christian morals" would the links to

9070:

that the individual page is the most relevant and not the small blurb that appears at "Characters of Smallville" before sending you to the individual page. Really appreciate other people's thoughts on this.

8909:

3632:. No, my point is that this is the mistake that Tony's metric argument makes. I don't know how to make this clearer. Near the end of an article you are adrift in a monochrome sea - how can this be useful? 8238: 5437:

Put simply: one or two eggs may break in this process, but we're making an awfully big omelette (with a perfectly cooked main part, and just the right amount of tasty bits to make you want to come back for

3126: 8082:

different readers use links in many different ways at different times - for basic navigation, to move on to related topics of interest, to read into or "drill down" to a more specialised or technical page

7645:

articles. There are many instances where linking to 'relevant' terms fails the 'germane' test. Links are often used by some, ostensibly for navigation, for purposes that can only be described as providing

3107:

However, if the article is of a long, nonlinear nature featuring strongly standalone sections to which readers tend to directly skip or are often directly linked to from elsewhere in the project (like our

7683:

overlinked articles, most of which few editors care about. I have seen articles, where many proper nouns, including most dictionary terms, are linked and more than once. I have come across articles where

7350: 5422:

links should be created to...relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...as long as the link is relevant to the article in

7161:

fundamental change in the direction of the guideline from mid-to-late 2008 while simultaneously claiming that discussions from late 2008 to early 2009 to merge two linking guidelines are perfectly fine?

5824:

of an admin would blow Tony’s beak off. After a few hours, the admins were directed to proof that there had indeed been a proper consensus (or ruling, whatever), and the blocks were immediately reversed.

1671:"; right now the first link is vital, but when an article about GRB 090510 is created it'll have to be removed to avoid having two links looking like one and because the GRB 090510 article would link to 4505:

the very fact that we haven't yet seen AWB-enabled changes tells me that in large part, the existing wording is working as designed and that readers do understand that this is a question of balance and

3933:

references, "further reading", and external links makes them nearly useless for this purpose. But putting them before references is something which the fellows at WP:LAYOUT will never allow you to do.

6744:

above to bring his behavior here in compliance with Knowledge’s rules. Yet your vitriol about conduct here seems to somehow not be directed at him. Was that just an unfortunate accident on your part?

2374:

Finally, if the article is short and/or is very linear in nature, I never re-link a word or term. But if the article is very long or has sections that tend to stand alone in their own right (like our

4433:

I personally don't think that, with the increasing problem of information overload (of which Knowledge is part!), we shouldn't stand in readers' way to other articles if that's what they are seeking.

1443: 1764:...certainly is an appropriate use of a country link."? It looks rather lame to me and I might take out the mention of the country from the lede altogether when copyediting. Make it something like: 5658:

list of so-called "common terms" that allows no opportunity for input from the community. If the small group of people - and yes, it really is a very small group - who are responsible for the most

5082:" is not likely to aid readers and will just distract from parsing the quotation in context. It's important that when such links are used they do not introduce any kind of bias or PoV pushing, per 4489: 1584: 7575:" would be in this sentence. Sure the IQ sentence is about the United States, but my sentence is about helpfulness; so what? Most any word could be linked by that logic. Another random example: 5148: 956:; but in general, if you use a proper name and the reader doesn't know it they won't get whatever point there was in using it, so they will want to know whom or what that proper name refers to. 4580:

sections. It is useful to have the most pertinent or interesting links collected together in one place, without having to hunt through an article for links that only appear once, disparately.

8667:

That is why we have an archive and the potential to directly link into it here. I still cannot scroll properly. It seems exclusive to make it hard for anyone without a super-fast connection.

6958: 5392:

readers will want to stop reading about sucralose so they can take a tangent about some town in Alabama. So de-link it. It doesn’t matter if it is an *obscure* location; that just makes it

8363:(and, yes, obviously like anyone else I'd prefer it if that agreed with my position), I've highlighted some editor actions simply to demonstrate the point/issue, not to single anyone out. 6401:

is accepted by the absence of dissent for it. The only really good way to assert that is through a larger call for input just like with date delinking, even if it is just a straw poll. --

5680: 429:

editing on it to get the point across how screwed up this page is, and I hope that will conttribute in some way to this document eventually making sense, but my breath will not be held. —

8639:

Why is this page nearly 400 KB long? That is ridiculous. If anyone is concerned about archiving inactive threads that may need to be accessed, a link can easily be provided on this page.

5237:

make sense, or in some cases also remove other, related instances of overlinking. But these two examples show that it does not make sense if such a script is used sloppily or carelessly.

5222: 5184:

can all argue theoretically about "utility", but the point is more simple than that - what benefit is there to removing them? Why leave an inconsistent and arbitrary hodge-podge of links?

3895:

As such, I've gone ahead and added this exception for "doubled links" to the list of "Repeated links exceptions". Any comments on this new exception would be much appreciated. Thanks,

4472:

I'd say that this is another issue, one of too many links in the see also section, rather than redundant links. The amount of links ultimately boils down to common sense. There's even a

4401: 3665:

utility is from the reader's viewpoint. It places importance on whether the link adds value to the reader, and its frequency/scarcity, and ignores where in the article any given link is.

2446:

he thought it is linked in the template and that’s enough. The article now has “BBC One” linked in the first occurrence in the lede of the body text and that makes the most sense to me.

1643:

Seconded, as a fellow Firefox user. Also, "just use the search box" means navigating through any disambiguation page. All in all, a considerable downer on the Knowledge experience. --

1022:

and removing 'em all; rather, it's looking for the paragraphs which have the greatest number of links per hundred visible characters and thinking about which links are the least useful

7549: 5265:. What I'm sure of is that removing two borderline links should be marked as minor, although I don't mark my edits as minor when they include as many subchanges as OhConfucius's edit. 7892: 4868:

I suppose by gathering a consensus to overrule GregL (although that consensus might agree with him instead), in addition to dealing with the civility problem. What would you suggest?

1492:

seeing is their recognition that - whether they personally feel this way about lead links or not - they're outvoted on lead links. The vast majority of editors and readers apparently

1283: 9047: 8957: 7428: 6114:. One editor has already left in disgust (see section above). What is this emotive stuff doing on a style-guide talk page? I cannot participate here if it's going to be a hate page. 3440:"What should and what shouldn't be linked" section to the one in the box above, but I prefer the "Repeating links" section above to the currently existing one (though I'd rather use 6534:

address the points raised. If you disagree with what I wrote, then explain why. Otherwise, claims of "unsound" and "non-factual" are meaningless distractions from the real issue. --

7713: 7592: 3567:

Correction: it was Ohconfucius, not Tony, who said "the commercial world is well aware of potential problems caused by excessive linking." But the point I'm making still stands. --

7913: 7868: 8349:

remove other linked terms not on my list where the situation warrants. I do occasionally have afterthoughts, but most of the changes take place before I hit the 'save' button. --

3178:

I’ll let others weigh in and will no longer deal with you for a while since you just made your views abundantly clear and engaging you on this subject seems pointless. Moreover,

2652:

definition". Also with the assertion that editors have the right to do this as of right, and that it's up to others to go around after them tidying up by occasional reinsertion.

1531:

consensus for performing such secondary links and that they do constitute over-linking in most cases. (An example of a case where this wouldn't be the case might be "John Smith,

7848: 8076:

I do not believe I for one moment suggested or implied what you said was rubbish, just that it was terribly imprecise, and seemed to be aimed at the lowest common denominator (

7969:

and I think there's a risk of over-intellectualising and over-analysing the whole issue. Also I think there's a risk that people enter that debate saying how they think others

2480:

involved). Removal of text or functionality has to be justified in some way, whether by reference to guidelines, policy or whatever - the burden is that way round. And it is a

8307: 8267: 8226:

It's another intractable area in which no consensus, it appears, can reached by dialogue. Hence the need for the RfC. We might as well get everything wrapped up in one go. --

7629: 7532: 5308:

First off, Americans are notoriously ignorant of other countries. At least for en.Knowledge (where a large portion of our readership is American), many readers would not know

4764:

Those are not the pseudoscientific claims I was referring to. If you're going to play dumb over claims made in the past here, that's your business. As for the claims you are

3571: 3524:

although there may be a few other factors that are relevant. I'm trying to get my head around "the utility of a link = absolute rate / probability of reading the linked term".

941: 7938: 7794: 7763: 3179: 7501: 7465: 4732: 6898:

Since this a claim of some importance you'd better be explicit. If you refer to the claim that the MoS is the consensus, that is of course tautologous and hence invalid. --

8886: 8192: 6873: 6560:

It’s a classic technique to suggest the problem lies with the individual being addressed. I suggest you go back up and strike “Greg” if you don’t want to “single me out.”

5119: 4877: 4863: 4706: 4697: 4620: 4188: 4167: 3703: 3694: 3671: 3658: 3639: 3611: 3597: 3587: 3478:

dilute the effects of others in its vicinity, and (ii) regards densely linked text as more likely to suppress the likelihood that readers will click than to stimulate it?

2746: 2039: 2020: 1846:

articles are so generally unhelpful, why have those pages at all? Where is your evidence that people want some higher minds to point them to certain pages and not others?

1199:, especially points 5 and 7. Conversely, "it dilutes other links in the vicinity" is not a valid rationale for removing a link if there are no other links in the vicinity 840: 781: 759: 496: 479: 470: 449: 245: 230: 215: 206: 155: 4387: 4219: 1290:, etc.) As link quality inmproves, readers will make more use of the links. So, there's really no issue here. Wikpedia's not broken; we don't need to try to "fix" it. — 1094:

When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information

568:

will link to there anyway. IOW, never make too strong assumptions about the readers' knowledge: whereas we can assume that everyone knows (or knows where to look up) all

6753: 6727: 5846:

Well there's been quite some text since I last looked in. Trying to make sense of it and offering some rejoinders, in one place rather than scattering them throughout ..

2884:

It is more complex, but current simplistic approach (which I mean without prejudice) is not working, as this talk page testifies. Sometimes more, even just a bit more,

2089:

Your explanation relieves my main objection, regardless of what you said or didn't say before. So if necessary, I will remind you of your own explanation in the future.

114:

Can anyone tell me why is the bot not archiving? It seems it is set to archive at 20 days, but there were threads dated as old as 20 July which were still unarchived. --

8425: 8156: 7739:, as suggested by Hans A.), works against efforts to optimise wikilinking by blurring its role with that of our Category system (not to mention the "See also" section). 7318: 7078: 6413: 6127: 5160: 5157: 5154: 3268: 2742: 1647: 1035: 593: 9085: 7360:

Per the section and sub-sections above and previous discussions, there is a long-running dispute about certain aspects of delinking, which is often done using scripts.

7239:

once more. This process represented a complete overhaul and rewriting of the guide line. You can put your mind at rest by reading the diff. You are welcome to consult

6794:

only with stretch of silence followed by still more grand oratory by another editor who seems to want to be perceived as a middle-of-the-roader in search of the Truth.

6158: 5643: 2593: 2575: 1745: 1605: 1409: 1287: 1181: 865: 144: 9022: 9000: 8972: 8487: 8463: 6902: 6893: 5274: 5002: 4951: 4839: 4821: 4808: 4772: 4758: 4721: 4587: 4556: 4542: 3982: 3924: 3381: 3372: 3348: 3212: 3192: 3154: 2997: 2922: 2879: 2534: 2228:

Just because a lot of editors do something doesn’t mean it is desirable; often people do things because they are simply following the other soldiers to the chow line.

1684: 1077: 888: 818: 738: 725: 699: 543: 534: 380: 343: 8856: 8680: 8662: 7258: 7225: 6859: 6348:

the guideline are calling for. If we can address that problem, and achieve a more consensus-based approach, then perhaps this matter can finally be put behind us. --

5110: 4922: 4913: 4651: 4357: 4336: 4305: 3959: 3817: 3805: 3749: 3560: 3540: 3514: 3309: 3293: 2955: 2945: 1278:

That's a self-fixing problem. As more and more articles are written (as they obviously are - WP is growing, not shrinking), link quality will improve (articles like

169: 8230: 8221: 6934: 6849:

The delinkers have been asked repeatedly where the consensus was established. There was no consensus, just a rewrite of the MoS and a refusal to allow any changes.

5312:

South American countries. But everyone who uses Knowledge knows they can type something into the Search field if they want to know more about it. If the article is

5047:

I never use links in quotations. Instead, I may add what seems to be the relevant link in the "See also" section. Sometimes the link is to a disambiguation page.

3942: 2517: 2007: 1728: 1638: 1240: 1134: 7355: 6978: 6970: 6940:

happened in response to that egregious personal attack as a gesture and because it was an irrelevance to the point at hand, not in order to "comply with the rules"

4253: 4138: 2256:

Thou shalt not cause needless confusion in thy target readership nor induce *!* brain-interrupts in thy readership by doing odd, unconventional, or unusual things.

2053:

very, very explicit about where I stand on that. Nonetheless, as ever, my answer was twisted and thrown back, and my own questions went unanswered. As for example

550:

I have no bloody idea 'bout who the hell Marisa Tomei is, so I wouldn't find a link to it useless. The only reason why I find that link unnecessary in the current

8838: 6501:

Oh, and Ckatz, please don’t ride in all tall, proud, and handsome on your whiter-than-white steed, it’s nostrils flaring in the morning air, and direct a post to

5626: 5405: 5142: 4854: 4607: 2767:

Where the first link is in transcluded content such as an infobox or sidebar template, in an image caption or a table, or otherwise outside the main article prose

2556: 1437: 915: 690: 669: 8874: 8041: 7962: 7094: 7072: 7063:

None of this is to argue for or against a rewording of OVERLINK, or even whether the existing "particularly relevant" clause should be interpreted more broadly.

6505:

about “civilized discussion”; I haven’t done a personal attack against anyone here other than to point out the shortcomings in their logic. N-HH has been making

5775: 4097: 3429: 1954: 1707: 1310: 1040:

With respect A. di M., the solution is to keep the links that deepen the understanding of the article in question. I do agree with you that finding and removing

8604: 8555: 8386: 8357: 8328: 8183: 8139: 8093: 8070: 6076: 6061: 6022: 5153:

Since no one has seen fit to respond to these very simple and specific questions in all the months this debate has rumbled on - and since one editor has now on

5056: 4284: 4068: 4042: 4023: 2448:

More to the point, what I see in today’s version of the article seems to properly reflect the broad principle of “link to enhance the reader’s understanding of

2169: 2140: 2126: 2098: 2084: 1985: 1790: 1164: 187: 8799: 6202:

hardly do it at all. I did though provide two examples above (for one of them, the response from the editor in question was to go back to that page and remove

5244: 4089:

was IMHO another set of redundant linking of easy-to-find information which might make me more likely to ignore 'See also' sections in future when I see them.

3880: 3777: 3472: 3457: 3259: 3170: 1212: 1060: 991: 967: 636: 620: 8819: 8765: 8747: 7806:. I have no problems with removing links to common terms from "most" (i.e. more than 50%) articles and using scripts if you carefully review each edit. But I 7705:". Even this way, we slowly undo the ratchet of overlinking because some editors fail to appreciate the need to balance quality with quantity when linking. -- 4125: 3833: 1273: 9108: 5503: 4970: 4961: 4702:

Yes, my views are just opinions. Are you able to say the same, or are you going to claim that they are backed up by "studies" or some such pseudoscience? --

2909: 1869: 1827: 8281: 8280:- which removes a link to World War 2 from a page about a gun apparently known primarily for its use in the conflict. Diffs to some previous cited examples 7944: 6823: 6784: 6659: 6622: 6590: 6569: 6551: 5836: 5569: 5532: 3339: 3239: 2988: 2402: 1382: 1331: 8730: 8629: 8528: 8453: 7179: 7152: 7129: 6844: 6519: 6289: 6256: 6194: 6007: 5966: 5920: 5761: 5727: 5459: 3735: 2508: 2473: 2428: 8652: 8020: 7997: 7300: 7243:

if you wish. He ran the whole thing. To dig up diffs from a year before this claiming there is no consensus for the current page seems to be a little odd.

7208: 7050: 6447: 6365: 2723: 2694: 2675: 1925: 1896: 1812: 8586: 7018: 6230: 5950: 5041: 3527:

Are you familiar with findings on signal-to-noise ratio (in the psychology of perception) and the amount of choice available (in supermarkets, I think)?

1250:

is an example of a fairly densely linked article—much more than you'd normally want—but what overrides this is the fact that almost all of the links are

5736:

Not "running around linking", Tony, but rather fixing yet more mistakes made by script-based delinking. As mentioned over and over again, it is not the

4378:

Back to the topic, I oppose the suggested (and reverted change), being one of those who find huge chunks of repeated links unhelpful, unnecessary, etc.

3767: 3175:

BTW, I consider the above green-div to be a live document. I just tweaked the section regarding re-linking (that whole concept ought to make you happy).

2378:

article, which tends to have a large portion of our readership doing parachute drops directly to certain sections), then I will often re-link key words.

6678:

playbook because of N-HH constantly railing about Tony’s flagrant violations of the guidelines when all the evidence he provides shows Tony is editing

3344:

Of course "a long way down" is subjective and difficult to define - as are most terms in the MoS, which is why we leave them to editorial judgement. --

3169:” …because it contains “only”, then I think your views are truly 180° out of synch with the modern view of linking, which is to avoid blue turds like “ 6797:

against the guidelines. Upon inspection, the *evidence* they offer for other editors’ editing contrary to the guidelines proves hollow and it becomes

7862: 5813:

blocks, and they were both in error, by admins who had been hoodwinked by Daffy Ducks who ran somewhere, jumping up and down, screaming “Shoot him –

5472:

with regard to “Where is the consensus?” It’s ludicrous to think that the current policy was just some “oopsy” or skullduggery pulled off at 2 AM by

5238: 3495: 2863: 2054: 1466: 101: 93: 88: 4684: 3545:

You often mentioned the metrics had a commercial basis or validation ; if not, the point doesn't matter. The important point still stands, which is

3165:

Hmmm… Well, if you have a problem with this sentence: “Link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter

9052: 5982:

Thanks for getting close to working that out, although, amid the overblown rhetoric, you still seem to be phrasing your understanding as a question

4441:

The very expression "see also" conveys "relevant related links", not "relevant links that weren't used in the text" (especially since most of them

3105:

The majority of Knowledge’s articles are sufficiently short and linear that editors should not relink the same word or term in the main body text.

2620:. It is a breach of the guidelines to plaster the readers with less focused links in the same area of text as more focused links. The more focused 1196: 76: 71: 63: 6558:

Greg, one of the central problems is that there is a real pattern of behaviour that fails to meet what one would expect in a civilized discussion.

2831:

Readers can also re-sort tables in any order, so link items repeatedly in a table, since no occurrence can be assumed to always be the "first".

9091:

I was going to comment that we should link to the specific page, but it now seems to have resolved itself based on a post by the other editor. --

7240: 5710:

to start with: clearly, they are interested in more specific information. It's not Tajikistan, either; even second-language speakers who consult

3437: 2541: 2442: 1839:

and the US? How do they help the reader, and again, do you really think readers will want to divert to them just as they're getting into a topic?

1473: 475:"Least useful" to who? We need to be careful about bandying such terms about, since usefulness is a relative concept. Do you understand that? -- 7475: 6029: 2965: 2187: 1111:

define what is better for everyone as a whole - and prevents them being distracted in some way that prevents them exercising their own choices.

122: 4033:

again re-read the entire article each time I refer back when all I wanted was the link. So much for the wonders of the speedy internet. Hah!

1621:

think readers will want to divert to them just as they're getting into a topic? For that matter, at any stage of their reading of the article.

7641:

as currently written for every individual link to "major" or "common" terms, countries, places, professions, nationalities to be removed from

7423: 4573:

help, given how this article is just (widely divergent) opinions, not facts. I could have explained my reason in more detail, though. So.....

3645:

Also, as you have been putting great importance into your notion of 'utility', it seems counter-intuitive that your suggestion would actually

7523:

that N-HH has been outspokenly in opposition of. Unfortunately, his views are too extreme and are not shared by the majority of wikipedians.

5714:

are likely to know where Australia is, and more. Let's not treat the readers as dummies, and debase the wikilinking system at the same time.

5250: 4184:

And that is the problem: that you, and Tony, see this is a "fact", and that anyone who disagrees is merely ignorant and needs "educating". --

3824:

Are you aware that with several popular browser one can open a link in a new browser tab while continuing to read the page they are reading?

1085:

anyway. And they do not in fact mention the words "dilute" or "dilution" at all. They do however say, as common sense suggests they should -

957: 8617:

Another editor and I are having a disagreement about the interpretation and application of WP:OVERLINK in the context of a specific article

7393: 7323: 5618:– readers are already numb to always seeing terms such as country names in blue that the probability of them being clicked on is minimal. -- 4768:

making, so what? If link density has gone down that is no argument that it should continue, or even that it was wise in the first place. --

1941:

It is a perfectly valid question, and enquires into why you draw a boundary where you do. Please take it seriously, and do not personalise.

5190: 4528: 3650:

importance on whether the link adds value to the reader, and its frequency/scarcity, and ignores where in the article any given link is. --

1668: 1400:, which one person in a billion (in my superhumanly magical opinion) would click if they suddenly had an urge to read about getting a dog. 6577:“British Isles” and “America” (like the average reader just fell off the turnip truck) is contrary to the guideline, or if like N-HH, you 5686:

Let me get this right: you've just been running around linking "Australia" in sentences such as this (I've underlined the item at issue):

3096:“scientist,” “scientific paper,” and “American” are. Moreover, the “1966” article has precious little else to do with “scientific goofs.” 1065:

Actually the criterion is not just to "deepen understanding" but also link to "articles the reader might be interested in". The MOS says

416:", yet the deletionist argument, boiled down, is "we have to be more and more anti-linking otherwise everyone's going to link stuff like ' 8932:

The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations

8774:

You're right that the poodle example is a lousy one, but the principle is sound. For a real example, I've done some work recently on the

747:, the answer to which you know full well. Rather disingenuous, from a physicist. You have been trying to blind us all with science about 129: 8711: 4859:

The problem is that GregL (and others) regard linking as "spinning gold yarn". Until that attitude changes how can we make progress? --

2964:

consider article space. It has been the experience of the (experienced) editors involved in this arena (over the past year or two) that

8429: 8418: 4633:

The "See also" is of particular use where it is grammatically hard to insert a focused link in the main text without a deceptive pipe (

2647:

But. I. Am. Not. Asking. For. Repeat. Links. How. Many. Times. Do. I. Have. To. Say. That. JFHC. I am taking issue with the removal of

1878:, because people might want to follow them. I'm interested in "the". There's an article on it. A link would aid navigability, and it's 1752:

Where is the consensus that "The vast majority of editors and readers apparently do feel that an opening line in an article lead like:

6696:

You hoped the guideline wouldn’t really matter but the delinkers prolific editing using a script to delink no-added-value words like “

5827:

if you don’t see a crowd flocking to your way of thinking, then just shrug it off as one of those *let’s celebrate diversity*-things.

5115:

Yes, I agree. Links inside quotations are okay. Especially where the speaker is using allusion - links there can be very helpful. --

8025:

My sentiments exactly. The problem with the question, and the whole concept behind it, seems to be the nom's apparent preference for

6809:

things go to ANI where volunteer admins with limited time have to sort things out. This place reeks of bad cess and ill will. I want

6605:

you, let alone make any direct accusations against you. However, if it eases your concerns, I'm certainly amenable to removing it. --

4323:

links at all. Part of the service we offer to readers is to select the most useful links. Otherwise they'll just ignore all of them.

3501:

Time prohibits a full answer, but I basically think your commercial metrics are inappropriate for wikipedia. Commercially it is the

2561:

I'm American and I recognize the BBC, although it might be better to link it anyway (I'm an editor, not a reader). I hadn't heard of

1736:

several statistical complications and simply subtract 4 out of 10 from 7 out of 10, we get 3 out of 6, which is no consensus at all.

8698:

an article on "Poodle". Can we start by finding a better example? Then I might have a hope of understanding the principle involved.

7028:"We don't want to encourage robo-delinking. Judgment is necessary to determine when almost any term should or should not be linked." 5024:

in the following quotation be OK? "For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who

1883:

articles, it would disable us from pointing up the important, useful links. But total linking is clearly what you are striving for.

8315: 7816:

articles (including obviously relevant ones such as from a country to its neighbours), and one's gotta be a bloody quick reader to

4918:

yes, but in the past your opinions were claimed to be supported by "research" and "metrics", which we now know to be groundless. --

3864: 2391: 1476:

had a high run of 5,041 in 1890. Later runs of over 10,000, in addition to the one previously noted, have been accurately reported.

6864:

Since my AWB edits make me a "delinker", I wasn't here when the guideline was written, so this post is just to say "I heard you."

6718:

Once we have a clear understanding of precisely what each editor thinks the issues are, then we can logically address the issues.

5482: 2638: 1144:

readers want extremely narrow links, and others want broader ones. We already lean toward being narrow, and that's good enough. —

211:

You'll notice it if you like it. Same with links. Choice is good, because it caters for variation in interests and background. --

8111:

world, suggesting wrongly again that I want to link everything. As it happens, and as you surely know, what I am in favour of is

7471: 6203: 5582: 5180: 2752:

Of course the repeat link section is not the only section that needs updating, but we have to start somewhere. Comments, please.

307:? No doubt there are readers (people with a foreign background, youngsters, poor readers, etc) who might not know the meaning of 8434: 8102:

Oh come on, are you really saying you don't know that the phrase "lowest common denominator" - which you have just thrown at me

800:

Were you going to follow up on that one with “When the universe was made by Him 7,000 years ago”? Blinding people with science?

6965: 21: 3519:

I'm not sure I really understand this. The commercial analogy eludes me. Do you mean the "absolute" rate of click-thrus for a

3357:

framework to facilitate good judgement. In my opinion, the amateurish "a long way down" does not set a reasonable foundation.

3314:

I agree with Tony1. "A long way down" is very difficult to define, and we would be taking a step backwards with such a phrase.

8634: 4538:

sections. They are useful, irrespective of what links appear in the rest of the article and should be independent of it. --

4134:

Yes, I agree, And so obvious. But still the insane crusade of stripping links continues, making Knowledge harder to use. --

7650:. This may be fair enough in specialised articles about technical subjects, but we should indeed draw the line at linking ' 7743: 5131: 3016:

IMHO, the entire principle of what we need for linking on the entire page could be captured with the following green‑div:

2460:

if the article is of a long, nonlinear nature with standalone sections to which readers often tend to directly skip (like

2044:

But no one's making that argument, ie that we should link simply because someone might use it. When I made the point that

5010: 569: 9006: 4006:

I'm all for minimising redundancy (in links and in words). I am very demanding of readers, expecting that they actually

1523:

that a handful of holdouts against a landslide in favor of what amounts to a defacto standard on WP does not indicate a

323:", they would have to be linked. Well, I (and many others) say "no"—there's a search box for nebulous words and phrases. 7950:

answered by consensus can one make a determination of when it is appropriate delink the use of common english words. --

1015: 326:

Linking is now, and always has been, a question of limitation—to the ones that deepen the understanding of the article.

7245:

Please do not personalise the discussion, including the insulting of other editors ("we don't trust your judgement").

3150:

And at the end I would replace "important links to critical or unusual words or terms" with "terms" - even simpler! --

2870:

much less verbosity. All the community needs on this are the basic principles. Less is more for these sort of things.

2770:

In multiple table cells, if links are needed in the table, as each row must stand on its own (tables are re-sortable).

8775: 7571:..." But I didn't find anything in the United States article about IQ. So that link is no more helpful than linking " 5104: 4151:

Its not as insane as you might care to suggest. People now (as opposed to two decades ago) realise that there can be

1578: 1376: 1304: 1234: 1176:

superhumanly intelligent magically empowered editor of this largely ignored guideline of supreme universal importance

1158: 663: 443: 177: 3132:

I have a problem with the first sentence; specifically the word "only" :-) As we have already discussed, links are

3030:

Even if a word or term is linked in a sidebar (or caption), its first occurrence in the body text should be linked.

1448:

I think we should really get down to where the real dispute lives and resolve it: "Relevance" and whether a link to

8612: 3758:

open each and every linked article in a new browser tab until the browser crashes, that's their freakin' business.

3463: 1625:

Firefox) you can't do the "Open Link in New Tab" thing with the Search button, so for readers who like to do that (

517:", then we'll have to leave it at: enough editors believe the current wording to be effective, so I guess it stays. 9061:

and it involves the linking of the character "Lionel Luthor". I linked the character's name to his specific page (

9066: 8433:

outcome at the RfC as a basis for immediately wading into the guideline to make your revisions. This is known as

8277: 7024:

Thanks for taking the time to track down those links, N-HH. Here's an interesting quote from the 2008 discussion:

5048: 3871:

practical reality. The proposal went about as far as I could drool when I was asleep in 7th-grade history class.

581: 238:

My question was serious: why is link dilution bad? Isn't it just indicative of readers making disparate choices?

8752:

You mean the section isn't broken, or the guidance means don't fix something unless it's broken. I'm at a loss.

8459:

No Greg, that isn't how WP works. As long as issues are ducked with snide responses the problem will remain. --

7564: 6110:

off track, it personalises in a way that is offensive to me, and most editors, fortunately will disregard it as

5852:: I saw your answers at the time, but don't see how they answered the questions. Where is the consensus to link 794:

Strange, I thought it was the delinkers who were trying to blind us with science, with all their talk of metrics

8030: 6907:

Could you please link to where, in this thread or elsewhere, there was consensus to delink all "common terms",

3273:

I wouldn't call it "very ugly", but that one may be worth considering, along with table columns (but not where

485: 51: 17: 8892: 5481:

I don’t know about anyone else here, but I consider myself to be a volunteer on a hobby of mine, which is the

4086: 3548:

link density ~ conditional click-thru rate = absolute click-thru rate / probability of reading the linked term

2269: 849:

The question has been answered, by ALP, amongst others, to the extent that to do any more would be considered

197:. If there are too many flavors like "Crawling Caterpillar Delight", you might not even notice the chocolate. 8414: 6740:

by mischaracterizing the facts surrounding what Tony supposedly has been doing and he had to strike a couple

5767:

click upon any of them, rather than the unfocussed 'Australia' article you appear to insist on linking to. --

3033:

Imagine an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science”, linking as follows is good practice:

151:

I vote we keep it present. 20 days is far too short a period for archiving. And the content is pertinent. --

4980: 3913: 8618: 6181:

for the reader to better understand the subject matter and this offending editor won’t budge. I wanna see

5784: 4116:

up to you to make Knowledge easy for everyone to use regardless of their level of proficiency, good grief.

3441: 3226:

How is a "nonlinear" article different from a "linear" article? What is "nonlinear" about Anwar al-Awlaki?

879:

this matter any further, much less any stomach for making significant changes. Why don’t you just drop it?

510:

the other hand, the current policy of only linking terms that deepen the understanding is elegantly simple.

8107: 6135:

raising the issue of outright and continuing script errors. Unfortunately that dragged your name into it.

5364:. It is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), which converts three of the 4515:

specification—I think we should strive for that when possible in style rules, as it cuts down on disputes.

3686:

PS. And who might be a suitable/relevant authority on this utility of which you speak I can read up on? --

2755: 9101: 8621:. The views of other editors with an interest in linking could help move this discussion along. Thanks . 7787: 7313:.. and while it is clear that there was - and still is - no consensus for certain aspects of delinking .. 7172: 7122: 7043: 6652: 6615: 6544: 6358: 5754: 5673: 4476: 3302:

WP articles are not treated as a whole - that's why we can link to sections and subsections, for example.

1019: 927: 598:

My incredulity about this debate has reached new heights with the thought that there is someone who has "

420:'". Well, the non-deletionists here agree that such linking is stupid. What they don't agree on is the 8787:, which A. di M. mentioned above, is about; redirects are not broken links and don't always need fixing. 8333:

It doesn't necessarily prove or disprove my 'guilt' either, or that I don't restore links. As I said, I

7679:

In my experience, there are a great number of non-overlinked articles; there are also a great number of

5653:

Attempts to portray this as a "broad and deep consensus" are, sorry to say, rubbish. In effect, someone

1795:

Agree with John, although if there's no other context to indicate where Lyon is, I don't mind "(born in

952:

In this particular case, it's obvious from the context that Marisa Tomei is an actress who performed in

8579: 8521: 8410: 8379: 8300: 8260: 8214: 8176: 8132: 8063: 7990: 7494: 7458: 7416: 7386: 7343: 7293: 7011: 6927: 6683:

to be exceedingly clear here with what your issue is with the current state of affairs. Is it because…

6465:

understandably, there are going to be dozens of editors dropping a note wondering “Where’d my precious

6440: 6282: 6223: 6151: 6054: 6000: 5943: 5913: 5215: 4796: 3319: 2716: 2668: 2501: 2421: 2162: 2119: 2077: 1978: 1918: 1862: 1127: 42: 9057:

I am in a dispute with another editor over how to link to a specific page. The article in question is

7580: 5320:

country no matter how “well recognized” it supposedly is. But for most articles, if I’m reading up on

2815:

Stand-alone items should be linked independently, since they are often read in isolation. For example

809:

remotely close to “middle ground.” If you keep badgering us on this, I’m might make a volcano rumble.

8273: 8026: 5168:

Where is the consensus to delink common terms/countries in every instance, regardless of context; and

5130:

In the case cited, 'die' or 'death' should not need linking, unless you were contemplating a pipe to

2960:

Not only is the text long-standing, but the effects of the text have been long-standing. This debate

2760:

In general, link the first occurrence of an item in an article. In addition, consider linking again:

1617:

the huge, encompassing articles on France and the US? How do they help the reader, and again, do you

695:

And yet someone reading about wrestling might want to read about her. As per MOS, hence the link. --

8188:

I believe it would be useful to broaden the scope of the RfC to include issues about repeat links.--

3718:

Michael, what bothers me is the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that readers rarely click on links.

8319:

wanted an example. I haven't edit warred, so I am presumably not the target of this investigation.

7888: 6457: 6420: 5821: 5254: 2367: 1519:

majority of such cases are linked. This is solid proof of consensus for this practice, and we all

160:

I've changed it to 30 days. If no one has commented on a topic in a month, it should be archived. -

8440:

So when this is all over, both of you really do need to drop this for a reasonable period of time—

6452:

Your spots a clear, N-HH, when you attempt to mischaracterize the nature of the dispute as one of

2452:

subject.” The community managed to do the right thing using the existing guidelines for direction.

6705: 6578: 6491: 6237: 4957:

please mind that -- only making this section more practical for others to read and comment on. --

2016:? Answer: Editorial judgement - something that seems sadly lacking in some contributors here. -- 4991:

describes articles with immediate relevancy, navboxes provide context to articles in a category.

4987:

section was necessary in the presence of navboxes. My rationale for including it was that while

9058: 8398:

invitation for you two to wade into the guideline to make changes? Or would you leave it alone?

6454:

the relatively small number of editors commenting at length against the more radical delinking.

5868:: my point - as, again, should be clear - is as much that actions such as the ones I cited are 5600: 4777:

Playing dumb? Well, you sure are obnoxious, aren’t you? The link density is going down because

4569:

Do we have to cite specific example to make a generic point? I doubt citing specific examples

3510:, not absolute rate, which will necessarily be higher than your commercial metrics indicate. -- 2824: 1346: 551: 288: 8931: 8911: 6475:

that your problem with Tony’s edits is that he is radically departing from the guidelines but

4966:

I went ahead and did so, feel free to revert if you think important points are being hidden --

9018: 8970: 8852: 8626: 8602: 8553: 8409:

is equally unappealing. One does not accomplish one’s objective by arguing a point until the

8355: 8324: 8276:(one of a series) - which removes a link to France from page about a French town; edits like 8091: 8039: 7711: 7668: 7588: 7516:

advocate an outcome in the form of biased questions that have a rhetorical ring to them. Now…

7112:

reviewing and understanding the entire history rather than just a selective portion of it. --

7068: 6869: 6072: 6018: 5773: 5663:

that invites due care and attention when delinking, in a manner that demonstrates neither. --

5641: 5624: 5607: 5270: 5140: 5098: 4873: 4850: 4695: 4680:

You're welcome to your opinions, just as long as you realise they are just that, opinions. --

4634: 4605: 4165: 4095: 3978: 3922: 3719: 3692: 3656: 3609: 3585: 3112:” article), editors should consider relinking important, critical, or unusual words or terms. 3026:

Link only those words and terms that help the reader to better understand the subject matter

3012:

Links, the whole links, and nothing but repeating links, so help me RfC (and other wikidrama)

2591: 2571: 2554: 2136: 2094: 2035: 1741: 1601: 1572: 1405: 1370: 1298: 1228: 1179: 1152: 913: 899: 863: 838: 757: 657: 494: 466: 437: 226: 202: 142: 120: 109: 6013:

delinking. As for my comment on Bolivia, you're right; as GregL put it, I missed the point.

5287:

I think you are missing the point. “Link only what is required for the reader to understand

3624:

Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero

3618:

we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end

9037: 8990: 8947: 8659: 8460: 8227: 8189: 7909: 7865: 7546: 7222: 6899: 6856: 5241: 5116: 4919: 4860: 4818: 4769: 4729: 4703: 4681: 4617: 4584: 4539: 4499: 4383: 4354: 4302: 4215: 4185: 4135: 4038: 3996: 3955: 3902: 3814: 3774: 3746: 3700: 3668: 3636: 3594: 3568: 3557: 3511: 3469: 3378: 3345: 3306: 3265: 3209: 3151: 3144:

Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"

3068:

link an entry in an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science” like this…

2994: 2952: 2919: 2860: 2856: 2514: 2359: 2017: 1716: 1644: 1279: 1074: 1068:

Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"

938: 778: 735: 696: 573: 540: 476: 377: 242: 212: 184: 152: 7060:

OVERLINK would become as obscure and pointless as much of the rest of the Manual of Style.

5171:

Where is the consensus as to which terms/countries fall within the definition of "common"?

2319:

link an entry in an article titled “Notable mistakes in the history of science” like this…

8: 8982:

should not be used inline. There might be special cases for exceptions, of course (e.g.,

8834: 8795: 8784: 8735: 8688: 7884: 6693:

The guideline clearly got here somehow but did not enjoy a true consensus in the process.

5699: 5603: 5052: 3084: 2338: 1520: 133: 5328:

in 1991.” And in fact, the article currently does not have “Canada” linked. Good so far.

3929:

Navboxes would be a great way to be used as time-savers for navigation, but hiding them

1418:

readers have the right to encounter well-constructed articles. (I don't agree with the "

584:, any further assumption is going to be wrong for a non-negligible fraction of readers. 8815: 8743: 7926: 7844: 7563:. Note the question specifies "most articles", not all. A randomly chosen example from 5611: 4249: 3938: 3860: 3848: 3829: 3763: 3453: 3425: 2835: 2735: 2003: 1823: 1724: 1680: 1634: 1541:

generalize to other things, like occupations (note in the quoted billiards passage no "

1208: 1031: 963: 632: 589: 9010: 8922:

Rindermann,H. (2007). . ''European Journal of Personality'', 21, 6 67−706</ref: -->

7703:'relevant to the topic of the article', there is no requirement to remove a link to it 5295:

of the article is all-important in deciding whether countries should be linked at all.

4712:

realize that Knowledge’s policies do not forbid us from just completely ignoring you.

9080: 7157:

Tony, what exactly are you trying to prove? You're complaining about references to a

5783:

here warned against such deceptive bunches. Also, could you be more careful when you

5615: 5549: 5361: 3743:

Time to return to the appropriate venue. Any objections to me moving this all there?

3318:

skill to solve the problem. For an example, have a look at how I handled the problem

2816: 1453: 7077:

Concerning the first two posts here: whoa, that's ancient history. Please check out

4010:

an article, not just flash through it or treat it like bumping against a goal post.

3037:

12. In 1966, an American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as

875:

just tuning this one out and letting you rant. I’m not sure there is a consensus to

626:

Well, my mother didn't know what Guinness is until I told her a couple of years ago.

319:(all of which are found in the first sentence in that article), so by the logic of " 9014: 8965: 8848: 8771:

changed into a full article later if needed without having to change all the links.

8622: 8597: 8591:

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Are you suggesting you have seen

8548: 8481: 8449: 8350: 8320: 8086: 8034: 7706: 7647: 7623: 7584: 7545:. Good to see you back, Greg. I never really believed you'd stay away long :-) -- 7528: 7064: 6887: 6865: 6819: 6749: 6723: 6586: 6565: 6515: 6252: 6190: 6068: 6014: 5962: 5832: 5768: 5711: 5636: 5619: 5565: 5499: 5453: 5401: 5266: 5135: 5093: 5037: 4998: 4869: 4846: 4835: 4804: 4754: 4717: 4690: 4600: 4457:

If a reader is searching for a different term, he might as well use the search box

4319:

should be of concern to all of us. It is very difficult to get readers to click on

4160: 4090: 3974: 3917: 3876: 3687: 3663:

You seem to have misunderstood everything. I'll try again later. But I agree with

3651: 3604: 3580: 3366: 3333: 3188: 3122: 2982: 2905: 2875: 2820: 2586: 2567: 2549: 2545: 2530: 2469: 2387: 2132: 2090: 2031: 1737: 1597: 1567: 1431: 1401: 1365: 1325: 1293: 1223: 1174: 1147: 1054: 985: 908: 884: 858: 833: 814: 752: 719: 684: 652: 614: 528: 489: 462: 432: 337: 222: 198: 137: 115: 8047:

already said their piece to tell each other that their ideas are stupid or wrong.

6396:

being discussed above has only taken place here with no wider feedback, it is not

5075: 2279:• In 1966, an American scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as 1660:

Because if the second link is red the "chain link" argument doesn't apply. In the

539:

Interesting. I'm asking why link dilution is bad, and not getting any answers. --

9099: 9034: 8987: 8944: 8869: 8844: 8760: 8725: 8706: 8675: 8647: 8016: 7958: 7934: 7905: 7785: 7758: 7576: 7253: 7203: 7170: 7147: 7120: 7089: 7041: 6840: 6780: 6650: 6613: 6542: 6409: 6356: 6122: 5795: 5752: 5722: 5671: 5527: 5519:

deepen a reader's understanding of that topic? Pillar: "WP is not a dictionary".

4908: 4792: 4646: 4517: 4379: 4331: 4279: 4211: 4156: 4152: 4063: 4034: 4018: 3992: 3951: 3898: 3800: 3730: 3630:

You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness

3535: 3490: 3445: 3288: 3234: 3109: 2940: 2689: 2633: 2461: 2375: 2209: 1949: 1891: 1807: 1775: 1761: 1702: 1672: 1665: 1508: 1268: 972:

Linking only the end of a chain is elegant (in this case the Tomei link is found

744: 392: 165: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8830: 8791: 8573: 8515: 8373: 8294: 8254: 8208: 8170: 8126: 8057: 7984: 7671: 7664: 7638: 7488: 7452: 7410: 7380: 7366: 7337: 7287: 7266: 7005: 6921: 6434: 6276: 6217: 6145: 6111: 6048: 5994: 5937: 5907: 5365: 5209: 5083: 3970: 2812:

readers will find items to be a long way apart, that others would deem closer.

2710: 2662: 2582: 2495: 2415: 2156: 2113: 2071: 1972: 1912: 1856: 1786: 1661: 1537: 1532: 1121: 1014:

I agree that too many links make it harder to notice each individual link (see

854: 421: 8895:, looking for some guidelines backup for saying that links in refs similar to 5489:

If he elects to add a bunch of extraneous links to articles just because they

3553:

The denominator has hitherto been ignored. The other issues are red herrings.

2368:“Does this link really help the reader to understand this particular subject?” 9062: 8811: 8739: 8717:

So could someone paraphrase in simple English what the poodle section means?

8543: 8085:"). Almost every link to another WP article is potentially 'navigational'. -- 7840: 7690: 7661: 7568: 7221:. Put our minds at rest and point to the section in the archives, please? -- 6737: 6697: 6638: 6510:

exposed for what it is in public, try leaving a sound and factual one here.

6495: 6466: 5087: 4827: 4245: 4121: 3934: 3856: 3825: 3759: 3449: 3421: 3417: 3256: 3077: 2839: 2764:

Where an unlinked occurrence of an item is a long way from a linked occurence

2681:

satisfactorily, "Agriculture in France". The guideline requires specificity.

2331: 1999: 1819: 1720: 1676: 1630: 1524: 1485: 1481: 1470: 1463: 1355: 1204: 1027: 959: 628: 585: 426: 360:" point is silly, since we already know Knowledge is not a dictionary. The " 264: 256:? You don't go to an article with the aim of recognising your favourite link. 5545: 4813:

Your carefully reasoned response did at least give me a good laugh. Thanks.

3377:

Greg L's version also mentioned "long", as does the current MoS version. --

3202:

Quite how you rationalise away the line I quoted from the MoS is beyond me.

2918:

Re verbosity, perhaps the explanation can be trimmed or hidden in a note? --

1197:

WP:NOT#Knowledge is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

513:

I've had a good go now, so if you believe that the arguments presented are "

9071: 6494:

and your personal attacks against Tony for implementing are a violation of

4508: 3966: 2464:), important links to critical or unusual words or terms may be re-linked. 1542: 564: 272: 8444:

six months—or until a genuinely new issue arrises, whichever comes first.

7567:: "Various studies find the heritability of IQ between 0.4 and 0.8 in the 6637:

article, after all. However, there is no good reason whatsoever to delink

5897:

are 95-5 queries or complaints. That seems very far from consensus to me.

4301:

links? Of course you were told this sometime ago, but to no effect. :-) --

3792:

be glossed briefly, unless it can't be done without clutter/awkwardness).

1818:

articles where it will be more relevant than the day and month of birth.)

1388:

If we can all agree that the issue with country links is whether they are

8474: 8445: 7658: 7616: 7524: 7217:, perhaps we don't trust your judgement on whether there was a consensus 6880: 6815: 6745: 6719: 6601:

that, is why your name was used. Other than that, the post does not even

6582: 6561: 6511: 6248: 6186: 5958: 5828: 5561: 5495: 5446: 5397: 5079: 5033: 4994: 4967: 4958: 4948: 4831: 4800: 4750: 4713: 4553: 4525: 3872: 3841: 3359: 3326: 3184: 3118: 2975: 2901: 2871: 2526: 2465: 2383: 1424: 1318: 1047: 978: 880: 810: 712: 677: 607: 577: 521: 330: 287:—which are all found (in increasing order of uselessness) in the current 280: 8470:

Good to see you back, Greg. I never really believed you'd stay away long

7637:

to both. Indeed, it makes perfect sense, and is in absolute accord with

5537: 5233:

you check what the script is doing and manually re-link everything that

3887:

The new exception for repeated links for "See also" and "External links"

3626:... rubbish. But I believe this has been rebutted often enough already. 2441:

Guidelines are just that: guidelines. I didn’t see anything alarming in

2244:

I might add my own flavor in all technical writing, which is as follows:

9093: 8862: 8753: 8718: 8699: 8668: 8640: 8009: 7951: 7930: 7825: 7779: 7751: 7246: 7196: 7164: 7140: 7114: 7082: 7035: 6833: 6773: 6644: 6607: 6536: 6402: 6350: 6115: 5788: 5746: 5715: 5665: 5541: 5520: 5262: 4901: 4639: 4324: 4272: 4056: 4011: 3793: 3723: 3528: 3483: 3482:

overstating these issues? I've temporarily watchlisted your talk page.

3281: 3227: 3050: 2933: 2843:

articles, as few readers ever find the first occurrences of the terms.

2682: 2626: 2296: 1942: 1884: 1800: 1695: 1261: 194: 161: 6483:

and therefore would like to put a stop to a prolific editor who edits

5316:

countries, then I don’t see a problem linking the first occurrence of

2581:

accept –depending on the word, of course– they would be replaced, per

857:

syndrome. Or perhaps you just don't like or accept the response(s)? --

235:

We are not talking about a "sea of blue". Thanks for wasting our time.

8566: 8508: 8366: 8287: 8247: 8201: 8163: 8119: 8050: 7977: 7821: 7698: 7651: 7481: 7445: 7403: 7373: 7330: 7280: 6998: 6914: 6427: 6269: 6210: 6138: 6041: 5987: 5930: 5900: 5707: 5396:

it will be clicked on considering the subject matter of the article.

5321: 5202: 3413: 3088: 3080: 3054: 3038: 2703: 2655: 2522:

Still more wikidrama is indicated over another dispute over linking?

2488: 2408: 2342: 2334: 2300: 2280: 2149: 2106: 2064: 1965: 1905: 1849: 1782: 1114: 1089:

Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole

388: 8658:

Because questioned are not answered, which are therefore re-asked.--

7689:

bots) for this purpose is desirable, in line with wp:link, and with

6878:

The "where is the consensus" question was asked and answered above.

6529:

my post. If you had, it would be clear to you that I'm not singling

5090:, but such problems are not very common and easy to spot and fix. — 5078:" because most readers have no idea what it means, while a link to " 4492:

which I think describe well the need for discussing this exception:

4438:

It's what a random reader people might expect of a See also section

1422:" value judgement comment—lots of the fans are awfully nice chaps). 7674: 5806:

no opportunity for the average editor to have any meaningful input.

5587: 5369: 5071: 4117: 3409: 7081:

that made possible the merger of wp:context, wp:btw with MOSLINK.

5086:, nor push readers toward a novel interpretation or synthesis per 5074:

is generally reader-helpful in a quotation that include the word "

3851:. As for me, if I need more drama (which I think I won't), I know 1444:

The real dispute: Relevance (explanatory vs. navigational linkage)

7572: 5741: 4353:

Who said it was a breach of civility? You're getting paranoid. --

3852: 3045:

However, if the bullet point in the same article was as follows:

2562: 1719:

were written that way, and emulated that style without thinking.

748: 401: 353: 312: 8468:

Which is why we were all hoping you would contribute more than "

4689:

And you yours. Thank you very much for expressing a view. ;-) --

3448:

as an example of an article where readers often skip sections).

2616:

Not if "BBC One" is linke in the same sentence, or thereabouts,

2131:

OK, then you relieved my main objection. Did you get that part?

8826: 5635:

I take ALP's point. I will cease to mark such edits 'minor'. --

5357: 5325: 5324:, I don’t need to see “Sucralose was first approved for use in 5149:

Consensus and arbitrary removal of relevant common terms. Again

5066: 2807:

necessarily read articles in linear order or in their entirety.

2773:

In a glossary (treat entries as if they were separate articles)

2205: 1998:

and you can talk about champagne in those languages just fine.

1757: 1504: 1414:

We're not debating how to handle only the "good" articles, and

904: 417: 413: 405: 357: 316: 284: 263:"? Which consumer? The ones who think it's worthwhile clicking 2513:

Should we raise an RfC to address the breach of guidelines? --

1874:"You know, to answer your question, people might ]. Then link 1396:

clicked, then we can stop bringing back examples like linking

1104:

Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers

7728: 7654: 6634: 6471:

Once again, N-HH, it is becoming increasingly clear that you

5591: 5258: 5029: 5021: 4900:

Michael, everything that drops from my lips is "my opinion".

4416:

Readers don't have to actually read the article to find them

3397: 3248: 1247: 458: 276: 268: 6687:

Some of the *delinkers* edits don’t adhere to the guideline.

5341:

But I also note that the “Sucralose” article still has this:

1994:

relevant to champagne? There are languages with no word for

853:

by the small number here who are not yet suffering from the

193:

Presumably because there are thousands of flavors, not just

8912:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.634/abstract

7724: 6772:

for methodological removal of links of common countries. --

5595: 5557: 5553: 5516: 5512: 3401: 3252: 3073: 3053:

scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as

2327: 2299:

scientist presents a paper on what would later be known as

1796: 1771: 1282:

will increasingly exist, and even become more fine-tuned -

397: 349: 308: 7139:

common terms. Could you point to that, please? Going now.

5434:

to support their attempt to change the wording of the MOS.

7736: 7732: 5025: 5017: 3140:

pages the reader may be interested in. As the MoS says:

2103:

Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean there.

1397: 364: 361: 295: 292: 4783:

and doesn’t see things your way. This place is ruled by

1515:

certainly is an appropriate use of a country link. The

1480:

I think it can be reasonably argued that these links to

769:

then it should be easy to rebut my last response in the

7820:

review each of thirty-odd edits done in half an hour. (

7812:

have problems with removing links to common terms from

2747:

proposal for the repeat link section has been developed

373: 370: 367: 304: 301: 298: 5229:

every single link to these words. That can make sense

5132:

Death_and_culture#Philosophy.2C_religion_and_mythology

4740:

The metrics make sense to me too, Michael. There is a

2968:

nebulous and dictionary-type terms has overwhelmingly

1629:

me) being able to use the Search button doesn't help.

926:

What a lot of sound and fury. And no response at the

291:

article. If we don't apply high standards to linking,

8428:

after the RfC wasn’t producing the hoped-for outcome

5356:

Tate & Lyle manufactures sucralose at a plant in

8887:

Organization here re external link syntax guidelines

8843:

Usually they have their own articles, but how about

5255:

Removing only two countries from a list is debatable

4488:

Also, I would like to point out some arguments from

730:

The old "use the search box" line. So let's remove

505:

But you'll notice that those "dictionary" words are

7701:, rather than the insistence that where a link is " 5360:. Formerly, production was completed at a plant in 1781:

Wouldn't that be more interesting for the reader?--

1496:feel that an opening line in an article lead like: 1099:

Provide links that aid navigation and understanding

4826:I don’t know to whom you think is in violation of 1548:If we could get consensus on this here, I think a 8401:sanction some real-life practices shared by many. 7429:Comments/response (no threaded discussion please) 4293:Could you, Tony, avoid making statements such as 3277:items would normally be unlinked, such as years). 2030:people will want to click a link should be easy. 600:no bloody idea 'bout who the hell Marisa Tomei is 4244:Can I have some room-temperature peas porridge? 4055:You could just type it into the search box? :-) 7579:links United States once down in the middle at 4295:You could just type it into the search box? :-) 7824:receives roughly the same number of visits as 7519:implementation of guidelines, where it is the 7365:: Does it make sense and is it in accord with 5689:"'''Perth''' is the ] and largest city of the 4616:Aside from the name, what is your objection?-- 4210:porridge, I've got other trees to swing from. 3247:example "The primary colors of light are red, 734:the links, eh? Why have have links at all? -- 9007:Knowledge:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers 8810:I've replaced the example. It is better now? 8029:linking, rather than one which is adapted to 4728:Your "departure" didn't last long, did it? -- 1469:posted a 1,531 count in Paris in 1880, while 387:Of course it's a silly point. It's a blatant 8424:I note also your expansion of your RfC vote 7079:the more recent encyclopedia of negotiations 1360:Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass 1195:writing too densely and you'd better revise 408:" theme is a rationally bankrupt argument. 8905:Which renders in the expanded reference as 8861:Much better example, I think; thanks, Art. 6101:Consensus/common terms - arbitrary break #1 4552:other people to dismiss your comments... -- 2792:Two types of links must be distinguished. 2270:Notable mistakes in the history of science, 8198:Yikes, isn't this one enough on its own?! 7746:(av. 80 visits a month, feedback welcome). 3171:The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house 8917:should instead be formatted similarly to 8345:delinking something which is on my list, 7370:across hundreds of articles appropriate? 6944:to or assumed they had, it's too late now 9053:Question about how to link in an article 7925:. This RfC bears an eerie similarity to 7851:(amended at 11:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) 7565:Intelligence quotient#Genetic influences 5065:This has been discussed more broadly at 4461:(say, 5 or less) tightly related topics? 1173:ever thought about just ignoring it?? -- 134:breathe life back into an expired equine 7213:Since we are told there is a consensus 6556:I read your post. It begins with this: 6340:a definite disconnect between what the 6236:is a metric butt-load of weapons-grade 5442:and log off (which I now intend to do). 4297:since, by that logic, we should remove 2932:not at all mean there is no consensus. 2859:12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC) & -- 1694:Could you write shorter posts, please? 14: 9067:Characters of Smallville#Lionel Luthor 4981:Talk:WebP/Archive 1#JPEG 2000, JPEG XR 2272:I would be tempted to link as follows: 1774:in 1905) was a professional player of 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 9065:). The other editor wants to link to 9005:I didn't find that. Instead, I found 8926:which renders in the expanded ref as 8272:For further examples, see edits like 5251:my answers to those two old questions 7945:Further comments/threaded discussion 7667:' in the Warren Buffet article, or ' 7581:History of Cuba#Bay of Pigs invasion 6803:simply disagree with the guidelines. 6690:The guideline sucks in your opinion. 5599:be marginally improved by piping to 3299:I'm ignoring your strawman argument. 29: 8893:Nations and intelligence#References 8847:? It isn't obscure (it's a ferry). 5885:where they are related and relevant 4979:There was recently a discussion on 2223:majority of such cases are linked. 1593:To back up claims of consensus with 136:. I vote we redid the archiving. -- 27: 9013:, which also sounds too optional. 6714:Other (succinctly specify please). 6481:simply disagree with the guideline 6344:calls for and what certain people 4469:It might amount to link pollution 3396:I wouldn't link to "red" in "red, 2026:past the irrelevant argument that 28: 9120: 8776:Mission: Impossible (film series) 8435:forum shopping and spin-doctoring 7657:' in the Nicole Kidman article, ' 4087:What he did at Georgina Lightning 2776:In a group of other linked items. 1345:I have to comment that using the 321:Consumer choice is paramount here 261:Consumer choice is paramount here 5870:in breach of overlink as written 3087:on what would later be known as 2341:on what would later be known as 1836:As for Tony's statement above - 1284:Traditional agriculture in India 33: 8936:European Journal of Personality 8437:. It too is prohibited conduct. 8239:"Most articles" vs "Nearly all" 6801:clear that the problem is they 5787:, to avoid such glitches as ]? 5693:] of ] and the ] in Australia." 5189:Example 2 - Mayors in England. 4780:the community wants it that way 3914:what you've done at Gary Renard 3813:the non-sequitur at the end. -- 2358:Three years ago, it used to be 1349:article as exemplary of, well, 254:You'll notice it if you like it 8921:<ref name="Rindermann": --> 8899:<ref name="Rindermann": --> 8031:the man on the Clapham omnibus 6759:From a discussion standpoint, 6247:is what you come back with?? 5111:01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 5057:16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 3778:20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3768:16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3750:16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3736:16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3704:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3695:15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3672:10:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3659:10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3640:06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3612:04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3598:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3588:15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3572:08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 3561:15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3541:15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3515:10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3496:08:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3473:21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3408:do is writing something like " 3213:22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 3193:22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 3155:21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 3127:21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2923:19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2910:21:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2880:17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2535:21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2518:19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2509:19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2474:17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2429:12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2392:21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 2141:21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2127:19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2099:18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2085:11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 2040:20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 2021:16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 2008:16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1986:14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1955:14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1926:13:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1897:12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1870:11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1828:09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1813:07:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1791:06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1746:04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1729:03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1708:02:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1685:09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1675:in the first sentence anyway. 1648:19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 1639:09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1606:02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 1585:23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1438:23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1410:20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1392:clicked, not whether they are 1383:19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1332:23:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1311:19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1274:16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1241:19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1213:15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1165:19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1135:13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1078:11:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1061:11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 1036:11:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 968:18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 739:06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 726:06:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 700:05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 691:22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 670:19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 637:15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 621:09:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 594:09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 580:, and the first few dozens of 544:07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 535:06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 486:the man on the Clapham omnibus 480:08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 471:05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 450:19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 381:05:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 344:04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 246:02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 231:22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 216:19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 207:18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 188:06:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 170:19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 156:16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 145:10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 123:06:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 9109:03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 9086:02:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 8635:I am having trouble scrolling 8337:have a list I work to, but I 6959:Past discussions and clarity? 5483:collaborative writing project 5042:23:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3616:Taking your last point first 2194:SMcCandlish wrote as follows: 9048:23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 9023:03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 9001:23:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 8973:15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 8958:22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8875:15:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 8857:01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 8839:00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 8820:22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8800:03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8766:02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8748:02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8731:02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 8712:04:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 8681:01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8663:00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8653:00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8605:15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8587:14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8529:14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 8472:" to the RfC—but sadly, no. 8419:a type of disruptive editing 8387:14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 7939:03:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 7914:06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 7744:a tutorial on linking skills 3442:Glossary of cue sports terms 2836:stand-alone glossary article 2585:, just as I removed them. -- 1664:article there's the phrase " 773:section. Still waiting for 484:Least useful to whom?? why, 410:No one has actually proposed 7: 8630:15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8556:02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8488:06:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8464:06:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8454:21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8358:05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8329:04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 8308:18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8268:14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8231:05:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8222:05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8193:18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 8184:18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 8140:07:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8094:05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8071:05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8042:02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 8021:18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7998:18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7963:17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7893:12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7869:10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7849:09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7795:06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7764:03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7714:02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7630:23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7593:22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7550:18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7533:18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7502:05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 7466:17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7424:17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7394:17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7351:17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7301:15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7259:14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7226:14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7209:13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7180:09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7153:05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7130:05:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7095:04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 7073:20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 7051:19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 7019:18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6935:13:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6903:08:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6894:07:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6874:04:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6860:02:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6845:02:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6824:01:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6785:00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6754:22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6728:22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6660:21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6623:21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6591:21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6570:21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6552:21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6520:21:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6448:17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6414:17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6366:16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6290:15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6257:15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6231:14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6195:14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6159:14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6128:14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6077:20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6062:13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 6023:22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 6008:13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5967:13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5951:13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5921:13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5837:12:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5776:10:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5762:10:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5728:09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5681:09:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5644:02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5627:02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5570:03:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5533:02:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5504:00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 5460:23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 5406:21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 5275:20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 5245:20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 5223:16:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 5143:03:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 5120:03:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 5011:Linking words in quotations 5003:13:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 4971:08:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 4962:09:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 4952:09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 4923:16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4914:16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4878:04:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 4864:03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 4855:20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4840:19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4822:18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4809:18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4773:17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4759:16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4733:16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4722:16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4707:16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4698:15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4685:15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4652:15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4621:14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4608:14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 4588:15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 4557:15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 4543:19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 4529:13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 4388:19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 4358:09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 4337:12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4306:10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4285:08:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4254:16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4220:08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4189:07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4168:06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4139:06:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4126:04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4098:01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4069:23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4043:23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4024:23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4001:23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3983:17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3960:17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3943:15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3925:14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3907:12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 3881:13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 3865:11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 3834:11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 3818:14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 3806:09:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 3468:Copied from my talk page:-- 3458:13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3430:13:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3382:20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3373:20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3349:10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3340:07:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3310:07:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3294:07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3269:05:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3264:Yes, a very ugly result. -- 3260:05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3240:03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 3167:of that particular article. 3117:There, how simple is that? 3028:of that particular article. 2998:20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2989:20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2956:10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2946:07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2864:03:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 2724:11:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2695:10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2676:10:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2639:03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2594:09:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2576:02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2557:01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2242:of that particular article. 2221:astronomically overwhelming 2170:10:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 1517:astronomically overwhelming 1182:23:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 1020:Special:WhatLinksHere/China 992:00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 942:06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 916:01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 889:23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 866:00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 841:23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 819:01:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 782:19:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 760:14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 497:00:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 10: 9125: 8986:parameters in infoboxes). 8411:heat death of the universe 6700:“ exceeds your ability to 4797:heat death of the universe 4424:included this, stated as: 8891:I came here after seeing 8341:often deviate from it by 8284:, for ease of reference. 8027:lowest common denominator 6456:Radical delinking??? The 5418:Where is the consensus... 5249:You probably don't like 4445:be included in the text). 3136:to provide navigation to 3022:What and what not to link 2743:George Louis's suggestion 2360:“I link, therefore I am.” 1420:lowest common denominator 705:found if someone follows 8613:Interpreting WP:OVERLINK 7195:around in circles here. 6852:Oh, and BTW, #1-3, Greg. 6479:is that you clearly and 5289:that particular subject” 3699:We are the authority. -- 2993:Prediction confirmed. -- 2749:, which I copy below. 1288:Factory farming in India 6734:That attitude has to go 5032:.—Ezek. 18:1-4, TNIV" - 3255:." looks really weird. 2315:And certainly, I would 2208:professional player of 1760:professional player of 1507:professional player of 1045:nebulous to the topic. 743:I know it's actually a 562:) is that I guess that 461:is seldom very useful. 9059:Smallville (season 10) 8940: 8930:Rindermann,H. (2007). 8924: 8915: 8903: 7032: 6704:links to articles and 6525:Greg, please actually 5601:Geography of Argentina 5560:” in your above post. 5511:Why does diverting to 5374: 2347: 2305: 2285: 2268:So if the article was 2214: 1780: 1513: 1478: 1347:Professional wrestling 552:professional wrestling 289:professional wrestling 8928: 8919: 8907: 8897: 8407:with Caspian sea salt 7669:multi-instrumentalist 7521:guidelines themselves 7134:So let me guess: you 7025: 6909:regardless of context 5854:regardless of context 5608:Geography of Paraguay 5354: 5179:Example 1 - Bolivia. 4793:flogging a dead horse 4635:Agriculture in France 3720:User:Piano non troppo 2324: 2293: 2277: 2219:…and then wrote “The 2199: 1765: 1498: 1459: 933:. Still waiting for 900:immaculate conception 412:dicdef linking like " 46:of past discussions. 8430:and looked like this 5804:Ckatz, quoting you: 5028:is the one who will 2443:the first difference 1545:" link), and so on. 1280:Agriculture in India 937:response there....-- 645:magazine or watches 572:and has heard about 8413:. Please note that 7608:to be removed from 6732:Oh, with regard to 6706:you don’t like that 5891:@Tony (and Art/HWV) 5700:Southern Hemisphere 5604:Geography of Brazil 1525:change in consensus 745:rhetorical question 641:Not everyone reads 488:, of course. ;-) -- 7686:The New York Times 5612:Geography of Chile 4477:too many see alsos 3438:currently existing 9106: 9083: 9078: 9046: 8999: 8956: 8585: 8527: 8385: 8306: 8266: 8220: 8182: 8138: 8069: 7996: 7792: 7500: 7464: 7422: 7392: 7349: 7317:.. people simply 7299: 7177: 7127: 7048: 7017: 6933: 6657: 6620: 6549: 6473:keep on insisting 6446: 6363: 6288: 6229: 6157: 6060: 6006: 5949: 5919: 5759: 5678: 5616:Geography of Peru 5362:McIntosh, Alabama 5358:Jurong, Singapore 5221: 5108: 4940: 4939: 4422:previous proposal 3416:, Manchester and 3353:A MOS must set a 2852: 2851: 2722: 2674: 2649:every single link 2507: 2427: 2168: 2125: 2083: 1984: 1924: 1876:every single word 1868: 1582: 1380: 1308: 1238: 1202: 1162: 1133: 976:the movie link). 803: 777:response there.-- 667: 627: 447: 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 9116: 9098: 9081: 9076: 9072: 9040: 8993: 8968: 8950: 8872: 8867: 8790:Hope that helps. 8763: 8758: 8728: 8723: 8709: 8704: 8678: 8673: 8660:Michael C. Price 8650: 8645: 8600: 8582: 8576: 8569: 8564: 8551: 8524: 8518: 8511: 8506: 8486: 8484: 8479: 8477: 8461:Michael C. Price 8382: 8376: 8369: 8364: 8353: 8303: 8297: 8290: 8285: 8263: 8257: 8250: 8245: 8228:Michael C. Price 8217: 8211: 8204: 8199: 8190:Michael C. Price 8179: 8173: 8166: 8161: 8135: 8129: 8122: 8117: 8089: 8066: 8060: 8053: 8048: 8037: 8013: 7993: 7987: 7980: 7975: 7955: 7784: 7761: 7756: 7709: 7628: 7626: 7621: 7619: 7547:Michael C. Price 7497: 7491: 7484: 7479: 7461: 7455: 7448: 7443: 7419: 7413: 7406: 7401: 7389: 7383: 7376: 7371: 7356:RfC on the above 7346: 7340: 7333: 7328: 7296: 7290: 7283: 7278: 7256: 7251: 7223:Michael C. Price 7206: 7201: 7169: 7150: 7145: 7119: 7092: 7087: 7040: 7014: 7008: 7001: 6996: 6930: 6924: 6917: 6912: 6900:Michael C. Price 6892: 6890: 6885: 6883: 6857:Michael C. Price 6837: 6777: 6765: 6735: 6649: 6612: 6559: 6541: 6455: 6443: 6437: 6430: 6425: 6406: 6355: 6285: 6279: 6272: 6267: 6226: 6220: 6213: 6208: 6154: 6148: 6141: 6136: 6125: 6120: 6057: 6051: 6044: 6039: 6038:for discussion. 6003: 5997: 5990: 5985: 5946: 5940: 5933: 5928: 5916: 5910: 5903: 5898: 5807: 5798: 5793: 5771: 5751: 5725: 5720: 5670: 5639: 5622: 5530: 5525: 5458: 5456: 5451: 5449: 5394:even less likely 5218: 5212: 5205: 5200: 5138: 5117:Michael C. Price 5109: 5103: 5102: 4983:about whether a 4920:Michael C. Price 4911: 4906: 4861:Michael C. Price 4819:Michael C. Price 4770:Michael C. Price 4730:Michael C. Price 4704:Michael C. Price 4693: 4682:Michael C. Price 4662: 4661: 4649: 4644: 4618:Michael C. Price 4603: 4585:Michael C. Price 4540:Michael C. Price 4490:past discussions 4481: 4475: 4429: 4355:Michael C. Price 4334: 4329: 4303:Michael C. Price 4282: 4277: 4186:Michael C. Price 4163: 4136:Michael C. Price 4093: 4066: 4061: 4021: 4016: 3920: 3853:where to find it 3849:where to find me 3815:Michael C. Price 3803: 3798: 3775:Michael C. Price 3747:Michael C. Price 3733: 3728: 3701:Michael C. Price 3690: 3669:Michael C. Price 3654: 3637:Michael C. Price 3607: 3595:Michael C. Price 3583: 3569:Michael C. Price 3558:Michael C. Price 3538: 3533: 3512:Michael C. Price 3493: 3488: 3470:Michael C. Price 3379:Michael C. Price 3371: 3369: 3364: 3362: 3346:Michael C. Price 3338: 3336: 3331: 3329: 3307:Michael C. Price 3291: 3286: 3266:Michael C. Price 3237: 3232: 3210:Michael C. Price 3152:Michael C. Price 3092: 3058: 3042: 2995:Michael C. Price 2987: 2985: 2980: 2978: 2953:Michael C. Price 2943: 2938: 2920:Michael C. Price 2861:Michael C. Price 2857:Michael C. Price 2840:stand-alone list 2781: 2780: 2719: 2713: 2706: 2701: 2692: 2687: 2671: 2665: 2658: 2653: 2636: 2631: 2589: 2552: 2546:pardon my French 2515:Michael C. Price 2504: 2498: 2491: 2486: 2424: 2418: 2411: 2406: 2290:But in this one… 2260: 2259: 2165: 2159: 2152: 2147: 2122: 2116: 2109: 2104: 2080: 2074: 2067: 2062: 2018:Michael C. Price 1981: 1975: 1968: 1963: 1952: 1947: 1921: 1915: 1908: 1903: 1894: 1889: 1865: 1859: 1852: 1847: 1810: 1805: 1705: 1700: 1645:Michael C. Price 1583: 1577: 1576: 1436: 1434: 1429: 1427: 1381: 1375: 1374: 1330: 1328: 1323: 1321: 1309: 1303: 1302: 1271: 1266: 1239: 1233: 1232: 1200: 1177: 1169:Pray tell: have 1163: 1157: 1156: 1130: 1124: 1117: 1112: 1075:Michael C. Price 1059: 1057: 1052: 1050: 990: 988: 983: 981: 939:Michael C. Price 911: 861: 836: 802:(I mean, WTF???) 801: 795: 779:Michael C. Price 755: 736:Michael C. Price 724: 722: 717: 715: 697:Michael C. Price 689: 687: 682: 680: 668: 662: 661: 625: 619: 617: 612: 610: 605: 541:Michael C. Price 533: 531: 526: 524: 492: 477:Michael C. Price 448: 442: 441: 378:Michael C. Price 342: 340: 335: 333: 243:Michael C. Price 213:Michael C. Price 185:Michael C. Price 153:Michael C. Price 140: 118: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 9124: 9123: 9119: 9118: 9117: 9115: 9114: 9113: 9104: 9074: 9055: 8966: 8889: 8870: 8863: 8845:Anacortes Ferry 8761: 8754: 8726: 8719: 8707: 8700: 8691: 8676: 8669: 8648: 8641: 8637: 8615: 8598: 8580: 8574: 8567: 8549: 8522: 8516: 8509: 8482: 8480: 8475: 8473: 8415:tendentiousness 8380: 8374: 8367: 8351: 8301: 8295: 8288: 8261: 8255: 8248: 8241: 8215: 8209: 8202: 8177: 8171: 8164: 8133: 8127: 8120: 8087: 8064: 8058: 8051: 8035: 8011: 7991: 7985: 7978: 7953: 7947: 7790: 7759: 7752: 7707: 7624: 7622: 7617: 7615: 7577:History of Cuba 7495: 7489: 7482: 7459: 7453: 7446: 7431: 7417: 7411: 7404: 7387: 7381: 7374: 7358: 7344: 7338: 7331: 7315: 7294: 7288: 7281: 7254: 7247: 7204: 7197: 7175: 7148: 7141: 7125: 7090: 7083: 7046: 7012: 7006: 6999: 6961: 6928: 6922: 6915: 6888: 6886: 6881: 6879: 6835: 6775: 6763: 6733: 6655: 6618: 6581:the guideline. 6579:just don’t like 6557: 6547: 6492:WP:IDON'TLIKEIT 6453: 6441: 6435: 6428: 6404: 6361: 6283: 6277: 6270: 6238:WP:IDON'TLIKEIT 6224: 6218: 6211: 6204:even more links 6152: 6146: 6139: 6123: 6116: 6103: 6055: 6049: 6042: 6001: 5995: 5988: 5983: 5978: 5953: 5944: 5938: 5931: 5914: 5908: 5901: 5820:,” hoping some 5819: 5805: 5796: 5789: 5769: 5757: 5723: 5716: 5676: 5637: 5620: 5583:My Bolivia edit 5528: 5521: 5474:Evil De‑linkers 5454: 5452: 5447: 5445: 5366:hydroxyl groups 5216: 5210: 5203: 5151: 5136: 5097: 5091: 5013: 4941: 4909: 4902: 4691: 4667: 4647: 4640: 4601: 4500:PizzaMargherita 4482:already in use. 4479: 4473: 4426: 4404: 4332: 4325: 4280: 4273: 4161: 4157:light pollution 4153:noise pollution 4091: 4064: 4057: 4019: 4012: 3918: 3889: 3844: 3801: 3794: 3731: 3724: 3688: 3652: 3605: 3581: 3536: 3529: 3491: 3484: 3466: 3446:Anwar al-Awlaki 3367: 3365: 3360: 3358: 3334: 3332: 3327: 3325: 3289: 3282: 3235: 3228: 3180:your above call 3115: 3110:Anwar al-Awlaki 3103: 3101:Repeating links 3093: 3071: 3059: 3049:12. In 1966, a 3048: 3043: 3036: 3024: 3014: 2983: 2981: 2976: 2974: 2941: 2934: 2853: 2786: 2758: 2738: 2717: 2711: 2704: 2690: 2683: 2669: 2663: 2656: 2634: 2627: 2587: 2550: 2502: 2496: 2489: 2462:Anwar al-Awlaki 2450:that particular 2422: 2416: 2409: 2376:Anwar al-Awlaki 2265: 2253: 2252: 2210:carom billiards 2202:Maurice Vignaux 2190: 2163: 2157: 2150: 2120: 2114: 2107: 2078: 2072: 2065: 1979: 1973: 1966: 1950: 1943: 1919: 1913: 1906: 1892: 1885: 1863: 1857: 1850: 1808: 1801: 1776:carom billiards 1768:Maurice Vignaux 1762:carom billiards 1754:Maurice Vignaux 1703: 1696: 1673:gamma-ray burst 1666:gamma-ray burst 1571: 1565: 1509:carom billiards 1501:Maurice Vignaux 1467:Maurice Vignaux 1451: 1446: 1432: 1430: 1425: 1423: 1369: 1363: 1326: 1324: 1319: 1317: 1297: 1291: 1269: 1262: 1252:highly specific 1227: 1221: 1175: 1151: 1145: 1128: 1122: 1115: 1055: 1053: 1048: 1046: 1024:in that context 986: 984: 979: 977: 909: 859: 834: 793: 753: 720: 718: 713: 711: 685: 683: 678: 676: 656: 650: 615: 613: 608: 606: 603: 582:these countries 574:these languages 529: 527: 522: 520: 490: 436: 430: 393:logical fallacy 338: 336: 331: 329: 180: 178:Link "dilution" 138: 116: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 9122: 9112: 9111: 9102: 9054: 9051: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9011:WP:LINK#Syntax 8976: 8975: 8964:corrected). -- 8938:, 21, 6 67−706 8888: 8885: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8881: 8880: 8879: 8878: 8877: 8808: 8807: 8806: 8805: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8788: 8780: 8772: 8690: 8687: 8686: 8685: 8684: 8683: 8636: 8633: 8614: 8611: 8610: 8609: 8608: 8607: 8559: 8558: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8531: 8495: 8494: 8493: 8492: 8491: 8490: 8417:is officially 8394: 8393: 8392: 8391: 8390: 8389: 8331: 8240: 8237: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8153: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8149: 8148: 8147: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8142: 8097: 8096: 7974:happens here. 7946: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7916: 7895: 7885:Colonies Chris 7872: 7871: 7852: 7797: 7788: 7767: 7717: 7697:should be the 7632: 7596: 7595: 7553: 7552: 7536: 7505: 7504: 7468: 7430: 7427: 7396: 7363:Question/issue 7361: 7357: 7354: 7324:take out links 7314: 7311: 7310: 7309: 7308: 7307: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7303: 7270: 7231: 7230: 7229: 7228: 7191: 7190: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7173: 7155: 7123: 7102: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7098: 7097: 7061: 7057: 7044: 6960: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6953: 6952: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6941: 6937: 6876: 6853: 6850: 6828: 6827: 6788: 6787: 6716: 6715: 6712: 6711:All the above. 6709: 6694: 6691: 6688: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6653: 6625: 6616: 6545: 6477:the real truth 6389: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6359: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6306: 6305: 6304: 6303: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6299: 6298: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6261: 6260: 6198: 6197: 6131: 6130: 6106:This has gone 6102: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6079: 5981: 5975: 5970: 5969: 5925: 5894: 5888: 5878: 5863: 5857: 5847: 5841: 5840: 5814: 5801: 5800: 5779: 5778: 5755: 5731: 5730: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5674: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5630: 5629: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5508: 5507: 5463: 5462: 5443: 5439: 5435: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5196: 5195: 5194:functionality? 5186: 5185: 5173: 5172: 5169: 5150: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5060: 5059: 5012: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 4992: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4814: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4669: 4668: 4665: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4611: 4610: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4581: 4574: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4546: 4545: 4521: 4520: 4511: 4502: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4462: 4454: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4431: 4413: 4412: 4403: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4288: 4287: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4129: 4128: 4113:very demanding 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4027: 4026: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3888: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3843: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3633: 3627: 3621: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3554: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3525: 3465: 3464:Link "utility" 3462: 3461: 3460: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3323: 3315: 3312: 3303: 3300: 3243: 3242: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3197: 3196: 3158: 3157: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3104: 3099: 3070: 3047: 3035: 3025: 3020: 3018: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2958: 2926: 2925: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2850: 2849: 2809: 2808: 2801: 2788: 2787: 2784: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2757: 2756:Repeated links 2754: 2737: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2642: 2641: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2542:mass delinking 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2395: 2394: 2380: 2379: 2371: 2370: 2363: 2362: 2355: 2354: 2349: 2348: 2321: 2320: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2274: 2273: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2236: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2222: 2216: 2215: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2189: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2059: 2010: 1988: 1958: 1957: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1834: 1815: 1749: 1748: 1732: 1731: 1717:other articles 1711: 1710: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1662:Speed of Light 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1609: 1608: 1551: 1530: 1521:know very well 1518: 1495: 1491: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1412: 1352: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1313: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1143: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1101: 1096: 1091: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 929:Link "utility" 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 892: 891: 871: 870: 869: 868: 844: 843: 824: 823: 822: 821: 785: 784: 771:Link "utility" 763: 762: 639: 548: 547: 546: 518: 511: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 454: 453: 452: 422:slippery slope 411: 327: 324: 257: 250: 249: 248: 239: 236: 179: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 148: 147: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9121: 9110: 9107: 9105: 9100: 9096: 9095: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9087: 9084: 9079: 9077: 9068: 9064: 9063:Lionel Luthor 9060: 9050: 9049: 9044: 9039: 9036: 9024: 9020: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9004: 9003: 9002: 8997: 8992: 8989: 8985: 8980: 8979: 8978: 8977: 8974: 8971: 8969: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8954: 8949: 8946: 8939: 8937: 8933: 8927: 8923: 8918: 8914: 8913: 8906: 8902: 8896: 8894: 8876: 8873: 8868: 8866: 8860: 8859: 8858: 8854: 8850: 8846: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8836: 8832: 8828: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8817: 8813: 8809: 8801: 8797: 8793: 8789: 8786: 8781: 8777: 8773: 8769: 8768: 8767: 8764: 8759: 8757: 8751: 8750: 8749: 8745: 8741: 8737: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8729: 8724: 8722: 8716: 8715: 8714: 8713: 8710: 8705: 8703: 8697: 8682: 8679: 8674: 8672: 8666: 8665: 8664: 8661: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8651: 8646: 8644: 8632: 8631: 8628: 8624: 8620: 8606: 8603: 8601: 8594: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8584: 8583: 8577: 8571: 8570: 8561: 8560: 8557: 8554: 8552: 8545: 8540: 8539: 8530: 8526: 8525: 8519: 8513: 8512: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8498: 8497: 8496: 8489: 8485: 8478: 8471: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8462: 8458: 8457: 8456: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8443: 8438: 8436: 8431: 8427: 8422: 8420: 8416: 8412: 8408: 8402: 8396: 8395: 8388: 8384: 8383: 8377: 8371: 8370: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8356: 8354: 8348: 8344: 8340: 8336: 8332: 8330: 8326: 8322: 8317: 8314: 8313: 8312: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8305: 8304: 8298: 8292: 8291: 8283: 8279: 8275: 8270: 8269: 8265: 8264: 8258: 8252: 8251: 8232: 8229: 8225: 8224: 8223: 8219: 8218: 8212: 8206: 8205: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8191: 8186: 8185: 8181: 8180: 8174: 8168: 8167: 8158: 8141: 8137: 8136: 8130: 8124: 8123: 8114: 8109: 8105: 8101: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8095: 8092: 8090: 8084: 8079: 8075:<sigh: --> 8074: 8073: 8072: 8068: 8067: 8061: 8055: 8054: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8040: 8038: 8032: 8028: 8024: 8023: 8022: 8018: 8014: 8006: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7995: 7994: 7988: 7982: 7981: 7972: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7960: 7956: 7940: 7936: 7932: 7928: 7924: 7920: 7917: 7915: 7911: 7907: 7903: 7899: 7896: 7894: 7890: 7886: 7881: 7877: 7874: 7873: 7870: 7867: 7864: 7860: 7856: 7853: 7850: 7846: 7842: 7839: 7838: 7833: 7832: 7827: 7823: 7819: 7815: 7811: 7810: 7805: 7801: 7798: 7796: 7793: 7791: 7786: 7782: 7781: 7775: 7771: 7768: 7766: 7765: 7762: 7757: 7755: 7747: 7745: 7738: 7734: 7730: 7726: 7721: 7718: 7716: 7715: 7712: 7710: 7704: 7700: 7696: 7692: 7687: 7682: 7676: 7673: 7670: 7666: 7663: 7660: 7656: 7653: 7649: 7644: 7640: 7636: 7633: 7631: 7627: 7620: 7613: 7611: 7605: 7601: 7598: 7597: 7594: 7590: 7586: 7582: 7578: 7574: 7570: 7569:United States 7566: 7562: 7558: 7555: 7554: 7551: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7537: 7535: 7534: 7530: 7526: 7522: 7514: 7510: 7507: 7506: 7503: 7499: 7498: 7492: 7486: 7485: 7477: 7473: 7467: 7463: 7462: 7456: 7450: 7449: 7440: 7439:Qualified Yes 7436: 7433: 7432: 7426: 7425: 7421: 7420: 7414: 7408: 7407: 7399: 7395: 7391: 7390: 7384: 7378: 7377: 7368: 7364: 7353: 7352: 7348: 7347: 7341: 7335: 7334: 7325: 7320: 7302: 7298: 7297: 7291: 7285: 7284: 7275: 7268: 7263: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7257: 7252: 7250: 7242: 7241:User:Kotniski 7237: 7236: 7235: 7234: 7233: 7232: 7227: 7224: 7220: 7216: 7212: 7211: 7210: 7207: 7202: 7200: 7193: 7192: 7181: 7178: 7176: 7171: 7167: 7166: 7160: 7156: 7154: 7151: 7146: 7144: 7137: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7128: 7126: 7121: 7117: 7116: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7105: 7104: 7103: 7096: 7093: 7088: 7086: 7080: 7076: 7075: 7074: 7070: 7066: 7062: 7058: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7049: 7047: 7042: 7038: 7037: 7031: 7030:(Spacepotato) 7029: 7023: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7016: 7015: 7009: 7003: 7002: 6993: 6987: 6985: 6980: 6976: 6972: 6967: 6942: 6938: 6936: 6932: 6931: 6925: 6919: 6918: 6910: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6901: 6897: 6896: 6895: 6891: 6884: 6877: 6875: 6871: 6867: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6858: 6854: 6851: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6842: 6838: 6830: 6829: 6826: 6825: 6821: 6817: 6812: 6806: 6804: 6800: 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6786: 6782: 6778: 6770: 6762: 6758: 6757: 6756: 6755: 6751: 6747: 6743: 6739: 6730: 6729: 6725: 6721: 6713: 6710: 6707: 6703: 6699: 6695: 6692: 6689: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6681: 6677: 6661: 6658: 6656: 6651: 6647: 6646: 6640: 6639:United States 6636: 6631: 6626: 6624: 6621: 6619: 6614: 6610: 6609: 6604: 6600: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6588: 6584: 6580: 6575: 6571: 6567: 6563: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6550: 6548: 6543: 6539: 6538: 6532: 6528: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6517: 6513: 6508: 6504: 6499: 6497: 6493: 6488: 6487: 6482: 6478: 6474: 6468: 6467:United States 6463: 6461: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6445: 6444: 6438: 6432: 6431: 6422: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6411: 6407: 6399: 6393: 6367: 6364: 6362: 6357: 6353: 6352: 6347: 6343: 6338: 6333: 6332: 6331: 6330: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6291: 6287: 6286: 6280: 6274: 6273: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6259: 6258: 6254: 6250: 6246: 6239: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6228: 6227: 6221: 6215: 6214: 6205: 6200: 6199: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6179: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6167: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6156: 6155: 6149: 6143: 6142: 6133: 6132: 6129: 6126: 6121: 6119: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6104: 6078: 6074: 6070: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6059: 6058: 6052: 6046: 6045: 6036: 6031: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6005: 6004: 5998: 5992: 5991: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5971: 5968: 5964: 5960: 5955: 5954: 5952: 5948: 5947: 5941: 5935: 5934: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5918: 5917: 5911: 5905: 5904: 5895: 5892: 5889: 5886: 5882: 5879: 5875: 5871: 5867: 5864: 5861: 5858: 5855: 5851: 5848: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5839: 5838: 5834: 5830: 5823: 5817: 5812: 5803: 5802: 5799: 5794: 5792: 5786: 5781: 5780: 5777: 5774: 5772: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5760: 5758: 5753: 5749: 5748: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5729: 5726: 5721: 5719: 5713: 5709: 5705: 5701: 5697: 5692: 5688: 5687: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5679: 5677: 5672: 5668: 5667: 5661: 5656: 5645: 5642: 5640: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5628: 5625: 5623: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5602: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5586:also unlink 5584: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5571: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5539: 5536: 5535: 5534: 5531: 5526: 5524: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5509: 5506: 5505: 5501: 5497: 5492: 5487: 5484: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5461: 5457: 5450: 5444: 5440: 5436: 5433: 5428: 5424: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5407: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5373: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5359: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5327: 5323: 5319: 5315: 5311: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5256: 5252: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5243: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5220: 5219: 5213: 5207: 5206: 5192: 5188: 5187: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5170: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5156: 5144: 5141: 5139: 5133: 5129: 5128: 5121: 5118: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5106: 5100: 5096: 5095: 5089: 5085: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5068: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5058: 5054: 5050: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4972: 4969: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4960: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4950: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4924: 4921: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4912: 4907: 4905: 4899: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4862: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4815: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4789: 4787: 4782: 4781: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4747: 4743: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4705: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4696: 4694: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4683: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4664: 4663: 4653: 4650: 4645: 4643: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4622: 4619: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4609: 4606: 4604: 4597: 4596: 4589: 4586: 4582: 4579: 4575: 4572: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4558: 4555: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4544: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4527: 4519: 4516: 4512: 4510: 4507: 4503: 4501: 4498: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4491: 4478: 4471: 4470: 4468: 4463: 4459: 4458: 4456: 4455: 4451: 4450: 4444: 4440: 4439: 4437: 4432: 4430: 4423: 4418: 4417: 4415: 4414: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4402:Pros and cons 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4338: 4335: 4330: 4328: 4322: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4307: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4286: 4283: 4278: 4276: 4269: 4268: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4190: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4169: 4166: 4164: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4140: 4137: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4114: 4109: 4108: 4099: 4096: 4094: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4070: 4067: 4062: 4060: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4025: 4022: 4017: 4015: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3923: 3921: 3915: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3893: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3816: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3799: 3797: 3791: 3786: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3776: 3770: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3751: 3748: 3744: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3734: 3729: 3727: 3721: 3717: 3716: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3693: 3691: 3685: 3673: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3657: 3655: 3648: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3638: 3634: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3610: 3608: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3596: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3577: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3555: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3539: 3534: 3532: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3504: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3494: 3489: 3487: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3471: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3436:I prefer the 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418:Wolverhampton 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3383: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3370: 3363: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3337: 3330: 3324: 3321: 3316: 3313: 3311: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3292: 3287: 3285: 3276: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3231: 3225: 3224: 3215: 3214: 3211: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3181: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3114: 3111: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3069: 3067: 3062: 3056: 3052: 3046: 3040: 3034: 3031: 3029: 3023: 3017: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2979: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2957: 2954: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2939: 2937: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2887: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2848: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2790: 2789: 2783: 2782: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2753: 2750: 2748: 2744: 2725: 2721: 2720: 2714: 2708: 2707: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2686: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2672: 2666: 2660: 2659: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2632: 2630: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2584: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2499: 2493: 2492: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2457: 2453: 2451: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2419: 2413: 2412: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2295:• In 1966, a 2292: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2282: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2258: 2257: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2220: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2117: 2111: 2110: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2075: 2069: 2068: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2012:Why not link 2011: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1976: 1970: 1969: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1948: 1946: 1939: 1938: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1916: 1910: 1909: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1888: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1860: 1854: 1853: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1814: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1701: 1699: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1655: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1580: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1516: 1512: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1487: 1486:United States 1483: 1482:French people 1477: 1475: 1474:George Spears 1472: 1468: 1465: 1458: 1455: 1439: 1435: 1428: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1378: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1361: 1357: 1350: 1348: 1333: 1329: 1322: 1314: 1312: 1306: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1265: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1236: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1198: 1193: 1183: 1180: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1160: 1154: 1150: 1149: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1119: 1118: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1051: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 993: 989: 982: 975: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 958: 955: 951: 943: 940: 936: 932: 930: 925: 917: 914: 912: 906: 901: 896: 895: 894: 893: 890: 886: 882: 878: 873: 872: 867: 864: 862: 856: 852: 848: 847: 846: 845: 842: 839: 837: 831: 826: 825: 820: 816: 812: 808: 799: 792:Quoting you: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 783: 780: 776: 772: 767: 766: 765: 764: 761: 758: 756: 750: 746: 742: 741: 740: 737: 733: 729: 728: 727: 723: 716: 708: 703: 702: 701: 698: 694: 693: 692: 688: 681: 673: 672: 671: 665: 659: 655: 654: 648: 644: 640: 638: 634: 630: 624: 623: 622: 618: 611: 601: 597: 596: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 566: 561: 557: 554:article (but 553: 549: 545: 542: 538: 537: 536: 532: 525: 519: 516: 512: 508: 504: 498: 495: 493: 487: 483: 482: 481: 478: 474: 473: 472: 468: 464: 460: 455: 451: 445: 439: 435: 434: 428: 423: 419: 415: 409: 407: 403: 399: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 379: 375: 372: 369: 366: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 346: 345: 341: 334: 328: 325: 322: 318: 314: 310: 306: 303: 300: 297: 294: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 265:United States 262: 258: 255: 251: 247: 244: 240: 237: 234: 233: 232: 228: 224: 219: 218: 217: 214: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 171: 167: 163: 159: 158: 157: 154: 150: 149: 146: 143: 141: 135: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 121: 119: 110:Bot archiving 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 9097: 9092: 9082:(Contact me) 9073: 9056: 9043:Boracay Bill 9042: 9031: 8996:Boracay Bill 8995: 8983: 8953:Boracay Bill 8952: 8941: 8935: 8929: 8925: 8920: 8916: 8908: 8904: 8898: 8890: 8864: 8785:WP:NOTBROKEN 8755: 8736:WP:NOTBROKEN 8720: 8701: 8695: 8692: 8670: 8642: 8638: 8616: 8592: 8572: 8565: 8514: 8507: 8469: 8441: 8439: 8423: 8406: 8403: 8399: 8372: 8365: 8346: 8342: 8338: 8334: 8293: 8286: 8271: 8253: 8246: 8242: 8207: 8200: 8187: 8169: 8162: 8157:this comment 8154: 8125: 8118: 8112: 8103: 8081: 8077: 8056: 8049: 8004: 7983: 7976: 7970: 7948: 7922: 7918: 7901: 7897: 7879: 7875: 7858: 7854: 7836: 7835: 7830: 7829: 7817: 7813: 7808: 7807: 7803: 7799: 7783: 7778: 7773: 7769: 7753: 7748: 7740: 7720:Yes and yes. 7719: 7702: 7694: 7685: 7680: 7678: 7642: 7634: 7609: 7607: 7603: 7599: 7560: 7556: 7542: 7538: 7520: 7517: 7512: 7508: 7487: 7480: 7451: 7444: 7438: 7434: 7409: 7402: 7397: 7379: 7372: 7362: 7359: 7336: 7329: 7316: 7286: 7279: 7273: 7248: 7244: 7218: 7214: 7198: 7168: 7163: 7158: 7142: 7135: 7118: 7113: 7084: 7039: 7034: 7027: 7026: 7004: 6997: 6991: 6988: 6962: 6920: 6913: 6908: 6810: 6807: 6802: 6798: 6795: 6768: 6760: 6741: 6731: 6717: 6701: 6679: 6675: 6672: 6648: 6643: 6629: 6611: 6606: 6602: 6598: 6573: 6572: 6540: 6535: 6530: 6526: 6506: 6502: 6500: 6485: 6484: 6480: 6476: 6472: 6470: 6459: 6433: 6426: 6397: 6394: 6390: 6354: 6349: 6346:interpreting 6345: 6341: 6336: 6275: 6268: 6244: 6241: 6216: 6209: 6182: 6177: 6144: 6137: 6117: 6107: 6047: 6040: 6034: 5993: 5986: 5936: 5929: 5906: 5899: 5890: 5884: 5881:@OhConfucius 5880: 5874:even further 5873: 5869: 5865: 5859: 5853: 5849: 5825: 5815: 5810: 5790: 5750: 5745: 5737: 5717: 5703: 5690: 5669: 5664: 5659: 5654: 5652: 5548:the way you 5522: 5490: 5488: 5480: 5478:Puuuuhleeze. 5477: 5473: 5469: 5431: 5426: 5421: 5417: 5393: 5390:ten thousand 5389: 5355: 5317: 5313: 5309: 5292: 5288: 5234: 5230: 5208: 5201: 5197: 5174: 5152: 5092: 5014: 4988: 4984: 4903: 4785: 4784: 4779: 4778: 4765: 4745: 4744:trend among 4741: 4739: 4641: 4577: 4576:.... I like 4570: 4535: 4522: 4513: 4504: 4496: 4487: 4442: 4425: 4405: 4326: 4320: 4298: 4294: 4274: 4112: 4058: 4013: 4007: 3989: 3930: 3897: 3894: 3890: 3845: 3795: 3789: 3784: 3771: 3756: 3742: 3725: 3664: 3646: 3629: 3623: 3617: 3530: 3520: 3507: 3502: 3485: 3480: 3476: 3467: 3405: 3354: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3229: 3207: 3203: 3177: 3174: 3166: 3143: 3137: 3133: 3116: 3113: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3065: 3063: 3060: 3044: 3032: 3027: 3021: 3019: 3015: 2969: 2961: 2935: 2885: 2854: 2845: 2833: 2830: 2814: 2810: 2804:Navigational 2803: 2796: 2791: 2759: 2751: 2739: 2709: 2702: 2684: 2661: 2654: 2648: 2628: 2621: 2617: 2523: 2494: 2487: 2481: 2458: 2454: 2449: 2447: 2414: 2407: 2366:Today it is 2325: 2316: 2294: 2278: 2255: 2254: 2241: 2201: 2200: 2155: 2148: 2112: 2105: 2070: 2063: 2049: 2045: 2027: 2013: 1995: 1991: 1971: 1964: 1944: 1911: 1904: 1886: 1879: 1875: 1855: 1848: 1842: 1837: 1802: 1767: 1766: 1753: 1697: 1626: 1618: 1614: 1592: 1566: 1563: 1559:navigational 1558: 1554: 1547: 1514: 1500: 1499: 1479: 1460: 1447: 1419: 1415: 1393: 1389: 1364: 1359: 1344: 1292: 1263: 1256: 1251: 1222: 1170: 1146: 1120: 1113: 1103: 1098: 1093: 1088: 1041: 1023: 973: 954:The Wrestler 953: 934: 928: 877:even discuss 876: 850: 832:) lacking"-- 829: 806: 797: 774: 770: 731: 707:The Wrestler 706: 651: 646: 642: 599: 578:these cities 565:The Wrestler 563: 559: 555: 515:time wasting 514: 506: 431: 320: 273:Marisa Tomei 260: 253: 181: 113: 82: 47: 41: 9015:Art LaPella 8967:Ohconfucius 8849:Art LaPella 8689:Poodle/dog? 8623:Ground Zero 8599:Ohconfucius 8550:Ohconfucius 8352:Ohconfucius 8321:Art LaPella 8155:@Greg: per 8088:Ohconfucius 8036:Ohconfucius 7927:WP:DATEPOLL 7859:yes, but... 7855:Yes, but... 7804:yes, but... 7800:Yes, but... 7708:Ohconfucius 7665:businessman 7659:billionaire 7585:Art LaPella 7065:Art LaPella 6966:this change 6866:Art LaPella 6799:exceedingly 6469:link go???” 6398:necessarily 6069:Art LaPella 6015:Art LaPella 5866:@HWV/Greg 2 5770:Ohconfucius 5660:problematic 5638:Ohconfucius 5621:Ohconfucius 5293:the context 5267:Art LaPella 5137:Ohconfucius 5094:SMcCandlish 5080:mathematics 5076:lilliputian 4870:Art LaPella 4847:Art LaPella 4692:Ohconfucius 4602:Ohconfucius 4162:Ohconfucius 4092:Ohconfucius 3975:Buddhipriya 3919:Ohconfucius 3689:Ohconfucius 3653:Ohconfucius 3606:Ohconfucius 3582:Ohconfucius 3508:conditional 3083:presents a 2838:or similar 2825:transcluded 2797:Explanatory 2588:Ohconfucius 2568:Art LaPella 2551:Ohconfucius 2337:presents a 2133:Art LaPella 2091:Art LaPella 2032:Art LaPella 1738:Art LaPella 1598:Art LaPella 1568:SMcCandlish 1555:explanatory 1402:Art LaPella 1366:SMcCandlish 1294:SMcCandlish 1224:SMcCandlish 1148:SMcCandlish 910:Ohconfucius 860:Ohconfucius 835:Ohconfucius 754:Ohconfucius 653:SMcCandlish 570:these words 556:unnecessary 491:Ohconfucius 463:Art LaPella 433:SMcCandlish 281:celebrities 223:Art LaPella 199:Art LaPella 139:Ohconfucius 117:Ohconfucius 40:This is an 9035:Wtmitchell 8988:Wtmitchell 8945:Wtmitchell 8108:pejorative 7906:Epeefleche 7826:Pink Floyd 7814:almost all 7652:Australian 7648:definition 7159:unilateral 6811:absolutely 6742:paragraphs 6507:outrageous 6419:For info, 5822:Elmer Fudd 5691:Australian 5263:lord mayor 4795:until the 4518:TreyHarris 4380:Dougweller 3991:again???? 3952:TheRingess 3950:consensus. 3912:I've seen 3355:reasonable 3051:Ni-Vanuatu 2823:and other 2800:sections). 2736:MoS update 2297:Ni-Vanuatu 2055:these ones 1669:GRB 090510 1454:WP:LINKING 851:ad nauseum 576:, most of 102:Archive 15 94:Archive 12 89:Archive 11 83:Archive 10 9041:(earlier 8994:(earlier 8951:(earlier 8831:oknazevad 8792:oknazevad 8426:(∆ here), 8106:- is not 7837:Heck, no! 7831:Heck, no! 7822:Argentina 7699:acid test 7681:extremely 6979:this edit 6680:precisely 6498:. Period. 6486:precisely 6342:guideline 5785:add links 5708:Australia 5370:chlorides 5322:Sucralose 5191:This edit 5181:This edit 5161:occasions 5049:69.3.72.9 4786:consensus 4666:Off-topic 4506:judgment. 3414:Leicester 3089:polywater 3081:scientist 3055:polywater 3039:polywater 2966:delinking 2817:infoboxes 2785:Rationale 2343:polywater 2335:scientist 2301:polywater 2281:polywater 1880:certainly 1770:(born in 1464:Frenchman 807:somewhere 389:straw man 77:Archive 9 72:Archive 8 64:Archive 5 9075:BIGNOLE 8984:website= 8812:A. di M. 8740:A. di M. 8442:at least 8113:relevant 7841:A. di M. 7818:actually 7675:musician 7662:American 7612:articles 7322:example 7319:sign off 6984:this one 6698:American 6462:provided 6178:just one 5706:gone to 5588:Paraguay 5432:problems 5423:question 5158:separate 5105:Contribs 5072:Lilliput 4989:See also 4985:See also 4578:see also 4536:see also 4246:A. di M. 4212:Scott P. 4035:Scott P. 3993:Scott P. 3935:A. di M. 3899:Scott P. 3857:A. di M. 3826:A. di M. 3760:A. di M. 3503:absolute 3450:A. di M. 3422:A. di M. 3410:Coventry 3406:wouldn't 3257:Dcoetzee 3078:American 2821:navboxes 2524:(*sigh*) 2332:American 2000:A. di M. 1843:everyone 1820:A. di M. 1721:Dabomb87 1677:A. di M. 1631:A. di M. 1579:Contribs 1471:American 1377:Contribs 1305:Contribs 1235:Contribs 1205:A. di M. 1159:Contribs 1028:A. di M. 960:A. di M. 664:Contribs 629:A. di M. 586:A. di M. 444:Contribs 20:‎ | 7672:British 7655:actress 7639:wp:link 7573:helpful 7367:wp:link 7274:against 7267:wp:link 7136:weren't 6977:- with 6603:mention 6112:WP:TLDR 5860:@Greg 1 5809:he has 5742:Bolivia 5556:” and “ 5552:words “ 5470:kidding 5084:WP:NPOV 4534:I like 4509:Rossami 4452:against 3971:WP:SPAM 3745:Done -- 3506:i.e. a 3072:12. In 2583:WP:BOLD 2563:BBC One 2234:matter. 2048:people 1990:How is 1538:WP:LEAD 931:section 855:WP:TLDR 749:utility 560:harmful 402:display 354:display 313:display 43:archive 22:Linking 9038:(talk) 8991:(talk) 8948:(talk) 8871:(talk) 8827:poodle 8762:(talk) 8727:(talk) 8708:(talk) 8677:(talk) 8649:(talk) 8544:WP:BRD 8476:HWV258 8446:Greg L 7760:(talk) 7731:, and 7691:WP:BRD 7618:HWV258 7525:Greg L 7255:(talk) 7205:(talk) 7149:(talk) 7091:(talk) 6992:should 6882:HWV258 6816:Greg L 6761:no one 6746:Greg L 6738:WP:NPA 6720:Greg L 6583:Greg L 6562:Greg L 6512:Greg L 6496:WP:NPA 6421:here's 6249:Greg L 6187:Greg L 6124:(talk) 6030:Here's 5959:Greg L 5829:Greg L 5797:(talk) 5724:(talk) 5704:hasn't 5562:Greg L 5550:linked 5529:(talk) 5496:Greg L 5486:today. 5448:HWV258 5438:more). 5398:Greg L 5326:Canada 5291:means 5088:WP:NOR 5067:MT:MOS 5034:Mycomp 4995:Gyrobo 4968:Waldir 4959:Waldir 4949:Waldir 4910:(talk) 4832:Greg L 4828:WP:AGF 4801:Greg L 4751:Greg L 4714:Greg L 4648:(talk) 4554:Waldir 4526:Waldir 4333:(talk) 4281:(talk) 4065:(talk) 4020:(talk) 3873:Greg L 3802:(talk) 3790:should 3732:(talk) 3647:reduce 3537:(talk) 3521:single 3492:(talk) 3361:HWV258 3328:HWV258 3290:(talk) 3251:, and 3236:(talk) 3205:other. 3185:Greg L 3119:Greg L 2977:HWV258 2942:(talk) 2902:Greg L 2872:Greg L 2691:(talk) 2635:(talk) 2622:always 2618:please 2548:). -- 2527:Greg L 2466:Greg L 2384:Greg L 2206:French 2204:was a 1951:(talk) 1893:(talk) 1809:(talk) 1758:French 1756:was a 1704:(talk) 1619:really 1543:player 1505:French 1503:was a 1426:HWV258 1356:WP:BLP 1320:HWV258 1270:(talk) 1049:HWV258 980:HWV258 905:denial 881:Greg L 811:Greg L 798:Saaay. 714:HWV258 679:HWV258 643:People 609:HWV258 523:HWV258 427:WP:BRD 418:strong 414:strong 406:strong 358:strong 356:, and 332:HWV258 317:strong 315:, and 285:profit 128:About 9094:Ckatz 8581:edits 8523:edits 8381:edits 8302:edits 8262:edits 8216:edits 8178:edits 8134:edits 8104:again 8065:edits 7992:edits 7971:ought 7931:RexxS 7866:Adler 7780:Ckatz 7772:(and 7735:from 7729:House 7727:from 7496:edits 7460:edits 7418:edits 7388:edits 7345:edits 7295:edits 7165:Ckatz 7115:Ckatz 7036:Ckatz 7013:edits 6929:edits 6645:Ckatz 6635:actor 6608:Ckatz 6537:Ckatz 6458:link 6442:edits 6351:Ckatz 6284:edits 6225:edits 6185:one. 6153:edits 6056:edits 6035:would 6002:edits 5945:edits 5915:edits 5816:SHOOT 5747:Ckatz 5712:Perth 5666:Ckatz 5592:Chile 5546:liked 5318:every 5314:about 5259:mayor 5242:Adler 5217:edits 5155:three 5101:ʕ(ل)ˀ 5099:Talk⇒ 5022:death 4742:clear 4738:page. 4571:would 3967:WP:EL 3931:below 3444:than 3398:green 3249:green 3085:paper 2888:more. 2718:edits 2670:edits 2503:edits 2423:edits 2339:paper 2326:• In 2188:Break 2164:edits 2121:edits 2079:edits 2050:might 1980:edits 1920:edits 1864:edits 1715:that 1575:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1573:Talk⇒ 1390:often 1373:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1371:Talk⇒ 1301:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1299:Talk⇒ 1248:India 1231:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1229:Talk⇒ 1155:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1153:Talk⇒ 1129:edits 660:ʕ(ل)ˀ 658:Talk⇒ 459:China 440:ʕ(ل)ˀ 438:Talk⇒ 348:The " 283:, or 277:drama 269:Japan 162:Rrius 16:< 9019:talk 8865:Tony 8853:talk 8835:talk 8816:talk 8796:talk 8756:Tony 8744:talk 8721:Tony 8702:Tony 8671:Tony 8643:Tony 8619:here 8575:talk 8568:N-HH 8517:talk 8510:N-HH 8450:talk 8375:talk 8368:N-HH 8339:also 8325:talk 8316:Here 8296:talk 8289:N-HH 8282:here 8278:this 8274:this 8256:talk 8249:N-HH 8210:talk 8203:N-HH 8172:talk 8165:N-HH 8128:talk 8121:N-HH 8059:talk 8052:N-HH 8033:. -- 8012:ASEM 7986:talk 7979:N-HH 7954:ASEM 7935:talk 7921:and 7910:talk 7900:and 7889:talk 7878:and 7863:Hans 7857:and 7845:talk 7834:and 7802:and 7754:Tony 7725:Tent 7695:that 7643:most 7610:most 7602:and 7589:talk 7559:and 7541:and 7529:talk 7511:and 7490:talk 7483:N-HH 7476:this 7474:and 7472:this 7454:talk 7447:N-HH 7437:and 7412:talk 7405:N-HH 7398:Note 7382:talk 7375:N-HH 7339:talk 7332:N-HH 7289:talk 7282:N-HH 7249:Tony 7219:then 7199:Tony 7143:Tony 7085:Tony 7069:talk 7007:talk 7000:N-HH 6975:here 6971:here 6923:talk 6916:N-HH 6870:talk 6836:ASEM 6820:talk 6776:ASEM 6750:talk 6724:talk 6599:only 6587:talk 6574:P.S. 6566:talk 6527:read 6516:talk 6436:talk 6429:N-HH 6405:ASEM 6278:talk 6271:N-HH 6253:talk 6245:this 6219:talk 6212:N-HH 6191:talk 6183:that 6147:talk 6140:N-HH 6118:Tony 6073:talk 6050:talk 6043:N-HH 6019:talk 5996:talk 5989:N-HH 5963:talk 5939:talk 5932:N-HH 5909:talk 5902:N-HH 5850:@Art 5833:talk 5791:Tony 5738:real 5718:Tony 5614:and 5596:Peru 5594:and 5566:talk 5558:city 5554:town 5544:, I 5542:Tony 5523:Tony 5517:city 5513:town 5500:talk 5402:talk 5271:talk 5261:and 5239:Hans 5235:does 5211:talk 5204:N-HH 5134:. -- 5053:talk 5038:talk 5026:sins 5020:and 4999:talk 4904:Tony 4874:talk 4851:talk 4836:talk 4805:talk 4755:talk 4718:talk 4642:Tony 4443:will 4428:it). 4384:talk 4327:Tony 4275:Tony 4250:talk 4216:talk 4122:talk 4059:Tony 4039:talk 4014:Tony 4008:read 3997:talk 3979:talk 3969:and 3956:talk 3939:talk 3903:talk 3877:talk 3861:talk 3830:talk 3796:Tony 3785:less 3764:talk 3726:Tony 3531:Tony 3486:Tony 3454:talk 3426:talk 3402:blue 3400:and 3320:here 3284:Tony 3253:blue 3230:Tony 3189:talk 3134:also 3123:talk 3076:, a 3074:1966 2962:must 2936:Tony 2906:talk 2876:talk 2745:, a 2712:talk 2705:N-HH 2685:Tony 2664:talk 2657:N-HH 2629:Tony 2572:talk 2531:talk 2497:talk 2490:N-HH 2482:mass 2470:talk 2417:talk 2410:N-HH 2403:here 2388:talk 2330:, a 2328:1966 2158:talk 2151:N-HH 2137:talk 2115:talk 2108:N-HH 2095:talk 2073:talk 2066:N-HH 2046:some 2036:talk 2028:some 2004:talk 1974:talk 1967:N-HH 1945:Tony 1914:talk 1907:N-HH 1887:Tony 1858:talk 1851:N-HH 1824:talk 1803:Tony 1797:Lyon 1787:talk 1783:John 1772:Lyon 1742:talk 1725:talk 1698:Tony 1681:talk 1635:talk 1627:e.g. 1615:read 1602:talk 1557:vs. 1484:and 1406:talk 1394:ever 1362:. — 1351:jack 1264:Tony 1209:talk 1142:Some 1123:talk 1116:N-HH 1032:talk 1016:this 964:talk 907:. -- 885:talk 815:talk 633:talk 590:talk 467:talk 404:and 398:form 391:, a 350:form 309:form 227:talk 203:talk 166:talk 130:this 9103:spy 8901:--> 8343:not 8083:etc 8080:: " 8078:viz 7923:Yes 7919:Yes 7902:Yes 7898:Yes 7880:Yes 7876:Yes 7789:spy 7737:Cat 7733:Dog 7635:Yes 7604:Yes 7600:Yes 7561:Yes 7557:Yes 7513:Yes 7509:Yes 7215:now 7174:spy 7124:spy 7045:spy 6805:So… 6769:are 6702:add 6654:spy 6630:are 6617:spy 6546:spy 6531:you 6460:you 6360:spy 6337:are 6108:way 5818:him 5811:two 5756:spy 5675:spy 5655:did 5538:BTW 5515:or 5491:can 5468:No 5427:and 5368:to 5310:any 5030:die 5018:sin 4766:now 4746:all 4411:for 4321:any 4299:all 4118:RxS 3842:Bye 3275:all 3138:any 3066:not 3064:Do 2970:not 2317:not 2212:... 2014:the 1996:the 1992:the 1778:... 1550:lot 1529:not 1511:... 1490:not 1416:all 1398:dog 1171:you 1042:all 974:via 935:any 830:sic 775:any 732:all 604::-) 602:". 507:not 365:low 362:how 296:low 293:how 9021:) 8934:. 8855:) 8837:) 8818:) 8798:) 8746:) 8738:. 8696:is 8625:| 8593:me 8452:) 8347:or 8335:do 8327:) 8019:) 8008:-- 7961:) 7937:) 7912:) 7891:) 7847:) 7809:do 7774:no 7770:No 7591:) 7543:no 7539:No 7531:) 7435:No 7162:-- 7071:) 7033:-- 6872:) 6855:-- 6843:) 6822:) 6783:) 6752:) 6726:) 6676:my 6589:) 6568:) 6518:) 6503:me 6412:) 6255:) 6193:) 6075:) 6021:) 5984:. 5965:) 5835:) 5610:, 5606:, 5590:, 5568:) 5540:, 5502:) 5404:) 5388:a 5273:) 5231:if 5055:) 5040:) 5001:) 4993:-- 4876:) 4853:) 4838:) 4817:-- 4807:) 4757:) 4720:) 4599:-- 4583:-- 4524:-- 4480:}} 4474:{{ 4386:) 4252:) 4218:) 4155:, 4124:) 4041:) 3999:) 3981:) 3973:. 3958:) 3941:) 3905:) 3879:) 3863:) 3855:. 3832:) 3766:) 3667:-- 3635:-- 3593:-- 3579:-- 3556:-- 3456:) 3428:) 3412:, 3305:-- 3208:-- 3191:) 3125:) 2951:-- 2908:) 2886:is 2878:) 2855:-- 2834:A 2819:, 2574:) 2533:) 2472:) 2405:. 2390:) 2139:) 2097:) 2038:) 2006:) 1826:) 1789:) 1744:) 1727:) 1683:) 1637:) 1604:) 1564:— 1533:UK 1494:do 1408:) 1286:, 1257:do 1211:) 1203:. 1073:-- 1034:) 1026:. 966:) 887:) 817:) 796:… 647:E! 635:) 592:) 558:≠ 469:) 400:, 374:go 371:we 368:do 352:, 311:, 305:go 302:we 299:do 279:, 275:, 271:, 267:, 241:-- 229:) 205:) 195:31 168:) 98:→ 68:← 9045:) 9017:( 8998:) 8955:) 8851:( 8833:( 8829:. 8814:( 8794:( 8742:( 8627:t 8578:/ 8520:/ 8483:. 8448:( 8421:. 8378:/ 8323:( 8299:/ 8259:/ 8213:/ 8175:/ 8131:/ 8062:/ 8017:t 8015:( 8010:M 8005:I 7989:/ 7959:t 7957:( 7952:M 7933:( 7908:( 7887:( 7843:( 7625:. 7587:( 7527:( 7493:/ 7457:/ 7415:/ 7385:/ 7342:/ 7292:/ 7067:( 7010:/ 6926:/ 6889:. 6868:( 6841:t 6839:( 6834:M 6818:( 6781:t 6779:( 6774:M 6764:' 6748:( 6722:( 6708:. 6585:( 6564:( 6514:( 6439:/ 6410:t 6408:( 6403:M 6281:/ 6251:( 6240:. 6222:/ 6189:( 6150:/ 6071:( 6053:/ 6017:( 5999:/ 5961:( 5942:/ 5912:/ 5831:( 5564:( 5498:( 5455:. 5416:" 5400:( 5372:. 5269:( 5214:/ 5107:. 5051:( 5036:( 4997:( 4872:( 4849:( 4834:( 4803:( 4788:. 4753:( 4716:( 4382:( 4248:( 4214:( 4120:( 4037:( 3995:( 3977:( 3954:( 3937:( 3901:( 3875:( 3859:( 3828:( 3762:( 3452:( 3424:( 3368:. 3335:. 3322:. 3187:( 3173:” 3121:( 3108:“ 3091:. 3057:. 3041:. 2984:. 2904:( 2874:( 2715:/ 2667:/ 2570:( 2540:" 2529:( 2500:/ 2468:( 2420:/ 2386:( 2345:. 2303:. 2283:. 2161:/ 2135:( 2118:/ 2093:( 2076:/ 2034:( 2002:( 1977:/ 1917:/ 1861:/ 1822:( 1785:( 1740:( 1723:( 1679:( 1633:( 1600:( 1581:. 1450:x 1433:. 1404:( 1379:. 1327:. 1307:. 1237:. 1207:( 1161:. 1126:/ 1056:. 1030:( 987:. 962:( 883:( 813:( 721:. 686:. 666:. 631:( 616:. 588:( 530:. 465:( 446:. 396:" 339:. 259:" 252:" 225:( 201:( 164:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 10 - Knowledge

Index