Talk:Glossary

That is redundant.... add the short definitions next to the link. --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? 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.--Etenne (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Uh, oh...

If you don't see that the links exist ONLY to make the data in the database easily accessible, 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. 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

--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!!!!! User4 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I don't agree --Etenne (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

"I don't agree"

You don't agree that there are 800 definitions, or you don't agree that I have read more about wikis than you have? 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. --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. User4 (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)