underlinking造句

• I think that might possibly qualify as underlinking?
• :: Is there some evidence that Wikipedia has a significant problem with underlinking?
• *WP : MOSLINK # Overlinking and underlinking-Obvious words such as " architect " and " skyscraper " are linked.
• :See the discussion at Wikipedia : Linking # Internal links : overlinking and underlinking .  c 05 : 37, 13 June 2009 ( UTC)
• MOS : LINK # Overlinking _ and _ underlinking says : " If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used ."
• See Wikipedia : Manual of Style ( links ) # Overlinking and underlinking : what's the best ratio ?, last bullet .-- Talk 23 : 10, 20 June 2007 ( UTC)
• I think if you clean up the errors, add the missing conversions, improve on the overlinking and underlinking, fix the incomplete citations, and a few other things, you'll be fine with this.
• :: Regarding your edit, please see Wikipedia : Manual of Style ( links ) # Overlinking and underlinking : what's the best ratio ? . talk ) 01 : 40, 28 November 2007 ( UTC)
• The authors'names should only be wikilinked the first time they are used, not every time : Wikipedia : Manual of Style ( links ) # Overlinking and underlinking .  talk ) 20 : 58, 14 December 2008 ( UTC)
• And take note of the section on'overlinking and underlinking'in the latter-a frequent mistake that beginners make is to add unnecessary links, which make for a cluttered page . talk ) 01 : 57, 16 September 2014 ( UTC)
• 3b ) Wikipedia should solicit wider input than the few editors involved in this arbitration, regarding the issues of date formatting, as well as over-and underlinking, the usefulness of date pages, and the degree overlinking affects general readability of articles, not addressing the combatants involved in this arbitration but directed toward reader experience in general.
• :: : please expain how issuing a vandalism warning, using a vandalism tool, is assuming good faith . have you read WP : VPRF # Abuse ? regarding " delinking legit links ", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as they were already linked several lines above . i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia : Manual of Style ( links ) # Overlinking and underlinking : what's the best ratio ?.
• :: : comment : actually it was these edits ( [ http : / / en . wikipedia . org / w / index . php ? title = Texas _ A % 26M _ University _ Corps _ of _ Cadets & diff = 127960052 & oldid = 127959965 ) you seemed to take objection to . a merge on the " Texas A & M University Corps of Cadets " page from the " Senior boots " page based on the merge discussion at Talk : Senior boots . i had no objection to your edits there, though your reverts were later undone by other users, but after that, you began to stalk the address that dared to merge something ( from somebody else's request ), and began "'reverting legitimate edits "'. regarding " delinking legit links ", as i explained in the edit summary, the links were unnecessary as the were already linked several lines above . i dont think i need to point out Wikipedia : Manual of Style ( links ) # Overlinking and underlinking : what's the best ratio ? . pleas explain why, therefore, you treated it as vandalism?