Last modified: 2013-05-22 18:12:40 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§ion=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"]
(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§ion=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.
