Talk:Animal Spirits (book)

emotions
Why should emotions be linked? To the extent the linkage is appropriate, it's a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you believe the current terms for Animal Spirits are? 99.190.90.68 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with either the subject or the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin, do you have any idea what you are "editing", or more accuratly edit waring? 173.121.46.104 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how many anonymizers you are using, in an attempt to hide the fact that there is only one of you taking the position that emotions should be linked? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From first sentense of this article:
 * "Emotions" are part of the central theme, as such it would be helpful to wikilink to this little understood but much assumed topic. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on emotions doesn't add to understanding of the topic, and it's a commonly used term, so WP:OVERLINK clearly applies, no matter how important it is to the article and topic. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of linking emotions has re-arisen. And what is worse, the involved IP editor/s have labeled AR's edits as vandalism. Such is not the case and is not in keeping with WP:AGF. I'll add Emotion in the See alsos. But I hope the IP'er will respect AR's concern with overlink. A concern that I share.--S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article I agree with the IP that emotions are a central part of the books theme, and I would have included the wiki link if Id thought about it. I stayed on the fence as admin Rubin had a solid policy based objection and couldnt think of a good compromise. Thanks very much for that, hopefully a see also link will be acceptable to all. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin found the 'See also' as an acceptable link. It is the IP editor who is fighting the WP:consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)