Brion Vibber wrote:
I do hate to get in the way of a good flame war, though, so everybody feel free to continue fighting unproductively instead. ;)
How close are we to getting locked down? 5 minutes to midnight? 2 minutes?
There's nothing like the smell of fresh flaimbate in the morning :)
Virgil Lerubino wrote:
It's simply true that more often than not, you'll want to just view a red category rather than edit it. It's still a useful page! (Unlike a red
article).
+1 Insightful
-- Jim
On 4/5/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Two reds? What a nightmare!
Quite! Above all, I DO NOT think we should change colours beyond what we have right now: blue and red. That's too beautifully simple to alter.
Red links lead to edit pages. This is a convention we've established
in the user interface, and I don't see a great reason to change it. Sure, it's a bit inconvenient clicking a category name and getting an edit page, but you can still see the contents of the category.
This is true for a seasoned user, but my proposal has newer users in mind. They clicked on that category link because they wanted to see its members, not for any other reason. If they see an edit box they won't realise the page still functions. They'll think it's a nonexistent page like every other red link. Yknow, if there's a category "People who died in 1845" which no one bothered to write a description for, someone might click it and end up thinking no one died in 1845!
As was said by others, this is a matter of balance. Any disadvantages (and I see few) regards this change are so minimal compared to the advantages. It's simply true that more often than not, you'll want to just view a red category rather than edit it. It's still a useful page! (Unlike a red article).
Virgil. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l