Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 196.189.246.214 - "" |
|||
Line 70:
Thank you! [[User:Remagoxer|'''<span style="color: #0a826b;">Rema</span><span style="color: #c91f0c;">goxer</span>''']] [[User talk:Remagoxer|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
== Where do I bill for my time? ==
The term "API" is used more than 20 times in this article without being defined. I had to take the time to look it up. Where do I send my bill for that time? I know I sound like a curmudgeon. I HOPE I sound like a curmudgeon. But use of a technical term 20 times without spelling it out is just BAD. If the text is blue-hot-linked to the article for "API", it's not the FIRST mention. (I would like to question why Wikipedia won't hot-link EVERY mention of Abe Lincoln in an article where Abe Lincoln is mentioned. Why should the researcher who doesn't have time to read the ENTIRE article have to find ONE PARTICULAR instance of "Abe Lincoln", instead of the instance of "Abe Lincoln" in front of their nose, to hop to that article?) Can we even trust that the people who wrote this article KNOW what "API" stands for? Don't laugh. Someone once confessed to writing about "the FBI" without knowing what "F.B.I." stands for, just as one may write about The Pentagon's activities without know what city it's located in.[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6|2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6|talk]]) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
: The article is of a technical nature, and it's assumed that the reader probably knows what an API is. If they don't, the search bar is always there. You don't have to hunt for the single hyperlinked instance of "Abe Lincoln" to go to the article. Links exist to connect related articles, not to entirely negate the need for someone to search. To that extreme, [[having]] [[every]] [[single]] [[thing]] [[in]] [[an]] [[article]] [[linked]] [[is]] [[not]] [[only]] [[excessive]], [[but]] [[also]] [[not]] [[useful]], [[as]] [[this]] [[example]] [[should]] [[hopefully]] [[prove]]. [[User:Saghetti|Saghetti]] ([[User talk:Saghetti|talk]]) 11:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
:: I disagree. I'd totally love to have every single word linked to something. Your example proves nothing to me. (Of course I have link underlining turned off in my personal preferences.) I won't debate you, per the current rules you are absolutely right, and gave the Phoneposter a civil and decent answer. But more often than not the rule of one-link-only really gets on my nerves as well. In long articles, please consider linking important jargon a bit more often, for the benefit of the people who are only interested in researching a specific paragraph, or particularly in the captions of images. Whenever you feel a section of an article should be able to stand on its own. That's how you provide the maximum benefit to the readers. The argument of "you can always just search it" kinda defeats the purpose of having Hyperlinks at all. --[[User:BjKa|BjKa]] ([[User talk:BjKa|talk]]) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
== NPOV? ==
While reading the [[Java_(programming_language)#History|History]] section, this specific line caught my eye.
| |||