On 2/7/06, Dan Jacobson <jidanni(a)jidanni.org> wrote:
There should be an acronym sweep done of wikipedia.
E.g, right at the
start of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSCM
we are hit with ELINT,
SIGINT and ECM. More acronyms that an offline reader has no way of
figuring out. Don't depend that we can click, or even mouseover, e.g.,
on our PDA offline.
I think that's covered in the style guidelines somewhere. You're
totally right. In that particular case I'm not sure why the article
name is not the full name, and the abbreviation not just given as an
Sweep for any (perl regexp)
links that don't have an "(Explanation ...)" following in the text. Or
better yet make sure they are all spelled out right in the file name.
Sure, propose a bot.
P.S., in your articles that are "(Redirected from
bla bla)", use real
HTTP redirects or something, anything to not have the same hundreds of
kilobytes end up on the user's disk but just in a different filename.
Indeed, he now has to remember that he has already read the article
and cannot depend on link colors alone etc.
Ideally, no links in Wikipedia should ever point to redirects. If you
find one, please feel free to fix it. There are some semi-automatic
bots to do this.
Redirects are, I believe, primarily intended for people to be able to
type in FireFox and get redirected to Firefox or whatever. You're
probably suggesting a lot of work for not much benefit.
P.S., Looking at e.g.,
lynx or plucker, there seems to be ads for political parties festooned
across the top. Only in firefox does one see they are inoffensively at
the side. Perhaps move them to the bottom.
Mmm, bug reports that sound like "This page looks bad in Lynx" always
go down well :) Best of luck to you with this one.
P.S., the "personal appeal for donations"
line looks small in firefox,
but big in text browsers... also it is in the critical search engine
indexing top of page area... I bet it might be all one sees in some
search engines page preview snippet... Perhaps move to bottom.
No argument here.