Talk:Prototype/Archive 9

From Wikimedia Usability Initiative
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Link" icon

The "Internal link" icon in the toolbar is not symbolic for non-English speakers.

You made a lot of fuss about not using "B" and "I" icons for bold and italic because those terms start with different letters in other languages, so it is only consequent to apply the same strictness here.

The chain link as a symbol for link is impossible to understand for, I daresay, the majority of worldwide users. You might as well omit the icon entirely.

Example: German. A hyperlink is called "Verweis" or simply "Link" as well. However, a chain link is called "Kettenglied", with "Glied" meaning "Link" when related to a chain. "Glied" can also mean "member" or "penis", but it certainly has nothing to do with a hyperlink.

An underlined, blue word (i.e. a "link") should do the trick. -- 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's explore alternatives. All that I can think of is a globe icon. Has anyone got any other ideas?
We already had a discussion about the link icon, because the chain-metaphor is weak and not intuitive for non-english speakers. But there are not many alternatives
And the chain icon it is not that bad, because it is established as THE icon for link. All around the world. Take a look at popular Software: Most of them make use of the chain. That's why this icons is comprehensible. By the way: Noone says "Verweis" for a weblink, that's a word for references in papers or books; noone has the association "Glied" and "Penis"..
Yes, they do. See, where hyperlinks are repeatedly being called "(elektronische) Verweise" bzw. "Querverweise". The German Wikipedia also lists the meaning "penis" for "Glied" before the meaning "chain link"... -- 13:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only other idea that might works as well, is a blue link with a hand-cursor. (see: Your Opinion --Juxn 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would obviously be superior to the one used now. -- 13:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all of the feedback! Unfortunatley, things are rarely so obvious in designing for Wikipedia and all of its communities. That (blue hand cursor) link may have worked if we had kept the icons for creating "internal" and external" links separate. If you have the updated Beta, you'll see that we now have one link button which can be used to create links to pages within Wikipedia, as well as external websites. Our user study confirmed the reasoning behind this merger - namely that less experienced users do not differentiate the two types of links. --Parul Vora 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search Box for Help-Pages in Edit Page

I would love to have a search box in the edit Pages that searches all "Help" pages for a keyword. For example, when inserting a <ref></ref> I feel oblidged to search on Google to find all the attributes of this element. --Sebculture 12:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Known Bugs?

I headed to the bugzilla install to see if the issues I'm having are known issues. This page should provide some guidance on which component(s) beta/prototype bugs should be found in. While it's obvious to the implementers, t's not clear to the users....

  • Cortado: Cortado video player java applet
  • dbzip2: Local and network-distributed bzip2 compression tool.
  • MediaWiki: The wiki software itself -- most issues about how the wiki works should go here.
  • MediaWiki extensions: MediaWiki extensions, including EasyTimeline, CharInsert, Renameuser, Cite, etc.
  • Mediawiki Testing Environment: Bugs relating to the Mediawiki Testing Environment, an effort to standardize testing for Mediawiki.
  • mwdumper: Java-based tool for converting and importing MediaWiki XML database dumps
  • mwEmbed: MwEmbed is a general library for embedding JavaScript interfaces.
  • Wikimedia: Configuration issues and other issues specific to Wikimedia servers, Wikimedia websites (including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, and the MediaZilla bugtracker) and other Wikimedia specific things
  • Wikipedia Mobile: Wikimedia mobile project
  • Wiktionary tools: Extended JavaScript and other tools for Wiktionary

I've noticed that the gadgets I use don't seem to work. Rollback doesn't work either: the rollback options don't appear.-- 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarified bug tracker component at Prototype. Broken gadgets happen, contact the gadgets' authors for that. And which rollback options don't appear? -- 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing new, however.

The classic appearance is what Wikipedia was like prior to 2003. Its features:

  • like vector project:
    • a search box at right top,
    • edit page link at the top
    • history link at the top
    • new section link in a quite affordable place
  • better than vector project:
    • "my talk-mypreferences-watchlist-contribs-logout" are not cluttered in one continuous line at right top
    • languages list is at the top (I use it quite often)
    • style is more accessible and calm
      • no gradients
      • no color dominance (blue)
    • toolbox is more narrow
    • less space is empty at the top
    • toolbox has no dark background
    • the font is serif, what means much easier to read.

Therefore, I would rather choose the minimalistic classic appearance. (You can try it out - choose "classic appearance" in your preferences.) This is my feedback, and I would be extremely surprised to hear anything good about this new project. Want to surprise me? Please reply here. Q0k 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few off the top of my head: --Catrope 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Catrope, I thank you for your time and attention. For clearer understanding, please reply on every of my following paragraphs: Q0k (~~ ?) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clearer separation between namespace tabs (Article, Discussion) and action tabs (Read, Edit, Add section, History) --Catrope 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the classic theme groups action links at the left, in the toolbox, all of them; this vector theme makes you forget that you can also to such actions, as watch this page and move this page. Besides, discuss this page also is an action, isn't it?! Q0k (~~ ?) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the upload file action in vector theme?! Are you joking?! Can't I upload files anymore? The word "upload" is absent on this page... So is the word "file"... Bad news... Q0k (~~ ?) 00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Aa, I found it at Wikipedia prototype, but it is very far from the action tabs (Read, Edit, Add section, History). Why? Is file upload really not an action? It feels like "file upload" action is lonely in vector theme... Q0k (~~ ?) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Collapsing Add section and History tabs into dropdown when the screen is narrow --Catrope 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does not happen at my machine, and makes you forget about one of them: either forget about history, or forget about adding sections. Nothing very good, I do not have complaints about classic theme with narrow screen. Q0k (~~ ?) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nicer-looking search box (only on the prototypes right now) --Catrope 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why exactly do you think that search box looks nicer? Though I do not see any difference, that sounds really interesting. Q0k (~~ ?) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I have found the prototypes, and the new search box.Q0k (~~ ?) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why can't I do two different actions: Go and Search - now? What's wrong with them? I do not want to "Go" to Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, as this search box does, I want to "search" which articles mention it... Q0k (~~ ?) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The older search box could contain "01234567890123456789" fully seen, while this new box can contain only "0123456789012345"; the new one is 4 symbols, 20% shorter, why so cruel? I am often searching for some physics phenomena, they are not that short... Q0k (~~ ?) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is confusing: watch star and starred articles, isn't it? Q0k (~~ ?) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't design Vector, and I'll ask the guy who did to give a more elaborate and more informed response after the Thanksgiving weekend. Also, note that some of these things (like the Read tab and the namespace/action separation) were designed for the benefit of novice users. --Catrope 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a common misconception: "novice users see only basic actions, they do not need advanced features.". I do not agree. The interface should not concentrate on the level of proficiency/experience/abilities of the user, and must be accessible (classic theme certainly is). Q0k (~~ ?) 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching for "012345": the top sentence is "This is a prototype wiki used by the usability project to showcase their improvements and allow people to test them. THIS IS NOT A REAL WIKI.", and the bottom one is "Create the page "012345" on this wiki!". Is it not contradictory? Q0k (~~ ?) 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that you don't like our work. But please note that we did professional usertesting whereas you just reprensent a single opinion.--Juxn 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be so kind as to explain your opinion below each of my paragraphs, I'm just curious about why all this is going on. ☺ I promise not to answer your comments (for not to create a conflict), and in return I pledge you to express your thoughts as full as you can ♫. Q0k (~~ ?) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q0k, you should try the sandbox 5. Once you have go to Opinion Colors to discuss it. --Mephiles602 09:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To summarise, I'm creating a table, hope anybody fills it out. Q0k?... 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GUI element vector appearance minus (compared with classic appearance) vector appearance plus (compared with classic appearance)
"my talk-my preferences-watch-list-contributions-log out" cluttered in one continuous line at right top Q0k?... actually this is a very common way to display user preferences. even though I agree that it is much too long. the place is absolutely adequate and I couldn't think of any better place.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, but classic appearance has this problem solved, so this is a disadvantage of vector project, isn't it? Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
languages list not at the top (I use it quite often) Q0k?... it is a fact, that the place at the top is limited, right? so we have a clicktracking running, to see which links are used how often. we are going to reorganize the left navigation in consideration of those stats.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

top space economy Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) One table row addedReply[reply]

overall style not accessible (color gradients are present) Q0k?... what do you mean by "not accessible"? we work on fullfilling w3c standards. and besides: most users seem to like the design, cause we got plenty of positive feedback about that.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

innovative color gradients Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

color blue is dominant (usually makes eyes tired) Q0k?... ok..seriously. what would you say if we make WP red?--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Violet or green would be good. Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
toolbox with dark background; too wide Q0k?...

how do you like the blue gradient background on sandbox#3? ok I know... it's blue..--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) still dark background at sandbox 3 Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"too wide"? that depends on your screen resolution--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Dubious: Please give me an example of a screen resolution when classic toolbox is widen than vector toolbox? Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
font sans-serif (inattentive reading) Q0k?... 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

kind of agreed. I personally prefer serif fonts as well.but it looks like we are keeping the sansserif.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Part of answer deleted, as this is an obvious fact, not an argument. Stroked out by Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

separation between namespace tabs (Article, Discussion) and action tabs (Read, Edit, Add section, History)
  1. Move this page action is forgotten. Q0k?...
  2. Discuss this page also is an action, isn't it? Q0k?... Deleted thanks to a comment at the right. Stroked out by Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Upload file action is very far from the action tabs. Q0k?...
there IS a separation, cause there is a gap between them. we thought of introducing colors for a additional separation. but that creates more problems, so we canceled it.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We consider Discussion a namespace instead of an action because 1) that's how it works technically and 2) because you always have a combination of one of page/discussion and one of read/edit/history/whatever. That's why two tabs are highlighted, not one.--Catrope 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

namespace / action separation Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to move, it's in the dropdown, and users who need it will still be able to find it. As to upload, it's in the sidebar, not in the tabs, and we didn't touch the sidebar. --Catrope 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Dubious: "users who need it will still be able to find it" = advanced users. That is a common misconception: "novice users see only basic actions, they do not need advanced features.". I do not agree. The interface should not concentrate on the level of proficiency/experience/abilities of the user. Add users must see the "move page" button as good as they see other buttons. Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add section and History tabs collapse into dropdown when the screen is narrow (makes you forget about one of them: either forget about history, or forget about adding sections) Q0k?... This occurs for a resolution 800*600 or less, which are approximatly <4% (don't know excactly) of all users. i guess these users must be used to have some limitations and compromises.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am one of them (600x800)! Think about your words... Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point that collapsing hides stuff is interesting, but we think the alternative (Edit tab getting overlapped) is worse. --Catrope 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) The classic theme has neither of the two problems. This paragraph is not an advantage of vector project. Stroked out by Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

search box buttons

Why can't the user do two different actions: Go and Search?

"What's wrong with them? I do not want to "Go" to Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, as this search box does, I want to "search" which articles mention it..." Q0k?...
new users got confused.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a common misconception: "novice users see only basic actions, they do not need advanced features.". Stroked out by Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We got rid of Go/Search, see the prototypes. --Catrope 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Dubious: what do you mean, search and go are still combined in the prototypes, your statement is not an advantage of the 'vector project'? Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
search box

the new search box is 20% shorter Q0k?...

Nicer-looking only on the prototypes right now --Catrope

(Dubious:, could anybody please be more specific? Q0k?...)

I don't see that it is shorter. in fact the searchbox is much more prominent at the upper right.--Juxn 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) The comment does not count as "01234567890123456789" fits in the old box, while only "0123456789012345" fits in the new one; the search box is at upper right in the classic theme, so it makes no sense to mention this fact again. Stroked out by Q0k?... 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

watch action button The watch star (relatively new) -- that is confusing: watch star and starred articles, isn't it? Q0k?...
overall interface That is a common misconception: "novice users see only basic actions, they do not need advanced features.". I do not agree. The interface should not concentrate on the level of proficiency/experience/abilities of the user. Q0k?... designed for the benefit of novice users --Catrope
top space ecomony Why is this space under "my preferences-my user page-my talk-contributions" and above name-space / action tabs empty and so big? Q0k?... 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] Languages list at the left is an advantage of top space resuction. Q0k?... 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually you are free to opt out and keep using monobook. We are only creating a new skin, which is like a new offer. Everyone is free to choose. By the way: We have a retention rate for en-WP of 83%. Not too bad in my eyes.--Juxn 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You know, when I am not logged on, I have to look at the default appearance of wikis. At Wikipedia, the skin was monobook, not so ugly.
  • When I came to Wikinews from Google results page and saw this vector appearance, I was frightened, I thought this is a fake site, and I closed the browser window. The main ugliness of it is in
    • the gradients (though this is not objective),
    • go/search combination in search box (like the Microsoft Bing and Live searches, Microsoft is a very bad example with its Windows 7 decline),
    • many empty space above the tabs, and
    • its overall look like for children (the so-called "novice users get confused" paradigm). 01:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the fact is that it is impossible for everyone to like the vector skin. You are one of the people in the world who dislikes it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Personally, I love it, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with you using a different skin. --Mephiles602 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to say that I also prefer the monobook theme, especially the location of the search bar. -- 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Customizable main page

The most visited page on Wikipedia is the main page. It's arranged in boxes including the featured article, In the news, Did you know, On this day, Featured Picture. Why not make this customizable from the user's preferences? Maybe make the user able to change the order of these boxes like on the google user page. An easier solution could be a main page section in the appearance tab in "My preferences" which includes different main page templates, like one which displays the current US Box Office, recent deaths, the watchlist..--Diaa abdelmoneim 06:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming each box has its own ID attribute, you could create a modified CSS file or JS script to hide them. They would technically still be downloaded each time you visit the page; you just wouldn't see them anymore. SharkD  Talk  07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's customizable like SharkD pointed out, it's just not easy. However, this is not a major barrier for people to start editing, which is why we're probably not gonna tackle it. --Catrope 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navigation still horryfing bad

Hi, although I like the prototype better, one thing still is terrible: the navigation. If you take a look as an ip, i.e. not logged in you see: five different navigations (Login, read edit etc, page discussion, navigation and toolbox). These are three too many.

Suggestion: one nav bar above the page containing (Page, discussion, Main page and per max 3-5 more links (from the old navigation). Everything else goes into the left bar: log in first then edit then view history then the toolbox. -- 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no edit images

I beg you not to add a pencil icon for each edit link. 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? Can you describe you concerns?--Juxn 14:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second that. As for the reason... aesthetics/distraction. -- JovanCormac 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We got that idea, because new users have a hard time finding the section edit link. Do you have an idea of how to solve that issue? Actually I am not totally happy about that icon, too.--Juxn 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internal / external link lables

With reference to the problem users were seen to be having with internal/external links, why not provide more explanatory mouseover discriptions? The current "Internal link" and "External link (remember http:// prefix)" are not very helpful. Perhaps it would be better to have them as something like "Link to another article" and "Link to an external website" respectively? -- Anxietycello 05:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We hope to solve this issue with the new insert link dialog. See prototype.Though that's not the final design, since this is still in progress.--Juxn 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tiny inspiration

This is an interesting screenvideo on a Wikipedia-Design: [1]. Although I like the usability initaitive, this screenvideo could be an inspiration for you. It's a quite clean design. -- 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author of the screen video, Hannes Tank, also known as Juxn is part of the usability team.  :-) --Shuhari 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a beautiful concept video - I'd love to see that in all it's glory on the live Wikipedia. Lucky that Hannes is already on the team! Witty lama 14:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What links here: will it ever accept section names?

The content of Wikipedia cannot be managed without What links here. Currently What links here just kicks the section name out.

Q. What links to a section?
A. The tighter organization of a more highly efficient and structured Wikipedia.

If "Wikipedia is forever" it will need a What links here for sections because section names are a structural guidance to both content and links to content —a foundational, systemic structure— but systemic restructuring cannot occur without changing the name, and changing the name cannot occur without What links here.

Meanwhile in order to manage content we have to pass notes, make humanly impossible searches, and patch with anchor templates.

Cpiral 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Cpiral 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Cpiral 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

histoty(NS) and history(discussion) all at once?

Hello! (I haven’t used the Beta; haven’t look through all threads; and I’m not sure my question is for here; - apologizing for all that:) Is it possible to have two separate and permanently visible history tabs – one for the (article) page and one for the talk page? (Maybe it should work only for registered users.) Now, if I’m on a talk page and want to see the reflection of this discussion to the article, I have to go to the article tab first and then to the article’s history tab – which is, sometimes, uncomfortable and slow. -- 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better citation system

Currently, the book icon only yields <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> (Can we get the nowiki tag button back, too?). I would like to see a more helpful interface, probably a dialogue box, useful for adding references. A user would input information like URL, author's name, date of publication, and so on and the tool would automatically format a citation template. There is an extension on (which the beta disables) called refTools, which I think makes an excellent model and starting point. It is so useful that I have left beta to use it, and would love to see it integrated into the default interface. Thanks! HereToHelp (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that's on our to-do list! ;) --Juxn 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning of message: Prefstats-counters-expensive

I am trying to translate this message on

  • $1 users have enabled this preference since preference statistics were activated
    • $2 users still have it enabled
    • $3 users have disabled it since
  • In total, $4 users have this preference set

Unfortunately, I don't understand the difference between the variables 2 and 4. Could anyone enlighten me? Lloffiwr 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug? Display error?

In German Wikipedia we have the Coordinate-Template, that displays coordiantes of locations in the top right corner. This worked without th Beta. But with the new Beta skin this does not work. The Coordinate just shows up where the template is in the source code (so in most articles either at the top of the regular article text or at the bottom of it, under the weblinks).

Same problem with the icons of featured articles. They used to have a small icon in the top right. It's simply not there anymore.

Is this a problem of the new skin or a problem of our templates? I didn't find a good place in our WP to ask this question, so I ask it here. Thanks. -- 12:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is strange, because it works fine in the English Wikipedia. --Mephiles602 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Test it to see if it appears in the Monobook skin while the beta is enabled.Reply[reply]

Mismatched cases of letters in russian translation of new Wikipedia and WikiCommons

This is the screen of current "Beta" WikiCommons and Wikipedia interfaces in Russian:

Mismatch of translation in Beta.png

As we can see, some captions are started from capital letters, some are not. Mismatches are higlighted by bold red. In good interface, all higlighted captions should start with capital letter.

I would like to help with correcting this, but where I should login|go and what to do?

Thank you for reporting this! Usually Bugzilla is the best point to report bugs.--Juxn 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk pages

LiquidThreads seem to be an easy and good looking way to discuss things. Maybe they could be nice to have in the new beta? --Masz 12:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Leave Beta" Link is GONE!

When I first clicked on the button to try the Beta site, there was a "Leave Beta" link at the top of the page that supposedly would take a user back to the current production version. But after looking up a couple of specific topics, the "Leave Beta" link is gone. The links that show now are: [RandySteer (me)] [My talk] [My preferences] [My watchlist] [My contributions] [Log out]. (user: RandySteer, browser: Firefox 3.5.7, date: 5 January 2010)

RandySteer 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to reproduce the problem by going through random pages of English Wikipedia, but I can see "Leave Beta" link on top of all pages I reviewed. I use FF3.5 on Ubuntu 9.04. Which project wiki were you browsing? --Shuhari 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page editor improvements

I would just like to bring up a few bugs and ideas for the editor.

  • It would be nice if when we are editing we can temporarily disable the edit toolbar using a GET command, e.g. index.php?title=Some_Page&action=edit&disabletoolbar=yes.
  • The word "Advanced" in the improved edit toolbar should actually say "More" as these functions are not very "advanced".
  • The heading dropdown should be an image something like the following:


  • Looking at the source of the edit page, the reason the toolbar takes forever to show is because the JavaScript is in the middle of the page. Placing it in the <head>, after the Wikibits and Ajax js will make the toolbar show immediately.

Keep up the good work. Kirbylover4000 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please alter Collapsible Tabs to hide the tab contents onload. Right now they are completely unusable without javascript

Reference generator

Like this maybe?

If we could at least provide some sort of basic citation generator, that would be awesome. I know it would take some adapting for the local wikis, but still, its just something Wikipedia runs on. ViperSnake151 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there was something like what you have provided in that mockup graphic that would be so incredibly useful. Please usability team - do that! Witty lama 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citation tool or dialogue is definitely in the usability team's radar after collapsible templates and form-based templates are implemented and released. Great mock-up, ViperSnake151! --Shuhari 04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd see this as a great opportunity to use the template forms setup—you'd merely specify in a MediaWiki message somewhere which templates to get the forms for, and the template form for the citation templates would accomplish the rest. Nihiltres 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great suggestion! I thought that with the new beta edit toolbar restructure, refs would be included, but I was wrong... Anyways, for a temporary soulution, there's a gadget "refTools" in enwiki preferences, but it doesn't work in beta. Well, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it... (Actually, I don't see the point of this phrase...the purpose of a cake is to be eaten. No use having it without eating it) :) Manishearth 08:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]