1549:
topics by him/herself, and is unhelpful advice on what objective basis consensus should be sought when there is a disagreement. Since
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, the goal would be to be consistent with credible sources. I thought i was correcting an question-begging oversight. "Double disambiguation" is not even necessary as a guideline, since it offers no advice but simply describes an occasional phenomenon, with no guidance on whether it is encouraged or discouraged or treated in any different manner. Without deleting the paragraph, I just simplified the needlessly confusing wording. The "code of honor" sentence is grammatically awkward, and, frankly, a silly way of saying "the creator of dab pages should fix resulting broken links." I don't mean to be abrasive, and I certainly understand that some of the changes are toss-up judgment calls or mere preferences, but that's no reason to revert every edit.
773:
a reader could get to the wrong page. My count of articles above was wrong, and only two have such qualifiers, not the film article. A music article might be written which links to "A Perfect Murder", shooting for the band but landing on the film article, so the film article should have the hatnote. The new music article's link should of course be fixed, but until then, the hatnote would be the backup. There is no reasonable way a reader could land on "A Perfect Murder (band)" while looking for the fiction sub-genre or the film, so no hatnote. The "Random article" button could get you there, but you weren't looking for anything specific, so you can't be misled. I don't think our time would be best spent looking for qualifier-in-parens articles that have hatnotes, because too much investigation would be needed in each case before ripping out the hatnote.
1040:
second attempt (100% if the disambig page is descriptive enough but it's always possible someone will pick the wrong one). If we automatically send them to one page, even if it's the far less popular one then, let's say 20% of them will be at the right article the first page, and 100% by the second page (unlike the 99% for the disambig because first off, you're looking at the enitre article so you know you're not at the right page, better than the one sentence description, and there's only two pages, so by going to the other one you have to be right). In short, it doesn't even matter which you make the primary page, it's definitely worth the effort to pick the more popular one but either one is better than a disambig page.
965:(XXG), and so most pairs should not have a "primary article". Therefore most pairs should have a disambiguation page. In fact, I fixed one today, where "Matthew Miller" was the shorter of the two articles, with far fewer links, so should not have been primary; but neither article should, therefore it became a disambiguation page with two links. I have also found a good way to handle the situation where there are two links on a dab page (or one, after removing questionable links) — search Knowledge (XXG) for a third article that has been overlooked, and add its link to the dab page. This works more often than you might think, especially with human names.
1058:
they want. In the suggested scenario, 20 users get to the page they want in 1 click and 80 users get to the page they want in 3 clicks (Clearly with at least 6 alternative meanings of the term concerned, the 80% are going to have to be redirected via a disambiguation page). The average number of clicks per user is lower in the first scenario. However, similar arithmetic favours
Vicarious' suggestion in the case where more than 50% of readers find the right page first time, so I believe this should be the threshold for deciding which course to take.
31:
1560:
a guidance document (eg "are not magically invalidated"). It is my opinion that all of the changes of these two types were worthwhile, in accordance with good practice in publishing. However, there were one or two edits where the meaning was changed (eg the change to "general reference publications or careful use of search engines").
295:, as there are so many other shorter examples. At the beginning, it conflicts with the {style} navigation template, and at the end it just seems too little too late. Therefore, I left that example here. It seems reasonably visually helpful, and hopefully one example won't be too hard to keep in sync with the style.
207:. The Manual of Style info is more current, and the only alternative is to keep both sections synchronized, which I don't think anyone wants to do. If the two are ever out of sync (as they are now), people can get the old info and think it's policy. I'm sure that kind of redundancy is supposed to be avoided.
1251:
As already stated, deleting the disambig page does not create lonely article because both articles link to each other, there's as much connectivity as ever. I'm not sure if your example was meant to prove a point but it looks ripe for deletion itself (actually for redirect). And there does need to be
964:
Natalya is right, but might not have gone far enough. Some editors feel that there are already far too many "primary articles", and that most of them were not properly set up. By extension, most article pairs are not as lopsided in importance as the two
Benjamin Franklins currently found in Knowledge
772:
When an article has a qualifier in its name (in parens, or following a comma, as in the Rome examples), the rule should be that a hatnote is not needed, and might be considered distracting. Of course, there might be a few cases where an editor should bend the rule, if he or she can imagine a way that
1559:
In my opinion, as a user of the guide, most of the controversial edits were entirely justified on the grounds of improving the language. Some of the changes were to language that looks unnecessarily pretentious (eg "in a titular fashion") others were to language that seems unnecessarily informal for
1328:
Although none of the terms are exactly common, "Tanase" and "Tanasi" both frequently turn up as transliteration of the
Cherokee word -- which in fact shares derivation with the name Tennessee. I'd say leave it as a disambig -- direct links to either *should* be relatively unlikely, but in any case I
1188:
I'm not sure if I'm being blamed for something here but I can assure you I want a policy, not a precedent, and indeed the precedent doesn't even exist yet. I'm not sure what "lonelypages" you're refering to, if done correctly there shouldn't be any loneliness. Although I've been around wikipedia for
572:
I was trying to do a disambiguation page for the term
Perfect Murder but am not sure how to go about. The reason is that there is a film and a band of the same name and I think a disambiguation page is needed for it. But with Perfect murder taken what do I do? Do I just create a new page for Perfect
134:
not actual alternate meanings but labels attached to a record, band or hotel. I am unable to find a clear wiki guideline on how to deal with this situation. I feel that these links belong in the See Also section at the most but not with a prominent pole position on line one. Your thoughts? thanks in
1535:
Changing "Deciding to disambiguate" to "When to disambiguate" doesn't make it clearer, because it may be taken as determining the right point in time. Maybe "Whether to disambiguate" would work, but it wasn't broken, and doesn't need fixing. This is not to imply that I am completely sold on all the
1505:
All changes seem to make the text easier to read and more like a professional entry. I urge others to review the changes and see if they agree or disagree. I also believe the opening paragraph should be changed or the entry should be locked if its true that changes can't be made before consensus is
1079:
Whoa, I think I've discovered where our disagreement is, in my suggested scenario, 20 users get to the page they want in 1 click, and 80 users get to the page they want in 2 clicks. Because there are only two options the first article does NOT link to a disambig page, it links directly to the other
1039:
I'm surprised that several of you disagree so I'll explain my reasoning. If you go to a disambig page first then 100% of the people that visit the page will go to the wrong article (as in, not the article they were trying to find) on the first attempt and then get it correct 99% of the time on the
1057:
I don't believe the balance of benefits favours the argument for sending users to a primary topic unless it is likely to be right for the majority of readers. Using
Vicarious' example above, in the case where everyone is sent to a disambiguation page, 100 users each use 2 clicks to get to the page
920:
While most disambiguation pages end up having more than two links, there are times when there are appropriately only two links. When there are two articles with the same title, neither of which is considered a primary topic, there is occasion to have a disambiguation page with only two articles.
821:
If you can reasonably expect an article to be written, then leave the redlink. (In this case, though, the guild entry is overlinked.) This is not often an easy decision. If it's the flavor of toothpaste preferred by some minor anime character who doesn't even have his own article yet, take it out.
1638:
Finally, I'm somewhat offended by your implication about professionalism. Before you continue in that vein, I suggest that you figure out who you're talking about.... Although (I just noticed) doing a few things here leaps
Knowledge (XXG) to the front of my Google entries, I've done a few things
1548:
Sorry about not reading the discussion before jumping in with what i thought were copyediting. But please, look at the changes on their own merits: "in a titular fashion" vs. "as a title"? "consensus of editors" is circular advice for someone editing, as is usually the case, unsettled or obscure
1516:
I agree that the changes to the "Primary topic pages" section should have been reverted, as the meaning was changed by the rewording. However, the rest of the changes were generally gramatical in context, and helped to make sections of the guidelines clearer. Yes, if the edits did change the
862:
This should not be a disambiguation page, in my opinion. These are not different meanings for the same words, but subtopics of a very large topic. Maybe "Water treatment" should be an overview page, resembling a multi-stub page, introducing the subtopics. Don't remove wikilinks yet.
939:
While agreeing with
Natalya in principle, the current text applies even when there isn't a primary topic. Indeed, the example of "Quaoar" has no primary topic. A simple reading of the text would not allow two topics. That said, there are a lot of them with only two topics!
441:
That's a non-parallel construction, Chris. "Conductor may be...conducting is performed by a conductor"? There's probably some kind of twisted language you could use to make it work, but I agree with
Gracefool that this is a time for an exception. And hey, I should know, I'm a
161:), wouldn't they type "Stratosphere" in the search box? How would they know to look in the "See also" section? That's usually for articles related to the main article, not variants on the name. Do you really think those one-line, italicized, indented dablinks are obtrusive? —
906:
By their very nature disambig pages are designed for more than 2 articles, and preferably more than 3. If anyone fails to understand why I'd be happy to explain but assuming everyone is with me, shouldn't this be part of the official policy on disambig pages,
337:
Better yet, this is an on-line project. Just link to the example! Done. This matches the form of all the other examples in the article. Of course, somebody should check the examples from time to time to ensure they actually continue to demonstrate the
921:
However, if one is a primary topic, then there would not be a disambiguation page, and just a disambiguation link at the top of each of the two pages. Three or more articles would require a disambiguation page, primary topic or not. --
798:; there are two entries under video games, which I'm not sure if they deserve to be there. Should I leave them there or remove them. My second question is, if a red link exist, should I link other words in that line. In the case above,
1205:
Try to understand the differences between "policy" and "guidelines", and what votes (straw polls) actually mean, and that the only "precedent" comes from an arbitration committee decision (and that is limited). Also, knowing about
1605:"A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix the mis-directed links that will be created when the disambiguation page is made." to "The creator of disambiguation pages should fix the resulting mis-directed links."
1501:"A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix the mis-directed links that will be created when the disambiguation page is made." to "The creator of disambiguation pages should fix the resulting mis-directed links."
1473:
word, then please change the opening statement in the article so the rule is clearer. Yes, I did use the phrase "restored rewording, why would we have to discuss correcting grammar or making the wording clearer?" as my edit
273:, I haven't found anything particularly out-of-date, but there are things in each that might be better in the other. I agree with Gracefool that it could be easier to understand (and maintain) with some simple text swaps.
1269:, which is a dab to summer & winter articles. Neither is appropriately the main category, so 1984 Olympics can't correctly redir to either, and in fact there will never be more than 2 entries on the dab page.
1399:
I spent a little more than 1 hour carefully reading the edits and mostly reverting them. A few seemed reasonable. Unfortunately, Wikilights removed wording that was fully argued here recently, such as requiring
362:
edit? On the one hand, bypassing the redirect is good. On the other hand, you're not supposed to pipe links in dab pages. I'm inclined to say the way it is now is fine, but it's an interesting corner case. --
1189:
a while I've stayed away from policies for the most part so I'm not familiar with how to do this but I'd like to have a vote on this topic. My vision for it is I present a paragraph in favor, someone (possibly
1609:
No, that code of honor wording is long-standing and important! However, I left the remainder of the sentence as "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links."
1153:
1193:) presents an argument against and we let people choose. Because it's for a policy addition and a concensus is ideal I have no problem with a minimum of 90% or something in favor for it to be accepted.
179:
Disambiguating at the bottom of an article has been tried and pretty much abandoned, since few readers will scroll down to the bottom. Those hatnotes don't look too bad. Whatever helps the readers ...
1517:
meaning of the sections, then they should be reverted (as with the aforementioned
Primary topic pages), but the rest only seemed to clarify, and I feel would be beneficial to be left in. --
1129:
Yes, the guidelines specify that two topics link to each other, and there is no disambiguation page. The guidelines also specify "... links should point to the article that deals with the
1506:
reached. Does consenus have to reached before someone reverts somone else changes? We need to have clearer rules and have entries locked that require consensus. What do you think? --
705:, the three "Perfect murder" articles that have qualifiers in their names do not need hatnotes linking to the disambig page. WP:D also needs to have that refinement added, I think.
876:
I agree with Chris here. The history shows that it started as a redirect page, then a disambugation page in 2004. But, the terms added since then really point to inclusion in a
1654:
Since it seems to heading in this direction, shall we examine more changes? There do appear some more that are solely grammatic and worth keeping. The rest may be debatable.
1422:
291:
I just spent a couple of hours carefully swapping the text. The one swap that didn't work well was the complete example (Lift). There wasn't really a good spot for it in
794:
I actually have two questions. Sorry, if it's in the main page, I must've missed it. Is there some sort of criteria for including entries in the dab pages. For example,
996:, wouldn't that in effect make it the primary topic? While it may not reside at the what would typically be the primary topic name, the practical result is the same.
1628:
And no, it's not true that the newcomer Wikilights made things more clear. As noted by Natalya and Chris. Merely shortening sentences is not the same as clarity.
239:
Looking at the examples and wording there, I fail to see anything out of date? That being said, I'm not opposed to taking the larger blocks and moving them to the
1428:
Over time, I've made some significant edits here. But before making any edits, I've spent a lot of time reviewing the history of the text and the discussion.
1589:
Yes, I left that change in, what's your complaint? (Although clearly the youngster doesn't remember Adventure, and the "maze of twisty little passages....")
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
399:
Automated processes should not replace or pipe links to redirects. Instead, the link should always be examined in context. (For more information, see
408:
1416:
852:
needs to have most of the wikilinks removed (wikilinking usually not needed in disambigs). I'll remove those if there are no objections. Cheers,
1635:. Other folks that find a paragraph needs clarity have started a talk section, blockquoted the text, and proposed a change for discussion!
315:
A different example wouldn't be such a bad idea. Or Lift can just be cut down; it doesn't matter whether it matches the real page or not. —
404:
394:
1315:
alone. These are different terms, and if you think there is a considerable chance of confusion (I don't), put a hatnote in each article.
1507:
1412:
472:
Okay, it's time to completely remove the "bottom link" option. Who's with me? Can anyone even find a page which uses a bottom-link dab?
1138:
No, existing ones shouldn't be deleted! That just makes more of a mess, with lonelypages hanging around. To make it even more crazy,
1565:
I think all the edits that made the language clearer should be reincorporated, and any other edits discussed here as to their merits.
221:
If this page is out of date, fix it. The style content on this page is supposed to be a quick synopsis of what's in the style guide. —
1618:
That's why I spent over an hour carefully evaluating all the changes! It would be helpful to have the same consideration by others.
654:
1210:(listed as "Orphaned pages" under the "Special pages" menu on the left). It will take a bit of reading and experience to grok.
1488:
1466:
1393:
746:
disambiguated articles have links back? Or just continue the current situation where old ones are replaced but no new ones added?
1018:
47:
17:
1167:
1149:
647:
584:
1080:
article. This entire argument is only intended to imply to disambig pages with two articles, and that they should be deleted.
555:
I can go along with a statement that they were once common but were not found to be useful, and now are strongly discouraged.
1252:
a policy so you and I only have to disagree on this once and not every time we run across a disambig page with only 2 links.
1615:
That's why reflexive reverting isn't a good idea, Mr. Norton! Why didn't you bother to actually read and compare the work?
110:
It seems to me that articles on the actual meaning of the word get overrun by disamb links on labels, I give examples in
619:
Well, Lummie had it almost right! If users cannot figure it out for themselves, the instructions are not clear enough.
880:
article. Many of the links are to tiny stub articles. Moreover, there is already an extensive disambiguation page at
1217:
Just because you found two articles plus a disambiguation page doesn't mean the disambiguation page should be deleted.
400:
193:
1133:" Arguing about how many clicks that shouldn't happen are more efficient belies the fact that they shouldn't happen!
1644:
1469:), who made the changes, only changed wording that made the information more clear. If we need consensus to change
1436:
1362:
1241:
1190:
1176:
944:
888:
752:
683:
669:
543:
531:
515:
416:
342:
299:
277:
251:
38:
877:
244:
1396:), as the first 3 contributions (and thus far, the only contributions). That might be a sockpuppet indication.
822:
For the book, the author's article has some info about the book, so linking to the author will help the reader.
527:. That would be about the same time as Disambiguation was taking hold (and just before templates were finished).
199:
I think the start of the "disambiguation pages" section should be replaced with a link to the same stuff in the
842:
539:
After looking at the earliest archives, I re-wrote the section to clearly indicate bottom links are deprecated.
145:
While I'm open to alternate ways to present this, the problem is that it's impossible to draw a line saying "
732:
1235:
There are plenty of other examples. This is not something that needs a lot of rules and overspecification.
1537:
1316:
966:
864:
845:. I believe this is quite a useful starting page (more so than most disambig pages). Is this appropriate?
823:
774:
706:
610:
556:
433:
180:
150:
131:
1705:
1521:
1109:
1025:
925:
1265:
An example of where "more than 2" and "one is the primary topic" don't work are the olympic dabs--e.g.,
702:
1631:
Am I wedded to the old text, written by many others over the past 5 years? No, but by the same token,
853:
1214:
Meanwhile, we already have this existing guideline (two articles "disambiguation link" to each other).
735:
didn't have an existing link back, so I didn't add one. You're correct that this appears inconsistent.
1550:
1482:
1478:
1460:
1456:
1387:
1383:
1308:
803:
1105:
There is/has been discussion on this general topic already in the "Primary topic abuse" section. --
664:
Now, where should this kind of checklist be added? Looks like the section on Disambiguation pages.
601:
instead of the first line (disambiguation link), and {{otheruses2|Perfect murder}} would be used in
1710:
1647:
1569:
1553:
1540:
1526:
1510:
1439:
1425:) reverted back to the bad version (although without using the word revert in his edit summary).
1365:
1337:
1319:
1297:
1277:
1256:
1244:
1207:
1197:
1179:
1161:
1143:
1114:
1084:
1062:
1044:
1030:
1004:
969:
947:
930:
914:
891:
867:
856:
826:
777:
755:
709:
686:
672:
613:
577:
559:
546:
534:
518:
485:
481:
455:
451:
436:
419:
384:
381:
370:
345:
324:
320:
302:
280:
254:
230:
226:
215:
212:
183:
170:
166:
139:
591:
367:
1334:
1225:
1001:
495:
443:
1580:
So, RAN thinks it would be useful to examine every change? He only lists three (of dozens):
1294:
724:
718:
I've always replaced any existing link templates with a new one to the disambiguation page.
698:
634:
602:
376:
It's fine, it's the clearest way to do it. That rule can be broken to enhance readability.
149:
article is so unimportant we won't give it a dablink". And if someone were looking for the
849:
838:
158:
432:
How about this? *] is performed by a conductor, the person who leads a musical ensemble
1253:
1194:
1157:
1139:
1081:
1041:
1017:
If you're looking for more fun primary topic discussion, Vicarious, take a look at the
911:
598:
477:
447:
377:
316:
222:
208:
162:
1595:*"To conform to our normal naming convention" to "To conform to the naming convention"
606:
266:
1498:"To conform to our normal naming convention" to "To conform to the naming convention"
1274:
1266:
799:
364:
1623:
All changes seem to make the text easier to read and more like a professional entry.
1329:
think it'd be easier to spot misdirected links if it is a dab page than a redirect.
1702:
1518:
1330:
1106:
1022:
997:
993:
922:
505:
127:
1585:"we don't really want lots of twisty little stubs" to "avoid lots of little stubs"
1495:"we don't really want lots of twisty little stubs" to "avoid lots of little stubs"
476:
sure doesn't. That's a holdover from when Knowledge (XXG) had, like, 200 pages. —
1566:
1290:
1059:
574:
154:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
694:
136:
573:
Murder with say Perfect Murder (Crime) and put the links on Perfect Murder?
393:
Bypassing the redirects is not good, and is contrary to several guidelines.
881:
1270:
1229:
609:. Go ahead, BE BOLD. There are a few of us who will be right behind you.
813:
The above unsigned comment was posted 20:59, 11 February 2006 by Gflores
1221:
111:
1312:
1304:
1286:
989:
795:
292:
270:
240:
200:
123:
115:
1688:(that's a common grammar rule! Not even a style choice), removing
1154:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Adam's apple (disambiguation)
511:) at the top! Let's mark as historical, and mandate changing them.
473:
119:
678:
Done. Please check out the two short new sections for clarity.
1156:, two-item disambig pages deprecated)". That AfD was filed by
643:
Edit "Perfect murder" into a Generic topic disambiguation page.
640:
Therefore, move "Perfect murder" to "Perfect murder (fiction)".
405:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirect#Don't fix redirects that aren't broken
25:
1431:
Please use the discussion page to propose any major changes.
806:? I'm guessing the answer is no, but would like affirmation.
587:, and it would have links to the film and band. The template
650:, and create the page as a redirect, including the template
1152:) is actually doing this now citing: "(Per precedent from
605:
instead of its disambiguation link. This is explained in
646:
Replace the hatnotes on the existing pages to point to
524:
359:
204:
1378:
Sweeping edits by Wikilights and Richard Arthur Norton
583:
This is the time to create a new disambiguation page,
1228:disambiguation link to each other, plus there is a
723:and {{otheruses2|Perfect murder}} would be used in
194:
Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages
1599:Yes, I left that change in, what's your complaint?
1404:for primary topic pages. Also, the long-standing
1382:Today, there were various sweeping edits by a new
491:Actually, I've run across them many times. Also,
909:don't create a disambig page with only two items.
630:There's no strong candidate for Primary topic.
8:
409:Knowledge (XXG):Redirects with possibilities
265:After a careful side-by-side comparison of
446:. But leaving the redirect is fine, too. —
1633:this isn't a page for writing experiments
1536:other changes. This is just one example.
1232:disambiguation page with only 2 entries.
742:existing hatnotes be removed? Or should
395:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (links)
1350:Agreed. But the page was labled with
1170:) yesterday and hasn't even completed!
721:I see that in your explanation above:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1657:In "Deciding when to disambiguation"
1411:Immediately after my careful review,
7:
1455:according to the opening statement.
1021:section higher up on this page. --
727:instead of its disambiguation link.
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Disambiguation
884:where some of these terms belong.
24:
1670:are not magically invalidated for
623:"Perfect murder" is actually the
568:Disambiguation for Perfect Murder
525:2004-05-19 15:54:10 Mark Richards
790:What should be in the dab pages?
633:The related articles are all in
523:Looks like horse was changed by
29:
648:Perfect murder (disambiguation)
585:Perfect murder (disambiguation)
358:What's the right way to handle
1508:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1413:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
401:Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation
1:
1711:12:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1648:07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1570:13:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1554:06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1541:04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1527:03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1511:03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1440:03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1278:19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1257:13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1245:06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1198:19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1180:17:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1115:17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1085:14:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1063:14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1045:14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1031:03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1005:03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
970:03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
948:03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
931:02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
915:01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
892:05:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
868:04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
857:03:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
827:22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
802:is a red link, should I link
729:That's been my practice, too.
245:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
778:16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
756:09:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
710:03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
687:00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
673:22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
614:04:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
578:02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
560:02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
547:01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
535:01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
519:00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
486:00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
456:05:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
437:02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
420:00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
385:23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
371:23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
346:05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
325:04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
303:04:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
281:02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
255:00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
231:00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
216:21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
184:05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
171:00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
140:23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
1729:
1366:14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
1338:03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
1320:23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
1298:18:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
1285:So what would you do with
1131:specific meaning intended.
701:do not need links back to
1451:Consensus is needed for
843:Category:Water treatment
655:R to disambiguation page
1220:For example, the pages
902:minimum amount of links
878:wikipedia:summary style
733:A Perfect Murder (band)
151:Stratosphere Las Vegas
132:Stratosphere Las Vegas
1645:William Allen Simpson
1437:William Allen Simpson
1363:William Allen Simpson
1242:William Allen Simpson
1177:William Allen Simpson
945:William Allen Simpson
889:William Allen Simpson
753:William Allen Simpson
703:Rome (disambiguation)
684:William Allen Simpson
670:William Allen Simpson
544:William Allen Simpson
532:William Allen Simpson
516:William Allen Simpson
417:William Allen Simpson
343:William Allen Simpson
300:William Allen Simpson
278:William Allen Simpson
252:William Allen Simpson
130:first line refers to
42:of past discussions.
1661:in a titular fashion
841:to the new category
837:I'm inclined to add
804:William Peter Blatty
243:, leaving a shorter
114:first line links to
1208:Special:Lonelypages
1019:Primary topic abuse
1639:elsewhere, too.
1538:Chris the speller
1358:so I fixed that.
1317:Chris the speller
1309:Constantin Tănase
967:Chris the speller
865:Chris the speller
824:Chris the speller
775:Chris the speller
707:Chris the speller
627:likely reference.
611:Chris the speller
597:would be used in
557:Chris the speller
434:Chris the speller
181:Chris the speller
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1720:
1708:
1524:
1112:
1028:
928:
725:A Perfect Murder
699:Rome (TV series)
659:
653:
635:Category:Fiction
603:A Perfect Murder
596:
590:
510:
504:
500:
494:
106:meaning vs label
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1706:
1678:In "Confusion"
1578:
1522:
1448:
1380:
1110:
1026:
926:
904:
850:Water treatment
839:Water treatment
835:
833:Water treatment
792:
657:
651:
594:
588:
570:
508:
502:
498:
492:
470:
356:
201:Manual of Style
197:
159:Tangerine Dream
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1726:
1724:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1676:
1667:
1651:
1650:
1626:
1625:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1562:
1561:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1530:
1529:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1476:
1475:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1408:to fix links.
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1323:
1322:
1307:a redirect to
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1260:
1259:
1248:
1247:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1218:
1215:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1183:
1182:
1172:
1171:
1135:
1134:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1034:
1033:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
934:
933:
903:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
871:
870:
834:
831:
830:
829:
818:
817:
816:
815:
791:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
748:
747:
736:
730:
713:
712:
690:
689:
676:
675:
662:
661:
644:
641:
638:
631:
628:
617:
616:
607:WP:D#Top_links
599:Perfect murder
569:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
550:
549:
540:
537:
528:
521:
512:
469:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
425:
424:
423:
422:
413:
388:
387:
355:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
339:
338:principles....
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
308:
307:
306:
305:
296:
286:
285:
284:
283:
274:
260:
259:
258:
257:
248:
234:
233:
196:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
174:
173:
153:(or the album
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1725:
1712:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1677:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1656:
1655:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1634:
1629:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1593:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:major changes
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1407:
1406:code of honor
1403:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1377:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:1984 Olympics
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1209:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1116:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1086:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
992:redirects to
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
971:
968:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
949:
946:
942:
941:
938:
937:
936:
935:
932:
929:
924:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
901:
893:
890:
886:
885:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
866:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
848:I also think
846:
844:
840:
832:
828:
825:
820:
819:
814:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
805:
801:
800:Legion (book)
797:
789:
779:
776:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
757:
754:
750:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
731:
728:
726:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
714:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
674:
671:
667:
666:
665:
656:
649:
645:
642:
639:
636:
632:
629:
626:
622:
621:
620:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
593:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
567:
561:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
548:
545:
541:
538:
536:
533:
529:
526:
522:
520:
517:
513:
507:
497:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
467:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
421:
418:
414:
412:
410:
406:
402:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
366:
361:
353:
347:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
304:
301:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
282:
279:
275:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
261:
256:
253:
249:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
195:
191:
185:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1673:
1669:
1665:as the title
1664:
1660:
1637:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1614:
1604:
1594:
1584:
1579:
1547:
1504:
1485:
1477:
1470:
1463:
1452:
1430:
1427:
1419:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1390:
1381:
1355:
1351:
1311:, and leave
1284:
1204:
1164:
1146:
1130:
994:50000 Quaoar
908:
905:
854:Singkong2005
847:
836:
812:
793:
743:
739:
722:
677:
663:
624:
618:
571:
471:
468:Bottom links
398:
357:
198:
146:
128:Stratosphere
109:
78:
43:
37:
1690:as a result
1491:) changes:
1354:instead of
378:··gracefool
209:··gracefool
155:Stratosfear
36:This is an
1551:Wikilights
1479:Wikilights
1457:Wikilights
1384:Wikilights
695:Rome, Iowa
501:(or worse
354:Conductor?
122:a link to
98:Archive 20
90:Archive 16
85:Archive 15
79:Archive 14
73:Archive 13
68:Archive 12
60:Archive 10
1686:he or she
1402:consensus
1303:I'd make
1254:Vicarious
1195:Vicarious
1158:Vicarious
1140:FCYTravis
1082:Vicarious
1042:Vicarious
912:Vicarious
882:treatment
592:otheruses
478:Wahoofive
448:Wahoofive
444:conductor
317:Wahoofive
223:Wahoofive
205:this edit
203:, as per
163:Wahoofive
1674:apply to
1489:contribs
1474:summary.
1467:contribs
1446:Rebuttal
1423:contribs
1394:contribs
1230:HD-64180
1226:HD 64180
1168:contribs
1150:contribs
693:Just as
496:disambig
365:RoySmith
192:Replace
135:advance
1576:details
1222:HD64180
1191:William
738:Should
126:and in
112:benzene
39:archive
1703:Nataly
1567:Elroch
1519:Nataly
1356:Tenase
1352:Tenasi
1313:Tanasi
1305:Tanase
1291:Jmabel
1287:Tanase
1107:Nataly
1060:Elroch
1023:Nataly
990:Quaoar
988:Since
923:Nataly
796:Legion
575:Lummie
407:, and
397:says,
368:(talk)
293:MoS:DP
271:MoS:DP
247:entry.
241:MoS:DP
124:o-zone
116:benzin
1335:wiser
1331:older
1002:wiser
998:older
625:least
474:Horse
137:V8rik
120:ozone
118:, in
16:<
1682:they
1483:talk
1461:talk
1417:talk
1388:talk
1295:Talk
1289:? -
1275:Talk
1224:and
1162:talk
1144:talk
697:and
482:talk
452:talk
360:this
321:talk
269:and
267:WP:D
227:talk
167:talk
147:This
1701:--
1684:to
1672:to
1663:to
1471:any
1271:Elf
744:all
740:all
506:dab
157:by
1643:--
1435:--
1361:--
1333:≠
1293:|
1273:|
1240:--
1175:--
1000:≠
943:--
887:--
751:--
682:--
668:--
658:}}
652:{{
595:}}
589:{{
542:--
530:--
514:--
509:}}
503:{{
499:}}
493:{{
484:)
454:)
415:--
411:.)
403:,
341:--
323:)
298:--
276:--
250:--
229:)
169:)
94:→
64:←
1707:a
1692:.
1523:a
1486:·
1481:(
1464:·
1459:(
1420:·
1415:(
1391:·
1386:(
1165:·
1160:(
1147:·
1142:(
1111:a
1027:a
927:a
660:.
637:.
480:(
450:(
382:☺
380:|
319:(
225:(
213:☺
211:|
165:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.