rubilia: Ok, I'll try to explain. Those numbers are part of an (still somewhat experimental) attempt to achieve sgf-editor-like move accessability within a wiki context. I am sorry if you don't like it. Have you already used the link marker system the way it's intended to?
I have to admit, the lengthy labels aren't quite what I'd call handsome. Every number stands for a particular branch, where "1" is the first suggested play, "2" the secondly suggested one, and so on. If you know a way to hide the labels, let me know, please. I did consider to use abbreviated ones, but they'd make new sub-branches much harder to implement. Anyway, since the branch labels take only one line each - like shorter numbers would, too - I don't see them as a serious flaw.
Dave: You say you want to have sgf-editor-like move accessability within a wiki context. However, a wiki context is a web browser. Why do you want to restrict your browser to act like an sgf-editor? You appear to mean that you want to navigate diagram by diagram. However, most browsers will display 2-3 diagrams per screen instead of being limited to only one (sgf-editor-like). The original links added to the top diagram were helpful but I think the rest are more confusing than helpful.
rubilia: Why talk about restrictions here? I don't see any need to have the browser show one diagram only. It's no big deal to ignore all lower ones, actually. My main point is about an advantage rather than about a limitation: navigating the various attempting paths by selecting a move at the current board situation.
Dave: The reason I consider this approach restricted is that the naturalness of the result is dependent on the user conforming strictly to your system. Yes, if you start with the original image correctly positioned and then limit yourself to the top image on the page it runs smoothly. However, as soon as you look at the whole page and click on a "mis"-positioned diagram other than the one at the top, the naturalness disappears. The next diagram does not appear under the mouse, it appears at the top of the page and some other, unrelated diagram appears under your mouse. In addition, all the "back" buttons that you have put on the page function in a non-standard manner (for a web page). They do not take you back to your previously position - unless you have restricted yourself to the system's rigid path. Your browser's real "back" button is required to actually take you back to your previous position. I believe that for most people this is more confusing than helpful.
rubilia: Now I understand your reservations somewhat better. Unlike it seemed best to me, maybe I really should restrict the views to show the current diagram only. Also I see the confusion about my use of "Back" here, which was inspired by the back button in sgf editors. If I got it right, that's caused by the mispositioned diagrams. Bill, do you think it's still better to rename them to "Up", anyway? "Up" reminds me on the links usually pointing to the top of a page. To me, that feels more different from what the links do here than "back".
Dave: Actually the finished product is rather cute :-) However, I think with this you have broken the wiki mold. How does the next reader add a variation? The wiki idea is that anyone can add their ideas and modify the page. I do not think this is going to be the case here. Also you are not going to be able to add comments on any diagram that fill more than one page (regardless of the name of page :-)
Bill: Actually, because of the possibility of transpositions, so that you do not know what Back or Up means, I think that clicking on the last played stone in the diagram is better.
I am not concerned about breaking the Wiki mold. After all, I had little trouble adding my comments. :-) However, I have two related complaints. First, there is too much white space. Paging down takes forever. Second, some of my comments were of a piece, and I think that the argument is harder to follow when you only see one variation at a time. This could be remedied, I expect, by including more explanatory text, but in the editing that was not done. :-(
unkx80: There is a precedent at Interactive Life And Death. However, the purpose of that page is different from the purpose of this page, because this page supposed to contain some ongoing discussions. So the system might not be very appopriate here.