MediaWiki talk:Viewsource

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See Template_talk:Sprotected for a proposal to change this message. Haukur 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it says how to edit. How about this: edit this page (read only)? —Keenan Pepper 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I think that's quite confusing as well. What sort of editing is read only? :) How about "who can edit? / view source" Haukur 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, these are all too long, including my suggestion. View source is good because it consisely summarizes what you can do. Actually, you can make changes and preview them as well... —Keenan Pepper 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To say "edit" and "read only" gives the reader diametrically opposed positions within a single group of five words. Far worse than "View source" which might not be the most user-friendly message but at least doesn't contradict itself. --AlisonW 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, keep it as "View source". Prodego talk 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need to have "view source" there. I remember myself being confused by it when I first came here and looked at the main page. "Discussion" and "history" I could understand, but that "view source"-tag was more mysterious, and I don't think readers care enough about the wiki-source of something they can't edit to defend us having that label up there along with the other important ones. (Not to mention that you won't see the main page source when you click it. The source of that page (and many others) are tucked away in various templates). I can see uses for being able to see the source when editors want to copy some constructs from a locked page and I'm not against the feature of having the source accessible this way, but I think we can make better use of this label text and instead state something that makes it clear that the page is uneditable for them or that they should click it to get information about the locking. People experienced enough to be interested in copying wiki-syntax between pages will know (or soon enough learn) that clicking the old edit-tab will reveal the source. We don't need to be this clear about that when there are more important information we can put there. But it should be short, I think. How about just: "Edit ?" (The question mark will make people click it and they'll then see the locking explanation, and it's different enough from the standard "edit this page" that people will notice the difference. Shanes 04:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a very good analysis and suggestion. "View source" is probably a vanishingly rare use case and those who want to do it already know how. Haukur 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The point of the view source tab is to view the page source. If you disagree with that function, overhaul MediaWiki:Protectedtext to cater better to new users, then come back to change Mediawiki:Viewsource to reflect that. That said, I threw "View source (editing disabled)" as a compromise out on AN which lasted a few hours; keeping as "View source" is my first preference for now. ~ PseudoSudo 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree with that function (as a primary function) and I have changed MediaWiki:Protectedtext to cater better to new users - though I agree that more changes are needed. The primary function of this tab should be to advice people on how protected pages work, probably a far more useful and common functionality than viewing MediaWiki source. Haukur 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is good; I am convinced by your argument. However for the short term, as james points out below, the text on the tab needs to stay as it was until these changes are fully implemented and we have a larger discussion on the issue. ~ PseudoSudo 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome, can we not change it until we come to some sort of agreement? It really looks silly changing text like this 10 times in 24 hours. Weird to load the 3 protected pages I have tonight to see a different edit tab for each one. FWIW, I like "View source (editing disabled)", but we need someone to look at a protected page at 800x600 before we use that. Cheers. --james // bornhj (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone revert this now, "edit?" lookes horrible. It just looks so unprofessional. View source was 1000 times better. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, then, I'll revert to "View source" for now but please let's agree on something more helpful for the future. Haukur 12:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The options I've seen come out of this so far are:
  • "View source" (obviously)
  • "How to edit / view source
  • "Edit this page (read only)"
  • "View source (editing disabled)"
  • "Edit mode (read only)"
  • "Edit?"
Personally, I like "View source (editing disabled)" but I think it could do with a bit mroe emphasis on the "editing" - something alone the lines of "Editing disabled: view source" or something. "How to edit / view source" just seems a little tacky to me. "Edit this page (read only)" is an oxymoron. "Edit mode (read only)" is also an oxymoron (and since when did we call it edit mode?). "Edit?" just makes no sense to me. "View source" is easliy missed by newbies. Just my two cents. --james // bornhj (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd prefer if it said View page source instead of just View source since it clarifies what source you are viewing. It would also assimilate with Edit this page instead of just Edit (MediaWiki default). Additional comments regarding editing disabled and stuff would be okay, but just don't make it too long, or the tab would look oversized compared to the others. G.He 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"View source (editing disabled)" would be good for protection but not so good for semi-protection. Maybe "View source (editing limited)" might be slightly better? The thing is that any Wikipedian can edit a semi-protected page, and anyone else can too if they sign up and wait a few days. That's a far cry from what "editing disabled" suggests. Haukur 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How about View page source (Editing restricted)? Maybe "restricted" would be better than "limited" since it basically is a restriction in a way? Limit sounds like some functions can still be performed, and that's not the case when a newcome comes across a (semi-)protected page. G.He 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't be my first choice but I still think it would be an improvement on "View source". Haukur 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, too long. I'm leaning towards the ones with edit mode. How about edit mode (restricted)? —Keenan Pepper 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's okay... Though "edit" really shouldn't be in there at all, should it? G.He 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what started this whole thing! People were confused because they couldn't find the "edit" button. Also keep in mind that many text editors use this same terminology; they'll let you "edit" a file even though you can't "save" it. —Keenan Pepper 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... How about: edit (read only) in relation to the "no save"? G.He 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's very similar to something I suggested, but people complained it was contradictory. I don't think it's contradictory, but we want it to be absolutely clear. —Keenan Pepper 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think edit (read only) is great. It's clear for the people looking for an "edit" button, but clearly shows that it is not really editable. View page source (Editing restricted) also works for me.—Mets501 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think a simple editing disabled would be great. Whatever it is, I don't think we should have edit mode (read only). view source is acceptable to me.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As a lowly non-admin. contributor, I am annoyed at the changing wording. "View source (editing disabled)" is okay, but there was nothing wrong with the original. "Edit mode (read only)" is just plain confusing. It ain't edit mode if you can view only. --Nelson Ricardo 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As another non-admin contributor, Nelson Richardo and me have defyed you, Keenan Pepper. It's still an oxymoron. Someone, please revert this or change it to "View source (editing disabled)". I would myself but I'm not an admin.TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's edit mode because you can change the text! You can even see how it would look with the preview button! The only thing you can't do is save it, hence "read only". The same language is used by dozens of text editors (which are still "editors" even though you can't save). —Keenan Pepper 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you cannot change the text. I tried. It d'nae work. --Nelson Ricardo 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, I must be going crazy. I distinctly remember the "view source" page having a preview button, but now it's not there. It must have been a figment of my imagination. So, since you really can't so anything but view the source, it should probably say "view source". —Keenan Pepper 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think the tab is a bit too long? Or is it just me? G.He 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not me, but I like my tabs big (my edit tab text has 50px of padding on each side, so it's about 150px wide). And it's only being used on protected pages, so I it's fine IMO. --james // bornhj (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Main Page, the face of Wikipedia, is protected, so everyone will see the message. --Nelson Ricardo 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should do something like we do to rename the main page's "article" tab to "main page", but to its edit tab? I dunno, but what we've got now instead of just "View source" seems to at least *hint* that that is where the edit tab appears. But no, I don't think many people who visit the Main Page are going to be worried by the size of the tab. --james // bornhj (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with its current width (Opera, 1280x1024). ~ PseudoSudo 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine in Firefox 1280x1024 and also with the window resized to 800x600. --james // bornhj (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the tab is why too long and meen. It ward be nise it to say "edit(read only)".**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but you have to convince all the people who say that's a contradiction. —Keenan Pepper 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/e/MediaWiki_talk%7EViewsource_b3d1.html"