User talk:Jfmantis

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Jfmantis!

 First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.

You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.

If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started. (Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

  Getting help   Made a mistake?   Goodies, tips and tricks Thanks. --ЗAНИA talk 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the Using Wikibooks book for a friendly introduction to the project, or our help pages for more information.
 * You can get friendly help from the community in the user assistance room or our IRC channel.
 * Upload freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons. You may request permission to upload fair use files locally. Please include author and source information and a non-free use rationale for non-free files.
 * You can restore a previously saved version.
 * Pages should follow the  naming convention.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (is available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To request a page be deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * Was a page you made deleted? Please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!

Wikilinks
Any reason why you object to having Wikilinks ? Wikilinks especially to wikipedia are useful metadata that permits readers to explore the issues further, removing them, to a point, degrades the usefulness of the content. Wikilinks is part of the wiki way. I will not object removing, I rarely add them in works that I do not contribute, unless in reading I myself use other wikimedia projects to clarify the information I'm reading. Even if I'm here expressing my dissent, and ask you that consider also not removing it in works you are also not heavily involved. (No issue in removing redundancy or making the links local) --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind this is just Panic's opinion. If you read Dewikify it expresses a different view. Personally I think links to other projects are usually wrong in a book. If further information is needed it should be in the book, not linked to. But that's my view which you are equally as free to ignore, so make your own choice although as Panic implies it is best not to "force" yourself on books that are still being worked on by other editors who take a different view. QU TalkQu 10:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that was the point. Bare also in mind if the link is active someone else decided to make it active, so any change to active wikilinks is a potential edit conflict, and since removing (disabling) the link degrades content quality (whatever view point you defend), for the benefit in aesthetics (debatable, since how links are presented is configurable, but I would agree that in case that they are overused it improves it). I'm also would never oppose the removal of links in substitution to making available the necessary content locally but sometimes that is not possible, because it does have only parallel bearing on the scope being covered).
 * There is also extensions for browsers that make wikilinks in part obsolescent (I use one that references Wikipedia and Wikidicionary) but not all items are covered in those projects. There is also the aesthetics consideration that I prefer wikilinks in place of the topic tag indicating the presence of the information in another project (I do not like them at all), wikilinks enable a greater crosspolitination and visibility of projects.
 * Note that Dewikify, is not a policy or a guideline, it is an informative text necessary because of imports, since most imports require great effort in fixing red links (that is the reason why dewikify exists). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Panic, I'm guessing that you were referring to this edit, and perhaps the previous. I don't necessarily object to wikilinks, unless they are present in distractingly large numbers (as you mentioned, it detracts from the general look of the page). In this specific case, the section from which I removed the links (Installing GNU/Linux) was prefaced by a link to the List_of_Linux_distributions, which to me made further links to distro pages unnecessary. Also, looking at the page again, I see that most of the links I removed are actually still present in other places on the page. But in the future I'll definitely be more careful before indiscriminately removing links to Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Jfmantis (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was all I was asking. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Content removal
What is the purpose of this edit ? I find the old version much more usable. Now it's just a list of instructions. How is that usable at all? Nobody reads the instruction list first and the looks them up one-by-one. It makes much more sense to have the explanation visible next to the instruction name. --Ysangkok (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree I find the simple list of instructions to be more than a little useless. the older version was not perfect but it was way better than a simple list. I have tried to fill in some code samples illustrating the uses of each instruction but I do not think that replaces the table. Syaghmour (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)