Hah well, I get what you're saying (I mean, I got it before this). It's not always easy to find what you're looking for in docs, and it sounds like you really l

Hah well, I get what you're saying (I mean, I got it before this). It's not always easy to find what you're looking for in docs, and it sounds like you really look to cross-references to help you do that. My counterpoint here is the Google protocol buffers docs for Python [0]. Again I don't want to come down too hard on others' work, but just this front page isn't that helpful to me. For one, I don't need everything prefaced with `google.protobuf`, I know that's the package I'm looking at, and for another, the needless `google.protobuf` prefix and the attendant wrapping make the sections on the left really hard to scan. But let's get into a specific module: timestamp_pb2 [1]. There are a grand total of two cross-references that aren't to the Python docs (which are KeyError and bool, which like, not the most helpful of cross-references). That's not a great showing. If your argument here is that "RST nudges you towards explicitly denoting relationships between different parts of your documentation", I'm not seeing it, and I would guess these docs get a fair amount of traffic. --- My argument here is that you're seeing features in ReST, and extrapolating characteristics about ReST docs based on those features, while ignoring real-world considerations (like developer motivation, for one). I'm sure ReST has features that seem like they would encourage doc authors to use cross-referencing more. But the docs I use are barely cross-referenced, I use DDG/Google searches for this, and pragmatically I think this is the experience of most people. [0]: https://googleapis.dev/python/protobuf/latest/ https://googleapis.dev/python/protobuf/latest/ [1]: https://googleapis.dev/python/protobuf/latest/google/protobuf/timestamp_pb2.html https://googleapis.dev/python/protobuf/latest/google/protobu...