User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It

Nice tool

Hi ! nice tool, thanks. I have tried it for Study Skills, I haven't had the occasion to test it horoughly but seems good. --Khalid hassani 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know why "Time management" and "Notetaking" are repeat-linked within three seconds of their first link; in addition, they are linked further down. "Distractions" isn't linked on first appearance, but is linked below; Tony (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe problem?

I seem to be having problems using the tool for St. Brendan's Island and I think it is having problems with the apostrophe. The output is:

The "St. Brendan\'s Island" article text was empty, or does not exist, or could not be retrieved. Maybe it's not a valid Wikipedia article? To search for link suggestions for more pages, click here.

--NHSavage 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi NHSavage, and thank you for the heads up! It was definitely a bug with apostrophes. I've updated it, and it should be fixed now - e.g. seems to show the suggestions okay, and save and apply them okay - but if you notice anything else wrong please let me know. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work, very useful

Tool works and is very useful. Used it for US article and it came-up with lots of relevant suggestions. Thanks Tom 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Though I haven't used it, myself, somebody used it *on* an article I wrote. Please use this tool with caution. The article I wrote was so overlinked it looked absurd. I grant that some suggestions were excellent, but linking to articles that have nothing to do with the article one is reading is just plain distracting. Jeffpw 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! This tool simply works amazingly well — perhaps better than human editors in some situations. I think the {{wikify}} template should include a direct link to your tool. :)

Although I also agree with jeffpw — perhaps the tool should explicitly warn/notify the user about overlinking and relevant linking. -- intgr 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: non-javascript interface

It would be good to include users of non-javascript enabled browsers, such as links, lynx, w3m, as well as users who have turned off javascript in their browser. -Pgan002 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job!

Very interesting tool. I've set it on my favorites and I'll be using it often. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes We Can!

Very useful! I discovered this yesterday and have tried it on a couple of articles so far – an excellent addition to the Wikipedia armory – which should, I think, be given more publicity.

But, how on earth does it work? Do you have an expanding database of all Wikipedia articles for it to search through? An explanation (in laymans' terms, please!) would be most interesting. Regards – Agendum 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

The same glitch was produced when I used the page a minute ago. The tool is fantastic, just added 30-40 useful links to the Palace of Versailles article. Thanks! —Dogears (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

&?

Hello! As I've mentioned before, your tool is great. However, it does not seem to accept articles which contain an ampersand (&), such as East Durham & Houghall Community College. I've tried replacing it with "&", but the tool simply states that no article by the name of "East Durham " exists. Just FYI! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this too. But it works if you copy the page title from the URL in the browser address bar – in your case, try CWLI with the string

East_Durham_%26_Houghall_Community_College

You get nine suggested links. Cheers, Hebrides (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Special characters

As has been pointed out above, this script seems to have occasional trouble with special characters. I have just removed a stray backslash (escape character gone spare?). May I also suggest a link from this tool's page to the guidelines WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOS-L? Enthusiastic use of this tool may lead to serious overlinking. Thank you. — mholland 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Nickj,

I just wanted to say great job on the tool. I've been using it for a while and some of the suggestions it comes up with are pretty impressive.

On a somewhat related note, I'm the author of a very simple script called Tags which basically helps editors add frequently used maintenance templates to articles. A few minutes ago, I added an option to wikify an article using Can we link it (at this time, disabled by default) and I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any objections. Thanks and keep up the good work, -- Seed 2.0 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections at all - please feel free to include it or link to it in any tools you wish. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --S ^up? 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Erhm...

This is a very nice and incredibly useful tool, but one thought that occurs to me is that it would be quite easy to use this tool for link spamming. Have you considered this yet, and if so, have you taken any steps to protect against it? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

trailing blanks

I noticed that if a pasted-in article title has a trailing blank CWLI won't find the article. Andyvphil 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

Great tool! It's suggesting some good links I wouldn't have thought of. And I love the ability to click on the suggestion to see what the page being linked to really is. This is an awesome addition to the DEP arsenal.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be working

Many of the articles I type in, it doesn't find. When it does find an article and I make my selections, then submit them, it never connects. Will this be fixed anytime soon? I'd love to use it, it looks like an awesome tool. --Skylights76 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. When it does find an article and I make my selections, then submit them, it never connects. It looks as if it will be really useful when it works though. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's working for me now. I've just used it on Clannad and it came up with some really helpful suggestions. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's doing this for me right now. It provides suggestions, I select the ones to use, and then it spends 10 minutes or so attempting to connect, but fails. This is the first time I've used the tool, and it is doing this on both Firefox and IE. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LinkBot

Hi there,

I understand your concerns of the LinkBot, particularly that may annoy people, but what if you create a page for subscribers, and only the subscribed people will get the suggestions from the bot? The bot should do suggestions based on pages recently edited by those subscribers. If you do that approach, the LinkBot would be very very useful. What do you think?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't find some articles

Hi, great tool! If used with care, this really improves an article. One question: I noticed that some articles are not found by the program, even though they do exist on Wikipedia. Any suggestions? (Example Genes, Brain and Behavior). --Crusio (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

watched pages

Nice one.. suggested quite a few good links, thankyou! A little note though - seems to take the 'watch' off of an edited page? LeeVJ (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ditto on all three points: thanks, links & where'd my watchlist go. Bazj (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on all 3, but with another issue. The only page I have used the tool on is Farewell Farewell. Here I noticed the two boxes at the top, read the first few sentences and acted upon them; saved changes, then noticed sentence "Suggestions are available". Clicked on this, which started your tool; it suggested five links (presumably there would have been many more if I'd tried it earlier). Of those, two were suitable, three not but that's not a criticism. The two problems I had were that (a) it dropped the "watch" status as per the two users above; (b) on saving, the "null edit summary" detector complained, as per an unnamed user in the main page of this article. I clicked "Save Changes" again, without altering the "Edit summary", and it accepted it as you can see from the page history. Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fatal Error

Hi Nickj love the tool I was trying it out and looked up the Ulster Defence Regiment article but got this error just thought I would let you know about it.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 16777216 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 524288 bytes) in /var/www/hosts/can-we-link-it.nickj.org/suggest-links/current_page.php on line 147

Maybe you could have a look at the code again see if you can sort it. BigDunc^Talk 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still hanging

Hi-

I've tried using CWLI (and it's awesome with its suggestions), but it keeps hanging when I try to submit. What are the chances of porting it to toolserver? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Offline?

Oh no - I love CWLI, but have received a page load error every time I've tried to access it over the last few days. Has it had its chips? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm around 7 months late in answering this, but to explain what happened I went on holiday overseas at the time, and whilst I was away there was a technical problem that stopped the tool working, which I didn't notice for several days, and then I wasn't able to fix it until I got back from overseas, so as a result the tool was down for about a week and half. Please accept my apologies for the downtime. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 08:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the errors

I can't find the errors at http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/suggest-links/suggester.php?page=Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics. Any chance you can help me out? Thanks very much, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a try now - there were two issues there. One set of nested templates closed with two consecutive sets of curled brackets (}}}}); I just inserted a space between the two sets. There was also a reference that started with a double quote mark (") and ended with two spaced single quotes (' '). I replaced both with pairs of single quotes (''), which in wiki syntax makes italics. Should be working now. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was going blind trying to find them. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Web-hosting

I'll be happy to donate a part of my web-hosting to the project: PHP 4/5, MySQL, PHPMyAdmin. Please, feel free to get in touch. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Danube Commission

Hi, Nick. When I use the above link in your tool, it takes me to the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. This is an old Redirect; there is now a good article about the Danube Commission, which I wrote and would like to find some links for. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This problem is still occurring. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I badly need to regenerate the database (please see redlink section below, it's fundamentally the same problem, doing this will stop suggesting redlinks, and will start suggesting links to things that are new articles). I'm very short of time at the moment, but will try my best to get this done within a month's time. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 08:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot inserting redlinks?

Hi - I had the issue today of using the bot, and discovering that two of the entries inserted were redlinks: Jill Gioia and Karine Hannah. Both seem to be deleted articles - deleted at least a year ago. Is it time to do a regeneration of the database it's using? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely correct, the database is most definitely out of date and badly needs to be regenerated. It's just finding the time to do that - leave it with me, and hopefully should be do-able within the next month. -- All the best, Nickj (t)

Relevant linking please

Nice tool. It definitely helps for the undeveloped and unwikified articles. However, can I remind users of this tool to be aware of the disadvantages of adding links to common terms and dictionary-definition type terms. Overlinking tends to have an adverse effect, especially in higher-quality articles. For example, do we really need links to "woman", "antique shop" , "mayor" and the like (refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Milk&diff=prev&oldid=308812827 this diff)? Not saying that this tool isn't useful; just reminding users of it to be cautious. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, again, sorry about that :( I was binging on this, and got lazy by the time I used it for Harvey Milk (An article I really wouldn't want to mess up) and my judgement got impaired.----occono (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick. While I appreciate the novelty and technique in designing the trial tool, I think it oversimplifies the editorial skill that good wikilinking requires. If you'd like to get a sense of that, please see an experimental stub I prepared last month here (it's skewed towards the awareness of overlinking at the moment, which many editors believe is a much greater issue than underlinking—there will be a few underlinking exercises soon). You may also wish to read WP:LINK. Tony (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand 100% behind this tool, and actually think it needs to be improved in order to help it suggest more links. A tool is a tool, and editors need to be trained to use it. GA is the process/forum where such training should take place. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very concerned that this tool will lead to WP:OVERLINKing. Linking requires editorial judgment. I'd be interested in seeing a test run, but I'm unconvinced a tool can replace the editorial judgment needed for good linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just used it, and it works great. It doesn't replace judgement, though. One thing it does that's awesome is that if you have a bunch of names, it shows you which people have their own pages. I wish it suggest links inside refs, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent sample looks good; I'm curious to see more. What would it do at Tourette syndrome (if anyone wants to test)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It works better on articles that aren't already linked (like post FA process). Anyways, here's the options it gives you. I would imagine that it would work particularly well for medical and other extra technical subjects, because technical words are as easy to it as any other, and less ambiguous. One interesting thing I just noticed, it suggests linking October 14 for Oct 14. Not something you'd want to do, but Oct 14 should probably changed to October 14, unless there's some MOS thing about abbreviating dates I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It proposed about 40 links, of which I accepted six. The rest were incorrect, overlinking, or date linking. Then, when I tried to post the six good ones, I lost the whole page. Anyway, the experiment validates my concern: it led to some incorrect and overlinking, and I suspect too many editors will just indiscriminately add them, so we should take care with FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the controversy here is. It's just a tool, that gives some good and bad suggestions, and then makes it easy to choose the ones you want. Was there an overlinking oppose, and someone said "non-actionable, the tool suggested them so their all good"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, my concern is that we'll have to watch closer for correct linking at FAC, because some editors might run the tool indiscriminately (I would actually say many editors are likely to run it indiscriminately, but then we'd have to talk about ageism and get way off track :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been using this tool for a long, long time, and I find it invaluable. And I don't overlink, either. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone who uses this tool overlinks; indeed, overlinking is a trend that is widespread on WP regardless of how the links are introduced. However, automation in this area makes it easier for editors to inadvertently introduce excess, unnecessary links. Personally, I would rather that human discretion alone was used to determine what should and what should not be linked, but am fully accepting of the idea that this tool can be helpful, when used judiciously. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0.13

Hi, works in IE but not in Firefox 3.0.13 Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I use Google Chrome 2.0.172.39, and it worked for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me: who is still using that disgraceful IE? Tony (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yours truly, the techno-idiot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.0.13 and it seems to work for me. Can you possibly describe / give some details on what's not working in Firefox? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Errors...

I get errors when trying to check Chicado V and Easy Jet, any idea why? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not get any error message with Chicado V, but there were three syntax mistakes in EasyJet, all of them the lack of closing boldface symbols in the chart. I fixed them. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AH, but it's not EasyJet with no space between, it's Easy Jet with a space between, which is a FA on a horse. When I try to get to Easy Jet it redirects me to the link suggestor page for the airline. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, right. I have the same problem with Danube Commission (see my note above). I'm not sure what causes it. NickJ does not seem to be monitoring this page, or I'm sure I would have had an answer by now. Is Chicado V working out OK? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Chicado's fine. Just .. odd with EasyJet. Could it be the hatnote at the top? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My best guess with Easy jet (I'm assuming we're talking about the horse, not the airline, as the former gives errors and the latter does not) is that it's all of the "{{formatnum:{{inflation ... }}}}" things that are confusing it. The hack solution would be to add a space between the "}}}}" to make it "}} }}", but I'm personally very unsure about doing that because there are so many of them in this article. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not giving me the usual error thing though, it's throwing me to the airline page when I try to do the horse. THAT is what is odd. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

The opening text of the tool seems to be pushing the indiscrimate linking of items—the old scattergun practice: "Can we link it? ... Yes we can!" More appropriate would be a few points about the skills required to achieve good wikilinking, and links to WP:LINKING. The very absence of guidance reinforces the danger that this will be used as a toy, and easy way around the exercise of serious judgement to optimise the utility of what can be a superb functionality (wikilinking).

So, the JS Bach article picked up the New Style / Old Style date syntax at the top as an error (it's not), or at least it was objecting to some closing square bracket that I couldn't locate. It refused to proceed until it was "fixed".

The Australia article: same trouble: curly square brackets. No go on doing the link function.

This is will turn out to be a really boring tool if this can't be fixed. Tony (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Subsequently: I finally found an article that didn't throw up the boom-gate at the start with false-positive syntax "errors": Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist). Lots of the suggestions are undesirable. This is highly problematic, unless the tool GUI itself warns editors of the dangers of overlinking and directs them to the appropriate guidelines. Tony (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did all this start? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsure of your meaning. Tony (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did some FAC get messed up by the linker or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm reasonably disappointed by the tool. Applying links is a discerning skill that should be practised while editing text (not as a smear over the top at the end). The danger is that the examples to be linked are taken out of context at the tail-end of the editing process. I also believe that the link loonies will have a field day with the tool. I would discourage its use (sorry).  HWV258  02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I love this tool, because it suggests links that I've never heard of, and offers me a very easy means of verification (click on the link in the tool) to figure out whether it's the right thing to do. A better tool would be wonderful, but this is so much better than no tool. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the point, but perhaps you shouldn't be editing an article if a tool is suggesting links that don't occur to you as a knowledgeable editor. Of all the articles I've created and edited, I believe that the relevant links stand out as obvious (during editing). Incidentally, I'm not so worried about the tool in the hands of an experienced editor (and someone who is well versed with the current MOSs), however I'm extremely nervous about the tool in the hands of the link loonies. Cheers.  HWV258  23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I used it, and it worked great, and I think I can be considered a knowledgeable editor. I haven't run into a "link loony", so I'm not sure about that part. Maybe we need a tool for delinking. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• How, then, does one get past the issue of the overactive (false positive) syntax errors that are thrown up before you even get to the link bit? I do wish there were a button you could press to bypass this. Nick????? Tony (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One of my hobbies is rescuing the amazingly linkless (and sometimes clueless) stuff that shows up on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. In many of those cases, Wikipedia "knows" more than I do about the article's subject, and definitely remembers more. I supply the judgment, Wikipedia supplies the memory. Good match. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so amazingly slow with responding to the comments here, I'm pretty snowed under at work, but will do my best to assist! And thank you Tony for the heads-up email - I see you're another Australian! In fact, think I met you at one of the Sydney wiki meetups :-) For the syntax problems with the link suggestions, they don't sound like much fun at all - sorry about that! The main problem I'm aware is if there's a "{{ blah {{ " somewhere then a "}}}}" somewhere later to close it, it can get confused. Let me have a look at the two articles, i.e. Bach and Australia ... Ok, I see the problem with the JS bach article ... fixed now, it was a nowiki that was throwing it (the syntax checking is all about balance, and one "[" in a nowiki doesn't balance against a "]" not in a nowiki). Edit made. Suggestions should be good to go now. May of the links are not great though - probably "[[Bach family]]" was the only one that looked particularly relevant to me)... maybe also "E-flat major", "[[violin concerto]]s", "C/b/d major", maybe "[[Musical composition|compositional technique]]", "[[religious music]]", "[[Music of Europe|European music]]", and one or two others. Most of the remaining suggestions are fairly crap though.
The "Australia" article is one that I checked for good links years ago (it was one of the articles used for testing and development) so just to let you know up-front that it probably won't have too many great suggestions. It was upset about adding the extra space thing for the }}}} - easiest & quickest fix is to search for }}}} and add an extra space between the two }}'s - relevant edit, and suggestions should be working now and are here.
For the syntax errors, it should give an error about what it was upset about, and that error should (generally) be correct, although very often it's not at all easy to find! Although I want to add the caveat that it's most definitely not perfect, and the only way to truly make it perfect is to have something that works exactly like MediaWiki's parser, which is rather hard to do as it's a continuously moving target and rather long and complicated bit of code that's quite tightly integrated with the rest MediaWiki ... A bypass button could maybe done, but the reason it needs to be able to understand the wiki text is to not suggest links to things that are already links, and not suggest links to things that are bolded/in italics (which generally doesn't seem appropriate). So the best bet for a "bypass" would be to stop suggesting links at the point where it ran into trouble/stopped understanding the wiki text, which is a bit of hack. And I agree about the potential for overlinking - absolutely users should choose carefully! This tool is only intended to provide an automated list of suggestions, some of suggestions are way off or not appropriate for the context - i.e. it's only an aid, definitely not a substitute for critical thinking. Anyway, thank you for the feedback, sorry for any annoyance the tool caused, and sorry for being the world's slowest replier. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Syntax errors

The tool picks up syntax errors, which can be tracked down fairly easily and corrected before it prompts you for possible links. Quite often I will have to copy the raw text and paste it into a word processor, then use the search function to find out where the errors are. This is annoying, but I guess it is useful to get rid of the stray apostrophes or square brackets that show up from time to time. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the tool actually started out orginally as a syntax checker, and then evolved into a link suggester, and over time the wiki text tends to get a bit messy. It's definitely not perfect though, and finding out where the problem is can be tricky - pasting into a text editor/word processor and doing a search does tend to make it easier than using the small edit box to locate what it's upset about. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Nice tool; it seems to like suggesting linking months to their years, eg February 1998. This might be worth special-casing out, though it's easy enough just to skip them. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Autocomplete prevents search for Han Jin

Brilliant tool! Much more helpful interface than others I've used.

The autocomplete feature seems to prevent me from using CWLI on Han Jin. Every time I try, it insists that I mean Han Jindi and gives me links for the page Emperor Jing of Han. The only way I could find of getting links for the Han Jin page was to input "Han_Jin" into CWLI – a workaround, but not obvious…

Thanks for a very useful utility – I only offer the above observation in the interests of improving it still further. Hebrides (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Backslach before quotes in link!

When I clicked yes for a piped link to "Ivory Coast" the tool inserted the link [[Côte d\'Ivoire|Ivory Coast]], which came up as a redlink. Now where did that stray backslash come from? Hebrides (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

suggestoion

This tool character be restricted to articles having no links at all. Of 10 article I checked randomly, not one of the links were needed,and about half were wrong altogether. What would be needed for more general use is a much more subtle syntax, and a list of restrictions, such as not linking to personal names--every one I saw linked to the wrong people, including links from fictional characters to real people of the same name, --probably because all needed links to correct ones were already in the articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For pages on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages (which admittedly are quite bad), I find that the percentage of links I add is usually between 10% and 50%. I sometimes would like a "probably not appropriate to suggest in any article" button on the suggests, so that I can get rid of suggestions to link to common words, but I find the tool extremely useful for that quick first pass. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Great tool! Mahanga^Talk 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Google has blocked this site

Google reports that this site hosts malicious software.

• http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-GB&site=http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/

--Triwbe (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine now, with no reports at the given URL. The site itself seems to time out without loading, though. Does it no longer work? --McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)