Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just 1 member, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/019259.html ), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see the members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go into editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds.
I agree. The link whould be red, because despite its useful when red, the category MUST be a part of another category, wich contains a group of categories.
On the other side it should take you to the list of articles allready in the category, instead of the edit the category page.
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Ierubino" virgil.ierubino@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org; mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just 1 member, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/019259.html ), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see the members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go into editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Thanks Milan,
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
This makes sense _if_ the wiki is set up to allow edits by registered users only - however many aren't setup this way (I'm not sure statistically which is higher).
Personally, I think that in general a wiki should be have the same for registered users and non-registered guests except where it's absolutely necessary to draw the line (for example if edits are restricted to users).
But that's just my two cents.
-- Jim
On 4/3/07, Milan Tesovic milant@cg.yu wrote:
I agree. The link whould be red, because despite its useful when red, the category MUST be a part of another category, wich contains a group of categories.
On the other side it should take you to the list of articles allready in the category, instead of the edit the category page.
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Ierubino" virgil.ierubino@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org; mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just
1
member, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/019259.html), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see
the
members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go
into
editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks Milan,
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
This makes sense _if_ the wiki is set up to allow edits by registered users only - however many aren't setup this way (I'm not sure statistically which is higher).
Personally, I think that in general a wiki should be have the same for registered users and non-registered guests except where it's absolutely necessary to draw the line (for example if edits are restricted to users).
But that's just my two cents.
-- Jim
It wouldn't work unless you disable page caching.
On 03/04/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
It wouldn't work unless you disable page caching.
Non-issue; we could fix this with a simple addition to the cache token.
Rob Church
This sounds reasonable...how could those of us with our own wikis implement it? An extension?
Jim
On Apr 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks Milan,
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
This makes sense _if_ the wiki is set up to allow edits by registered users only - however many aren't setup this way (I'm not sure statistically which is higher).
Personally, I think that in general a wiki should be have the same for registered users and non-registered guests except where it's absolutely necessary to draw the line (for example if edits are restricted to users).
But that's just my two cents.
-- Jim
On 4/3/07, Milan Tesovic milant@cg.yu wrote:
I agree. The link whould be red, because despite its useful when red, the category MUST be a part of another category, wich contains a group of categories.
On the other side it should take you to the list of articles allready in the category, instead of the edit the category page.
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Ierubino" virgil.ierubino@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org; <mediawiki- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just
1
member, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/ 019259.html), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see
the
members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go
into
editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
===================================== Jim Hu Associate Professor Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics 2128 TAMU Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX 77843-2128 979-862-4054
My votes (not that they count):
Different colors for empty category links for registered users vs. trolls:
-1
Empty category links go directly to action=view instead of action=edit:
+1
Empty category links go to different actions depending on user privilege (editability):
-1
Making an extension to have empty category links behave differently than they do today:
0 (neutral)
Is there a formal voting process on stuff like this? Does we use the voting features of Bugzilla?
-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
On 4/3/07, Jim Hu jimhu@tamu.edu wrote:
This sounds reasonable...how could those of us with our own wikis implement it? An extension?
Jim
On Apr 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks Milan,
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
This makes sense _if_ the wiki is set up to allow edits by registered users only - however many aren't setup this way (I'm not sure statistically which is higher).
Personally, I think that in general a wiki should be have the same for registered users and non-registered guests except where it's absolutely necessary to draw the line (for example if edits are restricted to users).
But that's just my two cents.
-- Jim
On 4/3/07, Milan Tesovic milant@cg.yu wrote:
I agree. The link whould be red, because despite its useful when red, the category MUST be a part of another category, wich contains a group of categories.
On the other side it should take you to the list of articles allready in the category, instead of the edit the category page.
There is another possible solution: Unregistred users see category as a blue link which will lead them to the list of the articles in the category but registered users will see red link which leads them to the 'edit category' editbox
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Ierubino" virgil.ierubino@gmail.com To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org; <mediawiki- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
Further to this thread (making category links red only if they have just
1
member, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/ 019259.html), and in response to the responses (that changing the colours was met with disapproval), might I suggest that the colours remain the same, but red category links simply don't take you to an editing page?
This would solve the main problem I think. The point is that categories can still be used even if they are red, so I want to be able to view a category (from a link) without it taking me to an edit box. I just want to see
the
members. Everything else about the category remains the same - it is classed as a wanted page, etc., the link simply just doesn't automatically go
into
editing. I think this solution gets the best of both worlds. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
===================================== Jim Hu Associate Professor Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics 2128 TAMU Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX 77843-2128 979-862-4054
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Looking at this discussion I still think that the following is a very good no-fuss proposal:
Red category links view the category rather than editing the category.
This achieves everything that's already there, but also allows new users (or even old ones) to look at category members without passing through an edit page. That can be annoying, time-consuming or very confusing for new editors.
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
On 03/04/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
I wonder what kind of arguments it might spark in the user base...
Rob Church
On 4/3/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
I wonder what kind of arguments it might spark in the user base...
Rob Church
If there are any fears of user backlash, make the change a configuration variable (mwRedLinkCategory="action=view" # ...or "action=edit") and just tell people to change it if they want it the other way...
I agree with making a MW system message or $wg control this - but which should be the default? Edit or view?
On 4/3/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/3/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
I wonder what kind of arguments it might spark in the user base...
Rob Church
If there are any fears of user backlash, make the change a configuration variable (mwRedLinkCategory="action=view" # ...or "action=edit") and just tell people to change it if they want it the other way...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree with making a MW system message or $wg control this - but which should be the default? Â Edit or view?
View
Not "Edit." Category pages do not need edited "content" to be useful although defining the category with a sentence or two can help. The useful content of a category pages is instead the auto generated list of pages that contain that category's tag, eg [[Category:Category-name-here]].
*Regular pages* do and should send users to the Edit page automatically if the page is empty but category pages are never "empty" -- they always contain their auto-generated note at minimum and should not open an edit box needlessly. The edit box confuses folks who simply want to read the auto-generated list of links.
Roger Chrisman
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree with making a MW system message or $wg control this - but which should be the default? Edit or view?
In order not to impact the current users, it should default to what happens today - edit.
As a general rule, I think changes that are optional should default to what is current, not what someone thinks is a better option.
Mike
As a general rule, I think changes that are optional should default to what is current, not what someone thinks is a better option.
As a general rule, I agree with you - but I'm not convinced this change should be subject to said rule.
If we all agree that having this feature (at least optionally) is a good thing, the question becomes whether there's more benefit to defaulting to 'view' than negative reaction by a portion of the community.
MediaWiki is designed to Just Work right out of the box with minimal configuration. If you make this a configuration setting, how many admins are going to set it? Probably very few compared to the number of new wiki admins that would have found this behavior otherwise useful or intuitive.
Also, as a config setting there's the possibility that this could become another ParserFunctions or "Edit Toolbar" - something we field emails about daily, always with the same predictable response. I can guarantee this would be the case if the default were set to 'edit' but high-profile installs like Wikipedia opt to set the action to 'view' (not sure how likely this is considering it might spark a backlash from a vocal minority).
-- Jim
On 4/3/07, Michael Daly mikedaly@magma.ca wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree with making a MW system message or $wg control this - but which should be the default? Edit or view?
In order not to impact the current users, it should default to what happens today - edit.
As a general rule, I think changes that are optional should default to what is current, not what someone thinks is a better option.
Mike
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On 04/04/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a config setting there's the possibility that this could become another ParserFunctions or "Edit Toolbar" - something we field emails about daily, always with the same predictable response. I can guarantee this would be the case if the default were set to 'edit' but high-profile installs like Wikipedia opt to set the action to 'view' (not sure how likely this is considering it might spark a backlash from a vocal minority).
That's a nice assertion, because I don't recall seeing "what is going on with categories?"-type FAQ pertaining to this issue.
A change to the established, existing behaviour, "because we can" will confuse and irritate people who have become accustomed to how MediaWiki "just works", so the default *should* be to continue as normal.
Rob Church
On 4/4/07, Rob Church wrote:
That's a nice assertion, because I don't recall seeing "what is going on with categories?"-type FAQ pertaining to this issue.
I said it's _possible_, not _likely_ - I was thinking of the case where Wikipedia might differ from the default. Should have made this more clear :(
A change to the established, existing behaviour, "because we can" will confuse and irritate people who have become accustomed to how MediaWiki "just works", so the default *should* be to continue as normal.
I agree - I don't think anybody is advocating a "because we can" feature enhancement. There are definite, describable arguments for and against implementing the functionality and for and against making it the default.
-- Jim
On 4/4/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a config setting there's the possibility that this could become another ParserFunctions or "Edit Toolbar" - something we field emails
about
daily, always with the same predictable response. I can guarantee this
would
be the case if the default were set to 'edit' but high-profile installs
like
Wikipedia opt to set the action to 'view' (not sure how likely this is considering it might spark a backlash from a vocal minority).
That's a nice assertion, because I don't recall seeing "what is going on with categories?"-type FAQ pertaining to this issue.
A change to the established, existing behaviour, "because we can" will confuse and irritate people who have become accustomed to how MediaWiki "just works", so the default *should* be to continue as normal.
Rob Church
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Rob Church wrote:
A change to the established, existing behaviour, "because we can" will confuse and irritate people who have become accustomed to how MediaWiki "just works", so the default *should* be to continue as normal.
Rob Church
Only if they click on red links more times to create the category pages than to see articles on the inexistent category. If they do the later they're doing an extra click. If it is changed, then the extra click will be to create it, not to see the articles. However, if it is changed, the red links should be changed to "a different red" to add a visual difference, not only explaining red links on pages do X, red links on category do Y... (then even more confusing if it's reverted).
A similar <s>problem</s>feature which annoys me are red image links. When i click on it i want to go to the image page, where i have nice links to see the delete log, undelete it and know why this image "disappeared".. Not uploading it! (for which the Image: have links, anyway) Alas, "The feature was added for a reason (making it easier and more consistent to upload), and will stay without some good reason."
On 04/04/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Only if they click on red links more times to create the category pages than to see articles on the inexistent category. If they do the later they're doing an extra click.
You get the contents in the edit view for free, so it's one click to do both.
However, if it is changed, the red links should be changed to "a different red" to add a visual difference, not only explaining red links on pages do X, red links on category do Y... (then even more confusing if it's reverted).
Two reds? What a nightmare!
A similar <s>problem</s>feature which annoys me are red image links. When i click on it i want to go to the image page, where i have nice links to see the delete log, undelete it and know why this image "disappeared".. Not uploading it! (for which the Image: have links, anyway) Alas, "The feature was added for a reason (making it easier and more consistent to upload), and will stay without some good reason."
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.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
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.
That's why talked about a "different red" :P Of course it doesn't need to be red, as it would be a different class, it can be rand(0, 0xFFFFFF) ;)
Rob Church wrote:
You get the contents in the edit view for free, so it's one click to do
both.
Provided the wiki is set to allow anonymous edits, yes.
Two reds? What a nightmare!
Indeed
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.
That reminds me - someone mentioned two clicks to go from edit to view. In the wikis I've used, the Category tab at the top leads right back to edit, not view. Granted, one could click the 'Cancel' link all tucked away at the bottom - but this only works if they're looking at the edit page, not the "Log in first" page.
Platonides wrote:
That's why talked about a "different red" :P Of course it doesn't need to be red, as it would be a different class, it can be rand(0, 0xFFFFFF)
;)
My favorite red is #b1000d; - it's l33t, and a color that's self describing!
-- Jim
On 4/4/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
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.
That's why talked about a "different red" :P Of course it doesn't need to be red, as it would be a different class, it can be rand(0, 0xFFFFFF) ;)
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
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.
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
Virgil Ierubino 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.
Don't forget that those who are colourblind (even a bit and are predominantly men) will have a hard time distinguishing two shades of red. That can be up to 10% of readers.
Some web sites have _terrible_ colour design - I can't read the commented text in code examples on the PHP.net pages, for example - orange on grey is not exactly easy to read.
In fact, I sometimes can't tell visited-blue from black on wiki pages unless the monitor brightness/contrast is just right. That means the links just disappear - I've been thinking of changing them to underline.
Mike PS - I recently upgraded my computer and ran the Adobe utility for gamma settings on the monitor. I was subsequently a tad surprised to see what colours I had subjected my wiki users to!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides wrote:
A similar <s>problem</s>feature which annoys me are red image links. When i click on it i want to go to the image page, where i have nice links to see the delete log, undelete it and know why this image "disappeared".. Not uploading it! (for which the Image: have links, anyway) Alas, "The feature was added for a reason (making it easier and more consistent to upload), and will stay without some good reason."
The sensible thing might be to integrate the upload interface *into* the empty image page; as the sensible thing for this complaint is to make the view for edit requests on locked wikis more pleasant.
I do hate to get in the way of a good flame war, though, so everybody feel free to continue fighting unproductively instead. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
As a new 'mw' operator I would have to agree. This allows 'expected' behavior with the ability to change.
DSig David Tod Sigafoos | SANMAR Corporation PICK Guy 206-770-5585 davesigafoos@sanmar.com
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Daly Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 21:43 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree with making a MW system message or $wg control this - but
which
should be the default? Edit or view?
In order not to impact the current users, it should default to what happens today - edit.
As a general rule, I think changes that are optional should default to what is current, not what someone thinks is a better option.
Mike
I could wildly speculate about what a vocal minority might think regarding functional changes... but I won't.
How do we go about asking "the user"?
On 4/3/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
I wonder what kind of arguments it might spark in the user base...
Rob Church
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Couldn't this be parameter driven?
DSig David Tod Sigafoos | SANMAR Corporation PICK Guy 206-770-5585 davesigafoos@sanmar.com
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jim Wilson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 14:54 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] [Foundation-l] Red category link is unhelpful
I could wildly speculate about what a vocal minority might think regarding functional changes... but I won't.
How do we go about asking "the user"?
On 4/3/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/07, Virgil Ierubino virgil.ierubino@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone think this might be a bad move?
I wonder what kind of arguments it might spark in the user base...
Rob Church
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
From what I can tell, the benefits of this proposal far outweigh the potential disadvantages or the risk of a user backlash.
Just my two cents though...
-- F.
----- Original Message ----- From: Virgil Ierubino Date: 2007-04-03 23:37
Looking at this discussion I still think that the following is a very good no-fuss proposal:
Red category links view the category rather than editing the category.
This achieves everything that's already there, but also allows new users (or even old ones) to look at category members without passing through an edit page. That can be annoying, time-consuming or very confusing for new editors.
Does anyone think this might be a bad move? _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org