Remove two-part links

[technosophos]

I don't know why, but the convention in these docs seems to be to use the "detached link" (aka "reference links") style:

I like [FOO].

[FOO]: http://example..com

While I understand that some people think this style is tidier, it has the following drawbacks, all of which have bitten me while attempting to work on these docs:

1. It is easy to orphan a link when the name and the target are so far apart
2. It is easy to accidentally override a link by re-declaring the reference between the initial usage and the intended reference
3. It is hard (and interruptive of flow) to see a link and then figure out where it goes. Sometimes it requires scrolling far down in the doc, losing one's place in the editorial flow
4. To stay in flow, one may choose not to look up the link (e.g. "Oh, [FOO] must go to the Foo homepage") when in fact that assumption is wrong
5. It is highly subjective where the references should go, and consequently it is hard to track down where to find them.

I understand using that syntax if you have a canonical (and small) set of URLs that need to be re-used... but to do all URLs this way feels like it causes significant editorial pain (at the risk of increased inaccuracy). Are there good reasons to keep this style, or can we use inline links instead?

[bacongobbler]

I agree with all of the drawbacks listed above. I found quite a few places in the docs where links were orphaned due to this style of doc writing.

There is one advantage to this style: referencing the same link twice in the same document. but the cons far outweigh the pros here.

Partially fixed in #11, though there are a few sections still using this style that need to be updated.

[technosophos]

Oh, I do agree with the idea that if the same URL is going to be referenced repeatedly, it is probably better to do the reference once.