Well, AFAIK we all agree that metadata like categories and interwiki links don't really belong into wikitext. Maybe we could find a general solution that also encompasses references (that is, the contents, not the position information within the wikitext). We could move these things into a separate table:
page_id INTEGER | data_type SHORTINT | text MEDIUMBLOB
The interface would then know how to present each data type: * categories as name and (optional) sortkey * interwiki links as target wiki and title * references as reference ID and text
All of these could be hidden by default and only open on request. For reference text, we would need a textarea, but the rest we could do with text input fields.
This would also be open for extension. E.g., we could think about moving header/footer templates into this schema. And how about the DEFAULTSORT key?
Just thinking aloud here.
Magnus
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:24 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
[Making markup less forbidding]
I'd put in a vote for applying the same thing to infoboxes, too! And then maybe an option for experienced users: turn off javascript and see the whole <s>mess as it is now</s> wikitext.
Not just infoboxes, but tables in general.
I'm slowly learning how to use tables, but it is very hard to write complex ones from scratch, even if you copy another one. I've had to resort to using Excel to update the table and then insert the wikimarkup around the data.
And when pressed for time with refs, just dumping a hastily formatted external link and brief description and date in some ref tags is the most I think people can cope with until they are organised enough to have some wikicode stored in their userspace to copy and paste from (or from various template documentations). The hope is always that someone else will come along and improve any poorly formatted references that you add.
The thing that all the more complex wiki-markup things have in common is (until you get proficient in their use, and sometimes not even then) is how time-consuming it is when compared to basic text editing. In some ways this is due to the results being complex - doing fiddly layout stuff will invariably take time because it is fiddly.
But there is no excuse for people coming along and wanting to improve existing articles to be put off by an unreadable wall of text mixed up with complex "ref" tags and "citation" template code. When correcting a spelling mistake, or wanting to reword one sentence, requires careful searching within the edit box, or several attempts to find the sentence in question in the edit box, then something has gone very wrong. It also means that reading the flow of an article is best done in "preview", but that's not a bad thing, actually, as people should be encouraged to use preview more. But I dread how many potentially new editors have clicked "edit this page" and given up if faced with a mess they don't understand head-or-tail of.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l