674:
refer to). I would suggest that the most user-friendly way to deal with this would be the implementation of different markup for important and incidental links... maybe important links are blue/red and underlined, while incidental links are only highlighted on mouseover. While I realise that this would probably take effort to implement, it would make pages look considerably cleaner to have only important links highlighted. Maybe (assuming infinite time available to the programmers), a user could have a cookie-retained choice to remove incidental links entirely, or to have all (or no) links highlighted.
1557:
frankly, there is a difference between a vanity page for "the owner of
Mountlake Terrace's largest 7-Eleven" and an article describing, in brief, the diplomatic actions of Cameroon's representative in Canada. Are you opposed to an article on the United States' ambassador to the United Kingdom? If so, I wonder who does qualify for articles. If not, then why should we look down on ambassadors from poor countries/Third World countries/countries most Wikipedians have not traveled to? I think there is a bias here. After all, I'm sure I could find a page full of red links to
31:
626:. But then let's turn off the colored links on the article pages and use CSS mouseovers to highlight links only when the mouse cursor passes over them. Plain black-on-white text again! Maybe generate a box (like the TOC) at the bottom of the article listing the articles the text is linked to. Yes, I realize displayed links are helpful when
1526:, the current Cameroonian ambassador to Canada? A solid biography of Mr Yang (I'm assuming Phil's a mister) and a brief but thorough history of his diplomatic and political career? Hopefully it'll appear before someone else has suceeded him as Ambassador because an article on the former Cameroonian ambassador to Canada seems pointless.
1670:
There are many articles that deal with imaginary subjects: SF, TV, movies, urban legends ... . I will try to over-link these articles. This possibly helps people to go back to the real world. It's usually next to impossible for a SF movie to link to another one, unless filmmakers wanted to do so. But
1613:
annoying we should add a user config option to not display incomplete links, (yes I know this isn't the place to suggest software mods but I was just trying to help solve a disagreement, if others agree I could add the request on sourceforge). In my suggestion there would be 3 choices for the display
745:
Try "142" without the AD; articles discussing events of 142 don't add "AD" everywhere. There are lots of other examples where searching doesn't work well, that's just a really obvious one. Also, I don't think Google spiders the whole thing daily, it regularly shows me material I edited out weeks ago.
423:
I have to agree with
Viajero. This article looks a mess as it stands and most of the links told me nothing I needed to know in order to increase my understanding of the article. And it's far from being the only article I've seen that's in this state. Readability must be the prime aim, surely? And all
1724:
articles to link densely to other articles on the same topic. If one sees a lot of links to psychology in a history article, or to history in a mathematics article, however, it may be time to figure out which are really essential or neutral. One mistake to avoid is censoring out-links to other topic
1536:
My personal suggestion is that when you're wikifying an article, ask yourself these questions before creating a red link: Should this article exist? Would there be information in this theoretical article that goes beyond what's in this existing article? Is it ever likely to be written? Would someone
1510:
them? I guess that's more annoying! Besides, i have to check out all the links in my article to see if they exist before i submit it. which one is more annoying? i strongly believe that a red link gives
Wikipedians a desire to creat it. What we need to worry about, is the vandalism, IMO. PS: I DON'T
1318:
I propose a system of formatting the links so that there are different level views of them. Perhaps three or four levels ranging from level one which is an obvious underlined link to level 3 or 4 which would be completly invisible unless a mouse over event occured on the link. The middle level could
693:
Add my vote to the side of conservative links that pay attention to the context. Excessive linking is just plain hard to read. The arguments for mass-linking do not convince me. If I want to find every reference to a topic (like a date), I can use the search function at the top of the page. We are
302:
That being said, I find the guidelines suggested here reasonably sensible: just link birth, death, and epoch-defining events. Don't put in links for subsidiary information that doesn't exist, like book titles or geographical dependencies. But when one refers other users to this page, one hears (like
1704:
has extensive guidelines for the writing of articles. However, it has few for the choice and editing of links. As a result, some articles are under-linked, others over-linked, there are articles created earlier which lack links to those created later, and external links often appear by surprise in
1578:
I guess there's little point in arguing against the consensus. Personally I think that Anglo-American relations are more objectively important than
Cameroonian-Canadian relations and I think this is a reflection of reality not bias. If everything is equally relevant, than why say that an ambassador
1202:
requiring any special syntax on the part of the author? I think we would still want ways of piping and highlighting explicit links, and I don't know how it would affect "what links here", whether we'd make that highlighted and/or piped links only, or whether we'd want to have some parameters so you
771:
has 22 entries in "What Links Here". 12 are other date-recap pages and two are these pages discussing the example. By my count, that leaves eight relevant pages. Google search finds 193 entries, most of which have nothing to do with the year 142. I guess I can see your point for references to years
1263:
previous contributions when I try! This archive does deal with the reader experience, but it seems to me that despite this many still assume that every reader is going to have the same experience (and generally, will think the same as they do, despite the overwhelming evidence that we are a rather
673:
I would say that there seem to be two types of links - there are links indicating a relation to another article on a similar subject, or on which an article is dependant; and then there are also links to other articles which are incidentally referred to (but which a reader may occasionally want to
574:
dates and proper nouns, and even common nouns and verbs in an article, irrespective of whether there is any high-level conceptual relation (there are some examples mentioned in the preceding discussion; I can think of more). I realize you consider the latter a "subjective" judgement, but it is no
1592:
Let me say again, I have no objection to people writing these pages. The problem is people not writing these pages. But pages are still be creating, literally by the thousands, that nobody will ever write. Do we really want to reach a point where the majority of this project is empty boxes? In my
1556:
Yes, MK. The job sounds massive--almost as though someone was trying to build the world's largest 💕 using only volunteer editors. :-) Seriously, MK, it doesn't sound any more daunting than, well, doing what we've been doing for the last several years. Red links mean we add more articles. And
1278:
tough. Even knowing what I was looking for, I had to read through 3 times to find it. I was referring to the difficulties with what was called "auto-linking" above and in the archive. Basically that there is no way to link every word without missing all the links that depend on multiple words.
921:
I see a lot of this, and I don't understand it. What purpose is served by linking the word "French" twice, rather than just on its first appearance in the paragraph? And, what purpose is served by linking to these terms in the first place? There seems to be a frenzy in
Knowledge (XXG) to wikilink
1794:
Please remember that every link makes the text slightly more difficult to read, and may encourage some readers to divert from the topic. Fewer links will invest greater importance in the remaining links. In general, I think that
Knowledge (XXG) articles are overlinked, in particular with general
1768:
depends on its comparison to others, a place in London can only be reached or understood in relation to others around it, and ecoregions likewise can only be understood as unique in relation to others on their borders or elsewhere in the world, one expects dense linking and detailed comparison.
280:
I wish someone would explain to me the rationale behind linking to dates. Personally, I have never clicked on a day, a year, or a decade in the course of reading an article. Is there something wrong with me? ;-) Theoretically, I can imagine that there might be some use for seeing what links to a
1679:
Trying to subvert the author's intent with excessive linkage is a losing stategy: when everything is linked to none of the links will ever be followed. On the other hand you can, for example, go around adding paragraphs discussing the social/political/economic/philosophic premises underlying a
1319:
be blue (or whatever colour is logical) high lighted text but not underlined. This way people who prefer lots of linking could delegate the less important links to a lower priority which would facilitate ease of reading and allow a more rich tapestry of links for those who prefer more linking.--
1788:. There is probably no other way to become user-driven with regard to the way that the encyclopedia puts paths in front of its users. A forest or garden path is beaten flat and thus the most commonly taken route s visible. Knowledge (XXG) by contrast is more of a jungle that quickly overgrows.
1776:
of links that users actually follow - showing what they perceive as coherent subjects or topic areas, and which are the most common pathways from one article to another. The most heavily travelled link paths can be shortened by including clarifying texts and links to the articles most commonly
1305:
Worth a try. This does seem to offer the best of both worlds. I'm fascinated at the suggestion above that we can't make every word a non-highlighted link for technical reasons. I'm guessing these may be capacity/performance considerations, or it may just be that the proposal was misunderstood.
1835:
However, what irritates some
Wikipedians more than such articles themselves are links to the articles that make the minor subject seem more important than it is. When creating an article about minor subjects, a good policy is to avoid the temptation to link to it from pages where it is not
1548:
Very amusing. Phil's been taken care of. Which is one down; one hundred and thirty three to go. Which will complete one page of the four I mentioned. Which were only four random examples of the hundreds of similar pages that surely exist. Starting to get an idea of the size of the
520:
article. I don't understand the idea of not making links to topics just because one doesn't know anything about them; one of the things I enjoy about WP is discovering that an unlikely-looking link in an article leads into a whole field of whose existence I was previously unaware.
1018:, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that appear in your article for which it could be worthwhile to read the linked article. However, don't overdo it. Do not link every occurrence of a word; simply linking the first time the word appears will usually be enough.
1228:
There has already been quite a bit of discussion on why we can't link every word. Some technological and some based on our assumptions about the ideal reader experience. You might be interested to read the discussion above and the prior discussion that has been moved to the
826:
As a side-note, I am aggressively deleting redundant links (two or more links to the same place within a single article). Even granting the most liberal of the arguments above, they serve no purpose. They just clutter up the page and make future maintenance much harder.
1327:
This sounds like a very good system to me. In addition, logged on users could have something in their preferences to remove all links below a certain level. Combined with user stylesheets, this would allow everyone to see the wiki in whatever manner best suits them.
842:
I disagree. If an article is five screens long, I don't want to have to search backwards through the text to find the first instance of a term if I find myself interested in it later in the reading. First occurence within a subsection is a more reasonable
515:
article, which I expect will be the smallest of the bunch, still needs to say something about which flights carried what, postmarks on the various space stations, process, the political fights, etc, which would be too long and complicated for the generic
809:. I want to be able to have instant reference to the historical context of any event deemed worthy of recording the date of. Otherwise, why are you bothering to put the date that something occurred? It doesn't make sense NOT to Wikify all dates.--
1486:
What Nunh-huh said. On lists like 12th
Congress, all of those names eventually (sometime in the next decade) should get articles of their own. In actual articles overwikification is a huge problem, especially with dates. But in lists is
544:
article was not a good example of overlinking. You added those links with deliberation, and it sounds like you will probably write the corresponding articles in due time. That's fine. I enjoy learning new things too; now I know what
81:
76:
71:
59:
1464:
I agree that in narrative text, overwikification is very annoying. But I'd draw a distinction between narrative text and lists: in lists of films, books, credits, etc, like those pointed to by MK, it's less annoying to have them
729:
returns just one. Hence, I am not convinced that Google is necessarily worse. As for reflecting the current state of the database, Google seems to spider WP daily, meaning only the most very recent changes don't show up. --
1359:. There's over two hundred red links to empty articles on these four pages alone. And looking at the titles of these empties, it's likely nobody is ever going to fill them in with any article, let alone one worth reading.
320:
Sorry, you can't; they distract the eye. Hence I believe
Wikilinks should be used with discretion, and only for articles related that bear some kind of high-level relation, and certainly not for common English nouns like
649:
Such a scheme would be marginally less writer-friendly but so much more reader-friendly. I expect it would even increase the quality of articles too, as writers would be less hypnotized by the colored links. --
1230:
971:
word would be a link. It seems clear that this is not the way to go. But one of the really wonderful things about wikipedia is the robust links between pages. Let's not get too strict about removing links....
47:
17:
1180:
types or something similar. So, some of us may see the clutter as objectionable, and others as not. Some may see trivial links as helpful, and some not. And, we should expect our readers to be similarly
1057:
Helpful links are those which either a reader is going to be looking for, or isn't going to be looking for but will recognise as helpful and say "Aha!" when they see them. But deciding this isn't always
394:), and we use them to find refs that need disambiguation. Also, you can't assume readers know as much as you do, and you can't assume that searching works usefully; while I know about the fine points of
1298:
I support having a choice: let the ] code give non-underlined links, and add a new code for underlined links, to be used when the writer wants to draw attention to a related topic/definition/name/etc.
271:
I have become gradually converted to more extensive linking. I now link all dates, all proper nouns, and all abstract nouns. I don't link common nouns unless there is some particular reason to do so.
259:
article said something more about just what he accomplished with all those years in all those jobs, the link density would be a lot lower. He was presumably a historian in the Navy - did he work with
348:
I agree with
Viajero's rant. When I write, I avoid linking phrases unless I myself see a connection. If it's an article about one country's relation to another, well, then that's the connection!
1343:
I apologize if I'm raising this issue in the wrong forum or if it's already been discussed. But I've noticed several examples of what I'd call overwikification. Check out these articles:
694:
trying to create an encyclopedia that is attractive and easy to use. Too many links make it harder - just as too few links. Authors and editors have a responsibility to make judgements.
1609:
are bad. The first argument I am going to steer well away from. The second one however, seems easy, (philosophically at least). If there are a reasonable amount of people who find the
1561:, and I can't imagine you want those pages dewikified, else you'll never know the articles need writing. The problem you are asking to have solved is not a problem, in my opinion.
930:
I agree. I often remove links where they bear absolutely no relevance to the article. Particularly dates, where the date has no real significance. For example in the article on
1531:
If we're going to have a standard that any subject potentially deserves an article because someone may be interested, why do we discourage vanity pages and high school articles?
369:. It would NOT help if Fuzheado deleted the GW hypothesis page, because then the link from the medium sized Kyoto Protocal article would go to the super-large, poorly-organized
1344:
1848:
982:
583:, which I think is (typo)graphic embarrassment; it is anti-reader. It is linking simply for linking sake, without logical basis, and it makes this enterprise look amateurish.
1693:
These pages (which have not been discussed for quite a while) seem to discuss issues similar to those discussed here. I have therefore made them redirects to this page.
779:
so the count would be managable.) What links here = 80, many of which are other date-recap pages. Google search "February 29" = 39 hits but they all had high relevance.
398:
in a naval context, I want uncertain readers to look at the article rather than make assumptions, and the blue lighting is a hint. Lots of free links in articles like
1221:
What I'm trying to do here is have my cake and eat it too, to have the best of both worlds by both maximising links and minimising clutter. Anyway, food for thought?
312:
Even more so than bold and italic, wikilink is a form of emphasis; the way the software is written, a link is not hidden until you pass the mouse over it but rather
1469:
wikified. And many of them will come to have articles eventually: several of those in Tom Berenger's list, for example have three or more links to them already. -
1370:
I can't really see the harm. It's possible that they may just inspire an interested party to write a series of articles for them - it's certainly happened before.
1769:
However, in some cases, there may be special articles just on comparisons or categories, in which case, those overviews are the place to discuss and compare.
619:
We can attempt to rationalize linking and expand upon the guidelines listed on this meta page, and try to promote a more conservative approach to linking. Or
1795:
links that can be of no immediate use to the reader in understanding the topic. Whoever started linking broad chronological items on Knowledge (XXG), e.g.,
263:
perhaps? What kind of advice did he give to all those presidents? This article is a good start, but it's completely colorless (figuratively speaking :-) ).
511:. One of my rules of thumb is that any subject with a scholarly book dedicated to it will easily justify a 1-2 page article of its own. For instance, the
922:
anything at all for which an article exists. Isn't it preferable to link only those that are clearly relevant to the article from which they're linked?
989:. I prefer the former, since it makes it easier to read, and when only a few words are linked, it draws your attention to the more important words. --
382:
While links are primarily aids to the reader, they are also aids to maintenance; for instance, backlinks often find orphaned or misconnected articles (
289:
for example, you get an undifferentiated list of five hundred article titles. What possible use can this have? One can also search Knowledge (XXG) for
214:
1753:
236:
Can you please clarify: does this refer only to links authors put in their articles or also to links others also add to yours? I mean, there are
1811:
1671:
all fictional subjects link to the shared human knowledge base. If we over-link, some very important articles will be more oftenly visited. --
1332:
678:
1067:
Linking to the same article twice, or to articles of no likely relevance, just clutters the page and makes it harder to see the useful links.
888:
people were responsible for the Statue and its assembly here in the United States. However, lack of funds was a problem on both sides of the
1048:
is IMO a line call, it depends on whether there is something important about the number three that makes it particularly apt for this story.
1726:
1259:
I've now read this archive too. Thank you! There is so much archived discussion it's impossible to read it all, often I can't even find my
877:
1761:
356:(If you click on the "What links here" command at the United States page, you'll see every article containing a ]-style link to the US.
1836:
particularly relevant or important. Instead, limit yourself to creating links from pages where the subject really is highly relevant.
1447:
exist, along with an article on every movie in IMDB and every band at Ultimate Band List. I've got no problem with these articles.
795:. My alternative of google-searching is not a panacea. But I still think that excessive links make the article harder to read and
1443:
Well, I can't speak for everybody, but I "strongly feel" that an article for every member of the U.S. House (past and present)
361:
Also, if I'm using jargon as in scientific articles, I think it helps the reader to be able to click on unfamiliar terms like "
1757:
507:
Heh, this may be hard to believe, but each of those subjects is a recognized collecting specialty, with multiple books in the
1784:
Sadly, this data is not now being made available to contributors or editors, and this should probably be a priority for some
1356:
575:
more subjective than the process of deciding what go into an article. The problem is, taken to its logical extreme, linking
1785:
1362:
Maybe we need to discuss some informal standard an empty article needs to rise to before someone creates a red link to it.
1605:
To me this seems to be 2 slightly different arguments going on here, firstly what deserves an article, and secondly that
365:" (a nice, short explanation that they can read in a minute or two) when reading about the politics and economics of the
1629:
Do not leave any links from the article to itself, including through redirects, since this annoys readers considerably.
333:
looks an embarassingly amateuristic, a travesty of good taste. Are we slaves to the software and stick links everywhere
1001:
1152:
hinder the eye, as you demonstrated above. Tell me: what exactly is the point of linking every date: how often have
1256:
read the above discussion before posting. I guess many don't and I accept that your comment is meant to be helpful.
38:
1843:
986:
1730:
1424:
unless you either a) know that an article for the linked term exists or b) feel strongly that the article should
362:
313:
411:
1828:
Knowledge (XXG) contains many articles on subjects that are relatively unimportant, and this is fine, because
1749:
869:
1371:
706:
AD by searching, and beware, Google searching does not reflect the current state of the database accurately.
414:(Neustadt had homes on each side of the Atlantic) - yep, links are a good way to detect misspellings... :-)
136:
1267:
I can't see where the technical problem is discussed, and I'm very interested, could you be more specific?
1523:
1041:
1738:
1734:
1329:
844:
810:
675:
508:
192:
Oh no! Given the subject, all that red and blue on a white background looks quite patriotic :) --
1640:
That's already the policy (though it is not spelled out on this page - I can't remember which page it
1348:
1045:
260:
193:
1028:
which I think is about right. It's not always an easy call, but for instance linking to the number
1610:
1299:
1125:
942:
Various episodes have given his date of birth as May 12 1956, May 10 1955, and even 17-23-1956 .
491:
425:
184:
1864:
1401:
448:
1870:
1615:
1562:
859:
403:
149:
133:
1606:
1594:
1550:
1538:
1382:
1363:
1156:
followed a date link? At what is the point of linking every occurence of New York City??? --
1829:
1320:
990:
580:
399:
330:
256:
100:
1745:
in general, even if mathematicians, physicists or other scientists might prefer it not be.
1689:
Text deleted from Knowledge (XXG):Link editing and Knowledge (XXG):Links to minor subjects
836:
792:
747:
707:
522:
424:
that coloured and underlined text certainly does not aid readability; quite the opposite.
415:
264:
183:
Maybe you should create stubs for all the red links, then it will be uniformely blue. :-)
1656:
1633:
1176:
It seems to me that there may be different ways of working here. These may reflect our
1015:
889:
512:
487:
460:
370:
366:
272:
202:
1765:
1470:
1429:
1093:
973:
959:
931:
923:
881:
464:
351:
145:
1796:
1773:
1645:
1352:
1307:
1280:
1268:
1234:
1222:
1177:
1157:
1077:
828:
800:
731:
695:
651:
546:
472:
456:
444:
374:
338:
241:
176:
125:
1778:
1701:
1409:
1856:
1717:
1705:
the middle of articles. This is a draft policy for editing links, not articles.
1672:
1448:
786:. What links here = 63. Google search = 209 but relevance drops off at about 50.
776:
702:
Searching really doesn't work that well; just try finding all the references to
452:
440:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1708:
One guide to areas of coherent discourse that should heavily inter-link is the
1808:
1742:
1713:
1512:
1397:
1140:
1128:
783:
218:
579:
results in articles where there is more linked text than plain text, like in
1709:
1681:
1390:
1502:, which means once the links are available, we have to search them all in
240:
of people who go through articles here doing nothing but adding links. --
1522:
So people are claiming that there actually will someday be an article on
1394:
1033:
1721:
1680:
science-fictional scenario, and judiciously link to those subjects. --
1413:
1405:
1076:
I probably tend to err towards overlinking as the lesser of two evils.
541:
517:
468:
436:
395:
97:
1421:
1212:
And, I don't know how or whether it would impact our database design.
1121:
1113:
893:
885:
865:
167:
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context
772:
because you get so many false positives especially for low years AD.
1655:
It's kind of obvious, and people don't do it intentionally anyway.
1014:...The use of so-called "free links" to other topics, for example,
337:, or do we use our intelligence and pick and choose carefully? --
1800:
1425:
1136:
1097:
1029:
322:
201:
I always disliked all the years in Knowledge (XXG) being linked.
172:
118:
1855:
I believe the title of this page says all that needs to be said.
1752:
list. These are closely related article clusters on things like
1644:
on). Feel free to add it if you think it would be helpful here.
967:
But this is a hard call. The original idea of hypertext was that
402:
is also a sign that we're still missing necessary articles. BTW,
303:
above) that the page is "controversial" and "is not policy". Heh?
217:
is not policy, and it is rude to revert other people's linking.
1804:
1417:
1386:
1117:
1109:
1101:
1089:
1036:
is I think good (and I must do it), while linking to the number
873:
387:
286:
159:
128:
121:
115:
112:
109:
1777:
reached in two or three links while browsing - thus making the
1428:
and have a reasonable expectation that someday it will exist.
1132:
1105:
1037:
768:
718:
703:
391:
383:
326:
141:
103:
94:
25:
876:
in mind for completion, to commemorate the centennial of the
775:
A quick test on a random date found the following: (I picked
1593:
opinion this would make a mockery of what we're doing here.
215:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Make only links relevant to the context
549:
is! (And hopefully will learn even more in a short while!)
154:
1817:
Text deleted from Knowledge (XXG):Links to minor subjects
1537:
be likely to be looking for an article with this subject?
490:
is clearly explained by the sentence in which it occurs.
316:, and I am entirely unconvinced by people who argue that
451:. These are "missing necessary articles" ?!?!?! As for
1849:
Knowledge (XXG):Make only links relevant to the context
1626:
How about adding the following sentence to the policy:
1044:
would be quite wrong, linking to the number three from
835:
That's the usual rule - only link a first appearance.
872:
was commissioned to design a sculpture with the year
1807:, deserves to be horse-whipped; it's now a scourge.
1781:
a far more convenient place to get quick briefings.
1345:
List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada
1148:Well, this is precisely the point: excessive links
1498:What? you want us to re-wikify them all after they
1404:almost everything regardless of whether the linked
630:
an article, so we display them in the Preview mode.
1511:like repeated wikified links in one article... --
725:returns eight hits, of which half spurious, with
721:displays two linked pages; searching Google with
1748:Another guide to areas that are coherent is the
1614:of bad links, red, question mark or plain text.
880:. It was agreed upon that in a joint effort the
1194:implement the original idea of hypertext, that
1697:Text deleted from Knowledge (XXG):Link editing
8:
1274:Wading through the old conversation threads
884:people were to build the pedestal, and the
1002:Knowledge (XXG): Manual of style#Free links
350:Iraq was invaded by a coalition led by the
1279:(Others said it better than I am doing.)
1190:Is there any reason that Knowledge (XXG)
600:At this point, we can one of two things:
1823:This page is not official at this time.
1727:this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook
983:make only links relevant to the context
406:is a red link because it's misspelled
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1579:is more important than a store owner?
1559:people MK thinks should have articles
7:
878:American Declaration of Independence
765:Just tried it. Test results below:
439:, I notice you have red links for
24:
807:All date links should be Wikified
791:My conclusion: The facts support
1832:, and the articles can all fit.
467:, why not simply expand them in
281:given date, but if you click on
29:
1357:Twelfth United States Congress
862:has a section that now reads:
566:For me, the issue remains the
1:
1844:Knowledge (XXG):Build the web
1812:23:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1666:Fabricated stories v. reality
1412:was getting started. I don't
1830:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper
1408:exists was more useful when
1400:. I suspect the practice of
1772:A third guide would be the
1750:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
1741:to be well integrated with
1333:13:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
1203:could choose how it worked.
679:15:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
435:Stan, In your new article
318:you can simply ignore them.
314:it jumps right out the page
1887:
1762:all the world's ecoregions
1675:03:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
870:Frederic Auguste Bartholdi
410:mislocated - it should be
1873:12:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1731:philosophy of mathematics
1636:09:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1618:02:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1323:04:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1302:11:00, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
363:global warming hypothesis
293:. What is the difference?
1859:23:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1684:19:16, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
1659:13:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1648:13:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1553:15:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1515:12:17, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
1366:22:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1271:18:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1225:02:58, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
926:04:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
899:The edit added links to
847:14:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
839:17:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
831:16:02, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
813:14:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
803:21:33, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
797:are not worth the effort
698:16:02, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
624:everything to everything
577:everything to everything
412:Wellfleet, Massachusetts
179:14:33, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
1786:future software release
1597:07:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1565:17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1541:16:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1473:23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1451:23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1432:22:59, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1374:22:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1310:18:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1283:00:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1252:Just for the record, I
1237:17:22, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1160:16:48, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1143:13:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1080:06:12, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
993:05:58, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
976:05:29, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
962:04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
958:before I removed them!
750:19:51, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
734:18:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
710:17:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
654:19:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
525:14:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
494:13:26, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
475:12:51, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
428:11:08, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
418:00:32, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
377:14:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
341:14:27, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
267:07:28, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
244:14:27, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
221:01:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
205:23:06, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
196:15:56, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
187:15:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
854:more from village pump
1865:Knowledge (XXG):Links
1739:philosophy of physics
1735:philosophy of science
952:May 12, 1956, May 10,
950:contained 4 links to
782:Testing a non-date:
727:"142 AD" OR "AD 142"
509:philatelic literature
42:of past discussions.
1349:Survivor: Pulau Tiga
1042:The six o'clock news
261:Samuel Eliot Morison
1524:Philémon Yunji Yang
896:, public fees, ...
717:I just tried this.
540:Stan, clearly your
329:. In visual terms,
1372:Ambivalenthysteria
1764:. As choice of a
860:Statue of Liberty
858:A recent edit of
622:We say, ok, link
90:From Village pump
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1878:
1725:areas - this is
1632:Any objections?
1339:Overwikification
981:See the debate:
581:Richard Neustadt
400:Richard Neustadt
331:Richard Neustadt
257:Richard Neustadt
101:Richard Neustadt
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1819:
1779:Knowledge (XXG)
1729:so one expects
1702:Knowledge (XXG)
1699:
1691:
1668:
1624:
1410:Knowledge (XXG)
1341:
1198:word is a link
1046:The three bears
856:
386:was elected in
283:What links here
194:Finlay McWalter
139:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1884:
1882:
1868:
1867:
1861:
1860:
1852:
1851:
1846:
1826:
1825:
1818:
1815:
1754:voting systems
1712:. One expects
1698:
1695:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1650:
1649:
1623:
1620:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1543:
1542:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1376:
1375:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1265:
1257:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1162:
1161:
1145:
1144:
1120:as it doesn't
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:George W. Bush
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
995:
994:
978:
977:
964:
963:
947:
946:
945:
944:
936:
935:
913:Atlantic Ocean
890:Atlantic Ocean
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
789:
788:
787:
780:
773:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
738:
737:
736:
735:
712:
711:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
620:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
513:astrophilately
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
488:Astrophilately
479:
478:
477:
476:
461:dirigible mail
430:
429:
420:
419:
379:
378:
371:global warming
367:Kyoto Protocol
358:
357:
345:
344:
343:
342:
335:because we can
307:
306:
305:
304:
297:
296:
295:
294:
269:
268:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
207:
206:
198:
197:
189:
188:
132:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1883:
1874:
1872:
1866:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1837:
1833:
1831:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1789:
1787:
1782:
1780:
1775:
1770:
1767:
1766:voting system
1763:
1759:
1756:, places in
1755:
1751:
1746:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1706:
1703:
1696:
1694:
1688:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1665:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1635:
1630:
1627:
1621:
1619:
1617:
1612:
1611:missing links
1608:
1596:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1514:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1365:
1360:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:84.92.118.165
1326:
1325:
1324:
1322:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1301:
1300:Exploding Boy
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1019:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
996:
992:
988:
987:build the web
984:
980:
979:
975:
970:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
943:
940:
939:
938:
937:
933:
932:Homer Simpson
929:
928:
927:
925:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
897:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
861:
853:
846:
845:64.254.131.70
841:
840:
838:
834:
833:
832:
830:
812:
811:64.254.131.70
808:
805:
804:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
781:
778:
774:
770:
767:
766:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
749:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
733:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
697:
680:
677:
676:84.92.118.165
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
582:
578:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
548:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
524:
519:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
474:
470:
466:
465:zeppelin mail
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
427:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
355:
353:
352:United States
347:
346:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:
300:
299:
298:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
199:
195:
191:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
178:
174:
170:
169:
164:
161:
157:
156:
151:
147:
143:
138:
135:
130:
127:
123:
120:
117:
114:
111:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1869:
1838:
1834:
1827:
1822:
1797:17th century
1791:
1790:
1783:
1774:Markov chain
1771:
1747:
1707:
1700:
1692:
1669:
1641:
1631:
1628:
1625:
1616:Steven jones
1604:
1563:Jwrosenzweig
1558:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1466:
1444:
1361:
1353:Tom Berenger
1342:
1317:
1275:
1264:varied lot).
1260:
1253:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1178:Myers-Briggs
1153:
1149:
1013:
968:
955:
951:
941:
934:the sentence
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
898:
864:
857:
825:
806:
796:
726:
722:
692:
627:
623:
576:
571:
568:unreflective
567:
547:missile mail
457:balloon mail
445:missile mail
407:
349:
334:
317:
290:
282:
270:
237:
166:
162:
153:
106:
93:
65:
43:
37:
1718:mathematics
1321:Mikeroodeus
1167:Some ideas:
991:Minesweeper
843:standard.--
777:February 29
570:linking of
453:pigeon mail
441:rocket mail
373:article. --
36:This is an
1839:See also:
1743:philosophy
1714:psychology
1622:Self links
1420:should be
1402:wikifiying
1398:irritation
1129:experience
1112:links the
1088:We should
784:Henry Ford
449:space mail
1710:Main Page
1657:Gadykozma
1634:Gadykozma
1607:red links
1391:prevalent
1381:I'm with
868:sculptor
628:composing
203:Tempshill
137:billboard
134:Las Vegas
124:, and to
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1792:Opinion:
1471:Nunh-huh
1430:Dpbsmith
1395:annoying
1034:triangle
974:RayKiddy
960:HappyDog
924:Dpbsmith
905:American
882:American
404:Welfleet
375:Uncle Ed
150:wikified
1722:history
1646:Rossami
1487:cool...
1414:believe
1406:article
1393:and an
1308:Andrewa
1281:Rossami
1269:Andrewa
1235:Rossami
1231:archive
1223:Andrewa
1200:without
1181:varied.
1158:Viajero
1131:. It's
1126:reading
1078:Andrewa
1004:we find
917:France.
829:Rossami
801:Rossami
732:Viajero
696:Rossami
652:Viajero
542:Airmail
518:airmail
473:Viajero
469:Airmail
437:Airmail
396:Captain
339:Viajero
255:If the
242:Viajero
177:Viajero
165:! Does
131:like a
98:article
39:archive
1857:Sfahey
1758:London
1673:Toytoy
1508:wikify
1449:Meelar
1445:should
1422:linked
1233:page.
1135:, not
1122:hinder
1114:better
1108:. The
1098:places
915:, and
909:French
901:French
894:France
886:French
866:French
723:142 AD
492:Bmills
463:, and
426:Bmills
390:, not
168:anyone
158:looks
110:linked
1801:1990s
1760:, or
1513:Yacht
1500:exist
1426:exist
1196:every
1192:can't
1141:Optim
1137:paper
1116:, as
1102:names
1094:dates
1058:easy.
1040:from
1032:from
1030:three
969:every
892:. In
471:? --
323:water
238:a lot
219:RickK
175:? --
173:agree
171:else
146:dates
144:many
129:looks
119:plain
16:<
1871:jguk
1809:Tony
1805:2001
1737:and
1733:and
1682:Doom
1549:job?
1506:and
1504:wiki
1418:word
1387:find
1385:. I
1124:the
1118:long
1110:more
1092:all
1090:link
985:vs.
956:1955
954:and
874:1876
837:Stan
793:Stan
748:Stan
708:Stan
523:Stan
486:And
416:Stan
388:1960
291:1969
287:1969
285:for
273:Adam
265:Stan
185:andy
163:ugly
160:very
148:are
122:text
116:than
113:text
107:more
1720:or
1716:or
1467:all
1389:it
1261:own
1254:did
1154:you
1133:WWW
1106:etc
1038:six
1000:At
769:142
719:142
704:142
572:all
408:and
392:196
384:JFK
327:gun
325:or
142:Too
104:has
95:The
1803:,
1799:,
1642:is
1595:MK
1551:MK
1539:MK
1416:a
1383:MK
1364:MK
1355:,
1351:,
1347:,
1276:is
1150:do
1139:.
1104:,
1100:,
1096:,
911:,
907:,
903:,
799:.
459:,
455:,
447:,
443:,
155:It
152:.
140:.
126:me
354:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.