MediaWiki talk:Editingold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Implemented

I just added the latest "pinkish" version of this message. Please report any issues with it here. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Going forwards, might I ask other admins to NOT PLAY AROUND WITH THIS, save to revert to the earlier version? We don't need another set of escapades where everyone tries there favourite colours, shapes, fonts, spellings, punctuations and pictures. (Xaosflux, this isn't directed at you, although you might have waited for some indication of agreement in the above discussion.) -Splash^talk 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He posted this to the village pump a week ago I believe; you can't really fault him for not trying. Further, altering MediaWiki messages shouldn't require the same level of interaction as is required to enact policy. I do however agree that changes shouldn't be made too quickly; I think the amount of time we invested in this is a good example of how long people should wait before moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Altering MediaWiki messages should require a high degree of future stability is my point. Being bold does not apply, since your actions have an effect so widely. I see too many MediaWiki messages flitting around endlessly, live, and it is unprofessional (I know, I know) and unnecessary. -Splash^talk 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash, I understand that having these interface messages stable is important, and believed I took due dilligence in time and posting requirements prior to enacting this. If you feel this is an inapproriate change, please revert my edit and we can drag this back here. I noted that the prior formating change to the last "Stable Version" did not appear to go through any discussion or change control that I can find, but it wasn't an issue then. I agree that WP:BOLD shouldn't apply to these areas as well, and also considered past issues relating to corruption/vandalalism related to transclusions and images before going with this version. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested enhancement: edit link for current?

I realize that we want to keep the current version stable for a while, but when we're ready to consider further improvements, what about including an edit link for the current revision of the page? Something like "Warning, you are not editing the current revision of the page; if you want to edit the current revision instead, click here"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, I see this was tried out and then reverted because it didn't work on all pages. Which pages did it not work with? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Curious about this as well. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I implemented the same on cs:, I guess you've had too much E's in it, just {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} seems to work fine. --Mormegil 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the reason why this does not work on all pages? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue was for page titles with spaces in them. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I see it has already been removed, but I may as well mention that the transparency didn't display properly in Internet Explorer. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with reversion, 2 reasons

1. Images in these pages need to be local, protected images to prevent wide-spread vandalism via transclusions:
2. Some browsers dont interpert them correctly, or at all (e.g. lynx). — xaosflux ^Talk 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Sorry for not checking the talk page before making the change. —Mets501 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)