1465:
numbers less than 24 hours old, well okay: A paltry Alamo of 4 editors in support of the current language, versus thousands upon thousands of experienced editors continuing to link exactly as they did a year ago and five years ago, indicates three, and only three, things with undeniable clarity: 1) Few
Wikipedians give a damn about what this document says, indicating that either this guideline and the issues it attempts to address aren't very important at all, or that editors have lost faith with this page because it doesn't match actual practice (I strongly suspect the latter, and if anyone tried to MfD this as unimportant, you know it would be a speedy keep, and proof that the "unimportant" theory is false). 2) Too few editors have had any input into any of this (which I already knew and is why I've suggested, twice, an RfC) for you to declare that any kind of meaningful compromise has been reached (it's too thin a base of support to even have changed the guideline from how it read 2 years ago, much less to declare a new consensus on what it currently says). 3) Sparsity of participants aside, there clearly is no consensus anyway, by definition, since opinions are near evenly divided (see other critics of the current wording, above and in recent archives), thus resulting in the long, heated debate resulting in a messy compromise. It is not at all clear that there has been a tide against current, experienced-editor linking levels (I agree that there has been a tide against
1890:). There is no connection between these points. Yet this is the second if not third time in two days that a supporter of greatly increased delinking, in this thread, has tried to imply that they are the same in a vain hope of strengthening his/her argument. I'll spell it out as clearly as possible so no one misses it the next time it happens: Just because a) overlinking does happen, and b) overlinking is detrimental, and c) there is no substantial disagreement about these points, does not mean d) links to countries or some other categorization being attacked by certain parties to the debate actually constitute overlinking (no evidence of broad consensus on this idea, and strong evidence that the idea is controversial, thus the historically raging and now renewed disputed on this page, and widespread disregarding of this part of the guideline), e) nor that links to such topics are actually detrimental (zero evidence of this whatsoever), meanwhile f) the vast majority of experienced editors continue to edit and link the way this guideline advised before it was heavily modified by "authoritative and deletionist" (see original quotation above) anti-linkers. This "well, we both agree that there's overlinking and it's bad, ergo we have to stop linking countries like the current text says; I win, argument over" nonsense is not a valid argument. It's fallacious from top to bottom, and it's not fooling anyone. —
2987:
same four-five person clique who by virtue of their presence on this page believe that they represent the consensus across
Knowledge, told that they're on the "losing side" and should head off to the dustbin of history; that they don't understand what linking is for, and that they're duping and confusing other readers about what other pages they should be able to link to easily (as if there is a definitive right and wrong about those last two, uniform for every single reader); that they want "seas of blue" etc. You know, when this happens this regularly, both here and on the talk pages of those removing vast numbers of links from pages, you might stop to consider that there's a problem here, and that your consensus isn't quite as strong outside of this bubble. People are just asking for flexibility, and an understanding that just because most people (not all, note) know pretty much what and where for example Italy is, or what a lawyer is, we don't need to remove every single link to such pages from related ones. Those pages, after all, say much, much more than simply what and/or where the thing is. Even Italians and lawyers might be grateful for a link on occasion. And, of course, people don't
1844:
exceedingly vocal and lock-step concert, probably coordinated in e-mail so there's no evidence of canvassing, that more rationale discourse is drowned out, and everyone else just gives up and goes away with massive headaches and dangerously elevated blood pressure. What happens after that is that the hijacked guideline is largely ignored by everyone except the special interest who have usurped it, and editors continue doing what they have been doing for years. The bad part, for day-to-day editing, is that this inevitably leads to edit-warring between established editors who know how to edit, regardless what an pseudo-consensus has to say on some screwed-beyond-recognition guideline page that's been radically altered away from actual practice, versus newer users who treat all guidelines as gospel and don't understand that wikipolitics is always at play in them. Another downside is that
1573:
much, much broader mandate. A large percentage of the time, someone clicking a link in an sentence in an article knows very well what that something "is", and are following the link because they want to look for something non-obvious about that "something" that is relevant to the context in which the link appears or (even more often) to something in the readers' mind that has been triggered by the appearance of the "something" in the context in question. Some of the most fruitful
Knowledge reading is the following of these links at reader whim and under reader individual interest. Massive delinking as proposed by this version of the guideline text is effectively robbing readers of the opportunity to chase their own interests (or would be, if many editors actually did what this guideline presently tells them to do). Many readers reading about a Chinese scientist damned well
268:::::::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 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. --] ] 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
261:::::::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 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. --] ] 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
3081:
Backwater forum: sure, but once again, what's the alternative? Appoint you as the judge of what the consensus is? That link: I didn't expect you to try to read the AWB regex code, just the list of countries and related words before and after "Pacific"; was that your problem? Sure everyone has different lists, or no explicit list at all if they don't use software, but why do you want consistency? On the one hand you think OVERLINK is overregulating from a backwater forum, and on the other hand you think it's underregulating because it doesn't list exactly what should be unlinked. If we don't really have authority for OVERLINK, then where would we get authority for agreeing on a specific list? Other
Knowledge rules such as
424:
392:
3044:
continually and repeatedly - my position. That just sets the tone from the outset. And, like I say, I noted above after popping by this page again, the same thing happening to someone else. Plus people posting links to pictures of crying babies. The other problem is that this is a pretty closed, backwater forum. Consensus here can in no way be taken as consensus across WP for something that is a little more fundamental than whether to use Oxford commas, or en or em dashes. Anyway, thanks for that link - but come on, it's utterly unclear what that is all about to the average reader or editor, myself included. Plus if everyone has different ones, where is the consistency?
3149:, as well as about simply directing people to where they "should" go or about what will "help understanding" in some strictly defined sense for some ideal, standardised reader. That's where these problems ultimately all stem from. In an article about an Italian lawyer, links to both Italy and lawyer on one occasion each do not seem to be overlinking, by common sense, standard editing practice or an accurate reading of the current guidelines. But a small number of editors regularly remove them, even from infoboxes, often using automated tools, citing "overlink". That just seems unnecessary, and not especially helpful in any obvious way.
279::::::::Taking your last point first ''we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end'', 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.
1248:" useful or not, understand why it is there or why someone else might appreciate it, or would ever click it yourself. This encyclopedia isn't written specially for you. It's written for everyone who can understand some English, anywhere in the world. This includes people in censorious and propagandistic countries like China (P.R. of), where actual facts about the United States and Americans are often generally unavailable or distorted, except for those who have figured out ways around the censorship and gotten here to get sourced facts. Another way of looking at it: A lead section intro like "Ndele P. Mbebe is a
1578:
bio article does. Please stop assuming that everyone uses
Knowledge the way you do, which is apparently in a very linear and narrowly focused manner. All you "it's a sea of blue! it's a sea of blue! aaaaa!" people need to do is quit fighting with everyone else and turning guidelines on their ear, and just go install a few lines in your default.css that make links do something less intrusive for you than be bright blue. What you've all done is akin to tearing down a bridge used by everyone because you find it too bumpy and loud, instead of fixing your own bad shocks and bald tires.
1327:
quick information, first occurrence in an infobox of something worth linking should be linked. But because many users ignore infoboxes as "noise", and are here to read an in-depth article and already know the summary details of the topic they are researching, the same is true of the main prose - link the first occurrence in the article proper. I've been writing/editing articles this way for 5 years (linking in main prose and in infoboxes as if they were separate entities with a parent-child relationship, which <gasp!: -->
1958:
get irritated by people who launch into to me because they feel antagonized (based on direct experience with GregL and some others here), so I don't see the point in any more back-'n'-forth right now. I've made all the points that I feel I need make, and have backed them up with clear and sound rationales. Meanwhile, I've gotten absolutely jack in response that substantively addresses the issues that I raised in my "too bold" edits. I'll let others who also care about this dispute take up the torch for a while. Drop me a
1720:, to make up a counterexample. I can understand opposition to, and might even be convinced to lean toward opposing, links to those countries there because they are not intimately tied to the subject. However, there is no doubt that a well-developed country article would provide sections on industries and natural resources, and that these would provide context to and information about mining in those countries, if not bauxite mining in particular, and that this information would be helpful to some subset of readers of the
4407:
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. --
462:
1478:
push their personal anti-linking agenda. Your
Johnnie Cochran jab is a non-starter, since I've already laid out in detail both above and on a point by point basis in edit summaries how all of those policies and guidelines apply and to what. If I'd simply linked them, with no explanations, I would understand your criticism, but if falls flat here. Likewise, simply rejecting, without substantive response, my criticism that the section "is still awful" is a head-in-the-sand move, since I explained in detail
403:
4424:, 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.
1618:, in a movie article), and first occurrences of countries, currencies and various other things (linking because it adds something some non-trivial subset of the readership will find helpful). This distinction has nothing at all to do with whether some experienced editors have a deletionist bent, a more stringent idea of what constitutes "overlinking", while others are more inclusionist and permissive. Those are basically two different discussions entirely. The fact that the latter case
3202:
page says a lot more - I assume - than "lawyer: a person who does law". The more important question is what having a link to a significant term takes away, when it's clearly relevant to the topic of that page. How actually does it detract or distract? Does the word being a bit blue magnetically pull people towards clicking on it, when they might not otherwise? You personally might not want it there, but with the greatest respect, so what? There are millions of other readers and editors.
567:
1056:, or comes close enough to duplicating to be confusing. It's true that words like "American" are often linked, but I don't know why anyone would click them. If we're trying to make the guideline fit the usual practice, the usual practice is to link major countries throughout the article, not just once. When my AWB software unlinks such words, I often leave the first link to a country, religion etc. depending on how closely related it is to the article's subject; for instance,
4157:
1333:
navboxes (which also link to things that may already be linked in main prose) are tools – mini-pages, if you will – that are separate from, even if subordinate to, the main article prose. Personally, I think that the "no subpages" policy should be modified to always put infoboxes in a /infbox subpage. This would help remind people of the nature of an infobox and its relationship to the parent article, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
1232:
simply made the document agree with itself better, instead of going off on a wild tangent trying to ban links that most editors consider completely normal. This is actually precisely what I would expect, given that much of this document has been stable for years, but this section is a frakfest of agenda-pushing and emotive argumentation, with layers upon layers of barely- to totally-incompatible edits, with greatly varying degrees of
496:
81:
410:
2116:{{ec)) If you are going to start off by saying you didn't read it, you probably shouldn't go out on a limb to say something isn't included. In fact, SMcLandish does make a reasoned point about why those terms should be linked. While apparently you only ever click on article links if you aren't familiar with the subject, not everyone browses that way. Someone reading a passage that mentions the US dollar may want to go to
534:
3247:
scans better without the links. It's not just the delinking of words such as "lipstick" and "piano" in that article for which the hard-working editors involved in this issue strive, it is also a change of culture that will hopefully deter editors from wanting to make such nebulous links (or at least to have editors think carefully about the relevance of links, as opposed to the scatter-gun approach to linking).
2286:
persuadable editor, but it will take actual arguments rather than what we we've seen in support of the current language to this point. Just because I can restate SMcLansish's argument and defend it against weak arguments doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact is, I'm inclined to believe the best and most realistic language would be somewhere between the two passages in the summary section below. -
1317:, distinct entities. All information that appears in an infobox should also appear in the prose, in one form or another (usually more developed, instead of summary form), and be sourced in the prose, even if sources are also in the infobox (which is usually unnecessary). I realize that, especially in biographies, this ideal is often not attainted, at least not until GA or FA review. But it
796:
743:
2391:
are now, point C, where the guideline now says not to autoformat. The situation is completely different from what I'm talking about, which is the actual behaviour of editors. Can it change? Of course. But the guideline here should follow any such change, not seek to bring it about. The question is then, what do people actually do? Do they link units of measure and currency,
1883:
special reason for doing so in some limited context. The other and completely severable issue is that a small but incredibly vocal and tenacious minority want to define as overlinking links to countries and such, that the vast majority of editors consider perfectly valid links – as clearly evidenced by the fact that most experienced editors link them at first occurrence
1532:
typed China into the search box, rather than read an article that happens to mention China. (Exception: If they're reading about
Shanghai, then maybe they also want to read about China. If they're reading about a scientist who happens to be Chinese, then no, they don't want to read all about China.) Chinese may or may not know what Botswana is. I didn't find anything at
2160:
actually responsive or show that the party replying has bothered to read what he is arguing against, it seems (though I may be wrong) editors think that at least this part of the Manual of Style should be prescriptivist rather than descriptivist. I don't see why. Actual practice among experienced editors at articles across the project is to link many of these terms. -
1973:. The way forward is to remove pre- and proscriptions that do not have consensus, clarify the parts that do, and either just have the document STFU at that point, or (as I did) spell out what actual practice is among the majority of experienced editors (acknowledging that some experienced editors like Art take a more link-restrictive viewpoint). —
402:
409:
3270:
should think before adding them. But I also agree that people should think before removing a link. Which is, of course, something the guidelines explicitly require, when they ask people to bear in mind that a link they might want to remove "may be useful to other readers." There is a such a thing as a good idea pushed too far on occasion.
1126:, only that certain parties here are tenacious, and through long, bitter dispute have worn down more sensible stances to agree to a compromise position that doesn't actually satisfy anyone. The section gets in the way of my ability to improve the encyclopedia, and that is precisely the circumstance for which the IAR policy was codified.
2142:
means is much more woolly with Manual of Style and other guidelines than with articles. While consensus at an article rightly reflects the views of the editors of that article, consensus for a guideline should generally reflect actual editor behaviour rather than the views of the editors who happen to be interested in the guideline.
1629:(See also, below again, for an a-b-c-d... layout of how two radically different issues are being conflated here, often intentionally by those who are trying to confuse broad agreement that blatant overlinking is a negative, with illusory claims of broad agreement that their personal interpretation that almost all links to countries
1650:
far" (to paraphrase) is not an argument, it's simply an opinion like "I think chocolate tastes good". "This has consensus, so don't change it" (to paraphrase again) when there is overwhelming evidence of no consensus, is not an argument, it's simply disingenuous nonsense (or evidence of cognitive problems). I believe strongly in
1839:
and that everyone else is wrong about everything, again without any evidence that this is true, and will never actually address any criticisms or concerns, no matter how many times it is demanded that they do so. It is impossible to have a rational discussion/debate in the face of such illogical and fallacious tactics. What
2639:"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Knowledge, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, ..."
1487:(and those of others - I'm not the only one you argue to the death with). That said, I realize that it takes two to argue, and I'm known for being argumentative myself. I will endeavor to be open-minded with you and the others who you say support your views, Greg (and with HWV, who explicitly states such support).
3025:
down will encourage more participation here and a better mandate. To answer the 2 questions: the current discussion is probably as good an indicator of consensus as we're going to get, and nobody says "regardless of context". Of course there is no standard list of common countries, but mine is no secret; search
1683:
GAN/FAC work that week or day got to impose their highly personal preferences as reject a great article in favor of a crappy one for totally subjective reasons. So, an example like that really isn't germane to this debate at all. The funny thing about the G.W. article is it's actually a great example of where
4340:
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,
4322:
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 -
3487:
Gentlemen, we agreed a few months ago that on this page, the temperature would be kept cool, with no emotive or personalised language. HWV, "childish" is unhelpful here; and
Michael, labelling editorial work as a "jihad" is just as unhelpful. Could we please engage on the issue rather than commenting
2367:
You are entitled to your opinion, but those of us who went blow-for-blow through the entire miserable experience are also entitled to retain our memories of the events. I'll try one last time: at one point, being able to link/auto-format dates was widespread; now it isn't. Therefore the argument that
1608:
10. I'm not the only one to have pointed out there is no 4:1 majority (see below). I'm sorry I even used that back at you guys as a joke, since it's now being bandied about as if it were a valid statistic. Let's not be silly. I get your point that this camp or that camp can accuse the other of noob
1193:
has suggested doing so, that I know of. So, please don't be exaggeratory and melodramatic. In actual fact, I was quite explicit about what should be linked at first occurrence and gave, also, clear examples of what not to link at all. A reasonable person could argue that my take was perfect or too
4406:
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
4290:
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
3024:
The "four-five person clique", though undercounted, is something to think about. Last year I think there were 3. But 2 or 3 people telling us what the consensus is, and that anyone outside that consensus doesn't count, present a similar problem. Either way you look at it, keeping the hostility level
2986:
Ha. Deja vu. An editor comes along to query the wording of the linking guidelines, and/or the very rigid interpretation of the "unless relevant .." qualification - while making very clear their absolute agreement with the removal of redundant, repetitive and trivial links - and gets shot down by the
2593:
be won by the editor who has the most time to waste and is most willing to pound his or her keyboard to death; it borders on tendentiousness. Our policies on linking are clear and are designed to ensure that the only words that are linked are those that will actually enhance a reader’s understanding
2159:
Finally, your point about there being a burden on the proponent is true, but you get what needs proving badly wrong. It is not his or her burden to establish consensus has changed; rather, the burden is to establish why it should change. Consensus then moves or doesn't. From the few replies that are
1968:
at my talk page if my attention is needed. Closing (for now) summary: It's plain as day that there is no consensus for the current wording of this section, and there never was, otherwise it would be naturally impossible for there to be long, bitter debate about it, a debate that was self-defeatingly
1957:
NB: I'm actually going to bow out of this for a while, since I've said my piece. I know GregL doesn't like long posts, and I'm not here to antagonize him. I also know he is prone to protracting arguments if he feels antagonized, and that I am more likely to argue for longer and with more heat if I
1931:
if the first link doesn't work due to archving) for an outright demand for evidence of consensus for the current version, with supporters' abject failure to provide any at all. That right there is enough to revert this to what it was before the major changes were pushed, or (as I did in my BRD move,
1539:
10. An experienced editor like me, rightly or wrongly unlinks more countries than you imply I do. The distinction between a noob mistake, and a practice opposed by a 4:1 majority (while recognizing how you challenged that statistic), is not a distinction I would want to explain during a flaming edit
1332:
It's self-evidently the only sensible way to do it, if and when one understands and considers WP's broader, off-site userbase, many of whom don't even know they are looking at content ultimately from WP – and without infoboxes and the like – unless they read the fine-print attribution. Infoboxes and
986:
The community has been through this at great length with wide input and you just changed something all by your lonesome. The wording there was no accident. To avoid over-linking articles, we avoid linking common terms everyone is familiar with and focus only upon the links that will truly add value.
301::::::::''You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness''. 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?
3201:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the music point has to do with anything. It's a very odd analogy. And a link to lawyer brings a link to lawyer for any reader who might happen on any occasion to want to use it and read in some detail about the profession that this person was a member of. That
3043:
I agree about hostility, but my experience when I entered this debate after seeing a link to "France" chopped out of an article on my watchlist, was a slew of people - names that are now very familiar - telling me I was wrong to even raise the issue, as well as totally and utterly misrepresenting -
2352:
minority of editors who still thought linking them a good idea. Once again, I doubt you could show that there was ever a majority of editors who linked months and days for a reason other than autoformatting. Point being, of course, that, as I said, established practice was only changed after a very
1838:
It has remained in this form because some of the handful of major supporters of the major wording change against linking are browbeating, incessantly repetitive attack dogs who will not let their position go nor compromise, but simply always insist, without evidence, that their position is correct,
1775:
8 and 11 are about things I never said. 9 has been debated to death; I hadn't seen the previous debate before. As for 10, if there is such a broad consensus for linking everything you want to link, then I'm glad you're here trying to change the guideline; how else would we know? Anybody can say the
1645:
do not have consensus (because multiple parties are, and for two years have been, disputing it), with a restoration of the wording to a) what does have consensus as "overlinking", and b) what can be clearly observed as normal non-noob practice (i.e., linking most "major topics" if you will at first
1613:
between overlinking errors committed by noobs, including linking of countries and such every time they appear, linking of dictionary words for no reason, linking of all dates, etc., on the one hand (linking simply because it can be linked), versus carefully thought-out link made by editors who know
1531:
9. If my feelings for my native U.S. are a problem, then let's change the example to China, which is one of several major countries on my list for unlinking. Botswanans are unlikely to need to click an explanation of what China or the U.S. is. If they wanted to read all about China, they would have
1326:
all infoboxes, navboxes and other adjunct template content! D'oh! The upshot of this is, of course, that we cannot at all guarantee that a link in an infobox will remain "the first occurrence" on the page as it is reused elsewhere. Because users (here) often read only the infobox when skimming for
1321:
be goal for a very simple reason: WP content can be repurposed in any way (within the bounds of the license) via any means for any purpose. This includes recycling but filtering the wikicode to re-present the prose in other non-MediaWiki-wiki, blog, e-book, etc. marked up formats that may preserve
1231:
8. If my changes resulted in a redundancy with other wording in the guideline (which I did not set out to edit from top to bottom, only uni-sectionally), this is not an indication that the change was bad, only that further editing needs to happen outside and/or inside this section, since the change
1117:
2. As I've mentioned on my own talk page in response to Tony1, for the first time in several years I am invoking IAR, and ignoring the dafter parts of this section of the guideline, because they do not represent consensus at all, only what Tony describes as an "uneasy balance" between argumentative
4246:
Looks neater in isolation like this, but in a sentence already crowded with high-value links, one might be inclined not to extend the blue in this way. In fact, if the very next item is a link, there's an advantage (as MOSLINK points out) in have a bit of black in between. So I'd say it depends on
3246:
of what a healthy application of the guideline produces. Four months ago, with that edit, I removed links to six common terms and a country name—links that did nothing to deepen the understanding of the topic. There have been no reversions of my edit (indicating community support), and the article
3177:
Choice is all well and good, but when you go to a concert, you'd expect there to be a certain amount of quiet for you to enjoy the music. Extraneous noise detracts from the listening experience. You are of course free to plug into your iPod, but please switch off yer bleedin' phone. As to 'lawyer'
2390:
was never organically the actual practice of editors. At point A, there was a guideline saying dates should be linked for the benefit of logged-in users. At point B, there was a debate involving a large segment of the community, with notice given prominently to all editors. That led us to where we
2190:
An article might mention the cost of a bridge built in Gdańsk in the 1970, and then give a US dollar conversion at that point in time. The USD is the currency of the largest economy of the
English-speaking world, and also one of the 4(?) most important reserve currencies in the world. What's more,
1843:
happens is that such nonsense is ignored by everyone else, the changes are reverted, and things go on normally, as they should. But in a few cases here and there (I can name some others, though I'd kinda rather not get into it), such parties are so loud and act so effectively in small-numbered but
1682:
work, for better or worse. And I agree with that process. They have to use something as an arbitrary baseline, and our guidelines are that baseline, even when they are problematic. If GAN and FAC didn't do this, it would be a woefully biased popularity contest where whoever happened to be doing
1673:
at the top of the prose (as should be the case). I can also find many, many bio articles that do likewise right now. GA and FA candidate are likely to not have them linked, because GA and FA reviewers almost slavishly follow what guidelines like this say, whether they agree with them or not, and
1577:
want to get to the article about China, because if it's not a total shite article, it probably has an entire section about science and technology in China, and academia in China, and so on, that may help the reader place the original article subject is a much broader context than his or her little
1572:
9. You and others in favor of massive de-linking are laboring under the very false assumption that the point of a wikilink is to "find out what something is" (someone else above said something to this effect as well). Links are to "provide all sorts of encyclopedic information about something", a
1464:
You contradict yourself. You claim a 4 vs. 1 situation, yet simultaneously claim that there was a "vigorous debate by many editors over a protracted period of time", resulting in the current version (a claim echoed, at my talk page, by Tony1). Can't have it both ways. If you really prefer to use
1419:
There is no escaping the fact that the tide has been turning against overlinking the last few years, the wording you made a colossal change to was the product of vigorous debate and compromise by many editors over a protracted period of time, and that wording truly represents the best consensus to
1269:
shouldn't be done except where Iraq is really, really important to the topic at hand, because Iraq is all over the news all day long, and we all already know about Iraq. But I saw poll results in an Associated Press story about a year or so ago that reported that only a tiny percentage (less than
1173:
5. I agree that there is too much linking going on. I unlink stuff all the time. It's one of my most common types of mainspace edit, in fact. Believing that overlinking is at play on WP does not equate to a mandate to introduce ridiculously vague and over-broad advice on (against, really) linking
2490:
I agree insofar that there is a lot of arrogance and friction around MoS issues. That's all the more reason to quarantine the arguments here, not re-argue them at every article — either that, or don't let the MoS call itself a guideline at all. Or if we're going to try to make the rules match the
2141:
Your mentioning consensus also ignores what was said. The point is that while the current language may have been arrived through comprise among people at this talk page, it does not reflect the actual practice of a significant portion of, if not most, experienced editors. What exactly "consensus"
1882:
PS: Please stop conflating the two very, very different issues/arguments at play here. Virtually everyone agrees that overlinking does happen, and that it is a Bad Thing. And we all even agree on some of what constitutes overlinking, like links to dictionary words or dates, unless there's a very
1649:
I still stand by my edits. I'm not criticizing you in particular here, Art, but not one reply on this entire thread has provided a logical, well-reasoned, evidence-backed rationale for the revert that was applied to every single change I made, in knee-jerk, blanket fashion. "I think you went to
1477:
as a smokescreen to cover the fact that you are trying to redefine much of, if not most, normal linking as "overlinking"). All that's really in evidence, after factoring in all of this, is that a small group editors have used this page, which was stable and well-accepted for years, as a place to
1444:
If not, then as they say in the military: “So sad – too bad.” There is no politically correct requirement that others admire your ideas and edits as much as you do, nor should eventually tuning you out be construed as an invitation to you to wade back in and do as you please with a flame thrower.
1260:
since 1998..." is what I would guesstimate 95% of experienced WP editors would write. Someone from Botswana might not see any point to that first link and would never click it, since they already know all about Botswana. A physicist might feel likewise about the 2nd link, and so on. Most other
1133:
is engaged in here. You can't have the "R" without the "D". My edits were well-explained, based in policy and much more widely accepted guidelines than this one. The responses thus far have been a) personal opinion not rooted in any such bases, b) just "don't rock the boat" conservatism, and c)
4294:
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
2027:
Oh, my goodness, what a lot of words! From what I can make out, somebody wants to simplify the MOS. So, why don't you post your suggested MOS change in your own sandbox, with a link here — then people who agree with you can have a look at it to get it ready for posting as a change to the MOS? In
1808:
Whilst you are correct that this remains a very localised discussion, where the numbers are hardly significantly, you seem to be implying that some editor unilaterally changed the guideline two years ago. Yet you fail to explain how somehow it has remained magically stable and, strangely to you,
1482:
it is awful, and you have failed to address even a single one of those points. Just shouting "no!" at people doesn't make a rational argument. You and I are frequently at loggerheads, and I'm resigned to that, but I believe that we both have WP's best interests in mind, and could probably work
3269:
I agree with that edit in its entirety (I would say though, that lack of reversions is as likely to indicate indifference as much as "support", when it comes to other people's views). As I agree with the idea that links should not be scattered thoughtlessly. As I agree with the idea that people
2285:
Assuming people are stupid is not a great way to win arguments. As you know well, date linking was a part of date autoformatting, which was deprecated following a discussion with wide community involvement. That has never been the case here, and certainly wasn't for the existing language. I'm a
2006:
I'd just like to add my name here as someone who is relieved that the overlinking of the past is finally being reduced, and I'd really hate to see any attempt to increase it again. As I see it, if someone wants to read about France they'll type that word into the search box. In addition to that
769:
Therefore, we have decided that from October 2010 onwards the awards should be judged in terms of whole articles. Competitors will still be asked to list individual links (but expanded to six of the funniest, most useless, most inexplicable individual links in the article, as an example of the
3080:
from the lede of that article. But most country links I find are less relevant than that one. So if you think Champagne needs a link to France, that is an argument for refining OVERLINK, not for making OVERLINK pretty much irrelevant. Crying babies: yeah, I almost posted an objection to that.
2413:
You have forgotten about the point between A and B when there was widespread delinking of dates (before the various RfCs). Remember that monkey-see; monkey-do often applies, and linking US and UK simply because they exist in an article is a brain-dead activity that appeals to the link-lunies.
1856:
standard, consensus practice as evidenced by actual experienced editor behavior in the aggregate, in favor of something stupid that someone has inserted into a guideline, because both process are (necessarily) bound to follow the guidelines as a baseline of neutral arbitration and fairness. —
1743:
is particularly troublesome given that the reason we are here today is due to someone completely changing the focus of this part of the guideline two years ago, "all by their lonesome". There has to be room for compromise, as requested numerous times in discussions on this page and elsewhere.
4382:
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.
1297:
that experienced editors like you and me correct on sight. Please do not confuse experienced Wikipedian standard practice (codified or otherwise) with unhelpful noob editing behavior that happens to be frequent (and frequently undone). It takes virtually all editors (including me back in my
1178:, anyone?) what most editors do actually feel should not be linked. With that in mind, I introduced a handful of clear examples, each of which was selected because I have actually found them linked for no reason and delinked them, and had a good laugh; they were ones that stuck in my memory.
765:
He has agreed that we might then change the focus of the competition from individual wikilinks and small groups of wikilinks to whole articles that are badly overlinked. Inevitably, those valuable editors who perform gnoming services are confronted with overlinking throughout whole articles
2867:
That is indeed a major issue; the wording is being used by a few individuals to justify stripping out links en masse, often with no apparent regard for appropriateness. If more discretion were to be demonstrated, especially with regard to geographical links, we might not have this problem.
3117:
is fine and dandy. We have WP:IAR if there is an exceptional case we need to cover. Flexibility and choice are fine, but the point of having a manual of style is to have some degree of consistency. Too much flexibility and choice will defeat this goal. Keep the guideline as it is, please.
1270:
10%, maybe less that 5%, I forget) of Americans could even correctly identify Iraq on a map that showed borders but no country names. The point being, there are also sorts of reasons in favor of linking to articles on significant topics that provide context to an article subject - being a
1813:, well known country though it is, to remain linked throughout the project. I guess I ought to be grateful that you don't go around systematically reverting my unlinking edits. Please demonstrate, other than by paying lip service, that you accept linking to the extent we have 'enjoyed' (
766:(particularly of "dictionary" items). In almost all cases, this has arisen earlier in WP's history, when there was no coherent strategy for maximising the utility of the wikilinking system. It's a lot of work to clean it up, and the Silliwilli awards was set up to encourage this work.
927:
It is very clear, simply from looking at articles and infoboxes, that the vast majority of WP editors believe, and our readers expect, country, city and other geographical names, language names, and other proper nouns, to be linked at first occurrence the vast majority of the time.
177:
1540:
war of a kind that periodically afflicts the Manual of Style. Each side often considers the other to be making a noob mistake. A major purpose of having a Manual of Style is to arbitrate such dialogues of the deaf, in a way that is less likely to be interpreted as hostility.
3140:
I'm actually broadly fine with the guideline as is too, as I would be equally be with the proposed change (which possibly I might slightly prefer). However, as noted above, people need to read the qualifications in them, eg where they say common terms should not be linked,
252::::::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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
245::::::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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
1298:
wide-eyed time, and surely you in yours) some time to fully grok when and when not to link and how to do it in ways that aren't misleading, confusing, distracting, leading or otherwise unhelpful. When I refer to common, consensus-accepted, observable best practices I'm
3477:
will not and for another reader it will be reversed, hence repeated linking is sometimes advisable for ease of use. Why is that deemed such a radical opinion? I've been following this linking fiasco for years and never seen a rational counter-argument that held water.
1690:
be linked at first occurrence, since the US and the very concept of the US is utterly central to the historical figure, and the figure is deeply bound up with the existence of the nation! Sheesh, that link should be there even under a version of this document that were
1809:
inexplicably enjoys widespread though not unanimous support. Guidelines exist to put everyone on the same footing, and I would say this one does its job quite well. Caricaturing modestly, I would say your idea of 'compromise' seems to be being allowed to ensure that
1236:
applied. If moderating the extreme pre- and proscriptions in the contentious section makes it come more into line with the stable rest of the document, this is a very, very strong indication that the section in question has been badly off-kilter and getting worse.
2598:
on a page, including infoboxes. Badgering the community to death and putting poor HWV258 in a position where he feels he is the only one standing sentry on this issue is poor form. There is no consensus to change our policies to avoid overlinking. Drop it please.
1336:
That's all I can think of for now. Apologies for the length but I want to be as plain and explicit on all aspects of this as possible, to minimize the amount of time people argue past one another and don't understand where the other side(s) is/are coming from. —
3338:
Ah, but Michael, my comment wasn't directed at you (you're not one are you?). But let me humour your point for a moment: are you saying that you wait for someone to make a comment that you don't think is appropriate to justify returning an inappropriate comment?
2955:
to these contentious issues. However, “contentious” does not equate to “chronically reoccurs like genital herpes.” The current wording is simple and couldn’t be clearer. The tip-off that it is a thoughtful guideline is it begins with these, oh-so-logical words:
1214:
7. If you won't "delv...deeply into argument", and we don't disagree that there is too much linking going on, your comment about not delving but feeling there's overlinking going on is basically meaningless, since my edits do not suggest that too much linking
1776:
other guy's opinions and edits don't count, because we have it thought out better. Maybe we need statistics correlating number of links with number of edits or something, although that implies that noobs conform because we know better, not because of "
770:
entry); however, the removal of overlinking from the whole article will be the sole determinant in the award. We expect this will reduce the number of entrants each month, which will compensate for the extra work by the judge in analysing the entries.
73:
590:
3565:
I have posted a query at the village pump, on the question of what is the best (long-term) way to handle redundancies among related articles. Since this pages discusses wikilinking, I thought some of you might have something to say. Cheers!
2343:
I disagree. Underlining just years was done only by a small minority long before date autoformatting. I simply don't believe there was ever a point where most experienced editors thought linking dates was a good idea. Linking month-day dates
1141:
The fact that something boneheaded, confusing and user-hostile was the product of a sausage-making committee full of people who don't agree with each other on much of anything is neither surprising nor any excuse. The section conflicts with
2318:
Nah, lots of editors liked underlining dates as a means of getting to a page of nebulous information (and one or two still try to flog that particular dead horse). That's why the linking aspect of the debate attracted separate RfC questions
944:
on the topic, that a preponderance of editors support a ban on such links). I am therefore making significant edits to the "Overlinking and underlinking" section to correct this problem and several others, including direct conflict with
1194:
exclusive or too broad. Worth discussion. The interesting part here to me is that the language as it stood, and stands again since I was reverted, actually commits the "sin" you point out, in the inverse: It effectively suggests that
1640:
point raised by my edits, edit summaries and follow-on talk page material about those edits, is that the over-breadth and vagueness of this section has to be pared down from prescriptive and proscriptive agenda-pushing positions that
2235:
985,000)', where citation #12 is the source which says it was $ 985,000. There is no value to the reader of enticing him/her to visit the United States dollar article just to look up what another editor has put down in the table at
1738:
There has not been "wide input", nor is there any "4:1 majority"; the more controversial changes are largely the result of the personal preferences of a handful of editors who doggedly pursue this goal. Furthermore, the statement
1118:
factions on this talk page. I will continue to link, sensibly, as I have done during my entire editing history and as most other experienced editors do, regardless what the perennially disputed section says, because that's actual
1012:
If it is an article on occupations, one would link the first occurrence of “scientists.” If it is an article on countries, one would link the first occurrence of “American.” But just linking the first occurrence of pretty much
2469:
supported the instinct of the editors who began the date-delinking work (the same editors who are now working to improve WP by removing links that do not deepen the understanding of articles). So let's be clear: it's not just
4494:, 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.)
1439:
Now, you may keep discussing the matter here if you like. I suggest you keep your arguments shorter because we are all volunteers here and time is limited. If you have an idea that makes sense and gains traction with others,
2240:– that information will be in the source. The INR (or PLZ or name your currency) isn't even in your table, so it would be entirely moot in your case. Mention of the US currency is just for reference purposes, and not at all
3239:
I don't understand why notions of "hostility" and "friction" have arisen. Another way of looking at it is: healthy debate. I have tried to respond to issues, and I believe most other editors have done the same. No harm; no
1202:
occurrence except under very restrictive conditions, that do not at all match how Knowledge has operated from day one to the present (nor virtually all wikis of this "informational, researched articles" format, such as
4512:
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.
2230:
I'm sorry for shaking you out of your apparent smugness, but you've entirely missed the point. A typical construction, in your case, goes like this: 'The Blah-blah Tower was built in 1904, at a cost of INR4 million
2464:
Your post is unfair as it doesn't address the issues raised (and is a disappointing effort from an editor whom I generally respect). I didn't use the word (or imply) stupidity. You neglect to mention that the RfCs
874:
The main MoS has long used green text in Georgia to identify example text. Using italics or bold or whatever to identify examples doesn't work because sometimes the italics or bold is what's being demonstrated.
1589:) ;-). Unless we change this blinkered mentality like yours of arguing for linking the most obvious, rather than the most relevant or germane, people will continue to do so without engaging their grey matter. --
953:, among other issues, including bad list style, redundancy, etc., etc. MOS-watchers need to keep a much better eye on this page, as it has clearly been PoV-pushed in a reader-unhelpful, anti-linking direction.
4396:
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.
2991:
to click on it if they don't want to. Choice, it's an amazing thing. People are capable of exercising it when confronted with options. And if someone could give a clear and simple answer to the question posed
2681:). While the names of major geographic features and locations, historical figures, religions, languages, and other proper names, as well as currencies and units of measurement, are often but not always linked
3555:
2779:
links exist only to deepen the understanding of the topic of the article in which they have been placed. (I find it ironic that "dog" and "breakfast" have been placed in such close proximity in the example.)
4436:. 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?
1223:
going on), and you don't present any argument against the specifics I changed. Unexplicated "me too" one-liners like that do not help build consensus, one way or the other, be they in formal !votes like
226:
160:
1005:
Given the nature of the article, only one link has value: polywater; all the others are superfluous and add no value. The rule is simple: link only those items that enhance the readers’ understanding
2442:
That's an excellent example of the arrogant attitude that causes so much friction around MoS issues. This "we're right, anyone who objects is just too stupid to get it" mentality needs to change. --
940:
be linked (a common but not universal practice – i.e., one about which there is not solid consensus – and one that this guideline is not in a position to attack without a clear showing, e.g. in an
627:
622:
616:
610:
605:
600:
595:
1170:
and hard to parse, is clearly biased and prescriptive/proscriptive, and does not represent the actual practice of the majority of experienced, good faith, intelligent editors, among other issues.
2088:
Absolutely! Links such as those mentioned almost never add value to the articles in which they are being placed. They simply dumb-down WP. I have trouble believing we are still discussing this.
25:
735:
3178:
above, I'd say it was a word which should almost certainly be unlinked in a biography - unless the subject was a specialist and there was a more specific branch of applicable law, such as
2589:
Enough already. I’ve got a medical experiment starting in a few days and don’t need to be wasting my time on this tired old issue. We’ve had more than enough words here. This dispute will
2191:
such a link would not be germane; even it's relevance is questionable because it is only a reference point. If someone wanted the current conversion rate, we would point tot he fact that
2924:
The current wording is fine. The community has had a belly-full of this issue and some of the above posts drone on like a filibuster from a Southern senator opposing a civil rights bill.
932:, the controlling guideline on numerics, strongly suggests always linking first occurrences of currencies, units, etc., in any case where confusion could possibly occur at all, and does
3298:
Amen to that. The delinking jihad has continued for too long. Time for a bit of common sense, and having terms linked more than once per article or section would be a good start. --
1622:
indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that consensus has not been reached on a firm boundary for what constitutes "overlinking". Yet, we also know for a clear fact that many things
2665:"Unless they are particularly important to the topic of the article, avoid linking plain English words whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Knowledge (e.g.
172:
103:
41:
38:
290::::::::''Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero'' ... rubbish. But I believe this has been rebutted often enough already.
4341:
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".
4183:
3919:
783:
2124:
200" may want to click to see whether the article mentions a rough conversion between her currency and the dollar. That sort of use of Knowledge is equally as valid as yours.
2426:
is exactly what happened with date linking and formatting—to the current advantage of WP. Enough users have now given cogent reasons for not changing the text of this MOS.
2075:
through thorough discussion, and the onus is on any proponent of such a major change to prove that consensus has evolved to justify such a radical change in the wording. --
4291:
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?
1166:(at least – I'm probably forgetting some) on a large number of points, is longwinded and in parts redundant, is invasive of MOSNUM's scope, has poor grammar in parts, is
4542:
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. --
876:
900:
Whoa, someone's mucked this up really badly. It's completely absurd to suggest that people should not link languages and geographical names, etc., within reason. Per
3554:
1928:
1614:
what they are doing, including linking of dictionary words when their context in the article is very special, dates that add important information or context (e.g.
1421:
983:
168:
99:
1134:
musings and statements that are non-responsive to most if not all of the issues I raised. None of these reactions makes for a strong position, alone or combined.
4134:
2926:
The proposal is a bad idea because it outright invites linking totally extraneous garbage, such as if there was an article on “Scientific goofs”, this sentence:
4471:
4462:
4443:
4415:
4401:
4391:
3482:
3464:
1543:
11. The George Washington article doesn't link United States in the first paragraph. I was just describing the handiest example, not presenting it as my ideal.
1265:
for why making the US some magically special case is not acceptable. Taken to its logical conclusion, some might use this position to suggest that linking to
1018:
887:
4095:
2738:
3443:
2750:
2728:
2083:
1910:
1877:
1597:
1552:
1073:
3456:" – need that like a proverbial hole in the head. I think only a very small number of the more vocal linking advocates, if any, would support that view. --
3381:
3361:
3350:
3333:
3322:
2265:"—well, once upon a time, the actual practice at WP was to link dates and date fragments in regular articles; however that practice is now deader than the
2015:
1174:
that contravenes very long-standing and very well accepted actual practice by the vast majority of editors. It would be much better to properly identify (
4521:
4377:
4357:
4331:
3545:
3501:
2071:
99% of people reading it know the meaning of, other than being what the proposer believes is the objective truth©™. This guideline has been arrived at by
4344:
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)?
3302:
2320:
869:
839:
3430:
3406:
2952:
2804:
2791:
2627:
The suggested MOS change is the last 4 edits by SMcCandlish, which were largely reverted by Tony1. The main controversy is whether to scale back this:
2608:
2099:
1512:
1454:
1374:
1047:
1029:
82:
2911:
2694:
2500:
2252:
2225:
2207:
1993:
1952:
1825:
1793:
4241:
3194:
3094:
3067:
3038:
2422:", that's obviously a statistical guess; but I will say that it is necessary for a few bold editors to show the way (and that is their right at WP).
1569:
8. Are you sure you want to agree with point 8? I'll take you at your word. It brings up quite a bit more than that the page needs further editing.
1208:
547:
515:
2972:
2324:
4362:
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
4260:
3635:
2885:
2857:
2564:
2548:
2534:
693:
687:
681:
675:
669:
663:
658:
652:
3127:
2835:
1091:
3517:
3259:
2485:
2459:
2437:
2408:
2379:
2362:
2338:
2313:
2295:
2280:
2169:
759:
4507:
3293:
3019:
328:::::PS. And who might be a suitable/relevant authority on this utility of which you speak I can read up on? --] ] 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
321:::::PS. And who might be a suitable/relevant authority on this utility of which you speak I can read up on? --] ] 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
1781:
3225:
3172:
2899:
1817:) in the past may indeed be detrimental and that the acceptance of this new reality is more widespread than you would care to openly admit. --
2902:? If you meant my own unlinking, then naturally I think I use "discretion" consistent with the "particularly relevant to the topic" clause.
1424:
It doesn’t matter if you think “it is still awful.” It appears that four of us (GeorgeLouis, Greg L, HWV258, and Tony1) are in one camp and
2195:. Anyway, most readers would know they will not find it here, and that they should to go to yahoo finance for today's exchange rate to the
1286:("Spanish language") writer, both from Spain, will produce literature with a different "flavor", audience, social impact, etc. And so on.
1061:
486:
3243:
2028:
short, I have no idea what is proposed, and I don't intend to wade through all the above to find out. Sincerely, your very good friend,
4285:
2399:? In my experience, most people do, and a few people sweep through and delink, only to have many of the terms relinked down the line. -
1669:
article isn't evidentiary of anything salient here. I'd bet you real cash money that I can find versions of that article that do link
4550:
4318:
Time prohibits a full answer, but I basically think your commercial metrics are inappropriate for wikipedia. Commercially it is the
3370:" refers to a religious duty by Muslims and is therefore a poorly selected word in this context. My other point remains unanswered.
1052:
If the rule is going to be "the names of major geographic features and ... should not be repeatedly linked", this either duplicates
854:
816:
2327:). The point being of course, that what was once established practice is no longer desirable (be in linking or auto-formatting).
2007:
point, the more links an article as, the less noticeable each of them becomes, so for the pro-linkers too, less is surely more.
3650:
2618:
2418:
is a thought-out and intelligent activity that strives toward one goal: to make WP easier-to-use for all readers. In terms of "
2037:
1357:
1060:
links to United States in the infobox, though not in the first paragraph. The Main Page is another undocumented exception; see
976:
860:
Apologies. The above template that I linked makes the text display in green font. It is used to highlight examples, I believe.
509:
4336:
I'm not sure I really understand this. The commercial analogy eludes me. Do you mean the "absolute" rate of click-thrus for a
1777:
1636:
What needs to happen, and what I did and was reflexively reverted on, without (to date) a single substantive response to even
4308:
397:
195:
4218:
3506:
You are quite correct. "Childish" wasn't anywhere near the appropriate adjective in this case. I will try harder in future.
1122:
standard WP practice and has been for years, since before I was even an editor here. And I see precisely zero evidence that
640:
202:
132:
2734:
1761:
1696:;-) (And contrast this case with something like the country's appearance in a phrase like "mined in large quantities in
136:
4082:
3801:
2539:
The first letter of an article title is not case sensitive, so ] and ] both point to the same place without redirect. -
2212:
Ummm, no. Knowing about the articles you object to is almost as important as knowing the arguments you are countering.
1114:. This is a wiki. Being bold does not do damage, and criticizing editors for being "too bold" is rather nonsensical.
4103:
3926:
3366:
You knew very well my inclination towards delinking when you posted, so you are being disingenuous. For the record, "
1987:
1946:
1904:
1871:
1506:
1351:
970:
552:
504:
184:
121:
879:
was the first discussion about also using red text to distinguish wrong examples; there were others shortly after.
3773:
3601:
2775:
I would not like to see the proposed change implemented as it would be a diluting mish-mash. It is important that
2491:
consensus of experienced editors, we can still have plenty of arguing and arrogance over defining that criterion.
3883:
1582:
845:
I pose a politely worded query in English and am answered with some kind of odd symbol? Curiouser and curiouser.
3469:
Articles and sections can be very long. The context of words and phrases changes; sometimes a term, in context
1420:
date (notwithstanding that you oddly cited WP:CONSENSUS in an attempt to justify your unilateral, undiscussed,
1309:
11. PS: A side point I must stress, and I have to do this in multiple forums from time to time: Infoboxes are
17:
4365:
link density ~ conditional click-thru rate = absolute click-thru rate / probability of reading the linked term
3435:
Isn't it? I think the adjectives were more or less spot on, but I would have just used the noun 'rhetoric'. --
3311:". Just when you think some progress is being made, along comes the usual childish pejorative nonsense. Sigh.
3780:
1483:
together more productively if you'd take less auto-defensive, must-fight-at-all-costs positions and actually
1034:
Without delving too deeply into SMcCandlish's argument, I must simply agree with Greg L that there is simply
423:
391:
110:
2993:
2553:
Simply a precision born of too long a time spent in the computer industry. Thank you for your observation.
519:
of Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
471:
4454:
PS. And who might be a suitable/relevant authority on this utility of which you speak I can read up on? --
2237:
2213:
4179:
4160:
4126:
4048:
3858:
2877:
2451:
1753:
725:
2826:
SMcCandish's proposed change would eviscerate our clear, prudent guidance. It is entirely unacceptable.—
439:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
3890:
3286:
3218:
3165:
3060:
3012:
2263:
Actual practice among experienced editors at articles across the project is to link many of these terms
4111:
3815:
3705:
3026:
475:
436:
431:
191:
4490:
Michael, what bothers me is the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that readers rarely click on links.
1662:'ed, or the "B" is going to come back in play, with the burden of proof shifting to the reverter(s).
762:
for August, July and May 2010, and at the end of this month will announce the winner for September.
4206:
4202:
4011:
3677:
2063:
1328:
is actually the case). I cannot remember one single case of anyone reverting me on this practice.
479:
3538:
3085:
don't list a specific list of forbidden swear words; the context matters too, not just the words.
1428:
are in the other camp (you, your links, and your flotilla-like posts). Stealing a stunt of yours,
3844:
2963:
There is no stomach for revisiting the issue, let alone actually changing the current guideline.
807:
Why is some of the text in this article showing up as green? In utter cluelessness, your friend,
128:
2960:… and then isn’t immediately followed up with caveats designed to undermine that very principle.
2844:
I am fine with the current wording of the guideline. I am not fine with people who believe that
435:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
364:
4327:, not absolute rate, which will necessarily be higher than your commercial metrics indicate. --
4142:
3979:
2420:...a few people sweep through and delink, only to have many of the terms relinked down the line
474:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge
3357:
Ah, but HWV258, my comment wasn't directed at you (you're not part of the jihad, are you?). --
378:
4548:
4533:
4491:
4460:
4413:
4389:
3987:
3952:
3897:
3827:
3462:
3441:
3426:
3404:
3192:
3090:
3034:
2907:
2802:
2746:
2724:
2690:
2496:
2250:
2205:
2081:
2033:
1981:
1940:
1898:
1865:
1823:
1789:
1595:
1548:
1500:
1345:
1228:, where they are mostly ignored by closing admins, or in informal discussions like this one.
1069:
1043:
964:
880:
850:
812:
708:
371:
117:
76:
4428:
Any link which appears a second time would have the marginal utility which approximates zero
4422:
we should have higher linking density in the earlier sections and lighten up towards the end
4518:
4468:
4440:
4398:
4374:
4328:
4282:
3865:
3787:
3594:
3542:
3479:
3358:
3330:
3299:
2121:
2117:
1129:
3. I'm not going to pitch a fit about being reverted (I expected it) so long as the "D" in
1053:
788:
2054:. I see no substantive arguments from him to justify calling for linking of words such as
1528:
8. You agreed that "further editing needs to happen", so no significant disagreement here.
987:
For instance, if there is an article on “Scientific goofs”, there might be this sentence:
8:
4272:
3756:
3685:
3568:
2072:
2050:. This section indicates to me that there may be an innate inability of the proponent to
1433:
1406:
1159:
1744:
Guidelines cannot be used as a means of imposing an individual vision on the project. --
1581:
Bang! Cavendish, you shot yerself in the foot. When you have a Chinese scientist's bio,
4237:
4119:
4003:
3995:
3628:
3610:
2853:
1283:
1257:
865:
835:
545:
for Knowledge's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See
541:
356:
1313:
dependent upon and subordinate to articles' main prose but (important here!) they are
344::::::We are the authority. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
337::::::We are the authority. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4515:
Time to return to the appropriate venue. Any objections to me moving this all there?
4214:
4077:
4034:
3851:
3728:
2831:
2051:
1666:
1410:
1279:
1186:
1163:
1057:
950:
3186:
that can be linked to. Linking to 'law' or 'lawyer' brings 'sweet FA' to the party.
1261:
people would not have such an "I don't give a hoot" reaction to such links, and see
916:
advance one person's or one camp's opinion of what WP best practices "should" be by
4543:
4455:
4408:
4384:
4192:
3932:
3513:
3457:
3436:
3422:
3399:
3377:
3346:
3318:
3255:
3187:
3086:
3073:
3030:
2968:
2903:
2797:
2787:
2742:
2720:
2686:
2604:
2560:
2530:
2492:
2481:
2433:
2375:
2368:"actual practice is..." is not always a good reason for maintaining that practice.
2334:
2276:
2245:
2200:
2095:
2076:
2059:
2029:
1976:
1935:
1893:
1860:
1818:
1785:
1590:
1544:
1495:
1450:
1398:
1390:
1370:
1340:
1233:
1151:
1143:
1087:
1065:
1039:
1025:
959:
946:
929:
901:
846:
808:
516:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies
26:
2192:
1654:, but at some point the "D" in that has to actually happen, in a substantive way,
4502:
4434:
You seem to be conflating mere propensity to click on a link to actual usefulness
4352:
4303:
4255:
4089:
4072:
3971:
3587:
3496:
3082:
2544:
2404:
2358:
2309:
2291:
2221:
2165:
2009:
1414:
895:
778:
2846:
unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking
1724:
article. My personal jury is still out on links of grey-area utility like that.)
4229:
4066:
4041:
3454:
having terms linked more than once per article or section would be a good start
3395:
3280:
3212:
3183:
3159:
3123:
3054:
3006:
2396:
2047:
1533:
1402:
1386:
1302:
referring to the former kind of editing practice, not the latter, and actually
1271:
1262:
1190:
1155:
1107:
4370:
The denominator has hitherto been ignored. The other issues are red herrings.
704:
4233:
3738:
3733:
3723:
3718:
3713:
3693:
2928:
2849:
2716:
2392:
1849:
1845:
1709:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1670:
1651:
1394:
1382:
1245:
1225:
1175:
1147:
1130:
1123:
1111:
1103:
989:
941:
861:
831:
566:
461:
57:
4210:
3837:
3766:
3669:
3579:
2827:
1615:
1204:
877:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_110#An_idea:_markup_for_bad_examples
2719:? I couldn't find it. Or is this simply a suggested change? Your friend,
2715:
Thank you, Art LaPella. Is the first version you cited now to be found in
2241:
1293:
to link every occurrence of countries and such. It's a common new editor
4232:. The former uses more complicated markup with no discernible advantage.
4201:
Should acronyms in parentheses be included in links or not? For example,
3508:
3372:
3341:
3313:
3250:
2964:
2782:
2685:
in an article's prose or infobox, they should not be repeatedly linked."
2600:
2555:
2525:
2476:
2428:
2387:
2370:
2329:
2271:
2090:
1962:
1446:
1365:
1082:
1021:
825:
4430:... rubbish. But I believe this has been rebutted often enough already.
2796:
I think he may have intended also to juxtapose 'river' and 'blue' ;-) --
910:
actual, current, observable, consensus-based best practices on Knowledge
710:
4495:
4345:
4296:
4295:
overstating these issues? I've temporarily watchlisted your talk page.
4248:
3489:
2870:
2540:
2444:
2400:
2354:
2305:
2304:? I see this around from time to time, but I haven't figured out why. -
2287:
2217:
2161:
1885:
despite two years of this increasingly disputed guideline saying not to
1746:
1585:
is the sort of link you need – not some semi-hemi-demi-pertinent link (
1167:
771:
755:
1923:
Ckatz, that's kinda what I thought. See just above on this very page
1106:
exists for a reason. There really is no such thing as "too bold", per
3808:
3794:
3273:
3205:
3152:
3119:
3047:
2999:
2939:
2931:
2067:
1713:
1705:
1000:
992:
1695:
anti-link. Thanks for proving one of my major points for me. : -->
1436:. And that consensus is to keep the existing wording for the moment.
503:
For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new
3643:
3179:
1697:
1249:
706:
533:
495:
2353:
long discussion among a wide swathe of members of the community. -
2348:
about autoformatting, and when it went out, there was, at best, a
1099:
To respond to all of the above at once (using "you" generically):
312::::::::--] <sup>]</sup> 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
2958:
Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article
2737:, and you are now reading its talk page. The text I quoted is at
2300:
Oh, and tangentially, why did you type ] instead of ] to produce
2055:
1721:
1717:
1253:
1189:, since neither I nor any one else since the pre-Web days of the
2739:
WP:Manual of Style (linking)#What generally should not be linked
3077:
1810:
1701:
3920:
For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration
2944:…would have three needless things linked when all it needs is
2244:
nor relevant, so there is no earthly reason to link to USD. --
711:
2935:
2386:
Except that that your example doesn't make sense. Linking of
2196:
1586:
1275:
996:
736:
Major announcement: the Silliest Wikilink of the Month awards
1852:
will force the undoing of good editing that reflects actual
2301:
2266:
2232:
1266:
551:
for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of
2120:
to see what it includes about the topic. Someone reading "
1413:
in an enormous smoke screen amounts to nothing more than
1017:
regardless of context results in articles that read like
2216:
provides historical conversions to several currencies. -
1674:
whether they are stable or not, because that's just how
3394:". I would like to believe that he is merely trying to
1381:
Moreover, attempting to justify your actions by citing
1137:
4. I don't care if the wording there was no accident.
64:
4096:
The Story of Frozen: Making a Disney Animated Classic
3145:. Also where they state that links are about general
3541:
which is relevant to this discussion. Must dash. --
3076:, I probably would neither add nor delete a link to
1536:
asserting that all countries are equally well known.
560:
1062:
Knowledge talk:Selected anniversaries#Country links
3556:Query regarding wikilinking at Village Pump Misc.
2416:they don't deepen the understanding of an article
1741:"you just changed something all by your lonesome"
2594:of a particular article. This principle applies
3367:
3329:Cf your own language, HWV258: "link-lunies". --
3539:asked me a question, which I have responded to
2519:Re: "Dodo": to match the title of the article
1782:User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so
1646:occurrence, and forbidding redundant linkage).
1306:noob-helpful information on what not to link.
3595:
719:This page has archives. Sections older than
4247:context: editorial judgement is called for.
4136:High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
3609:
1932:just rewrite to be like that but better). —
489:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
2523:, but to get a lower case "d" in the text.
1278:produce completely different worldviews; A
1019:The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house.
3602:
3588:
2070:, when these are clearly words that : -->
1525:Responding to points directed at myself:
429:This page falls within the scope of the
548:how to contribute to Knowledge guidance
351:Revision as of 06:56, 26 September 2010
169:Revision as of 06:56, 26 September 2010
100:Revision as of 06:35, 26 September 2010
14:
3963:
1971:by supporters of the disputed language
1924:
1219:going on (in fact, I clarified how it
750:Just an FYI; no MOS issues to address.
3583:
1363:I still agree with Greg L's summary.
1240:9. It's not important whether or not
485:Contributors are urged to review the
445:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style
1415:WP:I MADE IT BLUE SO IT MUST BE TRUE
1289:10. The usual practice is certainly
1181:6. The "linking first occurrence of
924:scribing unusual, editor behaviors.
528:
482:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
448:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
90:
56:
4228:I'd go with the latter one per the
4042:Conceal, Don't Feel: A Twisted Tale
2848:means 'never, ever link anywhere'.
2238:United States dollar#Exchange rates
2214:United States dollar#Exchange rates
1974:
1933:
1891:
1858:
1493:
1338:
957:
225:
214:
183:
166:
159:
148:
109:
97:
23:
4143:"Frozen" (political advertisement)
3802:Reindeer(s) Are Better Than People
3398:, so I would react accordingly. --
1888:(that last part is very important)
1626:consensus-accepted as overlinking.
1422:colossal change to the guideline).
1198:should ever be linked at first or
982:I think you’ve been too bold with
494:
460:
353:
45:
4563:
4503:
4496:
4353:
4346:
4304:
4297:
4256:
4249:
4104:Into the Unknown: Making Frozen 2
4083:Wandering Oaken's Sliding Sleighs
3497:
3490:
779:
772:
723:may be automatically archived by
4156:
4155:
3419:childish pejorative nonsense ...
936:suggest that more common usages
794:
741:
565:
532:
422:
408:
401:
390:
218:
3774:Do You Want to Build a Snowman?
1633:overlinking. Different issues.)
1609:mistakes. I'm not doing that.
1185:= a sewer" argument is a total
1080:I agree with Greg L's summary.
4551:06:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
4522:16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4508:16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4472:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4463:15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4444:06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
4416:04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
4402:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4392:15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4378:15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4358:15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4332:10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4309:08:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4286:21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
4261:14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
4242:13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
4219:16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
4203:National Football League (NFL)
4184:03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3546:10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3518:08:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3502:08:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3483:07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3465:01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3444:01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3431:01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3407:08:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3382:10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3362:10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3351:08:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3334:07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3323:00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
3303:23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3294:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3260:07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3226:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3195:02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3173:18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3128:17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3095:20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3068:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3039:02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3020:17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2973:23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2912:20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2886:09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2858:09:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2836:04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2805:04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2792:04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2751:00:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2729:23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
2695:22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
2619:Summing up the linking dispute
2609:14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2565:05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2549:05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2535:05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2501:06:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
2486:10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2460:09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2438:04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2409:03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
2380:05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2363:05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2339:05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2314:05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2296:05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2281:04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2253:06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2226:04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2208:04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2170:04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2100:04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2084:02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2038:21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
2016:14:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1994:04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1953:02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1911:02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1878:02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1826:13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
1794:06:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
1762:09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
1620:is, clearly, an ongoing debate
1598:07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
1553:21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1513:18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1455:15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1375:09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1358:08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1092:07:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1074:05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1048:02:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1030:02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
977:01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
888:04:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
870:04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
855:03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
840:00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
817:00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
784:04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
152:
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
13:
1:
4420:Taking your last point first
3927:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion
3781:For the First Time in Forever
2898:Perhaps you were thinking of
1688:absolutely, positively should
349:
308:
297:
286:
275:
3287:
3281:
3274:
3219:
3213:
3206:
3166:
3160:
3153:
3061:
3055:
3048:
3013:
3007:
3000:
2735:WP:Manual of Style (linking)
2733:WP:MOS has subpages such as
2008:
28:Browse history interactively
7:
4281:Copied from my talk page:--
4049:Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets
2878:
2452:
1754:
10:
4568:
3891:Making Today a Perfect Day
3488:on editors and behaviour?
2938:thought they had invented
1485:address the points I raise
1036:too much linking going on.
999:thought they had invented
792:
739:
470:This page falls under the
354:
216:
150:
4151:
4112:Ralph Breaks the Internet
4058:
4026:
3944:
3911:
3875:
3825:
3754:
3747:
3704:
3661:
3620:
3473:elicits inquiry, whereas
3027:User:Art LaPella/AWB list
1611:I'm drawing a distinction
760:the winners of the awards
502:
468:
432:Knowledge:Manual of Style
417:
306:
295:
284:
273:
236:
233:
165:
137:Pending changes reviewers
96:
4467:We are the authority. --
4207:National Football League
4012:Disney Dreamlight Valley
3512:
3507:
3376:
3371:
3345:
3340:
3317:
3312:
3254:
3249:
3029:for the word "Pacific".
2786:
2781:
2559:
2554:
2529:
2524:
2480:
2475:
2432:
2427:
2374:
2369:
2333:
2328:
2275:
2270:
2094:
2089:
2064:United States of America
1369:
1364:
1086:
1081:
451:Manual of Style articles
203:Extended confirmed users
133:Extended confirmed users
3678:Olaf's Frozen Adventure
2414:Delinking them because
904:, Knowledge guidelines
505:policies and guidelines
95:
3980:Disney Magical World 2
1322:styles and links, but
726:Lowercase sigmabot III
591:Support and opposition
499:
465:
4492:User:Piano non troppo
3988:Disney Magic Kingdoms
3392:...delinking jihad...
3309:...delinking jihad...
1124:consensus has changed
1110:and more importantly
758:, will soon announce
619:– links in quotations
498:
480:article titles policy
464:
3953:Frozen: Olaf's Quest
3866:The Next Right Thing
3788:Love Is an Open Door
2996:, that might help.
2118:United States dollar
920:scribing common, or
655:Jul 2006 and earlier
553:policy and guideline
3686:Once Upon a Snowman
2683:at first occurrence
1780:". More on this at
1643:blatantly obviously
1467:genuine overlinking
690:Sep 2009 – Feb 2010
684:Jul 2009 – Aug 2009
678:May 2009 – Jun 2009
672:Jan 2009 – May 2009
666:Sep 2006 – Jan 2009
647:WP:MOSLINK archives
585:WP:CONTEXT archives
4120:Once Upon a Studio
4004:Disney Mirrorverse
3996:Kingdom Hearts III
3113:Current consensus
2951:There is always a
2193:WP is not the news
1889:
1473:, Greg, are using
1258:Rutgers University
1139:It is still awful.
915:
803:Question answered.
696:Feb 2010 – present
500:
487:awareness criteria
472:contentious topics
466:
181:
107:
4182:
4171:
4169:
4168:
4078:Frozen Ever After
4035:The Art of Frozen
4022:
4021:
3907:
3906:
3852:Lost in the Woods
3572:
3292:
3224:
3171:
3072:If your issue is
3066:
3018:
2883:
2457:
2014:
1991:
1950:
1908:
1887:
1875:
1759:
1667:George Washington
1665:11. So what? The
1656:about the changes
1510:
1355:
1187:straw man fallacy
1058:George Washington
974:
913:
733:
732:
613:– repeating links
559:
558:
527:
526:
523:
522:
348:
167:
98:
78:
4559:
4546:
4519:Michael C. Price
4505:
4500:
4469:Michael C. Price
4458:
4441:Michael C. Price
4411:
4399:Michael C. Price
4387:
4375:Michael C. Price
4355:
4350:
4329:Michael C. Price
4306:
4301:
4283:Michael C. Price
4258:
4253:
4177:
4159:
4158:
4128:Once Upon a Time
3961:
3960:
3884:Life's Too Short
3845:Into the Unknown
3752:
3751:
3604:
3597:
3590:
3581:
3580:
3578:
3567:
3543:Michael C. Price
3516:
3511:
3499:
3494:
3480:Michael C. Price
3460:
3439:
3402:
3380:
3375:
3359:Michael C. Price
3349:
3344:
3331:Michael C. Price
3321:
3316:
3300:Michael C. Price
3289:
3283:
3276:
3271:
3258:
3253:
3221:
3215:
3208:
3203:
3190:
3168:
3162:
3155:
3150:
3074:Champagne (wine)
3063:
3057:
3050:
3045:
3015:
3009:
3002:
2997:
2959:
2948:link: polywater.
2943:
2880:
2875:
2800:
2790:
2785:
2563:
2558:
2533:
2528:
2484:
2479:
2454:
2449:
2436:
2431:
2378:
2373:
2337:
2332:
2279:
2274:
2248:
2203:
2098:
2093:
2079:
2060:English language
2052:cut to the chase
2013:
2012:
1992:
1986:
1985:
1967:
1961:
1951:
1945:
1944:
1909:
1903:
1902:
1876:
1870:
1869:
1821:
1756:
1751:
1661:
1593:
1511:
1505:
1504:
1373:
1368:
1356:
1350:
1349:
1244:find a link to "
1090:
1085:
1004:
975:
969:
968:
830:
824:
804:
798:
797:
781:
776:
751:
745:
744:
728:
712:
635:WP:BUILD archive
569:
561:
536:
529:
513:. Additionally,
453:
452:
449:
446:
443:
426:
419:
418:
413:
412:
411:
406:
405:
404:
394:
387:
386:
381:
374:
367:
223:
222:
221:
209:
199:
180:
175:
157:
156:
155:
143:
125:
106:
79:
70:
69:
67:
62:
60:
52:
49:
31:
29:
4567:
4566:
4562:
4561:
4560:
4558:
4557:
4556:
4544:
4536:
4456:
4409:
4385:
4275:
4195:
4170:
4165:
4147:
4090:Fantasy Springs
4073:World of Frozen
4054:
4018:
3972:Disney Infinity
3959:
3940:
3903:
3871:
3821:
3743:
3700:
3657:
3616:
3608:
3559:
3458:
3437:
3400:
3188:
3143:unless relevant
2957:
2927:
2882:
2798:
2621:
2456:
2246:
2201:
2077:
1980:
1965:
1959:
1939:
1897:
1864:
1819:
1758:
1659:
1591:
1499:
1344:
1211:, etc., etc.).
1209:Battlestar Wiki
1008:of that subject
988:
963:
898:
828:
822:
805:
802:
800:
795:
791:
752:
749:
747:
742:
738:
724:
713:
707:
630:– final archive
574:
476:Manual of Style
450:
447:
444:
442:Manual of Style
441:
440:
437:Manual of Style
407:
400:
398:Manual of Style
385:
384:
377:
370:
363:
359:
345:
338:
329:
322:
313:
302:
291:
280:
269:
262:
253:
246:
229:
224:
217:
215:
213:
212:
211:
207:
205:
189:
187:
186:Michael C Price
182:
176:
171:
163:
161:← Previous edit
158:
151:
149:
147:
146:
145:
141:
139:
115:
113:
108:
102:
94:
93:
92:
91:
89:
88:
87:
86:
85:
84:
75:
71:
65:
63:
58:
55:
53:
50:
48:Content deleted
47:
44:
39:← Previous edit
36:
35:
34:
27:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4565:
4555:
4554:
4538:
4537:
4535:
4532:
4529:
4528:
4527:
4526:
4525:
4524:
4485:
4484:
4483:
4482:
4481:
4480:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4475:
4474:
4452:
4451:
4450:
4449:
4448:
4447:
4446:
4437:
4431:
4425:
4371:
4368:
4367:
4366:
4342:
4313:
4312:
4277:
4276:
4274:
4271:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4230:KISS principle
4223:
4222:
4197:
4196:
4194:
4191:
4187:
4186:
4173:
4172:
4167:
4166:
4164:
4163:
4152:
4149:
4148:
4146:
4145:
4140:
4132:
4124:
4116:
4108:
4100:
4092:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4080:
4070:
4067:The Snow Queen
4062:
4060:
4056:
4055:
4053:
4052:
4045:
4038:
4030:
4028:
4024:
4023:
4020:
4019:
4017:
4016:
4008:
4000:
3992:
3984:
3976:
3967:
3965:
3958:
3957:
3948:
3946:
3942:
3941:
3939:
3938:
3930:
3923:
3915:
3913:
3909:
3908:
3905:
3904:
3902:
3901:
3894:
3887:
3879:
3877:
3873:
3872:
3870:
3869:
3862:
3855:
3848:
3841:
3833:
3831:
3823:
3822:
3820:
3819:
3812:
3805:
3798:
3791:
3784:
3777:
3770:
3762:
3760:
3749:
3745:
3744:
3742:
3741:
3736:
3731:
3726:
3721:
3716:
3710:
3708:
3702:
3701:
3699:
3698:
3690:
3682:
3674:
3665:
3663:
3659:
3658:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3624:
3622:
3618:
3617:
3607:
3606:
3599:
3592:
3584:
3574:
3573:
3561:
3560:
3558:
3553:
3550:
3549:
3533:
3532:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3388:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3264:
3263:
3248:
3241:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3198:
3197:
3184:employment law
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3097:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2876:
2862:
2861:
2839:
2838:
2822:
2821:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2684:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2630:
2629:
2623:
2622:
2620:
2617:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2488:
2467:overwhelmingly
2450:
2397:United Kingdom
2298:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2042:
2041:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1972:
1955:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1886:
1880:
1842:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1766:
1765:
1752:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1694:
1689:
1663:
1657:
1647:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1632:
1627:
1625:
1621:
1612:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1570:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1541:
1537:
1529:
1526:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1490:
1488:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1459:
1458:
1378:
1377:
1331:
1325:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1243:
1222:
1218:
1201:
1197:
1191:Xanadu Project
1184:
1168:palimpsestuous
1140:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1078:
1077:
1076:
939:
935:
923:
919:
911:
907:
897:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
843:
842:
793:
790:
787:
740:
737:
734:
731:
730:
718:
715:
714:
709:
705:
703:
700:
699:
698:
697:
691:
685:
679:
673:
667:
661:
656:
644:
643:
632:
631:
625:
620:
614:
608:
603:
598:
593:
580:
579:
576:
575:
570:
564:
557:
556:
537:
525:
524:
521:
520:
501:
491:
490:
484:
467:
457:
456:
454:
427:
415:
414:
395:
383:
382:
375:
368:
360:
355:
352:
347:
346:
343:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
330:
327:
325:
323:
320:
318:
315:
314:
311:
309:
307:
304:
303:
300:
298:
296:
293:
292:
289:
287:
285:
282:
281:
278:
276:
274:
271:
270:
267:
265:
263:
260:
258:
255:
254:
251:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
238:
235:
231:
230:
206:
201:
200:
185:
164:
140:
127:
126:
111:
80:
74:
72:
54:
46:
37:
33:
32:
24:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4564:
4553:
4552:
4549:
4547:
4540:
4539:
4534:Bot archiving
4531:
4530:
4523:
4520:
4516:
4511:
4510:
4509:
4506:
4501:
4499:
4493:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4486:
4473:
4470:
4466:
4465:
4464:
4461:
4459:
4453:
4445:
4442:
4438:
4435:
4432:
4429:
4426:
4423:
4419:
4418:
4417:
4414:
4412:
4405:
4404:
4403:
4400:
4395:
4394:
4393:
4390:
4388:
4381:
4380:
4379:
4376:
4372:
4369:
4364:
4363:
4361:
4360:
4359:
4356:
4351:
4349:
4343:
4339:
4335:
4334:
4333:
4330:
4326:
4321:
4317:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4311:
4310:
4307:
4302:
4300:
4292:
4288:
4287:
4284:
4279:
4278:
4270:
4269:
4262:
4259:
4254:
4252:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4231:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4221:
4220:
4216:
4212:
4208:
4204:
4199:
4198:
4190:
4189:
4188:
4185:
4181:
4176:
4175:
4162:
4154:
4153:
4150:
4144:
4141:
4139:
4137:
4133:
4131:
4129:
4125:
4122:
4121:
4117:
4114:
4113:
4109:
4106:
4105:
4101:
4098:
4097:
4093:
4091:
4088:
4084:
4081:
4079:
4076:
4075:
4074:
4071:
4068:
4064:
4063:
4061:
4057:
4051:
4050:
4046:
4044:
4043:
4039:
4037:
4036:
4032:
4031:
4029:
4025:
4014:
4013:
4009:
4006:
4005:
4001:
3998:
3997:
3993:
3990:
3989:
3985:
3982:
3981:
3977:
3974:
3973:
3969:
3968:
3966:
3962:
3955:
3954:
3950:
3949:
3947:
3943:
3937:
3935:
3931:
3929:
3928:
3924:
3922:
3921:
3917:
3916:
3914:
3910:
3899:
3895:
3892:
3888:
3885:
3881:
3880:
3878:
3874:
3867:
3863:
3860:
3859:Show Yourself
3856:
3853:
3849:
3846:
3842:
3839:
3835:
3834:
3832:
3830:
3829:
3824:
3817:
3813:
3810:
3806:
3803:
3799:
3796:
3792:
3789:
3785:
3782:
3778:
3775:
3771:
3768:
3764:
3763:
3761:
3759:
3758:
3753:
3750:
3746:
3740:
3737:
3735:
3732:
3730:
3727:
3725:
3722:
3720:
3717:
3715:
3712:
3711:
3709:
3707:
3703:
3696:
3695:
3694:Olaf Presents
3691:
3688:
3687:
3683:
3680:
3679:
3675:
3672:
3671:
3667:
3666:
3664:
3660:
3652:
3649:
3648:
3646:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3634:
3633:
3631:
3630:
3626:
3625:
3623:
3621:Feature films
3619:
3615:
3614:
3605:
3600:
3598:
3593:
3591:
3586:
3585:
3582:
3577:
3576:
3575:
3570:
3564:
3563:
3557:
3552:
3551:
3548:
3547:
3544:
3540:
3535:
3534:
3519:
3515:
3510:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3500:
3495:
3493:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3481:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3463:
3461:
3455:
3452:mein gott! "
3451:
3445:
3442:
3440:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3428:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3408:
3405:
3403:
3397:
3393:
3389:
3383:
3379:
3374:
3369:
3365:
3364:
3363:
3360:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3348:
3343:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3332:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3320:
3315:
3310:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3301:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3291:
3290:
3284:
3278:
3277:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3262:
3261:
3257:
3252:
3245:
3237:
3236:
3227:
3223:
3222:
3216:
3210:
3209:
3200:
3199:
3196:
3193:
3191:
3185:
3181:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3170:
3169:
3163:
3157:
3156:
3148:
3144:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3116:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3096:
3092:
3088:
3084:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3065:
3064:
3058:
3052:
3051:
3042:
3041:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3017:
3016:
3010:
3004:
3003:
2995:
2990:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2975:
2974:
2970:
2966:
2961:
2954:
2949:
2947:
2941:
2937:
2933:
2930:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2887:
2884:
2881:
2873:
2872:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2860:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2847:
2842:
2841:
2840:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2820:
2819:
2806:
2803:
2801:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2789:
2784:
2778:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2752:
2748:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2682:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2652:down to this:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2628:
2625:
2624:
2616:
2615:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2597:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2566:
2562:
2557:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2518:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2489:
2487:
2483:
2478:
2473:
2468:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2458:
2455:
2447:
2446:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2393:United States
2389:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2377:
2372:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2351:
2347:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2336:
2331:
2326:
2322:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2273:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2254:
2251:
2249:
2243:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2198:
2194:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2074:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2025:
2024:
2017:
2011:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1995:
1989:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1970:
1964:
1956:
1954:
1948:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1912:
1906:
1900:
1896:
1895:
1884:
1881:
1879:
1873:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1816:
1812:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1749:
1748:
1742:
1736:
1735:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:United States
1707:
1703:
1699:
1692:
1687:
1686:
1685:United States
1681:
1677:
1672:
1671:United States
1668:
1664:
1655:
1653:
1648:
1642:
1637:
1635:
1630:
1628:
1623:
1619:
1617:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1508:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1491:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1443:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1353:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1334:
1329:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1282:writer and a
1281:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1252:professor of
1251:
1247:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1229:
1227:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1210:
1206:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:WP:REPEATLINK
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1009:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
985:
981:
980:
979:
978:
972:
966:
962:
961:
954:
952:
948:
943:
937:
933:
931:
925:
921:
917:
909:
905:
903:
889:
886:
884:
878:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
841:
837:
833:
827:
821:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
786:
785:
782:
777:
775:
767:
763:
761:
757:
727:
722:
717:
716:
702:
701:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
660:
657:
654:
651:
650:
649:
648:
642:
639:
638:
637:
636:
629:
626:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:
582:
581:
578:
577:
573:
568:
563:
562:
554:
550:
549:
544:
543:
538:
535:
531:
530:
518:
517:
512:
511:
506:
497:
493:
492:
488:
483:
481:
477:
473:
463:
459:
458:
455:
438:
434:
433:
428:
425:
421:
420:
416:
399:
396:
393:
389:
388:
380:
376:
373:
369:
366:
362:
361:
358:
350:
342:
340:
335:
333:
332:
326:
324:
319:
317:
316:
310:
305:
299:
294:
288:
283:
277:
272:
266:
264:
259:
257:
256:
250:
248:
243:
241:
240:
232:
228:
220:
219:→Overlinking
204:
197:
193:
188:
179:
174:
170:
162:
154:
138:
134:
130:
129:Autopatrolled
123:
119:
114:
105:
101:
83:
68:
61:
51:Content added
43:
40:
30:
19:
4541:
4514:
4497:
4433:
4427:
4421:
4347:
4337:
4324:
4319:
4298:
4293:
4289:
4280:
4250:
4200:
4174:
4135:
4127:
4118:
4110:
4102:
4094:
4047:
4040:
4033:
4010:
4002:
3994:
3986:
3978:
3970:
3951:
3933:
3925:
3918:
3838:All Is Found
3826:
3767:Frozen Heart
3755:
3692:
3684:
3676:
3670:Frozen Fever
3668:
3642:
3627:
3612:
3562:
3536:
3491:
3474:
3470:
3453:
3418:
3391:
3308:
3279:
3272:
3238:
3211:
3204:
3158:
3151:
3147:navigability
3146:
3142:
3114:
3053:
3046:
3005:
2998:
2988:
2962:
2950:
2945:
2925:
2874:
2869:
2845:
2843:
2823:
2776:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2626:
2595:
2590:
2520:
2471:
2466:
2448:
2443:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2349:
2345:
2262:
2026:
1975:
1969:pointed out
1934:
1892:
1859:
1853:
1814:
1778:When in Rome
1750:
1745:
1740:
1737:
1658:that were "R
1616:2009 in film
1494:
1441:
1438:
1434:WP:CONSENSUS
1429:
1425:
1418:
1407:WP:CONSENSUS
1339:
1335:
1308:
1288:
1256:teaching at
1239:
1234:common sense
1230:
1213:
1205:Memory Alpha
1180:
1172:
1160:WP:CONSENSUS
1136:
1128:
1119:
1116:
1101:
1098:
1035:
1014:
1007:
1006:
958:
955:
926:
899:
882:
844:
806:
789:Seeing green
773:
768:
764:
753:
720:
646:
645:
634:
633:
584:
583:
571:
546:
540:
514:
508:
469:
430:
4545:Ohconfucius
4457:Ohconfucius
4410:Ohconfucius
4386:Ohconfucius
4325:conditional
4273:Overlinking
3945:Video games
3816:Fixer Upper
3459:Ohconfucius
3438:Ohconfucius
3423:Art LaPella
3401:Ohconfucius
3396:wind you up
3189:Ohconfucius
3087:Art LaPella
3031:Art LaPella
2953:losing side
2904:Art LaPella
2799:Ohconfucius
2743:Art LaPella
2721:GeorgeLouis
2687:Art LaPella
2493:Art LaPella
2388:February 12
2247:Ohconfucius
2202:Ohconfucius
2078:Ohconfucius
2030:GeorgeLouis
1977:SMcCandlish
1936:SMcCandlish
1894:SMcCandlish
1861:SMcCandlish
1820:Ohconfucius
1786:Art LaPella
1592:Ohconfucius
1545:Art LaPella
1496:SMcCandlish
1341:SMcCandlish
1066:Art LaPella
1040:GeorgeLouis
1038:Sincerely,
960:SMcCandlish
847:GeorgeLouis
809:GeorgeLouis
754:Our judge,
542:WP:PROPOSAL
510:WP:PROPOSAL
507:, refer to
227:Next edit →
153:→Archiving
112:Ohconfucius
42:Next edit →
4138:(season 3)
4130:(season 4)
4027:Literature
3912:Live shows
3706:Characters
3242:Here's an
3115:status quo
2932:scientists
2596:everywhere
2350:de minimus
2010:SlimVirgin
1631:qualify as
1426:only three
1411:WP:SELFREF
1284:Castillian
1274:and being
1183:everything
1164:WP:SELFREF
1015:everything
993:scientists
984:your edit.
951:WP:SELFREF
912:; they do
478:, and the
365:WT:MOSLINK
3936:(musical)
3809:In Summer
3795:Let It Go
3651:accolades
3636:accolades
3611:Disney's
3537:Tony has
2940:polywater
2671:breakfast
2073:consensus
2068:US dollar
1714:Venezuela
1706:Indonesia
1399:WP:MOSNUM
1391:WP:POLICY
1315:severable
1300:obviously
1250:Botswanan
1152:WP:MOSNUM
1144:WP:POLICY
1001:polywater
947:WP:MOSNUM
938:shouldn't
930:WP:MOSNUM
902:WP:POLICY
694:Archive 8
688:Archive 7
682:Archive 6
676:Archive 5
670:Archive 4
664:Archive 3
659:Archive 2
653:Archive 1
628:Archive 7
623:Archive 6
617:Archive 5
611:Archive 4
606:Archive 3
601:Archive 2
596:Archive 1
357:Shortcuts
237:Line 234:
234:Line 234:
4320:absolute
4234:A. di M.
4209:(NFL)? –
4193:Acronyms
4161:Category
3828:Frozen 2
3729:Kristoff
3644:Frozen 2
3569:AGradman
3421:" Sigh.
3180:land law
3083:WP:CIVIL
2929:American
2850:A. di M.
1988:Contribs
1947:Contribs
1905:Contribs
1872:Contribs
1854:de facto
1698:Botswana
1507:Contribs
1352:Contribs
1330:Not one.
1311:entirely
1280:Galician
1246:American
1120:de facto
990:American
971:Contribs
862:Dabomb87
832:Dabomb87
799:Resolved
746:Resolved
572:Archives
379:WT:LINKS
196:contribs
122:contribs
66:Wikitext
4517:Done --
4323:i.e. a
4211:CWenger
4059:Related
3964:Related
3898:Monster
3647:(2019)
3632:(2013)
3244:example
2934:in the
2828:DCGeist
2521:exactly
2242:germane
2056:English
2048:WP:TLDR
1841:usually
1722:Bauxite
1718:Bauxite
1534:WP:BIAS
1403:WP:BIAS
1387:WP:BOLD
1295:mistake
1272:Russian
1263:WP:BIAS
1254:physics
1196:nothing
1156:WP:BIAS
1108:WP:BOLD
995:in the
908:scribe
896:Dispute
881:Adrian
721:20 days
641:Archive
372:WT:LINK
142:328,937
4504:(talk)
4354:(talk)
4338:single
4305:(talk)
4257:(talk)
4123:(2023)
4115:(2018)
4107:(2020)
4099:(2014)
4015:(2023)
4007:(2022)
3999:(2019)
3991:(2016)
3983:(2015)
3975:(2013)
3956:(2013)
3934:Frozen
3757:Frozen
3697:(2021)
3689:(2020)
3681:(2017)
3673:(2015)
3662:Shorts
3629:Frozen
3613:Frozen
3509:HWV258
3498:(talk)
3373:HWV258
3342:HWV258
3314:HWV258
3251:HWV258
3078:France
2965:Greg L
2783:HWV258
2717:WP:MOS
2601:Greg L
2556:HWV258
2526:HWV258
2477:HWV258
2429:HWV258
2371:HWV258
2330:HWV258
2272:HWV258
2091:HWV258
1850:WP:FAN
1846:WP:GAC
1811:Canada
1708:, the
1702:France
1680:WP:FAC
1676:WP:GAN
1652:WP:BRD
1469:, but
1447:Greg L
1442:great.
1395:WP:MOS
1383:WP:BRD
1366:HWV258
1226:WP:AFD
1176:WP:RFC
1148:WP:MOS
1131:WP:BRD
1112:WP:IAR
1104:WP:BRD
1083:HWV258
1022:Greg L
885:Hunter
780:(talk)
555:pages.
208:19,193
77:Inline
59:Visual
3876:Other
3748:Music
3475:there
3368:Jihad
3288:edits
3240:foul.
3220:edits
3167:edits
3062:edits
3014:edits
2936:1960s
2871:Ckatz
2679:elbow
2675:river
2541:Rrius
2472:we're
2445:Ckatz
2401:Rrius
2355:Rrius
2306:Rrius
2288:Rrius
2218:Rrius
2197:zloty
2162:Rrius
1984:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1982:Talk⇒
1943:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1941:Talk⇒
1929:there
1901:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1899:Talk⇒
1868:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1866:Talk⇒
1747:Ckatz
1716:" at
1587:China
1503:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1501:Talk⇒
1348:ʕ(ل)ˀ
1346:Talk⇒
1324:strip
1304:added
1276:Maori
1217:isn't
997:1960s
967:ʕ(ل)ˀ
965:Talk⇒
756:Ceoil
210:edits
144:edits
16:<
4498:Tony
4348:Tony
4299:Tony
4251:Tony
4238:talk
4215:talk
4180:talk
3739:Hans
3734:Sven
3724:Olaf
3719:Elsa
3714:Anna
3492:Tony
3471:here
3427:talk
3282:talk
3275:N-HH
3214:talk
3207:N-HH
3161:talk
3154:N-HH
3124:talk
3120:John
3091:talk
3056:talk
3049:N-HH
3035:talk
3008:talk
3001:N-HH
2994:here
2989:have
2969:talk
2908:talk
2900:this
2854:talk
2832:talk
2747:talk
2725:talk
2691:talk
2605:talk
2545:talk
2497:talk
2424:That
2405:talk
2395:and
2359:talk
2325:here
2323:and
2321:here
2310:talk
2302:dodo
2292:talk
2267:dodo
2233:US$
2222:talk
2199:. --
2166:talk
2122:US$
2034:talk
1927:(or
1925:here
1848:and
1790:talk
1712:and
1693:more
1678:and
1583:this
1549:talk
1475:that
1451:talk
1430:that
1409:and
1319:must
1267:Iraq
1162:and
1070:talk
1044:talk
1026:talk
949:and
866:talk
851:talk
836:talk
813:talk
774:Tony
539:See
192:talk
178:undo
173:edit
118:talk
104:edit
4205:or
3182:or
2946:one
2879:spy
2777:all
2667:dog
2591:not
2474:".
2453:spy
2346:was
1815:sic
1755:spy
1638:one
1624:are
1480:how
1471:you
1432:is
1291:not
1242:you
1200:any
1102:1.
942:RfC
934:not
922:pre
918:pro
914:not
4439:--
4397:--
4383:--
4373:--
4240:)
4217:)
4178:/
3571:/
3478:--
3429:)
3126:)
3118:--
3093:)
3037:)
2971:)
2910:)
2868:--
2856:)
2834:)
2749:)
2741:.
2727:)
2693:)
2677:,
2673:,
2669:,
2607:)
2547:)
2499:)
2407:)
2361:)
2312:)
2294:)
2269:.
2224:)
2168:)
2066:,
2062:,
2058:,
2036:)
1966:}}
1963:wb
1960:{{
1792:)
1784:.
1704:,
1700:,
1575:do
1551:)
1492:—
1453:)
1405:,
1401:,
1397:,
1393:,
1389:,
1385:,
1221:is
1207:,
1158:,
1154:,
1150:,
1146:,
1072:)
1064:.
1046:)
1028:)
956:—
906:de
883:J.
868:)
853:)
838:)
829:}}
826:xt
823:{{
815:)
801:–
748:–
194:|
135:,
131:,
120:|
4236:(
4213:(
4069:"
4065:"
3900:"
3896:"
3893:"
3889:"
3886:"
3882:"
3868:"
3864:"
3861:"
3857:"
3854:"
3850:"
3847:"
3843:"
3840:"
3836:"
3818:"
3814:"
3811:"
3807:"
3804:"
3800:"
3797:"
3793:"
3790:"
3786:"
3783:"
3779:"
3776:"
3772:"
3769:"
3765:"
3603:e
3596:t
3589:v
3514:.
3425:(
3417:"
3390:"
3378:.
3347:.
3319:.
3307:"
3285:/
3256:.
3217:/
3164:/
3122:(
3089:(
3059:/
3033:(
3011:/
2967:(
2942:.
2906:(
2852:(
2830:(
2788:.
2745:(
2723:(
2689:(
2603:(
2561:.
2543:(
2531:.
2495:(
2482:.
2470:"
2434:.
2403:(
2376:.
2357:(
2335:.
2319:(
2308:(
2290:(
2277:.
2261:"
2231:(
2220:(
2164:(
2096:.
2032:(
1990:.
1949:.
1907:.
1874:.
1788:(
1660:"
1547:(
1509:.
1449:(
1417:.
1371:.
1354:.
1088:.
1068:(
1042:(
1024:(
1010:.
1003:.
973:.
864:(
849:(
834:(
811:(
729:.
198:)
190:(
124:)
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.