|
|
| (19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| That is redundant.... add the short definitions next to the link. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::You've got it backwards, I think. The ''LINKS'' are redundant, and should be removed '''''if they lead to the exact same text as that from the FAQ glossary.''''' Don't you see that? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 01:07, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::: No I don't think that... the links are the whole point of wiki. However, if you wanted to improve the text that the links lead to, that would be cool.--[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::::Uh, oh...
| |
|
| |
| :::: If you don't see that the '''links''' exist <big>'''''ONLY to make the data in the database easily accessible'''''</big>, and that they are '''NOT''' the "whole point of the wiki", then I see serious problems in the future for BW. The ''links'' should NOT get in the way of the information.
| |
|
| |
| ::::The links are there only to ''make the information MORE accessible!'' BUT ''only when the links can be used to MAKE THE INFORMATION MORE ACCESSIBLE! Otherwise, the links are not just a nuisance and a distraction, but a threat to the existence of the wiki!
| |
|
| |
| ::::People are NOT patient. They will NOT put up with "being given the runaround" and being forced to click on link-after-link to access a very small amount of information.
| |
|
| |
| ::::I'm not sure you understand. The bureaucracy (the links) exists only for the PEOPLE - ''not'' the people exist only for the bureaucracy!
| |
|
| |
| ::::If the links don't make browsing the information easier, faster, and more informative, then ''they should be eliminated!'' [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
