On 9 Jan 2005, at 08:24, Anthere wrote:
Now... whatever your opinion NSK, please respect Jens work. He took time to set these flags, many websites use such a mean, and it has the merit of being visual, so easier to navigate. I wish that no flame war begins over the topic, so choose your words more carefully.
Thanks :)
And while you may disagree with my proposal, I'd still like to bolster the case for flags and add that images are easier click targets. Try a speed test -- from loading http://www.wikipedia.org , how long does it take to click on Japanese? Then try http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&oldid=88466 , how long does it take you there? (I would have offered Hebrew, but the metric's horribly biased, because there's only one inline flag -- added just before the reverting started.)
I still think flags/images are a generally preferable solution. Yes, there would be fights over, say, Chinese and the flag of the PR of China. Or over English and using a US flag. But I think the entire Wikipedia concept shows that risking it, doing it anyway and letting the wiki process do its magic can solve these issues -- and it's better than having a dull text-only page forever.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com