Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • Miscellaneous

Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals archive
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions | Archives: 1

[edit] MediaWiki:Addsection

I think we should change this to "comment", rather than just the "+" -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Or "Add" or "New". Yeah, I think a lot of people are still in the dark about what exactly that little plus sign means. I myself didn't realize it was even there til a couple months into my Wikipedia experience. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the label on the tab should be more than a cryptic "+". However, I think "new section" would be better than "comment", because comments include adding a posting to an existing section.

One objection to expanding the width of this tab is that some editors have added other tabs to the top of their pages, via JavaScript, so there isn't as much space as there would appear to be to expand the width of an existing tab. I think that objection can be dealt with by noting that editors sophisticated enough to add more tabs are also sophisticated enough to add some css that changes "new section" (or whatever) back to "+".

Finally, I hope that editors will not make the argument that "The tab seems fine to me" or "I don't think there is any problem here", because there very clearly IS a problem - inexperienced editors start new subjects in the middle of existing sections, add new sections at the top (not bottom) of talk pages, and use the last section of existing talk pages to create a new section (which messes up the automatic edit summary). Clarifying the purpose of the "+" tab will clearly reduce such errors - not eliminate them, of course, but will clearly help. That experienced editors understand the purpose of the "+" tab, or that some new editors figure it out, doesn't make it less cryptic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just love those "I see no problem" responses. They're so helpful. PS, I've added just about every tab imaginable, and I've still got plenty of room. I'm at a high resolution, but even with the 15 tabs I have, they barely use half the page width (that's not including the monobook side navigation bar). Equazcion •✗/C • 16:35, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Back to what the tab should actually be called, maybe a blend of the two would work: "new comment". -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's a problem, but I don't think "new comment" is clear enough to solve it, so I'd rather leave it as "+". Besides, "history" tab is also not obvious at first, but you're not suggestion to change it to "Past versions of this page", right? Just read the tooltips, that's exactly what they are for ∴ AlexSm 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, didn't figure out that tab for several months. Though I can't recall ever starting discussions in the middle of another conversation or putting my new section at the top (feel free to correct me on those :-) ). I should mention, though, that in my browser (FF2.0.0.11) on Windows XP with default text size and at 1024x768 resolution (my highest, unfortunately), I sometimes run out of room with the tabs I have (defaults, Twinkle, and Friendly), and I've messed with my personal CSS to make #p-cactions as wide as possible without horizontal scrolling. That's part of the reason I created (cannibalized and basically rewrote from Ioeth's version, actually) my link changer.

Making the tab have longer text would probably reduce mistakes from new editors, and would still be modifiable by more savvy users who've added all kinds of tabs. I support this proposal. (I've also fussed with the CSS to visually combine the edit and + tabs, so it would be just a matter of adding an element to my link changer.) I might be prompted to list my script somewhere if this change is made... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's a problem, but I don't think "new comment" is clear enough to solve it, so I'd rather leave it as "+". We're never going to get to the perfect solution, but since Wikipedia is all about better (as in, edit to improve, don't worry about perfection) rather than best, the question is what is better? I just looked at the Commons; they use "+comment" on their tab. I suggest (a change from my first suggestion) "+section", which is consistent with the tooltip. (As far as the tooltip being the answer to this problem, first, it's obviously not - the problem persists - and second, the label on the tab is so small - one character - that it's easy to miss, so knowing about tooltips often isn't enough) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like "+section" too. "+comment" is misleading for new users, I think, as it could be interpreted as a way to reply to an existing discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've advocated a change to that tab for quite a while. All the suggestions so far are better than "+", and "+section" sounds good. --ais523 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be kind of a major change; one consideration to make is that a lot of users have instructions at the top of their user talk pages describing the use of the "+" tab. A second consideration, as John noted, is that a lot of users, esp. admins, already have quite a few tabs at the top of their pages; this would lengthen one that was pretty short. Regardless, if this change is made, first, a couple of other pumps or noticeboards should probably be spammed to ensure that everyone knows that this is on the table. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So a decision has been made: +section? If there are any against this, please come forward and speak. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do it, a whole deluge of people will come and tell you to change it back, which is what happened the last time this was changed. I personally like it as +, but I agree it can be hard to understand. And not all of us have massive resolutions set. Prodego ^talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We could preempt that problem by preparing some code to customize the tab back to the + sign. That way new users would get the benefit and we could still deal easily with disgruntled veterans. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:06, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've created Mediawiki:Gadget-addsection-plus.js. —Random832 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, just keep it as a +, it's small and easily recognisable from other tabs (i.e. it's out of the way, but you can still see it). Even just with admin tabs, they strech across a large section of the page and we don't need anymore space taken up - it'll be even worse for people that have tabs written into their monobook. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Random :) I think it's more important to make sure new users can figure out what's what, than it is to make things easier on seasoned editors who have installed scripts already and can clearly customize the tab back to its shorter form if they so desire. Random832 has written a script you can copy-and-paste following the change, Ryan, so no worries there. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Oh excellent, well providing there's there's overall support for this, you should go ahead, but make sure you advertise it a little more first, and advertise the get out clause if it moves forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it _can_ be copy-pasted, but I wrote it for use as a Gadget, so it'd just be a checkbox. —Random832 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This was already changed once thanks to a discussion here in the Village Pump (to "Leave a comment"), but there was quite a bit of criticism over it by well-established users and it got changed back. I'd propose a poll before changing it again, but I personally have no objections -Halo (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)