Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 22

Latin abbreviations
I see the injunction against Latin abbreviations like i.e., e.g., and etc. is gone from the Manual of Style, and I'm glad. There's enough dumbing down going on in the world without forbidding the use of extremely convenient abbreviations on Wikipedia. Thank you to whoever got rid of it. --Angr/undefined 09:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I second your sentiments.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not mind that the guideline was relaxed, but I still regard the use of e.g., i.e. and etc. as sloppy and lazy.&minus;Woodstone 12:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly it would be sloppy to use the abbreviations mid-sentence, but their use for brevity in brackets shouldn't be prohibited. Personally, I'd never use etc, but would use ie and eg in certain circumstances.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Woodstone, please explain why you regard the use of etc, i.e., and e.g. as sloppy and lazy. I'm not saying you can't feel that way -- you're certainly allowed to, I just have never encountered anyone who felt that way before. I'm interested on why you feel that way. Could you provide an explanation, and maybe an example of the type of usage that irritates you? Thanks. Ravenswood 16:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are few cases where e.g. is appropriate where it wouldn't be equally appropriate to just say for example. It's a convenient abbreviation so long as it is easily understood. The original reason not to use these abbreviations was that not everyone understands them. Just about everybody understands etc. (although I agree that it's sloppy writing to even have to say it at all), but i.e. and e.g. are sometimes confused. The goal is clear communication. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would assume that the majority of readers know (or could figure out from context) etc and et cetera, i. e., e. g., AM, PM, BC and its bastard cousin BCE, AD, QED, and Ibed. Even ad infinitem and ad nauseum can be figured out by someone who's never encountered them before. If you're using things like a priori then you're going to begin losing your audience. Ravenswood 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Woodstone that use of such abbreviations come across as sloppy and lazy. Ravenswood, I suspect that you have encountered many people who feel that way, but you haven't actually asked them; it's just not a good conversation topic. :) Anyway, they feel careless and rushed when I read them in sentences, as if the author didn't have the patience to express his or her thoughts concisely in plain English. If one needs to resort to using abbreviations to reduce the wordiness of one's writing, one might consider trimming the excess elsewhere... &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 19:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, only poor, lazy writers use such abbreviations &mdash; lazy writers like John Locke, David Hume, Baruch Spinoza, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, Ralph Waldo Emerson, most modern academic writers. A sad bunch indeed. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, appeal to authority, my old nemesis. We meet again! You have so many guises, but I see through them as through the ether itself... ;) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  09:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your x-ray vision has unfortunately been reflected by the lead plate of inattention; it's not an appeal to authority, but to evidence. The claim was that only sloppy, lazy writers use these abbreviations (and other, related claims were also made); if a large number (actually, most, I suspect) of respected writers use them, then with what criteria for good writing are you working?  If your definition of sloppy writing encompasses many writers whose work is considered to be excellent, should you not consider the possibility that your definition is faulty?  That your aversion to abbreviations is a matter of personal taste? Perhaps you could give examples of writers whose work you consider not to  be lazy and sloppy; that would at least allow others to gauge the relevance and acuity of your position on this issue.
 * (If I'd said that Fowler, or Gowers, or some other writer on language had declared abbreviations to be OK, that would have been an appeal to authority, incidentally.) --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, assuming a fallacy where none exists, your real old nemesis. The people cited as authorities are all writers. They are all well known. They all used the abbreviations in their works. They are therefore appropriate authorities to cite. Appeal to authority is a fallacy where the authorities cited and/or the situation where they are cited are not appropriate. For example, quoting Michael Moore as an authority on national security and Iraq would definitely by a fallacy. David Newton 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, assuming a sense of humor when..., oh never mind. :) I guess I'll have to take my own comment more seriously than I intended it. My point, admittedly hidden in my own sarcasm, is that bowing to authorities is not necessarily the way to solve this "debate". (I was taught in school that opinions aren't debatable, but here we are; what other lies has my head been filled with?) I'm sure I could find a large list of respected authors that do not resort to Latin abbreviations to make their writing more concise&mdash;if I were better read, anyway. Shall we stack up the volumes and see whose pile is higher? I hear the courts have found this to be a valuable shortcut in legal proceedings... ;) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Finding authors who don't use abbreviations would be very useful if you were arguing against the thesis that abbreviations are compulsory, but not when arguing against the thesis that they're not acceptable. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * An important distinction; good point! &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah assuming assumptions, the enemy of us all. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure Latin abbreviations were at all popular with the classic writers. I just did a search of my entire e-book collection of classics (which, unfortunately doesn't include several of the above examples); i.e. and e.g. were virtually nonexistent, and even etc. was rare (altho Jane Austen and Victor Hugor--or Hugo's translator--loved it). --Tysto 15:08, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

I think that two problems with ie and eg are 1) people carelessly omitting the full stops between them and b) their confusion and misuse. I prefer not to see them and would usually change them, but I do find aka and AKA much worse. violet/riga (t) 10:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I dislike "aka" too (though my dislike is aesthetic, and not grounded in any reason). That people misuse or confuse "i.e." and "e.g." can't be a reason not to use them correctly, though.  If it were, we'd have to ban "alternative" and "alternate", "disinterested" and "uninterested", "beg the question" and "raise the question", "flaunt" and "flout", "its" and "it's", "their" and "there", "politician" and "arse", etc., etc. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit on the key thing there - aesthetics. That's my main reason for disliking them.  Your point about common confusions with other words is also very valid.  violet/riga (t) 10:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate Latin abbreviations. I don't speak Latin. I don't know anyone who does. No one I know has any idea what most of them stand for except me. Few writers use them correctly, which means that few readers understand them. They are an old-fashioned academic affectation that should be avoided in all writing, especially one like Wikpedia, where the extremely broad audience makes clarity and accessibility crucial. --Tysto 05:27, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

While I like Latin abbreviations, most of them have lost their utility (e.g. who needs q.v. when you can hyperlink?)  I have compiled a table of what I would consider the common ones that are both useful and generally understandable and I would appreciate comment. Caerwine 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Terrific. Why use simple English when both readers and writers can consult a table? I have created a table that looks just like yours, only it eliminates the first two columns. --Tysto 14:45, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
 * Ha Ha. The point of that table is more to be one that would be used to limit the acceptable abbreviations for original Wiki text to those that are actually useful and used.  It also likely should include a link to a larger list oncluding the antiquated ones that either are no longer used or suitable only for paper instead of hypertext. Caerwine 17:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think an important point that is continually overlooked is that we're talking about abbreviations. The whole purpose of the existence of abbreviations is to save space. Seeing as how Wikipedia is not paper, I don't really see what the point of using space-saving devices is when there isn't any space that needs saving. Furthermore, Latin abbreviations of the sort constantly debated here are pretentious. There are perfectly acceptable fluent English substitutions for every Latin abbreviation. The only point in using the Latin ones is to make the writing look more erudite, and frankly almost everywhere I encounter them in Wikipedia articles they just make the writing pretentious and more opaque. They just scream a sort of intellectual snobbery that says: "I'm so smart that I know Latin so well I don't even have to write out the words, I can just put the initials. Look at how well-educated I am that I can breeze through my writing by substituting long-winded English phrases with short Latin abbreviations." I have never seen a case where an article wasn't improved by removing Latin abbreviations. Regardless of what it says in the MoS, I change them to English whenever I encounter them, and everyone else should too. Nohat 03:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was going to bring up the possibility that they were originally used to save space and reduce the chance of typographical errors, but I didn't have any evidence to support it, so I didn't. Now that you mention it, though, I'll voice my agreement. :) I also agree that in the majority of cases I see here and on real paper, these abbreviations serve only to make text pretentious and inscrutable. Editors should keep in mind that they're not writing for themselves, but rather for the interested, average reader who&mdash;if my experience is at all indicative&mdash;does not understand how to use i.e. and e.g. correctly. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you know people who say "id est" or "exempli gratia" (or "videlicet"), rather than "i.e.", "e.g." (or "viz"), then I think that you're wrong about the main reasonj for using the abbreviations. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In bibliographies ibid. and op. cit. have become terms of art, part of the standard format for bibliographic citation according to various manuals of style, and are often used and used correctly by people who neither know nor care about the latin origin. similarly, in copyediting and proofreadign, stet. has become a common piece of jargon, quite divorced from its latin origin. Use of latin abrevs of this sort in these kinds of specialized contexts deos not seem at all pretentions to me. DES (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is beholden to no so-called "standard formats" and seeing as how "ibid." and "op. cit." in particular are both merely space-saving devices, I fail to see the point of their use on Wikipedia. Their meanings are certainly obscure to most anyone except dyed-in-the-wool academics. Better to just use English. I didn't know what "op. cit." and "stet." are until I just looked them up, and I know this sounds self-important, but if I don't know what it means, an average user definitely isn't going to know what it means. Nohat 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Se my comment just above. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "In bibliographies..." which are written by scholars for scholars and are indecipherable by ordinary readers, Latinisms are a withered vestige of a decrepit tradition that should be reformed. I agree that certain usages are so common (etc. and v.) that they are recognizable in full and abbreviated form, but that makes them borrowings into English. --Tysto 14:45, 2005 August 9 (UTC)


 * When i went to high school and college, everyone who took an english course had to produce multiple research papers using standard bibliographic formats, very much including "ibid." and "op. cit.". Anyone who went thorough such a course ought to be able to recognize such terms, and this should mean a substantial majority of the population in the U.S., as mine was in no way an unusual or particularly scholarly high-school. I don't know about whether such things are rountinely taught at that level elsewhere. And I belive that MLA foramt (which is widely used, and mandated in several professions) requires the use of these terms. As for "stet." that is a specialized term, but anyone who has done copyediting or professional proofreading will know it, and it probably should be in an article on those fields, just as various latin terms should be in articles on medical subjects. There is no reason for it to be used generally in wikipedia outside of that particular context, however. DES (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Both ibid and op. cit are old, no longer used, deprecated bibliographical forms. The version of the MLA Handbook I have (6th edition) says on page 313 "The abbreviations ibid. and op. cit. are not recommended." Nohat 15:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason to use latin abbreviations for good old English words "that is" and "for example." However fond many writers are of the patina of scholarship that latin abbreviations impart, the abbreviations are widely misunderstood, except by those with graduate-level degrees. Mass communication, not sounding scholarly or crusading against "dumbing down," is the goal here. Often, it's just as easy to use parenthesis to translate or explain a word or phrase:
 * ...because of anthropogenic (i.e., manmade) effects such as carbon dioxide emissions...

I'd perfer:
 * ...because of anthropogenic (manmade) effects such as carbon dioxide emissions...

Examples can also be given parenthetically without writing "for example": As in many discussions here, I go along with modern newspaper style, which avoids i.e., e.g. and etc. I can't believe a writer who says she hasn't time to type out "for example" rather than "e.g." Of course, I use "stet" and other abbreviations when I'm copyediting on hard copy. Abbreviations are perfect for marginal notes. Face it, ye who support i.e. -- it's shorthand. Strong discouragement of using i.e. and e.g. should be in MoS. I'd like a recount, or a revert. I'd likely change or remove the abbreviations in any article I edited, with the comment unnecessary, widely misunderstood and ugly. -- DavidH 05:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sudden temperature changes are common (on March 21, 2004, the temperature plunged from 67 F. to 34 F. in two hours).
 * Many types of fruit (citrus, mango, pineapple, guava, sapodilla, starfruit and many others) are grown commercially in Florida.
 * I am no big fan of abbreviations like i.e. or e.g., either, at least in article text. I wouldn't even mind explaining the rationale for the benefit of those who are looking for guidance. However, I strongly oppose any attempt to introduce language into the MoS that gives people an excuse to "correct" other people's articles, unless that is really necessary, which is clearly not the case here. For what it's worth, I think the MoS should more clearly differentiate between "when in doubt, how about this" and "this is WP:en style". Both can be useful, but too many editors go on a crusade based on the former. Rl 07:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, as I've pointed out above, many people say "i.e." and "e.g." in ordinary conversation; their use isn't merely print-based space-saving. The fact is that many of these terms are in common use, and more are in common academic and semi-academic use.  A fair number of objectors are relying upon the basic argument that we should reject them because there's something wrong with using them &mdash; they're not inaccurate or unclear, but "old-fashioned".  We're surely not supposed to be setting fashion, but writing clearly.  Few if any of these terms is unclear (except in so far as some people won't understand them &mdash; but then some won't understand lots of non-abbreviations either; we have the simple-English Wikipedia for those unable or unwilling to use a dictionary. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that "i.e." and "e.g." are found in conversation. Indeed, they fill a valuable role there as a verbal open parenthesis.  However, the question is do they belong in modern written media such as Wikipedia.  They certainly serve a useful purpose in concisely indicating the nature of parenthetical comments. Despite, DavidH's opinion, that nature cannot always be determined by the reader in context.  Simply dropping them is not good style.  If I were writing his three given examples for Wikipedia, I would have done so as follows:
 * ''...because of anthropogenic effects such as carbon dioxide emissions...
 * Sudden temperature changes are common. (For example, on March 21, 2004, the temperature plunged from 67 to 34 °F in two hours.)
 * Citrus, mango, pineapple, guava, sapodilla, starfruit and many other fruits are grown commercially in Florida.
 * Lest you think that I'm coming out on the side of doing away with latin abbreviations, let me point out that since Wikipedia is not paper, most uses of "i.e." are best turned into links which can give an even fuller explanation than a parenthetical comment, David's first example had a sentence long parenthical comment, while I prefer to restrict my use of "e.g." to clauses or phrases, not items that can be written as full sentences, and it was feasible to rewrite his third example to avoid using a parenthetical comment entirely. On the other hand, if the third example had been using the Florida fruit as a noun phrase instead of an explanitory sentence, I might have done the last as example as follows:
 * Florida commercial fruit (citrus, mango, et al.) are an major component of Florida's agricultural economy.
 * In my opinion, a list as long as the original example deserves a complete sentence while a short incomplete parenthetical list is better off with "et al." than "e.g", with "e.g." being reserved for a single example.
 * However, once parenthetical comments that can be concisely rewritten so as to not be parethetical have been dealt with, the question of whether Wikipedia should allow their use should be decided based on whether their role in English reasonably understood by most native readers of English? I would say yes, despite that probably fewer than 1 in 10 users know the Latin phrase they are an abbreviation for and perhaps 1 in 10 of those actually care. The point is not their Latin origin but their English use. Caerwine 19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * People use "i.e." and "e.g." in conversation? I don't hang out with that crowd, I guess. Do these peple speak Elvish too? Besides, conversational usage as a basis for a style guide? Please. Show me a major newspaper that uses "e.g." and I might pay attention. As to the fine recastings of my example sentences, it seems to reinforce that they are best written without the abbreviations (and let's not veer off into discussion of what's wrong with parenthetical clauses.) It also seems a bit strange to state that only 10 percent of readers know the meaning of these abbreviations -- but it doesn't matter, they're just so useful and readers should get the meaning from the context. Then comes a recommendation of yet another Latin phrase (et tu Caerwine -- et al.)? Friends, editors, Latin phrases in general-readership articles are sui generis snobbishness. Be bold, not pedantic. DavidH 07:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * And how many people know or care that "AD" is an abbreviation for "anno Domini"? My point was that as long as people know what they mean in English, it doesn't matter if people know what they mean in Latin.  Abbreviations in general should be avoided in most formal written contexts, which is the reason why there are few good examples of the usage of "e.g.".  I just don't see any reason to single out abbreviations that happen to be of Latin origin. Caerwine 15:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have yet to see an example of a usage of "i.e." or "e.g." that wouldn't have been clearer and less awkward after being recast using English. Thus the reason for supporting a recommendation against them. To those who oppose the MoS recommending against "i.e." and "e.g.", show us some examples where they work well, and where they wouldn't be better or clearer after being recast into English.


 * At the very least, the MoS could note that some editors recommend against using them, but there is no consensus to ban them, so editors should use them if they think they are necessary, but (maybe) should consider recasting their prose in English. I don't think that providing no guidance at all is better than providing the facts as they are: some people like them, others don't. The MoS should advise editors to do whatever they think is best, but to consider the arguments for and against. Nohat 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there might be a generational thing here, and also a UK/U.S.(sic!) difference. The use of e.g. and i.e. certainly used to be subject matter taught at school in the UK; it is not lazy, it is a convenience. The main trouble is that they are poorly understood, and i.e. is used for example. In the UK, it is certainly not uncommon to hear it in speech, normally as a form of emphasis - not the most eloquent of speech, but quite common. I didn't think Wikipedia was the domain of the young, nor has it an agenda for language reform, so people need to be careful about asserting viewpoints that may be a reflection of their own circumstances. To be too prescriptive about people using informal English will work against an objective of Wikipedia which is to get everyone contributing. The style enthusiasts can improve as part of that process, but the danger is that valid, if ill-worded, contributions will be discouraged: it is too easy to drift from style guide to style police. The extension of this sort of prescription is that colons and semi-colons become banned as they are becoming vestigal. Spenny 13:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Book quotations
Has anyone considered putting a recommendation about the proper way to make quotations or citations of books ? I witness a considerable amount of citations of the form "The C++ Programming Language, p.224", which are obviously totally useless. Could a format such as "Bjarne Stroustrup, The C++ Programming Language, Special edition, Addison Wesley 2002, p.224" be made an official standard ? Rama 11:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Any sensible way of doing it and giving the requisite information is sufficient. You could put the ISBN there instead of "Special edition", jguk 11:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a guideline for citation at WP:CITE; it's probably not as well-known as it should be, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Links to years
It seems a lot of people put links to years like 2003 or 1945 whenever they see a year referenced. I personally think there is no point in linking to the year. Is there a standard for this this? Bubbachuck 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Manual of Style (dates and numbers) ''If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. '' I normally remove such links when i am editing an article that contains them. DES (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Many other users, perhaps most, prefer to have the years linked. Feel free to omit links on your own articles, but please don't take it upon yourself to remove links that others have made &mdash; its akin to arbitrarily changing spellings to some prefered national variety.. Fawcett5 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dates are the most linked articles. They rank highly on:
 * the list of articles with multiple links to the same article.
 * the list of most referenced articles
 * the list of most incoming links
 * Some editors just add links because they can, not because of an encyclopedic benefit to the reader.


 * See also Manual of Style (links): ''An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
 * more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
 * it has more links than lines;
 * a link is repeated within the same screen—40 lines, perhaps;
 * more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
 * low added-value links (e.g., such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated.


 * Adding year links is clearly popular with many editors. But I think it is excessive and makes Wikipedia look silly. I am sure that a misunderstanding of the date preference method is partly to blame. Bobblewik 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

After edit conflicts, reply to Fawcett5. Well, not quite. The national variety of spelling is independent of Wikipedia style, whereas linking of dates isn't. I have no strong views, and although i don't much like linking every year, I do it, because so many people seem to regard it as important.

I've come across a couple of editors who became offensive when I unlinked the names of months. When I pointed out that information about, say, March wasn't relevant to the article about a pop single, I was aggressively contradicted. Admittedly, those editors have shown repeatedly that they never follow their own links, and clearly hadn't read March. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblewik above. I think many people have mistakenly gotten the idea that such links are somehow important from misunderstanding how date preferences work. If anyone says that they routinely follow such links and will explain why he or she finds them of value, I will be interested to hear it. In the mean time, while I am not on a mission to hunt down and destroy such links, I will more or less routinely and automatically remove such links if I am editing an article where they occur, although I will not nornally edit an article just to remove such links. Many editors fail to put the subject of the article in bold in the first paragraph, or to put birth and death dates in parens after the name on biographical articles too -- and i routinely correct those style violations when I happen to notice them. i put this in pretty much the same class. DES (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't feel particularly strongly about this issue, but I do tend to linkify year links when the year is relatively far from other date references. I rarely follow the links, but I find that they help me in scanning documents for a rough timeline, particularly when articles fail to give a brief history. Of course years do tend to stick out a bit already, but the extra highlighting does help a little. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If that is your purpose, you could bold or italicise them, or use color, to emphasize them, rather than creating a link just to highlight information in the display of a page. DES (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You could, but that would pretty much fly in the face of standard conventions for bold, italics, and color. Which wouldn't really be an improvement. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 17:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't like year links. It struck me as silly as soon as I followed some and found they had nothing to do with the article. I wondered if there was something in the Wiki software that required them. If there's a link to 1872, say, in the Chicago, Illinois article, I expect to find an article about Chicago in 1872 if I follow the link. That said, I won't remove them unless the article is overlinked -- which is often the case. -- DavidH 05:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)