MediaWiki talk:Newpageletter/Archive 1

message: :# Nyxos, Berlin (Talk) -- The alt text of the image will stay "N"
:# Netoholic (Talk) 01:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: # 217.230.227.158 19:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: # Sempron 22:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: '''For''' (''show NEW ICON [[Image:new.png]] in Recent Changes as proposed by [[User:Nyxos]]'' and img alt text staying "N") 

message: Using anything other than a single letter throws off the indenting in the enhanced RC. Doppelgänger 21:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there no workaround? Adding a & n b s p ; ?  -- Netoholic (Talk) 23:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: # 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)
thread_title: Support alternative (highlighted N)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  isn't allowed. Goplat 17:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Maybe you want to consider changing your vote? Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Maybe you want to consider changing your vote? Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second alternative &mdash; (''show highlighted'' <span style="background:yellow">'''NEW'''</span> ''in Recent Changes'') 

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

message: # Agreed. --Nyxos (Talk) 06:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes votes 

message: #24.123.221.2 17:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have addressed your concerns above. Maybe you want to consider changing your vote? Ropers 19:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No votes 

message: 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)
thread_title: How about a test period?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very Very Messy 

message: ==== Alternative (= animated ) ====
# Κσυπ Cyp   08:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other alternatives added after 30.08.2004 

message: # Κσυπ Cyp   08:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Alternative''' (= animated [[image:Nflash.gif]])