On 11/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've done a few of those lately too. I've noticed a change in my editing behavior. Some time ago, if I hit a redlink, my assumption was that it was because we didn't have an article on that topic yet. Now, if I hit a redlink, I assume we do have the article, and we lack sufficient redirects. -Matt

On 11/30/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: I agree, but not quite this strongly. It's almost a game: "I wonder if we really have nothing for this redlink?" If, after searching, I find nothing, I often make a stub. I like stubs. :) Steve

On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: By adding another one? Steve

On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell <renardius(a)gmail.com> wrote: Heh, why not something a little more explicit like "More resources needed." I actually like the discordant "s": the reader realises there is something missing, and that a problem needs fixing... Steve

On 11/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I really ought to keep a list of these situations. I see it quite frequently: people who decide to enforce some preference that isn't goverened by the MoS on the whole of Wikipedia. There are people who change this: ==Heading== Text To: ==Heading== Text and vice versa. There are people who change this: ==Heading== to this: == Heading == and vice versa. AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) enforces several "clean-up" methods on articles that aren't strictly dictated by the MoS, such as stub tags coming after categories (or is that before...) and generally reducing the possibility of common sense intervening. Moral of the story: Please *don't* inflict a personal choice on Wikipedia at large unless the MoS unambiguously states a very clear preference for your choice. In this case, the MoS seems pretty clear that "External links" is the preferred spelling. I seem to recall that either was acceptable but can't seem to find that now. Steve