|
|
| (9 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!''
| |
|
| |
| ::::You ''really'' should do some reading on "good website design". Really. [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| This is a wiki... perhaps you should follow your own advise and read a bit more on Wiki design and go look at how the profession wiki designers are doing it and maybe you will see that we not that far off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 01:47, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::I am (almost) ready to bet you that in the past month I have read more about wiki theory and design than ''you'' have in the past 18 months of working at BW! And the botanical page you linked to appears to have HUNDREDS of definitions, NOT just a few dozen. When we have ''hundreds of definitions'', then that page will be a good model. But NOT when we have only a few dozen definitions!
| |
|
| |
| :: I just did a rough count - there are around '''''800''''' definitions on that page! '''''800'''''!!!!! [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| I don't agree --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::<em>"I don't agree"</em>
| |
|
| |
| ::You don't agree that there are 800 definitions, or you don't agree that I have read more about wikis than you have? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 02:29, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| I don't agree that this is how this page should be structured... I think it would be better to add the short definitions next to the links like on the page with 800 links and improving the pages the pages they link to. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 02:48, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::See [[Test_Glossary]]. ''THIS'' is what I meant it should look like (no, it is ''not'' finished) [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 04:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
