Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:27 UTC
On Wiktionary there is some content, such as quotations, that would be nice to
remain hidden until the user chooses to see it; otherwise they could easily
dominate the page. It would encourage people to add quotations to pages.
Currently some users are making seperate Quotation pages, which might make pages
harder to maintain in the future.
Here's a suggested syntax:
It would then have the same [show]/[hide] link as the table of contents. <div>
tags could be used instead of the <table> used by the TOC.
A pretty neat way of doing it:
Created attachment 198 [details]
allows creation of headers that are collasped until clicked on
This patch is more of a proof of concept then a proper patch. It does do what
it says it does, it adds my suggested syntax though it doesn't implement the
nice [show]/[hide] of the TOC.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=198) 
> allows creation of headers that are collasped until clicked on
Please supply a unified (-u) patch.
please compare with
bug 3560: lengthy sections should have the option to hide/show (collapsable)
*** Bug 3560 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Pasting from Bug 4326 comment #1:
A friend of mine is working on an extension that might interest you. See
http://crash.vikimedija.org/index.php/ShowHide . [...]
The extension has one major issue in that it will not allow hidden sections to
show up in "printable versions" on either my (sorry, intranet) site running 1.5
or on the example site listed above...
That doesn't sound like a major issue to fix.
I just like my syntax better. :P
*** Bug 5826 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This would be a MAJOR ENHANCEMENT to the useability of Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
And it would go a long way to resolving the differences/ ongoing battles between
inclusionists and deletionists. (Deletionists would see as little as they want to
see, inclusionists would see as much as they want to see.
I will attach a much more compreensive user statement of how it can be
implemented, and the benefits.
So, how do we get this escalated for some real action ?
Created attachment 1654 [details]
More comprehensive user requirement/suggestion, justification document
There is more value to this than meets the eye on the simple requests so far.
Could be a major improvement to the user experience, and resolve some raging
battles. Yet probably easy to implement.
User Requirement/Suggestion & Justification document.
No, this wouldn't have anything at all to do with inclusionism/deletionism.
Collapsable sections are inaccessible, and useless for printed
and other such forms of pages. Going to WONTFIX this.
Collapsable text can already be done through css, at least on en.wikipedia.
Maybe you need to copy some css and construct a template?
Richard's idea was way too complicated. No one is going to understand what some
numbers at the top of the page mean.
As far as inaccessibility, it should really only be used when the alternative is
to create subpages - those are even more inaccessible.
On printed pages, obviously it would just print everything...
"No, this wouldn't have anything at all to do with inclusionism/deletionism."
Collapsible sections WOULD GO a long way to resolving inclusionism/deletionism
WONT FIX implies it was a bug report. It was an improvment suggestion, based on
many years of intervening between tech heads who suggest technical solutions like
using personal CSS, and real world users.
I do not accept this verdict by one single techhead, against 6 votes for it.
If it doesn't fit into a Bug fix system, then where are serious suggestions for
improvment to be put. Or don't we have such a system ????
Both bug reports and feature requests for MediaWiki are placed on this tracker.
We tend to use WONTFIX in the case of feature requests which we aren't planning
on implementing for one or more reasons, and INVALID to close false bug reports.
To start long-term discussion, you are welcome to use one of the many mailing
lists to bolster support for the idea, provide a convincing argument that it
would be useful, and suggest a decent means of implementation which works for
Please be aware that features in MediaWiki come about via a concensus of the
active developers, with our lead developer Brion having the final statement over
what does and doesn't happen. We don't often count votes as it is our experience
some users don't understand what is best for them.
For what it is worth, I too am opposed to the idea of hiding bits of
information, making reading documents complex where there is no clear need...I
am against a technical solution to a social dispute between several classes of
users, some of whom are misguided.
I won't close the bug WONTFIX, but don't be surprised if someone else does. And
please don't war over it in that case.
A soluion for the small number of users without
big deal. And this should be seen as alternative to
subpages, doesn't have much to do with inclusionism etc.
The status of a ticket really isn't that important from
my experience with other projects, no reason for
As an experienced senior business systems analyst, with 28 years in the IT industry,
starting as a technical programmer, but for the last 20 years mainly being the go-
between to interpret user needs to IT techos, I've got to say I'd back my own
opinion. All that you've done is make this user further lose faith in the developer
community as just a bunch of ego techos who just don't understand the users, even
when they put together a user requirement document.
So, what do you developers really understand about the inclusionist/deletionist
debate, and what kind of solutions are you working on in this area. By all means, let
me know where you conduct these discussions. Of course, I'm assuming that if you want
users to contribute, it will be in a place that doesn't take technical expertise to
take part. Is that too big an assumption ??
Seriously,I want to help bring the user perspective to the developer community in a
better way, since so many technical solutions are being offered, instead of real user
Contact me on email@example.com
I've been thinking about this same problem for a long time. For my solution, the
key is Bug 6104, which would include CSS classes for all sections and
sub-sections. Site CSS, user CSS, and with some enhancements, user preferences
would then be able to choose which sections are visible or hidden by default
The feature is held up by complex markup on Wikipedias that Wiktionaries do not
suffer from. Somebody could implement a simple solution now for Wiktionaries
which would be disabled on Wikipedia until a full Wikipedia-compatible solution
can be developed.
Patch is far too old to be applied and has serious flaws (extension of wikimarkup, breaking reverse compatibility, breaking XHTML validity) for a feature of such questionable worth. The typical use case of MediaWiki is for article-style pages, where this feature would not be useful and would just clutter the interface. It would be perfectly reasonable as a custom script if desired, but not part of the core software. If the core needs flexibility increased in some way to enable this (e.g. bug 6104), please open separate bugs. WONTFIX.