|
|
| 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) Go ahead - ''tell'' me that it is not better! Oh, BTW - you ''could'' have asked me what I meant, in the first place. But instead I had to argue with you then eventually SHOW you what I meant. All of the argument could have been avoided. I was NOT "against the structure" - I was against not putting the info ''on the page'', which I have now done. Before, I did not want to waste the time to integrate it properly. Now I have (it took over 1 1/2 hours, not including accessing the FAQ information earlier - and it is ''still'' only 70 or 80% done). You know, I have ''a lot'' of things happening at once - not just BW.
| |
|
| |
| ::Look - I have seen ''many examples'' of how "Categories" and links are poorly or incorrectly used at BW. I have been trying to make the point that they should be used ''correctly'', and in ways that "make sense" to the reader. Giving a bunch of links on a page, all needing to be clicked in order to read a few scraps of information, does ''not'' make sense. Haven't you read my comments on other pages about Categories and links? This was just one example.
| |
|
| |
| ::See, ''now'' the page is more like a true glossary, but with links to other more-encyclopedic entries/articles. ''Those'' entries should have Category:Encyclopedia added to them. A few of them, though, really don't contain any additional information. I'm not sure what should be done with them - they may not actually benefit from being in the category "dictionary". Perhaps the links on the "Glossary" page to those should just be removed, but the category "dictionary" left in the entries in case another form of organization of those entries is developed later on. But I doubt that we ever will have a very large number of "dictionary" entries. [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| ::Did you take a look at [[Test_Glossary]]? Do you ''still'' believe that this version here is superior?
| |
|
| |
| ::BTW There is ''no such thing'' as the '''DSM-V'''. It does not exist. I don't know why you would want to include a non-existent publication in a (supposedly) "factual" article. But I suppose that just reflects the "standard of quality" here at BW. Or is that a ''lack'' of a standard of quality? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
| :::Re:[[Test_Glossary]] I still like (think they were the correct way to go) the way the links were to begin with but I don't hate the way you currently have set it up.
| |
|
| |
| :::I have read your comments on other pages about Categories and links. I agree with you that it could be improved but I don't have a good handle on exactly what you are purposing. Somethings are easier to do then others. You say you have read all these articles and imply that you now know wiki better then me but I have seen nothing to prove that. Both Leucosticte and I suggested that you name and rename the draft pages you are working on to either a Namespage: project page or a user space and you are still not doing this. This is really not a big deal for me but it indicates that you are still learning. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect people to be perfect on the first go. I don't doubt that from where you were when you started to where you are now has greatly improved and that you are gaining new skills rapidly however procedurally you still lack some of the nuances. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 14:11, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| :::::''"Both Leucosticte and I suggested that you name and rename the draft pages you are working on to either a Namespage: project page or a user space and you are still not doing this."''
| |
|
| |
| ::::::''"I am (almost) ready to bet you that in the past month I have read more about <big>'''wiki theory and design'''</big> than ''you'' have in the past 18 months of working at BW!
| |
|
| |
| :::::::<big>'''''wiki theory and design'''''</big>
| |
|
| |
| :::::Being familiar with "wiki theory and design" does NOT mean that I am familiar with the actual day-to-day ''mechanics'' of wiki code and operations. It means I am familiar with ''wiki theory and design''! [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| :::::::''"I have read your comments on other pages about Categories and links. I agree with you that it could be improved but I don't have a good handle on exactly what you are purposing."''
| |
|
| |
| :::::I am proposing (rather than "purposing") that the admin here have lacked an understanding of ''wiki theory and design'', which is a ''subset'' of webpage theory and design. But to explain all of that in detail to you, I would have to go back and review the dozens and dozens of pages I have already read on the topic, reread the .PDF files that I have downloaded and read on the subject, reread the half-dozen or so of books I have on webpage design (would you like some? that can be arranged) then summarize it here for you. I don't have time for that right now (and I doubt that I ever will, either). What you ''could'' do is to listen to my suggestions very carefully, and try to understand them, and then incorporate them into how BW. [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| :::: DSM V - http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=dsm+v+manual&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=20616240637&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6145967019889507040&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6i8loerbze_b
| |
|
| |
| ::::: I followed the link above, but I could ''not'' find references to a "DSM-V" on the page. I ''DID'' see references to "DSM-5". I am absolutely ''amazed'' that you ''do'' apparently find those references. <small>Editors ''must'' read what is written ''carefully''!</small> <big> P~ </big> [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
| |
