Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Linking

1254:

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

1679:). 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. — 2776:

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

1633:

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

1362:

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

2870:

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

213: 181: 2833:

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?

2938:, 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. 1037:" 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 1367:

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.

1116:

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!: -->

1747:

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

1509:, 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 4196:

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. --

251: 1267:

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

192: 4213:, 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. 1407:, 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 2991:

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.

356: 845:, 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, 3946: 1122:

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.

1021:

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

285: 199: 1905:{{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 323: 3036:

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).

2075:

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. -

1106:, 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 585: 532: 2180:

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,

1672:

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

1321:

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

1949:

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. -

1762:. 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). — 191: 198: 3059:

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.

915:, 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. 1931:

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.

1418:(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 1439:

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

1628:

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

2428:"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, ..." 1276:(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). 2814:

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

1472:

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

4129:

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,

4111:

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 -

3276:

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

2156:

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

1397:

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

982:

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

4195:

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

4079:

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

2813:

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

2775:

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

2382:

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

1948:

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

1757:

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

1746:

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

1720:

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,

1328:

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

1121:

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

775:

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.

2990:

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

2832:

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 -

2141:

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

1627:

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,

1564:

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

1434:

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

1402:

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

1320:

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

1115:

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

1110:

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

1020:

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

906:

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

4035:

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

3035:

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

2966:

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'

2179:

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

1979:

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,

1632:

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

1471:

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

1462:

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

1366:

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

1361:

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

1253:

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

1208:

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

1058:

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

962:

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

2279:

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

1930:

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"

1671:

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

1438:

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

1266:

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

1233:

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.

1049:

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

922:

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)

4083:

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

1816:

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

1597:

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,

1271:

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

3058:

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

2074:

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

1795:

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

558:

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

2869:

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.

2202:

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.

1645:

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. —

1532:

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.

4171:

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.

1086:

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

967:, 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. 554:

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

2656:

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.

2906:

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.

1059:

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

1602:, 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' ( 555:(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. 716:

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.

1329:

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.

2929:

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,

1087:

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

3266:

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.

1479:

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

1598:

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

1025:

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.

2387:

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.

1125:

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. —

3127:

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?

2744:

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:

1003:

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

1565:

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 "

559:

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.

379: 3354:

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!

2132:

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

930:

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

2107:

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

733:

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

983:

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

1429:

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

2024:

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

1527:

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

907:

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

801:

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

2258:

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

4283:, 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.) 1228:

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,

2029:– 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 3028:

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

991:

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

4301:

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.

2019:

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

2253:

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

663:

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.

1378:) ;-). 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. -- 742:, 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. 4185:

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.

2780:

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

2470:). 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 3344: 2568:

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.)

4225:. 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? 1012:

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

794:

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

2231:

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. --

729:

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

416: 411: 405: 399: 394: 389: 384: 959:

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.

1877:

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.

524: 2967:

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

2378:

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

1980:

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

2713:

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.

721:, 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 3087:

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. --

1411:

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

2454:"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. 128: 116: 132: 112: 124: 4130:

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".

3972: 3708: 572: 1913:

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.

2215:

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.

1864:

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. --

4080:

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?

955:(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 4331:

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. --

665: 689:

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

3343: 1717: 1403:

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.

1210: 772: 923:

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.

3923: 2715:

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:

4260: 4251: 4232: 4204: 4190: 4180: 3271: 3253: 1332:

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.

1054:

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

807: 676: 3884: 2527: 3232: 2539: 2517: 1872: 1699: 1666: 1386: 1341: 862: 3245:" – 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. -- 3170: 3150: 3139: 3122: 3111: 2054:"—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 1804: 963:

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 (

4310: 4166: 4146: 4120: 3334: 3290: 1860:

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

4133:

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)?

3091: 2109: 658: 628: 3219: 3195: 2741: 2593: 2580: 2416:

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:

2397: 1888: 1301: 1243: 1163: 836: 818: 2700: 2483: 2289: 2041: 2014: 1996: 1782: 1741: 1614: 1582: 4030: 2983: 2883: 2856: 2827: 2211:", 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). 1358:

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.

997: 336: 304: 2761: 2113: 4151:

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

4049: 3424: 2674: 2646: 2353: 2337: 2323: 482: 476: 470: 464: 458: 452: 447: 441: 2916: 2624: 880: 3306: 3048: 2274: 2248: 2226: 2197: 2168: 2151: 2127: 2102: 2084: 2069: 1958: 548: 4296: 3082: 2808: 1570: 3014: 2961: 2688: 1606:) 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. -- 2691:? If you meant my own unlinking, then naturally I think I use "discretion" consistent with the "particularly relevant to the topic" clause. 1213:

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

1984:. 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 1075:("Spanish language") writer, both from Spain, will produce literature with a different "flavor", audience, social impact, etc. And so on. 850: 275: 3032: 1817:

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,

4074: 2188:? 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. - 1458:

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

4339: 4107:

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

3159:" refers to a religious duty by Muslims and is therefore a poorly selected word in this context. My other point remains unanswered. 841:

If the rule is going to be "the names of major geographic features and ... should not be repeatedly linked", this either duplicates

643: 605: 2116:). The point being of course, that what was once established practice is no longer desirable (be in linking or auto-formatting). 1796:

point, the more links an article as, the less noticeable each of them becomes, so for the pro-linkers too, less is surely more.

3439: 2407: 2207:

is a thought-out and intelligent activity that strives toward one goal: to make WP easier-to-use for all readers. In terms of "

1826: 1146: 849:

links to United States in the infobox, though not in the first paragraph. The Main Page is another undocumented exception; see

765: 649:

Apologies. The above template that I linked makes the text display in green font. It is used to highlight examples, I believe.

298: 120: 4125:

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

1566: 1425:

What needs to happen, and what I did and was reflexively reverted on, without (to date) a single substantive response to even

4097: 186: 92: 43: 4007: 3295:

You are quite correct. "Childish" wasn't anywhere near the appropriate adjective in this case. I will try harder in future.

911:

standard WP practice and has been for years, since before I was even an editor here. And I see precisely zero evidence that

429: 2523: 1550: 1485:;-) (And contrast this case with something like the country's appearance in a phrase like "mined in large quantities in 3871: 3590: 2328:

The first letter of an article title is not case sensitive, so ] and ] both point to the same place without redirect. -

2001:

Ummm, no. Knowing about the articles you object to is almost as important as knowing the arguments you are countering.

903:. This is a wiki. Being bold does not do damage, and criticizing editors for being "too bold" is rather nonsensical. 3892: 3715: 3155:

You knew very well my inclination towards delinking when you posted, so you are being disingenuous. For the record, "

1776: 1735: 1693: 1660: 1295: 1140: 759: 341: 293: 81: 32: 668:

was the first discussion about also using red text to distinguish wrong examples; there were others shortly after.

3562: 3390: 2564:

I would not like to see the proposed change implemented as it would be a diluting mish-mash. It is important that

2280:

consensus of experienced editors, we can still have plenty of arguing and arrogance over defining that criterion.

3672: 1371: 634:

I pose a politely worded query in English and am answered with some kind of odd symbol? Curiouser and curiouser.

3258:

Articles and sections can be very long. The context of words and phrases changes; sometimes a term, in context

1209:

date (notwithstanding that you oddly cited WP:CONSENSUS in an attempt to justify your unilateral, undiscussed,

1098:

11. PS: A side point I must stress, and I have to do this in multiple forums from time to time: Infoboxes are

17: 4154:

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

3224:

Isn't it? I think the adjectives were more or less spot on, but I would have just used the noun 'rhetoric'. --

3100:". Just when you think some progress is being made, along comes the usual childish pejorative nonsense. Sigh. 3569: 1272:

together more productively if you'd take less auto-defensive, must-fight-at-all-costs positions and actually

823:

Without delving too deeply into SMcCandlish's argument, I must simply agree with Greg L that there is simply

212: 180: 2782: 2342:

Simply a precision born of too long a time spent in the computer industry. Thank you for your observation.

308:

of Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

260: 4243:

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

2026: 2002: 3968: 3949: 3915: 3837: 3647: 2666: 2240: 1542: 514: 2615:

SMcCandish's proposed change would eviscerate our clear, prudent guidance. It is entirely unacceptable.—

228:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively. 3679: 3075: 3007: 2954: 2849: 2801: 2052:

Actual practice among experienced editors at articles across the project is to link many of these terms

3900: 3604: 3494: 2815: 264: 225: 220: 88: 39: 4279:

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

1451:'ed, or the "B" is going to come back in play, with the burden of proof shifting to the reverter(s). 551:

for August, July and May 2010, and at the end of this month will announce the winner for September.

3995: 3991: 3800: 3466: 1852: 1117:

is actually the case). I cannot remember one single case of anyone reverting me on this practice.

268: 3327: 2874:

don't list a specific list of forbidden swear words; the context matters too, not just the words.

1217:

are in the other camp (you, your links, and your flotilla-like posts). Stealing a stunt of yours,

3633: 2752:

There is no stomach for revisiting the issue, let alone actually changing the current guideline.

596:

Why is some of the text in this article showing up as green? In utter cluelessness, your friend,

2749:… and then isn’t immediately followed up with caveats designed to undermine that very principle. 2633:

I am fine with the current wording of the guideline. I am not fine with people who believe that

224:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the 153: 4116:, not absolute rate, which will necessarily be higher than your commercial metrics indicate. -- 3931: 3768: 2209:...a few people sweep through and delink, only to have many of the terms relinked down the line 263:

procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge

3146:

Ah, but HWV258, my comment wasn't directed at you (you're not part of the jihad, are you?). --

167: 4337: 4322: 4280: 4249: 4202: 4178: 3776: 3741: 3686: 3616: 3251: 3230: 3215: 3193: 2981: 2879: 2823: 2696: 2591: 2535: 2513: 2479: 2285: 2039: 1994: 1870: 1822: 1770: 1729: 1687: 1654: 1612: 1578: 1384: 1337: 1289: 1134: 1017:, where they are mostly ignored by closing admins, or in informal discussions like this one. 858: 832: 753: 669: 639: 601: 497: 160: 4217:

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

4211:

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

4307: 4257: 4229: 4187: 4163: 4117: 4071: 3654: 3576: 3383: 3331: 3268: 3147: 3119: 3088: 1910: 1906: 918:

3. I'm not going to pitch a fit about being reverted (I expected it) so long as the "D" in

842: 577: 1843:. I see no substantive arguments from him to justify calling for linking of words such as 1317:

8. You agreed that "further editing needs to happen", so no significant disagreement here.

776:

For instance, if there is an article on “Scientific goofs”, there might be this sentence:

8: 4061: 3545: 3474: 3357: 1861: 1839:. This section indicates to me that there may be an innate inability of the proponent to 1222: 1195: 948: 67: 1533:

Guidelines cannot be used as a means of imposing an individual vision on the project. --

1370:

Bang! Cavendish, you shot yerself in the foot. When you have a Chinese scientist's bio,

4026: 3908: 3792: 3784: 3417: 3399: 2642: 1072: 1046: 654: 624: 334:

for Knowledge's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See

330: 145: 1102:

dependent upon and subordinate to articles' main prose but (important here!) they are

4304:

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

4003: 3866: 3823: 3640: 3517: 2620: 1840: 1455: 1199: 1068: 975: 952: 846: 739: 27: 2975:

that can be linked to. Linking to 'law' or 'lawyer' brings 'sweet FA' to the party.

1050:

people would not have such an "I don't give a hoot" reaction to such links, and see

705:

advance one person's or one camp's opinion of what WP best practices "should" be by

4332: 4244: 4197: 4173: 3981: 3721: 3302: 3246: 3225: 3211: 3188: 3166: 3135: 3107: 3044: 2976: 2875: 2862: 2819: 2757: 2692: 2586: 2576: 2531: 2509: 2475: 2393: 2349: 2319: 2281: 2270: 2222: 2164: 2157:"actual practice is..." is not always a good reason for maintaining that practice. 2123: 2065: 2034: 1989: 1884: 1865: 1848: 1818: 1765: 1724: 1682: 1649: 1607: 1574: 1379: 1333: 1284: 1239: 1187: 1179: 1159: 1129: 1022: 940: 932: 876: 854: 828: 814: 748: 735: 718: 690: 635: 597: 305:

guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies

1981: 1443:, but at some point the "D" in that has to actually happen, in a substantive way, 4291: 4223:

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

4141: 4092: 4044: 3878: 3861: 3760: 3376: 3285: 2871: 2333: 2193: 2147: 2098: 2080: 2010: 1954: 1798: 1203: 684: 567: 2635:

unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking

1513:

article. My personal jury is still out on links of grey-area utility like that.)

72: 4018: 3855: 3830: 3243:

having terms linked more than once per article or section would be a good start

3184: 3069: 3001: 2972: 2948: 2912: 2843: 2795: 2185: 1836: 1322: 1191: 1175: 1091:

referring to the former kind of editing practice, not the latter, and actually

1060: 1051: 979: 944: 896: 4159:

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

493: 4022: 3527: 3522: 3512: 3507: 3502: 3482: 2717: 2638: 2505: 2181: 1638: 1634: 1498: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1459: 1440: 1183: 1171: 1034: 1014: 964: 936: 919: 912: 900: 892: 778: 730: 650: 620: 355: 250: 3999: 3626: 3555: 3458: 3368: 2616: 1404: 993: 666:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_110#An_idea:_markup_for_bad_examples

2508:? I couldn't find it. Or is this simply a suggested change? Your friend, 2504:

Thank you, Art LaPella. Is the first version you cited now to be found in

2030: 1082:

to link every occurrence of countries and such. It's a common new editor

4021:. The former uses more complicated markup with no discernible advantage. 3990:

Should acronyms in parentheses be included in links or not? For example,

3297: 3161: 3130: 3102: 3039: 2753: 2571: 2474:

in an article's prose or infobox, they should not be repeatedly linked."

2389: 2344: 2314: 2265: 2217: 2176: 2159: 2118: 2060: 1879: 1751: 1235: 1154: 871: 810: 614: 4219:... rubbish. But I believe this has been rebutted often enough already. 2585:

I think he may have intended also to juxtapose 'river' and 'blue' ;-) --

699:

actual, current, observable, consensus-based best practices on Knowledge

499: 4284: 4134: 4085: 4084:

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

4037: 3278: 2659: 2329: 2233: 2189: 2143: 2094: 2093:? I see this around from time to time, but I haven't figured out why. - 2076: 2006: 1950: 1674:

despite two years of this increasingly disputed guideline saying not to

1535: 1374:

is the sort of link you need – not some semi-hemi-demi-pertinent link (

956: 560: 544: 1712:

Ckatz, that's kinda what I thought. See just above on this very page

895:

exists for a reason. There really is no such thing as "too bold", per

3597: 3583: 3062: 2994: 2941: 2908: 2836: 2788: 2728: 2720: 1856: 1502: 1494: 789: 781: 1484:

anti-link. Thanks for proving one of my major points for me. : -->

1225:. And that consensus is to keep the existing wording for the moment. 292:

For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new

3432: 2968: 1486: 1038: 495: 322: 284: 2142:

long discussion among a wide swathe of members of the community. -

2137:

about autoformatting, and when it went out, there was, at best, a

888:

To respond to all of the above at once (using "you" generically):

2747:

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article

2526:, and you are now reading its talk page. The text I quoted is at 2089:

Oh, and tangentially, why did you type ] instead of ] to produce

1844: 1510: 1506: 1042: 978:, since neither I nor any one else since the pre-Web days of the 2528:

WP:Manual of Style (linking)#What generally should not be linked

2866: 1599: 1490: 3709:

For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration

2733:…would have three needless things linked when all it needs is 2033:

nor relevant, so there is no earthly reason to link to USD. --

500: 2724: 2175:

Except that that your example doesn't make sense. Linking of

1985: 1375: 1064: 785: 525:

Major announcement: the Silliest Wikilink of the Month awards

1641:

will force the undoing of good editing that reflects actual

2090: 2055: 2021: 1055: 340:

for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of

1909:

to see what it includes about the topic. Someone reading "

70:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

1202:

in an enormous smoke screen amounts to nothing more than

806:

regardless of context results in articles that read like

2005:

provides historical conversions to several currencies. -

1463:

whether they are stable or not, because that's just how

3183:". I would like to believe that he is merely trying to 1170:

Moreover, attempting to justify your actions by citing

926:

4. I don't care if the wording there was no accident.

3885:

The Story of Frozen: Making a Disney Animated Classic

2934:. Also where they state that links are about general 3330:

which is relevant to this discussion. Must dash. --

2865:, I probably would neither add nor delete a link to 1325:

asserting that all countries are equally well known.

349: 851:

Knowledge talk:Selected anniversaries#Country links

3345:Query regarding wikilinking at Village Pump Misc. 2205:they don't deepen the understanding of an article 1530:"you just changed something all by your lonesome" 2383:of a particular article. This principle applies 3156: 3118:Cf your own language, HWV258: "link-lunies". -- 3328:asked me a question, which I have responded to 2308:Re: "Dodo": to match the title of the article 1571:User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so 1435:occurrence, and forbidding redundant linkage). 1095:noob-helpful information on what not to link. 3384: 508:This page has archives. Sections older than 4036:context: editorial judgement is called for. 3925:High School Musical: The Musical: The Series 3398: 1721:just rewrite to be like that but better). — 278:carefully and exercise caution when editing. 2312:, but to get a lower case "d" in the text. 1067:produce completely different worldviews; A 808:The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. 80:Revision as of 06:56, 26 September 2010 by 3391: 3377: 1859:, when these are clearly words that : --> 1314:Responding to points directed at myself: 218:This page falls within the scope of the 53: 337:how to contribute to Knowledge guidance 79: 14: 3752: 1760:by supporters of the disputed language 1713: 1008:going on (in fact, I clarified how it 539:Just an FYI; no MOS issues to address. 3372: 1152:I still agree with Greg L's summary. 1029:9. It's not important whether or not 274:Contributors are urged to review the 234:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style 50: 31: 1204:WP:I MADE IT BLUE SO IT MUST BE TRUE 1078:10. The usual practice is certainly 970:6. The "linking first occurrence of 713:scribing unusual, editor behaviors. 317: 271:. Both areas are subjects of debate. 237:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style 23: 4017:I'd go with the latter one per the 3831:Conceal, Don't Feel: A Twisted Tale 2637:means 'never, ever link anywhere'. 2027:United States dollar#Exchange rates 2003:United States dollar#Exchange rates 1763: 1722: 1680: 1647: 1282: 1127: 746: 141: 110: 3932:"Frozen" (political advertisement) 3591:Reindeer(s) Are Better Than People 3187:, so I would react accordingly. -- 1677:(that last part is very important) 1415:consensus-accepted as overlinking. 1211:colossal change to the guideline). 987:should ever be linked at first or 771:I think you’ve been too bold with 283: 249: 142: 4352: 4292: 4285: 4142: 4135: 4093: 4086: 4045: 4038: 3893:Into the Unknown: Making Frozen 2 3872:Wandering Oaken's Sliding Sleighs 3286: 3279: 568: 561: 512:may be automatically archived by 66:. The present address (URL) is a 3945: 3944: 3208:childish pejorative nonsense ... 725:suggest that more common usages 583: 530: 354: 321: 211: 197: 190: 179: 101: 58: 3563:Do You Want to Build a Snowman? 1422:overlinking. Different issues.) 1398:mistakes. I'm not doing that. 974:= a sewer" argument is a total 869:I agree with Greg L's summary. 4340:06:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 4311:16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4297:16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4261:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4252:15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4233:06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 4205:04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 4191:16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4181:15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4167:15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4147:15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4121:10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4098:08:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4075:21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4050:14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 4031:13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 4008:16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 3992:National Football League (NFL) 3973:03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 3335:10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3307:08:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3291:08:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3272:07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3254:01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3233:01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3220:01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3196:08:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3171:10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3151:10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3140:08:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3123:07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3112:00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 3092:23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 3083:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 3049:07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 3015:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 2984:02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 2962:18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 2917:17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 2884:20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 2857:15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 2828:02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 2809:17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 2762:23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2701:20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2675:09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2647:09:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2625:04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2594:04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2581:04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2540:00:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2518:23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 2484:22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 2408:Summing up the linking dispute 2398:14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2354:05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2338:05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2324:05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2290:06:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 2275:10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2249:09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2227:04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2198:03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 2169:05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2152:05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2128:05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2103:05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2085:05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2070:04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2042:06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 2015:04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1997:04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1959:04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1889:04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1873:02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 1827:21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1805:14:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1783:04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1742:02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1700:02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1667:02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1615:13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 1583:06:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC) 1551:09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 1409:is, clearly, an ongoing debate 1387:07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 1342:21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 1302:18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 1244:15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 1164:09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 1147:08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 881:07:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 863:05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 837:02:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 819:02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 766:01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 677:04:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 659:04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 644:03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 629:00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 606:00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 573:04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 4209:Taking your last point first 3716:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion 3570:For the First Time in Forever 2687:Perhaps you were thinking of 1477:absolutely, positively should 3076: 3070: 3063: 3008: 3002: 2995: 2955: 2949: 2942: 2850: 2844: 2837: 2802: 2796: 2789: 2524:WP:Manual of Style (linking) 2522:WP:MOS has subpages such as 1797: 7: 4070:Copied from my talk page:-- 3838:Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets 2667: 2241: 1543: 30:of this page, as edited by 10: 4357: 3680:Making Today a Perfect Day 3277:on editors and behaviour? 2727:thought they had invented 1274:address the points I raise 825:too much linking going on. 788:thought they had invented 581: 528: 259:This page falls under the 143: 99: 56: 3940: 3901:Ralph Breaks the Internet 3847: 3815: 3733: 3700: 3664: 3614: 3543: 3536: 3493: 3450: 3409: 3262:elicits inquiry, whereas 2816:User:Art LaPella/AWB list 1400:I'm drawing a distinction 549:the winners of the awards 291: 257: 221:Knowledge:Manual of Style 206: 4256:We are the authority. -- 3996:National Football League 3801:Disney Dreamlight Valley 3301: 3296: 3165: 3160: 3134: 3129: 3106: 3101: 3043: 3038: 2818:for the word "Pacific". 2575: 2570: 2348: 2343: 2318: 2313: 2269: 2264: 2221: 2216: 2163: 2158: 2122: 2117: 2064: 2059: 1883: 1878: 1853:United States of America 1158: 1153: 875: 870: 240:Manual of Style articles 51:06:56, 26 September 2010 3467:Olaf's Frozen Adventure 2203:Delinking them because 693:, Knowledge guidelines 294:policies and guidelines 3769:Disney Magical World 2 1111:styles and links, but 515:Lowercase sigmabot III 380:Support and opposition 288: 254: 4281:User:Piano non troppo 3777:Disney Magic Kingdoms 3181:...delinking jihad... 3098:...delinking jihad... 913:consensus has changed 899:and more importantly 547:, will soon announce 408:– links in quotations 287: 269:article titles policy 253: 3742:Frozen: Olaf's Quest 3655:The Next Right Thing 3577:Love Is an Open Door 2785:, that might help. 1907:United States dollar 709:scribing common, or 444:Jul 2006 and earlier 342:policy and guideline 3475:Once Upon a Snowman 2472:at first occurrence 1569:". More on this at 1432:blatantly obviously 1256:genuine overlinking 479:Sep 2009 – Feb 2010 473:Jul 2009 – Aug 2009 467:May 2009 – Jun 2009 461:Jan 2009 – May 2009 455:Sep 2006 – Jan 2009 436:WP:MOSLINK archives 374:WP:CONTEXT archives 117:← Previous revision 3909:Once Upon a Studio 3793:Disney Mirrorverse 3785:Kingdom Hearts III 2902:Current consensus 2740:There is always a 1982:WP is not the news 1678: 1262:, Greg, are using 1047:Rutgers University 928:It is still awful. 704: 592:Question answered. 485:Feb 2010 – present 289: 276:awareness criteria 261:contentious topics 255: 3971: 3960: 3958: 3957: 3867:Frozen Ever After 3824:The Art of Frozen 3811: 3810: 3696: 3695: 3641:Lost in the Woods 3361: 3081: 3013: 2960: 2861:If your issue is 2855: 2807: 2672: 2246: 1803: 1780: 1739: 1697: 1676: 1664: 1548: 1456:George Washington 1454:11. So what? The 1445:about the changes 1299: 1144: 976:straw man fallacy 847:George Washington 763: 702: 522: 521: 402:– repeating links 348: 347: 316: 315: 312: 311: 4348: 4335: 4308:Michael C. Price 4294: 4289: 4258:Michael C. Price 4247: 4230:Michael C. Price 4200: 4188:Michael C. Price 4176: 4164:Michael C. Price 4144: 4139: 4118:Michael C. Price 4095: 4090: 4072:Michael C. Price 4047: 4042: 3966: 3948: 3947: 3917:Once Upon a Time 3750: 3749: 3673:Life's Too Short 3634:Into the Unknown 3541: 3540: 3393: 3386: 3379: 3370: 3369: 3367: 3356: 3332:Michael C. Price 3305: 3300: 3288: 3283: 3269:Michael C. Price 3249: 3228: 3191: 3169: 3164: 3148:Michael C. Price 3138: 3133: 3120:Michael C. Price 3110: 3105: 3089:Michael C. Price 3078: 3072: 3065: 3060: 3047: 3042: 3010: 3004: 2997: 2992: 2979: 2957: 2951: 2944: 2939: 2863:Champagne (wine) 2852: 2846: 2839: 2834: 2804: 2798: 2791: 2786: 2748: 2737:link: polywater. 2732: 2669: 2664: 2589: 2579: 2574: 2352: 2347: 2322: 2317: 2273: 2268: 2243: 2238: 2225: 2220: 2167: 2162: 2126: 2121: 2068: 2063: 2037: 1992: 1887: 1882: 1868: 1849:English language 1841:cut to the chase 1802: 1801: 1781: 1775: 1774: 1756: 1750: 1740: 1734: 1733: 1698: 1692: 1691: 1665: 1659: 1658: 1610: 1545: 1540: 1450: 1382: 1300: 1294: 1293: 1162: 1157: 1145: 1139: 1138: 1033:find a link to " 879: 874: 793: 764: 758: 757: 619: 613: 593: 587: 586: 570: 565: 540: 534: 533: 517: 501: 424:WP:BUILD archive 358: 350: 325: 318: 302:. Additionally, 242: 241: 238: 235: 232: 215: 208: 207: 202: 201: 200: 195: 194: 193: 183: 176: 175: 170: 163: 156: 129:Newer revision → 107: 105: 104: 96: 75: 73:current revision 65: 64: 62: 61: 52: 48: 47: 4356: 4355: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4333: 4325: 4245: 4198: 4174: 4064: 3984: 3959: 3954: 3936: 3879:Fantasy Springs 3862:World of Frozen 3843: 3807: 3761:Disney Infinity 3748: 3729: 3692: 3660: 3610: 3532: 3489: 3446: 3405: 3397: 3348: 3247: 3226: 3189: 2977: 2932:unless relevant 2746: 2716: 2671: 2587: 2410: 2245: 2035: 1990: 1866: 1769: 1754: 1748: 1728: 1686: 1653: 1608: 1547: 1448: 1380: 1288: 1133: 1000:, etc., etc.). 998:Battlestar Wiki 797:of that subject 777: 752: 687: 617: 611: 594: 591: 589: 584: 580: 541: 538: 536: 531: 527: 513: 502: 496: 419:– final archive 363: 265:Manual of Style 239: 236: 233: 231:Manual of Style 230: 229: 226:Manual of Style 196: 189: 187:Manual of Style 174: 173: 166: 159: 152: 148: 140: 139: 138: 137: 136: 121:Latest revision 109: 108: 100: 97: 86: 84: 83:Michael C Price 71: 57: 54: 37: 35: 34:Michael C Price 20: 12: 11: 5: 4354: 4344: 4343: 4327: 4326: 4324: 4321: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4226: 4220: 4214: 4160: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4131: 4102: 4101: 4066: 4065: 4063: 4060: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4019:KISS principle 4012: 4011: 3986: 3985: 3983: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3962: 3961: 3956: 3955: 3953: 3952: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3935: 3934: 3929: 3921: 3913: 3905: 3897: 3889: 3881: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3869: 3859: 3856:The Snow Queen 3851: 3849: 3845: 3844: 3842: 3841: 3834: 3827: 3819: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3809: 3808: 3806: 3805: 3797: 3789: 3781: 3773: 3765: 3756: 3754: 3747: 3746: 3737: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3728: 3727: 3719: 3712: 3704: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3694: 3693: 3691: 3690: 3683: 3676: 3668: 3666: 3662: 3661: 3659: 3658: 3651: 3644: 3637: 3630: 3622: 3620: 3612: 3611: 3609: 3608: 3601: 3594: 3587: 3580: 3573: 3566: 3559: 3551: 3549: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3531: 3530: 3525: 3520: 3515: 3510: 3505: 3499: 3497: 3491: 3490: 3488: 3487: 3479: 3471: 3463: 3454: 3452: 3448: 3447: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3413: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3396: 3395: 3388: 3381: 3373: 3363: 3362: 3350: 3349: 3347: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3053: 3052: 3037: 3030: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 2987: 2986: 2973:employment law 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2665: 2651: 2650: 2628: 2627: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2473: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2419: 2418: 2412: 2411: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2277: 2256:overwhelmingly 2239: 2186:United Kingdom 2087: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1831: 1830: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1761: 1744: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1675: 1669: 1631: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1555: 1554: 1541: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1483: 1478: 1452: 1446: 1436: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1421: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1401: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1359: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1330: 1326: 1318: 1315: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1279: 1277: 1275: 1270: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1248: 1247: 1167: 1166: 1120: 1114: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1085: 1081: 1032: 1011: 1007: 990: 986: 980:Xanadu Project 973: 957:palimpsestuous 929: 886: 885: 884: 883: 867: 866: 865: 728: 724: 712: 708: 700: 696: 686: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 632: 631: 582: 579: 576: 529: 526: 523: 520: 519: 507: 504: 503: 498: 494: 492: 489: 488: 487: 486: 480: 474: 468: 462: 456: 450: 445: 433: 432: 421: 420: 414: 409: 403: 397: 392: 387: 382: 369: 368: 365: 364: 359: 353: 346: 345: 326: 314: 313: 310: 309: 290: 280: 279: 273: 256: 246: 245: 243: 216: 204: 203: 184: 172: 171: 164: 157: 149: 144: 82: 68:permanent link 33: 22: 21: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4353: 4342: 4341: 4338: 4336: 4329: 4328: 4323:Bot archiving 4320: 4319: 4312: 4309: 4305: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4295: 4290: 4288: 4282: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4250: 4248: 4242: 4234: 4231: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4218: 4215: 4212: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4203: 4201: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4189: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4179: 4177: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4161: 4158: 4153: 4152: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4145: 4140: 4138: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4119: 4115: 4110: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4091: 4089: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4073: 4068: 4067: 4059: 4058: 4051: 4048: 4043: 4041: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4010: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3988: 3987: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3965: 3964: 3951: 3943: 3942: 3939: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3926: 3922: 3920: 3918: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3906: 3903: 3902: 3898: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3880: 3877: 3873: 3870: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3860: 3857: 3853: 3852: 3850: 3846: 3840: 3839: 3835: 3833: 3832: 3828: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3818: 3814: 3803: 3802: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3782: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3757: 3755: 3751: 3744: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3736: 3732: 3726: 3724: 3720: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3711: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3703: 3699: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3674: 3670: 3669: 3667: 3663: 3656: 3652: 3649: 3648:Show Yourself 3645: 3642: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3623: 3621: 3619: 3618: 3613: 3606: 3602: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3588: 3585: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3550: 3548: 3547: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3529: 3526: 3524: 3521: 3519: 3516: 3514: 3511: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3501: 3500: 3498: 3496: 3492: 3485: 3484: 3483:Olaf Presents 3480: 3477: 3476: 3472: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3461: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3453: 3449: 3441: 3438: 3437: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3423: 3422: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3414: 3412: 3410:Feature films 3408: 3404: 3403: 3394: 3389: 3387: 3382: 3380: 3375: 3374: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3359: 3353: 3352: 3346: 3341: 3340: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3324: 3323: 3308: 3304: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3289: 3284: 3282: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3250: 3244: 3241:mein gott! " 3240: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3197: 3194: 3192: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3104: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3073: 3067: 3066: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3034: 3026: 3025: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3005: 2999: 2998: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2952: 2946: 2945: 2937: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2847: 2841: 2840: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2805: 2799: 2793: 2792: 2784: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2743: 2738: 2736: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2719: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2662: 2661: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2441:down to this: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2405: 2404: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2311: 2307: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2247: 2244: 2236: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2219: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:United States 2178: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2161: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2062: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2043: 2040: 2038: 2032: 2028: 2023: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1869: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1814: 1813: 1806: 1800: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1784: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1759: 1753: 1745: 1743: 1737: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1701: 1695: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1662: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1538: 1537: 1531: 1525: 1524: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499:United States 1496: 1492: 1488: 1481: 1476: 1475: 1474:United States 1470: 1466: 1461: 1460:United States 1457: 1453: 1444: 1442: 1437: 1431: 1426: 1424: 1419: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1406: 1399: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1297: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1280: 1278: 1273: 1268: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1226: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1142: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1123: 1118: 1112: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1071:writer and a 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1041:professor of 1040: 1036: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1018: 1016: 1009: 1005: 1001: 999: 995: 988: 984: 981: 977: 971: 968: 966: 960: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 927: 924: 921: 916: 914: 910: 904: 902: 898: 894: 889: 882: 878: 873: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 843:WP:REPEATLINK 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 821: 820: 816: 812: 809: 805: 800: 798: 791: 787: 783: 780: 774: 770: 769: 768: 767: 761: 755: 751: 750: 743: 741: 737: 732: 726: 722: 720: 714: 710: 706: 698: 694: 692: 678: 675: 673: 667: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 648: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 630: 626: 622: 616: 610: 609: 608: 607: 603: 599: 575: 574: 571: 566: 564: 556: 552: 550: 546: 516: 511: 506: 505: 491: 490: 484: 481: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 457: 454: 451: 449: 446: 443: 440: 439: 438: 437: 431: 428: 427: 426: 425: 418: 415: 413: 410: 407: 404: 401: 398: 396: 393: 391: 388: 386: 383: 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 371: 370: 367: 366: 362: 357: 352: 351: 343: 339: 338: 333: 332: 327: 324: 320: 319: 307: 306: 301: 300: 295: 286: 282: 281: 277: 272: 270: 266: 262: 252: 248: 247: 244: 227: 223: 222: 217: 214: 210: 209: 205: 188: 185: 182: 178: 177: 169: 165: 162: 158: 155: 151: 150: 147: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 103: 102:→‎Overlinking 94: 90: 85: 78: 77: 74: 69: 60: 59:→‎Overlinking 45: 41: 36: 29: 19: 4330: 4303: 4286: 4222: 4216: 4210: 4136: 4126: 4113: 4108: 4087: 4082: 4078: 4069: 4039: 3989: 3963: 3924: 3916: 3907: 3899: 3891: 3883: 3836: 3829: 3822: 3799: 3791: 3783: 3775: 3767: 3759: 3740: 3722: 3714: 3707: 3627:All Is Found 3615: 3556:Frozen Heart 3544: 3481: 3473: 3465: 3459:Frozen Fever 3457: 3431: 3416: 3401: 3351: 3325: 3280: 3263: 3259: 3242: 3207: 3180: 3097: 3068: 3061: 3027: 3000: 2993: 2947: 2940: 2936:navigability 2935: 2931: 2903: 2842: 2835: 2794: 2787: 2777: 2751: 2739: 2734: 2714: 2663: 2658: 2634: 2632: 2612: 2565: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2415: 2384: 2379: 2309: 2260: 2255: 2237: 2232: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2138: 2134: 2051: 1815: 1764: 1758:pointed out 1723: 1681: 1648: 1642: 1603: 1567:When in Rome 1539: 1534: 1529: 1526: 1447:that were "R 1405:2009 in film 1283: 1230: 1227: 1223:WP:CONSENSUS 1218: 1214: 1207: 1196:WP:CONSENSUS 1128: 1124: 1097: 1077: 1045:teaching at 1028: 1023:common sense 1019: 1002: 994:Memory Alpha 969: 961: 949:WP:CONSENSUS 925: 917: 908: 905: 890: 887: 824: 803: 796: 795: 747: 744: 715: 688: 671: 633: 595: 578:Seeing green 562: 557: 553: 542: 509: 435: 434: 423: 422: 373: 372: 360: 335: 329: 303: 297: 258: 219: 28:old revision 25: 24: 4334:Ohconfucius 4246:Ohconfucius 4199:Ohconfucius 4175:Ohconfucius 4114:conditional 4062:Overlinking 3734:Video games 3605:Fixer Upper 3248:Ohconfucius 3227:Ohconfucius 3212:Art LaPella 3190:Ohconfucius 3185:wind you up 2978:Ohconfucius 2876:Art LaPella 2820:Art LaPella 2742:losing side 2693:Art LaPella 2588:Ohconfucius 2532:Art LaPella 2510:GeorgeLouis 2476:Art LaPella 2282:Art LaPella 2177:February 12 2036:Ohconfucius 1991:Ohconfucius 1867:Ohconfucius 1819:GeorgeLouis 1766:SMcCandlish 1725:SMcCandlish 1683:SMcCandlish 1650:SMcCandlish 1609:Ohconfucius 1575:Art LaPella 1381:Ohconfucius 1334:Art LaPella 1285:SMcCandlish 1130:SMcCandlish 855:Art LaPella 829:GeorgeLouis 827:Sincerely, 749:SMcCandlish 636:GeorgeLouis 598:GeorgeLouis 543:Our judge, 331:WP:PROPOSAL 299:WP:PROPOSAL 296:, refer to 26:This is an 3927:(season 3) 3919:(season 4) 3816:Literature 3701:Live shows 3495:Characters 3031:Here's an 2904:status quo 2721:scientists 2385:everywhere 2139:de minimus 1799:SlimVirgin 1420:qualify as 1215:only three 1200:WP:SELFREF 1073:Castillian 1063:and being 972:everything 953:WP:SELFREF 804:everything 782:scientists 773:your edit. 740:WP:SELFREF 701:; they do 267:, and the 154:WT:MOSLINK 3725:(musical) 3598:In Summer 3584:Let It Go 3440:accolades 3425:accolades 3400:Disney's 3326:Tony has 2729:polywater 2460:breakfast 1862:consensus 1857:US dollar 1503:Venezuela 1495:Indonesia 1188:WP:MOSNUM 1180:WP:POLICY 1104:severable 1089:obviously 1039:Botswanan 941:WP:MOSNUM 933:WP:POLICY 790:polywater 736:WP:MOSNUM 727:shouldn't 719:WP:MOSNUM 691:WP:POLICY 483:Archive 8 477:Archive 7 471:Archive 6 465:Archive 5 459:Archive 4 453:Archive 3 448:Archive 2 442:Archive 1 417:Archive 7 412:Archive 6 406:Archive 5 400:Archive 4 395:Archive 3 390:Archive 2 385:Archive 1 146:Shortcuts 4109:absolute 4023:A. di M. 3998:(NFL)? – 3982:Acronyms 3950:Category 3617:Frozen 2 3518:Kristoff 3433:Frozen 2 3358:AGradman 3210:" Sigh. 2969:land law 2872:WP:CIVIL 2718:American 2639:A. di M. 1777:Contribs 1736:Contribs 1694:Contribs 1661:Contribs 1643:de facto 1487:Botswana 1296:Contribs 1141:Contribs 1119:Not one. 1100:entirely 1069:Galician 1035:American 909:de facto 779:American 760:Contribs 651:Dabomb87 621:Dabomb87 588:Resolved 535:Resolved 361:Archives 168:WT:LINKS 93:contribs 44:contribs 4306:Done -- 4112:i.e. a 4000:CWenger 3848:Related 3753:Related 3687:Monster 3436:(2019) 3421:(2013) 3033:example 2723:in the 2617:DCGeist 2310:exactly 2031:germane 1845:English 1837:WP:TLDR 1630:usually 1511:Bauxite 1507:Bauxite 1323:WP:BIAS 1192:WP:BIAS 1176:WP:BOLD 1084:mistake 1061:Russian 1052:WP:BIAS 1043:physics 985:nothing 945:WP:BIAS 897:WP:BOLD 784:in the 697:scribe 685:Dispute 670:Adrian 510:20 days 430:Archive 161:WT:LINK 4293:(talk) 4143:(talk) 4127:single 4094:(talk) 4046:(talk) 3912:(2023) 3904:(2018) 3896:(2020) 3888:(2014) 3804:(2023) 3796:(2022) 3788:(2019) 3780:(2016) 3772:(2015) 3764:(2013) 3745:(2013) 3723:Frozen 3546:Frozen 3486:(2021) 3478:(2020) 3470:(2017) 3462:(2015) 3451:Shorts 3418:Frozen 3402:Frozen 3298:HWV258 3287:(talk) 3162:HWV258 3131:HWV258 3103:HWV258 3040:HWV258 2867:France 2754:Greg L 2572:HWV258 2506:WP:MOS 2390:Greg L 2345:HWV258 2315:HWV258 2266:HWV258 2218:HWV258 2160:HWV258 2119:HWV258 2061:HWV258 1880:HWV258 1639:WP:FAN 1635:WP:GAC 1600:Canada 1497:, the 1491:France 1469:WP:FAC 1465:WP:GAN 1441:WP:BRD 1258:, but 1236:Greg L 1231:great. 1184:WP:MOS 1172:WP:BRD 1155:HWV258 1015:WP:AFD 965:WP:RFC 937:WP:MOS 920:WP:BRD 901:WP:IAR 893:WP:BRD 872:HWV258 811:Greg L 674:Hunter 569:(talk) 344:pages. 3665:Other 3537:Music 3264:there 3157:Jihad 3077:edits 3029:foul. 3009:edits 2956:edits 2851:edits 2803:edits 2725:1960s 2660:Ckatz 2468:elbow 2464:river 2330:Rrius 2261:we're 2234:Ckatz 2190:Rrius 2144:Rrius 2095:Rrius 2077:Rrius 2007:Rrius 1986:zloty 1951:Rrius 1773:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1771:Talk⇒ 1732:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1730:Talk⇒ 1718:there 1690:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1688:Talk⇒ 1657:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1655:Talk⇒ 1536:Ckatz 1505:" at 1376:China 1292:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1290:Talk⇒ 1137:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1135:Talk⇒ 1113:strip 1093:added 1065:Maori 1006:isn't 786:1960s 756:ʕ(ل)ˀ 754:Talk⇒ 545:Ceoil 16:< 4287:Tony 4137:Tony 4088:Tony 4040:Tony 4027:talk 4004:talk 3969:talk 3528:Hans 3523:Sven 3513:Olaf 3508:Elsa 3503:Anna 3281:Tony 3260:here 3216:talk 3071:talk 3064:N-HH 3003:talk 2996:N-HH 2950:talk 2943:N-HH 2913:talk 2909:John 2880:talk 2845:talk 2838:N-HH 2824:talk 2797:talk 2790:N-HH 2783:here 2778:have 2758:talk 2697:talk 2689:this 2643:talk 2621:talk 2536:talk 2514:talk 2480:talk 2394:talk 2334:talk 2286:talk 2213:That 2194:talk 2184:and 2148:talk 2114:here 2112:and 2110:here 2099:talk 2091:dodo 2081:talk 2056:dodo 2022:US$ 2011:talk 1988:. -- 1955:talk 1911:US$ 1823:talk 1716:(or 1714:here 1637:and 1579:talk 1501:and 1482:more 1467:and 1372:this 1338:talk 1264:that 1240:talk 1219:that 1198:and 1108:must 1056:Iraq 951:and 859:talk 833:talk 815:talk 738:and 655:talk 640:talk 625:talk 602:talk 563:Tony 328:See 133:diff 127:) | 125:diff 113:diff 89:talk 40:talk 3994:or 2971:or 2735:one 2668:spy 2566:all 2456:dog 2380:not 2263:". 2242:spy 2135:was 1604:sic 1544:spy 1427:one 1413:are 1269:how 1260:you 1221:is 1080:not 1031:you 989:any 891:1. 731:RfC 723:not 711:pre 707:pro 703:not 49:at 4228:-- 4186:-- 4172:-- 4162:-- 4029:) 4006:) 3967:/ 3360:/ 3267:-- 3218:) 2915:) 2907:-- 2882:) 2826:) 2760:) 2699:) 2657:-- 2645:) 2623:) 2538:) 2530:. 2516:) 2482:) 2466:, 2462:, 2458:, 2396:) 2336:) 2288:) 2196:) 2150:) 2101:) 2083:) 2058:. 2013:) 1957:) 1855:, 1851:, 1847:, 1825:) 1755:}} 1752:wb 1749:{{ 1581:) 1573:. 1493:, 1489:, 1364:do 1340:) 1281:— 1242:) 1194:, 1190:, 1186:, 1182:, 1178:, 1174:, 1010:is 996:, 947:, 943:, 939:, 935:, 861:) 853:. 835:) 817:) 745:— 695:de 672:J. 657:) 642:) 627:) 618:}} 615:xt 612:{{ 604:) 590:– 537:– 119:| 115:) 91:| 42:| 4025:( 4002:( 3858:" 3854:" 3689:" 3685:" 3682:" 3678:" 3675:" 3671:" 3657:" 3653:" 3650:" 3646:" 3643:" 3639:" 3636:" 3632:" 3629:" 3625:" 3607:" 3603:" 3600:" 3596:" 3593:" 3589:" 3586:" 3582:" 3579:" 3575:" 3572:" 3568:" 3565:" 3561:" 3558:" 3554:" 3392:e 3385:t 3378:v 3303:. 3214:( 3206:" 3179:" 3167:. 3136:. 3108:. 3096:" 3074:/ 3045:. 3006:/ 2953:/ 2911:( 2878:( 2848:/ 2822:( 2800:/ 2756:( 2731:. 2695:( 2641:( 2619:( 2577:. 2534:( 2512:( 2478:( 2392:( 2350:. 2332:( 2320:. 2284:( 2271:. 2259:" 2223:. 2192:( 2165:. 2146:( 2124:. 2108:( 2097:( 2079:( 2066:. 2050:" 2020:( 2009:( 1953:( 1885:. 1821:( 1779:. 1738:. 1696:. 1663:. 1577:( 1449:" 1336:( 1298:. 1238:( 1206:. 1160:. 1143:. 877:. 857:( 831:( 813:( 799:. 792:. 762:. 653:( 638:( 623:( 600:( 518:. 135:) 131:( 123:( 111:( 106:) 98:( 95:) 87:( 76:. 63:) 55:( 46:) 38:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Linking - Knowledge

Index