MediaWiki talk:Newpageletter

Change to Recent Changes (N to !)

I have to say, I am not at all a fan of the "!" replacing "N" to designate new pages. I can't think of what page to complain on, though -- can anyone tell me? The "!" renders very badly for me (Mozilla 1.4.1) and "N" is far more descriptive anyway. Not all new pages are "!" worthy for me, but they are all "N"ew. Perhaps the person who made this change will see my comment and change back? I'd be very surprised if this was community consensus. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 15:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly what I've come here to complain about. At first I thought that ! meant "important" but now I see that it actually means "new". N is far better for that. Please change it back. -- Derek Ross 15:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I second the above request: N renders better. Anárion 15:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you see a change on the interface, hop over to Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace and click the appropriate Changes link to find out what changed. Dori | Talk 15:50, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

That won't do you much good since the page will almost certainly be protected (as it was in this case) and thus not subject to the normal Wikipedia peer review and correction process. -- Derek Ross 16:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have it wrong. Just because only admins can edit them, doesn't give the admins the only editorial power. THe reason they're protected is cause vandals could wreck havoc, but assuming it is a legitimate edit, you could just ask an admin to do it on your behalf. Obviously, if the change is major, admins may refuse to do it without first having a discussion, and a community approval, or the interface would be constantly changing, and that's not good. Dori | Talk 20:01, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

No. I have it right. I have been editing the wikipedia for longer than 90% of the admins and have more useful edits than most of them so I am quite clear on how this works. The point here is that a user with admin rights did this without first having a discussion and community approval as if it was an ordinary unprotected page. I would have no objection if this was something that could easily be undone by anyone but it wasn't. Admins had the only editorial power because only an admin could edit this. That is why I brought it to the Village Pump, in the hope that a user with admin rights would agree with me. Luckily one did. I say "luckily" because I have no editorial power over protected pages, only the power to suggest changes to them. -- Derek Ross 20:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was changed back wasn't it? I went to change it and found that someone else had already done it. Also, why don't you apply for adminship? Dori | Talk 20:40, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy about the change back. Good to know that you would have fixed it for me though. Thanks! What was annoying me was the original change. As for why I don't apply for admin status:

(a) I don't generally need it.

(b) When admin status was originally proposed it was supposed to be a temporary measure until the MediaWiki software was changed to make admins unnecessary -- I'm still naively waiting. Some of the original admin-only features have become available to ordinary users after all.

(c) In 2002 I could have become an admin just by saying that I wanted to be one -- it was policy to let anyone become admin unless there were serious objections. In 2003/2004 I have to pass a popularity contest. Unfortunately I don't particularly want to enter one. (Makes me wonder what hoops I'd have to jump through next year though.)

So I'll happily continue as an ordinary user for the moment, thank you. -- Derek Ross 21:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like this either. It is less clear. Please count this message as a vote against if a poll is conducted. Mr. Jones 16:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Luckily Maximus Rex has changed it back. The exclamation mark made no sense. Angela. 17:55, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ah good. The N is also easier for newbies to understand. Plus for everyone, the ! is unintuitave, usually signalling danger or importance. LUDRAMAN | T 18:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Using "NEW" icon

• I would like to ask the WikiPedia community, if you would prefer to have this icon marking the new articles in the Recent Changes list.
• See it live on the German WikiPedia at Recent Changes
• If some of the Wiki-Admins is courageous enough, he or she can simply apply the only change needed. Only one tiny change in MediaWiki:newpageletter is needed to activate this icon, what I suggest, because it's very useful and an eyecatcher, see description page of .
• Screenshot of NEW (NEU) Icon in WikiPedia-DE

File:NEW-Patch Gift of UserNyxos.png

Opinion poll started on 24. August 2004 19:15 UTC

For (show NEW ICON in Recent Changes as proposed by User:Nyxos and img alt text staying "N")

1. Nyxos, Berlin (Talk) -- The alt text of the image will stay "N"
2. Netoholic (Talk) 01:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- The alt text of the image should stay "N", though.
3. 217.230.227.158 19:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) new pages are easy to identify in the listings

Against (do not show an icon in Recent Changes, keep bold letter N)

1. Geni 21:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Angela - it makes enhanced recent changes look ugly.
3. 24.123.221.2 15:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Andy - It breaks the alignment of the table
5. Ewwww. ··gracefool |☺ 08:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Ayman - I prefer bold unhighlighted N, other options make the RC page look inconsistent.
7. Tagishsimon. Ugly is good.

Comments

Using anything other than a single letter throws off the indenting in the enhanced RC. Doppelgänger 21:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there no workaround? Adding a & n b s p ; ? -- Netoholic (Talk) 23:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The N is pretty clear and I would rather not have a graphic which can get scrambled. If you want to keep track of new pages whats wrong with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages Geni 21:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative (show N in Recent Changes as proposed by Norm )

I like the idea, but the formatting problems ruin it. How about N instead? [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 09:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] ! I like also your N -- can you set it online just right now ?

Hi Admins (m/f), I like his proposal. It needs only to enter this tag <font style="background:yellow"><strong>N<strong></font> into MediaWiki:newpageletter -plese can some try it ? -- Nyxos (Talk) 10:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Checking: does N (<font style="background:yellow;font-weight: bold;">N</font>) work? Yes --Phil | Talk 14:52, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be (<span style="background:yellow;font-weight: bold;">N</span>)? font is deprecated in favor of CSS. --Ayman 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<span> is disallowed. 24.123.221.2 17:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support alternative (highlighted N)

1. Angela
2. 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)

3. Nyxos (Talk) 15:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- I vote for the alternative, too, because it fulfill my needs in a way which appears not to interfere (layout is kept intact without further tricks)

   For me it's clear: Angela, go on (I mean, you can switch it....)

4. Support. I'd like it even more if it's italicized. -- PFHLai 16:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
5. This is also the easiest solution that would be extensible to marking the "m" used to flag minor edits. Colin 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I tried it on my Wiki, however I found, that the impact of the MediaWiki:minoreditletter label should be as small as possible, otherwise it's a real eye-catcher - should not be an eye catcher. I actually use this File:Corr.png on my wiki. --Nyxos (Talk) 17:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

6. Denni☯ 17:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Oppose alternative (keep unhighlighted N)

1. 24.123.221.2 16:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)