stevertigo wrote:
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Hate it.
As in "isch, I donst tsink so?"
It's not obvious to the naive reader.
Nor is the disorganised current system, or the edit link for that matter, depending on how you define naieve.
How is a plane English sentence describing what someone might have wanted, or indicating that if they wanted something else in general, that they should follow a link not obvious? It is in plane english and does not require that a person be "in the know" or an editor. First time wikipedia users can get it.
The link is out of the body of the article, and people are already well-trained by numerous websites to ignore content outside the central box.
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
The word 'Disambiguation' itself is Wikipedia jargon; it isn't obvious that it means 'If you wanted another meaning of this term, go here'.
Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon? On the one hand you say 'it has to be in the content, because people dont look elsewhere.' Not the most compelling argument. On the other hand you say 'its special wiki terminology, though it doesnt belong with other special wiki terminology:' Recent changes, What links here, Related changes, Special pages...
Sigh.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
-sv PS: Does adding actual fact content to Uncyclopedia constitute "trolling"?
Lol
SKL