Last modified: 2013-05-22 18:12:40 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 559 - Move section edit links to the bottom of the section
Move section edit links to the bottom of the section
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page editing (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks: editlinks
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-09-22 11:55 UTC by Jean-Michel Fayard
Modified: 2013-05-22 18:12 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Jean-Michel Fayard 2004-09-22 11:55:28 UTC
Hello,
I´m a contributor to the french and german version of wikipedia.
One thing I hate is that the [edit] link is at the top of a section while I
think it should be at the bottom.

Reproducible : always
Imagine you are a new user, you search to know about Franz Liszt. By google, you
discover the article on wikipedia. You begin to read it. Very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liszt

near the end of the first section, you see :
<i>In 1851 the revised version of the 1838 Etudes d'Execution Transcendante
d'apres Paganini; Grande Etudes Apres Paganini (Grand etudes after paganini),
the most famous of which is La Campanella, a study in octaves, shakes and jumps.</i>

Arggh. It missed a lot of french accents in this sentance : three É and one é
You continue to read, and you see a "[edit]" link.
Hhu ? What´s this encyclopedia ? That is wonderful, I can correct that. I WILL
correct that.
So you click on the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Franz_Liszt&action=edit&section=1
What happen´s ? That´s not my text. Too bad, I move on.


So I made six times the mistake again and again when I began to contribute to
wikipedia, and I constantly get people who do the mistake too.

It´s not limited to new users in fact. The common sense said us it should be at
the bottom of the section. Fondamentally, here is why : you can´t correct a text
you haven´t read, and you read from the top to the bottom.

I raised the question on the french discussion page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
(Badly enough, I can´t find again the topic)

Most people agreed with me. One valid concern which was raised is what happens
when you are at the bottom an a section and a subsection and a subsubsection.

[edit]
[edit] <=== why is there 3 links, which is the good one ?
[edit] 

[title of the section]
[title of the subsection]       <=== this on the other hand provide information,
but takes too much room
[title of the subsubsection] 

My proposal is this :
[edit §1.3.3]
[edit §1.3]                     <=== It´s easy to understand :
[edit §1]                       <=== do I want to modify the last small chunk of
the big chunk ?
AND 
provide the name of the section like previously but without taking too much room
by using a tooltip thanks to the HTML attribute [title="title of the subsection"]
Comment 1 Brian Jason Drake 2005-04-07 03:23:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Hello,
> I´m a contributor to the french and german version of wikipedia.
> One thing I hate is that the [edit] link is at the top of a 
section while I
> think it should be at the bottom.
> Reproducible : always
> Imagine you are a new user, you search to know about Franz Liszt. 
By google, you
> discover the article on wikipedia. You begin to read it. Very 
interesting.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liszt
> near the end of the first section, you see :
> <i>In 1851 the revised version of the 1838 Etudes d'Execution 
Transcendante
> d'apres Paganini; Grande Etudes Apres Paganini (Grand etudes after 
paganini),
> the most famous of which is La Campanella, a study in octaves, 
shakes and jumps.</i>
> Arggh. It missed a lot of french accents in this sentance : three 
É and one é
> You continue to read, and you see a "[edit]" link.
> Hhu ? What´s this encyclopedia ? That is wonderful, I can correct 
that. I WILL
> correct that.
> So you click on the link
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Franz_Liszt&action=edit&section=1
> What happen´s ? That´s not my text. Too bad, I move on.
> So I made six times the mistake again and again when I began to 
contribute to
> wikipedia, and I constantly get people who do the mistake too.
> It´s not limited to new users in fact. The common sense said us it 
should be at
> the bottom of the section. Fondamentally, here is why : you can´t 
correct a text
> you haven´t read, and you read from the top to the bottom.
> I raised the question on the french discussion page.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
> (Badly enough, I can´t find again the topic)
> Most people agreed with me. One valid concern which was raised is 
what happens
> when you are at the bottom an a section and a subsection and a 
subsubsection.
> [edit]
> [edit] <=== why is there 3 links, which is the good one ?
> [edit] 
> [title of the section]
> [title of the subsection]       <=== this on the other hand 
provide information,
> but takes too much room
> [title of the subsubsection] 
> My proposal is this :
> [edit §1.3.3]
> [edit §1.3]                     <=== It´s easy to understand :
> [edit §1]                       <=== do I want to modify the last 
small chunk of
> the big chunk ?
> AND 
> provide the name of the section like previously but without taking 
too much room
> by using a tooltip thanks to the HTML attribute [title="title of 
the subsection"]

I agree that [edit] links belong at the bottom of the section.

Currently, [edit] links are next to the headings, so it should be 
clear which [edit] link to use once you have figured out how the 
software works, but that will change once we put them at the bottom 
instead of the top.

Your suggestion seems perfect as long as you have heading numbering 
turned on (heading appears as "1.2 <subheading>" instead 
of "<subheading>"). It is turned off by default and without it, it 
could be a little confusing. As a related suggestion, I would have 
it on by default, as Encarta does.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links