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)" <[email protected]> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
