Nemo, sorry for late reply but I agree we should use the word "Should" here
and I like your revised message. If I don't get round to it please feel
free to submit a patch.
That aside what can we do to make this experience better? (We are working
on enabling red links so problem 1 seems to be the main issue here)
On 9 Feb 2014 01:13, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I tried again and I landed on a page actually
containing {{Underlinked}}
(the first one didn't).
Jon Robson, 09/02/2014 05:26:
Nemo try opting into beta mode via settings on
left hand side menu and
then revisit the main page and click the link - the beta mode is dropped
when you follow the link . You'll see we __do__ give instructions on how
to edit links - a big overlay at the bottom. Sorry I should have made
this clearer in my original email.
I remember adding the parameter manually, maybe it was for another page or
I wasn't watching the bottom of the screen attentively.
Find more words that could be links. Add double brackets around
the word. e.g. [[guitar]] becomes guitar
Not "could", but "should". Every single word "could" be a
link, but in
most cases it shouldn't. If the official instructions "adding links that
are relevant to the context within the existing text" is considered too
wordy/complex, I suggest to use something like
Where the title of an existing article is mentioned, enclose it in
double brackets: [[guitar]] becomes guitar
(5 characters more). The rest of my comments still applies; in particular
I'm quite sad that we invite people to a task for which we offer a
2003-like experience (toolbar was introduced in 1.2.0, 2004-03-24).
Nemo