Summary style is superior to "centralised style". Virtually any page that contains a wikilink, is linked to, or is placed in a category can be seen as a "root page". I am currently inclined to take out backlinks at the top of articles, but I think the 'Branch page' section, with backlink template first, is very good. I agree, and think we have to decide whether to backlink and whether to allow multiple levels. ![]() I think a few minor tweaks may be necessary but the system is working well so far.- Light current 07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC) For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys. This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. So you like Staus Quo then: Down, down, deeper and down :-))- Light current 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Go up/down Yes! OR go deeper or shallower- Light current 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, you are quite right. ALoopingIcon 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC) I think I agree with that. more clearer terms to describe semantic (?) movements that are almost always appliables and that could serve to implement the loose grouping mechanism that seems needed. Probably go up - go down are better terms. When wiki browsing you can go in many directions and the only one that knows where do you came from is your web browser. What could be simpler than that?- Light current 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC) I do not think that the problem could be stated in Go forward - go back terms. Thas why I proposed hub pages so novice people especially could get around the subject quickly and easily without having to wade thro' a mass of (possibly)confusing blue links. I believe backlinking is ESSENTIAL to easy navigation. The term backlink needs defining and its own page on Wikipedia:Backlink- Light current 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) If backlinking is remove, we will end up with little more than summary style. THans for showing us the correct way and doing all this work for us!- Light current 07:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Ambush Commander ( Talk) 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Root page needs to be updated too, but I think in general that tag is a bad idea. Anyone reverting me better finish the job (if you be bold, you should also be thorough). ![]() ![]() Lindosland 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I have updated all the syntax (the template and the inclusions). I did include a space in the backlink template at the end, which seems to work. Sorry this above should say: template, which I didn't create, appears to have a : at the start which forces a new line. Should the backlink template not use the pipe | as in:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |