On 17/03/2008, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Since there is very little consensus over the
"correct" ordering of
metadata, any tool which reformats metadata in some rigid format is
bound to step on some toes. Which is probably just an argument for
*reaching* some consensus on metadata formatting, of course.
Yes, I've been using the tool for actual editing and that's already
happened; somebody claimed that there was a 'right' way to order the
interwiki language markups and rearranged it after I submitted.
The other problems I've had have been that one time the tool took an
image on the end of a section I was editing and placed it in the
interwiki language box. It kinda confused me because the image wasn't
where I expected. ;-)
I also have been having issues with the references; this is one area
where the editing tool shows great potential, but there's currently no
way to edit a reference, without entirely deleting it and recreating
it from scratch, which is a *huge* nuisance.
But other than that it looks promising. Oh and the 'header section and
templates' section is much too big- it should be about 2-3 lines tall
at most, they can always scroll if they need to.
Perhaps one solution to this is to make the GUI
dynamic, reflecting
the contents of the wikitext. That is, this:
Not sure, perhaps simply a smaller box in each case might be a simpler
and more straightforward idea.
Steve
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.