Please do not change anymore this page[edit]

Archived on 30.08.2004 06:48 UTC by --Nyxos (Talk) 06:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)[edit]

Change to Recent Changes (N to !)[edit]

I have to say, I am not at all a fan of the "!" replacing "N" to designate new pages. I can't think of what page to complain on, though -- can anyone tell me? The "!" renders very badly for me (Mozilla 1.4.1) and "N" is far more descriptive anyway. Not all new pages are "!" worthy for me, but they are all "N"ew. Perhaps the person who made this change will see my comment and change back? I'd be very surprised if this was community consensus. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 15:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly what I've come here to complain about. At first I thought that ! meant "important" but now I see that it actually means "new". N is far better for that. Please change it back. -- Derek Ross 15:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I second the above request: N renders better. Anárion 15:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you see a change on the interface, hop over to Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace and click the appropriate Changes link to find out what changed. Dori | Talk 15:50, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

That won't do you much good since the page will almost certainly be protected (as it was in this case) and thus not subject to the normal Wikipedia peer review and correction process. -- Derek Ross 16:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have it wrong. Just because only admins can edit them, doesn't give the admins the only editorial power. THe reason they're protected is cause vandals could wreck havoc, but assuming it is a legitimate edit, you could just ask an admin to do it on your behalf. Obviously, if the change is major, admins may refuse to do it without first having a discussion, and a community approval, or the interface would be constantly changing, and that's not good. Dori | Talk 20:01, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

No. I have it right. I have been editing the wikipedia for longer than 90% of the admins and have more useful edits than most of them so I am quite clear on how this works. The point here is that a user with admin rights did this without first having a discussion and community approval as if it was an ordinary unprotected page. I would have no objection if this was something that could easily be undone by anyone but it wasn't. Admins had the only editorial power because only an admin could edit this. That is why I brought it to the Village Pump, in the hope that a user with admin rights would agree with me. Luckily one did. I say "luckily" because I have no editorial power over protected pages, only the power to suggest changes to them. -- Derek Ross 20:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was changed back wasn't it? I went to change it and found that someone else had already done it. Also, why don't you apply for adminship? Dori | Talk 20:40, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy about the change back. Good to know that you would have fixed it for me though. Thanks! What was annoying me was the original change. As for why I don't apply for admin status:

(a) I don't generally need it.

(b) When admin status was originally proposed it was supposed to be a temporary measure until the MediaWiki software was changed to make admins unnecessary -- I'm still naively waiting. Some of the original admin-only features have become available to ordinary users after all.

(c) In 2002 I could have become an admin just by saying that I wanted to be one -- it was policy to let anyone become admin unless there were serious objections. In 2003/2004 I have to pass a popularity contest. Unfortunately I don't particularly want to enter one. (Makes me wonder what hoops I'd have to jump through next year though.)

So I'll happily continue as an ordinary user for the moment, thank you. -- Derek Ross 21:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like this either. It is less clear. Please count this message as a vote against if a poll is conducted. Mr. Jones 16:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Luckily Maximus Rex has changed it back. The exclamation mark made no sense. Angela . 17:55, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ah good. The N is also easier for newbies to understand. Plus for everyone, the ! is unintuitave, usually signalling danger or importance. LUDRAMAN | T 18:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nominate Derek Ross as admin... as I understand it, anyone who's been around enough to be recognisable as an asset is customarily granted adminship, particularly if they keep needing the Power. Being made an admin should be No Big Deal... and I know this is the Wrong Place for this, but that's No Big Deal to me either.Pedant

Using "NEW" icon[edit]

I would like to ask the WikiPedia community, if you would prefer to have this icon marking the new articles in the Recent Changes list.
See it live on the German WikiPedia at Recent Changes
If some of the Wiki-Admins is courageous enough, he or she can simply apply the only change needed. Only one tiny change in MediaWiki:newpageletter is needed to activate this icon, what I suggest, because it's very useful and an eyecatcher, see description page of .
Screenshot of NEW (NEU) Icon in WikiPedia-DE

File:NEW-Patch Gift of UserNyxos.png

Opinion poll started on 24. August 2004 19:15 UTC

For (show NEW ICON in Recent Changes as proposed by User:Nyxos and img alt text staying "N")[edit]

Nyxos, Berlin (Talk) -- The alt text of the image will stay "N"
Netoholic (Talk) 01:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- The alt text of the image should stay "N", though.
217.230.227.158 19:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) new pages are easy to identify in the listings
Sempron 22:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I prefer the word rather than the letter

Against (do not show an icon in Recent Changes, keep bold letter N)[edit]

Geni 21:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Angela - it makes enhanced recent changes look ugly.
24.123.221.2 15:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andy - It breaks the alignment of the table
Ewwww. ··gracefool |☺ 08:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ayman - I prefer bold unhighlighted N, other options make the RC page look inconsistent.
Tagishsimon. Ugly is good.
Eequor 18:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - ugly is bad.
David Remahl 18:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
LuciferBlack 20:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) - down with unnecessary graphics.
Antandrus 21:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - ain't broke, don't fix it.
Goobergunch 00:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Livajo 00:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Just fine the way it is.
Andre 03:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - It's ugly and amateurish.
gobi 17:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - simple is beautiful
Frazzydee 19:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
FriedMilk 19:51, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC) - Unnecessary
Infrogmation 20:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hadal 03:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) - the less bling bling the better.
I'd rather have the "new" icon, but we can't guarantee it will show up correctly everywhere, so let's just keep the "N". Rick K 05:37, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Simple is better when slogging through a list, and changing the N would be over the top. Kinda like my lovely sig. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks nice, but I sometimes edit on my handheld computer; it has severely limited memory, and each extra graphic (yes, even repeats of the same graphic in a single page) sucks down more memory and slows loading. Others using non-standard devices, on dial-up, using text only browsers, will also have dificulties. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE LYNX USERS? ;) -- orthogonal 07:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
squash 07:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) Looks good and even I... the person made such as big deal of wanting to add images to templates (See User:Squash/Templates) would have to vote against... because its the new image looks like annoying and doesn't provide consistency with the bold m for minor changes... and also when checking a persons contributions it would make the list not properly idented or something (if you know what I mean.
How about no you crazy german (relax, smile, it's a joke;) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:45, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
Mashford 20:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree with 11 and 22. Simple is good.
Too bulky. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Using anything other than a single letter throws off the indenting in the enhanced RC. Doppelgänger 21:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there no workaround? Adding a & n b s p ; ? -- Netoholic (Talk) 23:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The N is pretty clear and I would rather not have a graphic which can get scrambled. If you want to keep track of new pages whats wrong with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages Geni 21:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the most, make a .css rule to render the background of the N as yellow or something. Using the graphic instead of text link is universally a bad idea for public webspace. It makes a difficulty for text-only, braille, and audial browsers, and persons with lessened visual acuity cannot resize it along with the rest of the text. Also on very high resolution monitors, it renders as a fuzzy yellow dot, can't be easily restyled with a user's .css rules. Pedant 17:57, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Alternative (show N in Recent Changes as proposed by Norm )[edit]

I like the idea, but the formatting problems ruin it. How about N instead? [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 09:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] ! I like also your N -- can you set it online just right now ?

Hi Admins (m/f), I like his proposal. It needs only to enter this tag N into MediaWiki:newpageletter -plese can some try it ? -- Nyxos (Talk) 10:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Checking: does N (N) work? Yes --Phil | Talk 14:52, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be (N)? font is deprecated in favor of CSS. --Ayman 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

is disallowed. 24.123.221.2 17:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For stylability, the code should be N, then anymone who want to highlight it in another color can add #n {background:color;} to their user css. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 18:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should be class, not id. Multiple tags in the same html aren't supposed to use the same id. Goplat 17:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just a little note, on bg.wikipedia we added N which is short, not deprecated and works fine. The class "newarticle-mark" is added in Mediawiki:Monobook.css and in the other style sheets (standard.css etc.). --5ko 18:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support alternative (highlighted N)[edit]

Angela
Phil | Talk—I like it, it's simple and makes the least possible change. I've even found a simpler version, see above
Important remark: for server bandwidth reasons, the tag with the least number of bytes should be finally chosen - I had a chat with TimWi about this aspect. --Nyxos (Talk) 16:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nyxos (Talk) 15:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- I vote for the alternative, too, because it fulfill my needs in a way which appears not to interfere (layout is kept intact without further tricks)
For me it's clear: Angela, go on (I mean, you can switch it....)
Support. I'd like it even more if it's italicized. -- PFHLai 16:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
This is also the easiest solution that would be extensible to marking the "m" used to flag minor edits. Colin 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I tried it on my Wiki, however I found, that the impact of the MediaWiki:minoreditletter label should be as small as possible, otherwise it's a real eye-catcher - should not be an eye catcher. I actually use this File:Corr.png on my wiki. --Nyxos (Talk) 17:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Denni ☯ 17:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
Pedant support this, as long as it's in the stylesheet and NOT deprecated code like ... so the user stylesheet can operate on it. Otherwise I oppose the change, vote keep unhighlighted N that's not a graphic. Dwindrim's image above looks like a hyphen viewed on several of the computers here. if it were a tiny text that says 'corr' it would be resizable and accessible. Accessibility is a key issue for public webspaces, and there is legislative activitiy to require public webspaces to be accessible to handicapped users. Use of style rules and .css makes it easy for the differently-abled user to access the wikipedia, and completeley satisfies every proposed legislation on the issue that I have seen. Pedant 18:02, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC) I like the idea in principle though Pedant
–Hajor I suggested N a few months ago, but this alternative is good, too.
What Pedant said. David Remahl 18:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, agree with Pedant. --bdesham 18:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My support too. Opposers can turn it off with CSS anyway if they don't like it. Gazwim 21:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But make it customizable with css, e.g. N The default CSS could highlight it yellow. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:26, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Andre 03:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) As long as I can turn it off :)
Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Biekko 18:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's good, since it calls more attention without wasting time with images -- Kieff 01:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose alternative (keep unhighlighted N)[edit]

Note to oposers, it will be possible to change to color of the highlighting or turn it off, so keep this in mind before making any opposing vote. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 10:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So why not just leave the default as the unhighlighted N? LuciferBlack 14:00, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the supporters support it on the condition that it can be turned off. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just make the class and then have it in whatever colour you like in your css, people should have to keep an endless list of hacks in their css just because you think it's a good idea at the time to have yellow on RC, or blue, or underlines, or animated easter bunnies.. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:04, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

24.123.221.2 16:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Eequor 18:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - ew ew ew!
I'm no Thoreau fan, but he's right here: Simplify, simplify, simplify. Keep the N, it's simple, it's clean, it's obvious. PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
LuciferBlack 21:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) - I agree with PedanticallySpeaking. One must not forget the golden rule of KISS: Keep It Simple, Dumbass.
Geni 21:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Goobergunch 00:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Too bright for my tastes; simple is better.
Livajo 00:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I'm a big Thoreau fan. Go simplicity.
N Alone stands out quite well enough. --Tagishsimon
DavidA 15:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - If it's not broken, why fix it?
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seth Ilys 17:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC), unless someone proposes that we indicate new articles with an smiley face.
What Goobergunch said. Erich 06:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ayman 12:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) - N all the way.
Farside 19:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I see absolutely no reason to highlight the N. If someone wants to see a list of new pages, there's a separate page already for it.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:04, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
Infrogmation 02:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Second alternative — (show highlighted NEW in Recent Changes)[edit]

I actually propose showing NEW in Recent Changes, for the following reasons:

Posters above were dead right to observe that any additional images should be avoided — especially if there's a perfectly viable alternative.
People were also right to observe that the meaning of the letter "N" in front, while quite trivial to quess, might still not be immediately apparent to all users and is definitely less obvious that the entire word "NEW".
~~It has been suggested that additional letters or an additinal graphic may break up formatting. Maybe the following will alleviate such fears:~~
- The currently displayed "N" is " N " in HTML code.
 Note the spaces. The quotation marks are not included.
- The replacement code I am proposing to use is: " NEW "
 Note that there are no spaces but rather non-breaking spaces ( ). Again, the quotation marks are not included.
 The use of non-breaking spaces should at least prevent line breaks at these particular points. If needed,   could be used across the board, substituting all spaces.
I believe this to be the most elegant way and I believe it achieves precisely what both of the above proposals are meant to achieve.

A mockup of how this will look can be seen at this page of my own domain: http://www.ropersonline.com/downloads/Recent.changes.html

Note the new entry for "Morrision Bridge".

Fellow Wikipedian Tom Gries has asked me to also provide a preview how things could look in "Enhanced recent changes view" (see user prefs).
Here it is: http://www.ropersonline.com/downloads/Recent.changes.enh.RC.view.html

UPDATE: Tom has now reported probablems with viewing the above HTML page in Netscape 7.1. Apparently the sidebar gets buggered. So, to post yet another version, this is a .JPG of what things would look like: Image:Recent.changes.enh.RC.view.jpg

I have also seen that the currently used HTML used in Enhanced recent changes view and in "normal" Recent changes view is slightly different:

Again, the currently used HTML in normal mode is: " N " (Note the space in front and after the "N".)

The currently used Enhanced mode HTML however is: "N  " (Note there are two spaces after the "N", one of which is a non-breaking space ( ).)

The fact that both views don't use the same HTML code makes it clear that the "N"-markup isn't inserted by a variable or anything. I presume we're looking at changing two templates instead of one, and we need to replace different code in them (which is fine).

In response to the objections about the tag in my initially proposed markup:
I wasn't thinking. You're right that we should be as W3.org-compliant as we possibly can. It's also true that we cannot currently use tags (which are the alternative) in edit windows.
However:
These two recent changes HTML templates are not the same thing as a Wikipedia "Template:". They wont get edited via a Wikipedia edit window anyway. They will get changed by some of the respective admin/developers directly changing some HTML source files. Hence the restrictions against the use of tags don't apply. So we can technically choose just about any markup we want.

For this reason, I have struck my markup recommendation above. This entire proposal is now about whether or not to use NEW instead of N. While I personally would also recommend using W3.org standards-compliant HTML, (from now on) the specific markup to use is NOT part of this proposal.

Please simply vote on whether or not to accept the highlighted "NEW" text instead of the icon or "N" (as the other proposals would have it) and instead of the current N.

Again, the HTML I have to use through this edit window is NOT supposed to represent the proper XHTML to actually get implemented.

We could also use a small text size "NEW" or a non-bold small "NEW" or courier-type non-bold small "NEW" — but please let's decide that later: We'd never get a majority if votes got split over these minor differences.

Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a variable, actually: MediaWiki:Newpageletter. Since MediaWiki: pages are parsed as wiki code just like articles, wouldn't work in them either. Goplat 20:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

font tag is deprecated html, obsolete!, use of font tag is specifically recommended against by the Worldwide Web Consortium. I do not and will not support new code that includes font tags. Use style rules please.Pedant

isn't allowed. Goplat 17:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Maybe you want to consider changing your vote? Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes votes[edit]

Agreed. --Nyxos (Talk) 06:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) I am the original proposer of the NEW icon, but like the both other alternatives too. However, the single (black on yellow) N has the smallest (no) impact on the existing (standard and enhanced) recent changes layout.
Crystal clear to even the most drunken new user ~ FriedMilk 19:57, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
[[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 02:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I like this version, coded along the lines of Peter O.'s suggestion above:

"But make it customizable with css, e.g. N The default CSS could highlight it yellow."Pedant

No votes[edit]

24.123.221.2 17:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No no deprecated code. I like the idea of 'N' or 'new', highlighted, (and changeable by user styles) but not with the use of  markup. Without deprecated code I would support either. If someone could explain why deprecated  is better than the 'right' way, I might support it.Pedant 16:32, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)I've been asked to write this in .css, but I'm not familiar with the stylesheet used on wikipedia, so I'd hate to suggest code to use, as it might 'break' the stylesheet. I'll look into it, thoughPedant

I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Maybe you want to consider changing your vote? Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about a test period?[edit]

Might I suggest that the two options each be activated for a brief test period, say 24 hrs each? That would enable us to see how they look in context; a "don't panic; only a test" note could be appended to the current poll announcement. It'd also get more people over here to vote. –Hajor 00:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - this is what I requested to some Admins - simply switch it on for awhile. See German WikiPedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Recentchanges - we simply "did it". --Nyxos (Talk) 06:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - without  tags though.Pedant 16:33, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
Agreed - LuciferBlack 21:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed I suppose. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Definately: The bold N sounds like it could work, but I need to actually see it in action before I vote. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 02:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very Very Messy[edit]

I propose seperating the discussions and polls, because this page is getting a bit hard to navigate. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. --Nyxos (Talk) 06:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) As the proposer of the icon discussion (mess, but "Telos kalo, ola kala") I will withdraw(close) the first discussion about the icon soon and split the page. --Nyxos (Talk) 06:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other alternatives added after 30.08.2004[edit]

Alternative (= animated )[edit]

Κσυπ Cyp 08:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)