Hi everyone,
In William's update, he wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, William Pietri wrote:
> Also upcoming is [...]some work with the
> community to figure out the remaining details of the community side of
> the trial (keep an eye on RobLa's activity there)
More on that. If you hav
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
As I mentioned last week, we are starting pre-rollout activities while
we finish up the last bits of development. Now that the successful
launch of the new enwiki UI is out of the way, we will be getting
together with Rob H. and the re
I absolutely agree. I'd never use vector to edit, but from a purely
reading point of view (which is still >50% of how I use Wikimedia)
it's gorgeous, and very smooth, and I feel definitely highlights the
"editing" aspect as well.
~A
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 16:21, AGK wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 2
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Indeed. Going back to monobook is not quite enough, though. Best to hide
> the message speaking of "We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia", too.
And who is "we" in the "we've made improvements." It was not long ago
that "we" made the improvements.
-SC
___
AGK wrote:
> Basically, us set-in-our-ways old-timers aren't the target audience
> for the Vector skin :-).
>
>
Indeed. Going back to monobook is not quite enough, though. Best to hide
the message speaking of "We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia", too.
Charles
> stevertigo wrote:
>> Agree - it needs a lot of tweaking to make it look presentable, let
>> alone professional. The shadows and thin lines make it look
>> reminiscent of Uncyclopedia's logo.
Carcharoth wrote:
> I get the feeling something is missing behind it.
It used to have a soul.
-SC
__
On 13 May 2010 21:10, Carcharoth wrote:
> I realise I (and others) will have to adapt, and this is all part of
> the usability drive.
I maintain that the usability drive is almost exclusively aimed at
those just discovering editing, and at new editors. It became clear
that editing Wikipedia is a
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm used to typing the term for a page I know is there and hitting
>> "search" (instead of "go") because I want the results of a search
>> rather than being take to the page (e.g. when searching for people not
>
Carcharoth wrote:
>
>
> I'm used to typing the term for a page I know is there and hitting
> "search" (instead of "go") because I want the results of a search
> rather than being take to the page (e.g. when searching for people not
> listed on a disambiguation page, though they should be). How do
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 13/05/2010, AGK wrote:
>> I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that's
>> because I'm _used_ to it being on the left. I think the usability team
>> gave a rationale at one point for the new box location, and I seem
On 13/05/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'm used to typing the term for a page I know is there and hitting
> "search" (instead of "go") because I want the results of a search
> rather than being take to the page (e.g. when searching for people not
> listed on a disambiguation page, though they should b
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 13/05/2010, AGK wrote:
>> I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that's
>> because I'm _used_ to it being on the left. I think the usability team
>> gave a rationale at one point for the new box location, and I seem
On 13/05/2010, AGK wrote:
> I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that's
> because I'm _used_ to it being on the left. I think the usability team
> gave a rationale at one point for the new box location, and I seem to
> recall it being quite a sound one.
Under firefox, th
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:46 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I disagree. I've been using Vector since the beta and find it no problem.
>
> I agree. I've been using beta as well and I think people just need to
> be familiar with it. What would be "usable" would be a simple drop
> do
David Gerard wrote:
> I disagree. I've been using Vector since the beta and find it no problem.
I agree. I've been using beta as well and I think people just need to
be familiar with it. What would be "usable" would be a simple drop
down menu for letting the user choose between them.
> (I suspec
Noöne; I just thought it important to make sure users' monobook scripts
weren't broken.
—Ecw.technoid.dweeb
On 13 May 2010 13:19, Magnus Manske wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Calculator Ftvb
> wrote:
> > On 13 May 2010 10:14, Magnus Manske wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe that should be done
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Calculator Ftvb wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 10:14, Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>> Maybe that should be done automatically for everyone where monobook.js
>> exists but vector.js doesn't?
>
> If that were done, it would be important to make sure the monobook.js was
> retain
On 13 May 2010 10:14, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
> Maybe that should be done automatically for everyone where monobook.js
> exists but vector.js doesn't?
If that were done, it would be important to make sure the monobook.js was
retained (do it as a copy, rather than a move).
—Ecw.technoid.dweeb
> _
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Phantomsteve
wrote:
> I'll try vector when I have a chance to try out the different scripts which
> I have in monobook - I might just add them one at a time to vector and see
> which work and which don't!
There is a page that helps people with scripts move over t
> Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:46:47 +0100
> From: WereSpielChequers
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The new look to Wikipedia
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I couldn't find the deletion and block buttons, and all the
> scri
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:57 PM, MuZemike wrote:
> Another gripe is that they shrunk the
> search box even smaller, which really makes looking for a page
> problematic. On nearly all computers and with how vector is set up to
> operate, the width of the search box could easily be doubled.
I hop
On 5/13/2010 8:36 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
>> always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
>>
> I'm used to most of it, as w
On 13 May 2010 12:38, AGK wrote:
> I don't really like it either. But whilst from an editor's point of
> view the skin is less suitable than monobook (or even modern), I think
> our readers will enjoy the new layout.
I disagree. I've been using Vector since the beta and find it no problem.
>
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> Delete and protect are in the dropdown arrow next to the star on the
> upper-right. Block is where it always was, on the toolbar on the
> left, but you have to click the arrow to display the menu. The reason
> none of your scripts worked is
> The thing that's throwing me is the new logo. It's darker than the old
> one was, and actually it seems closer to the original version of the
> puzzle globe.
It also looks to me less sharp than the old version. Especially
odd-looking is the text underneath the Wikipedia globe. Does anybody
else
It's counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I find the internet community as
a whole to be surprisingly unaccepting of change.
~A
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:16, William Pietri wrote:
> People should probably take blog and blog comment reaction with quite a
> bit of salt. I've been through a lot of red
Delete and protect are in the dropdown arrow next to the star on the
upper-right. Block is where it always was, on the toolbar on the
left, but you have to click the arrow to display the menu. The reason
none of your scripts worked is that they are all in
[[User:WereSpielChequers/monobook.js]].
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
>
> My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
> always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
I'm used to most of it, as would most of the people who have already
been using Vector, I i
On 05/13/2010 04:38 AM, AGK wrote:
> But although it's too early for the mainstream media to have covered
> the redesign, what reception the blogosphere has given it seems to be
> generally negative. (Google 'wikipedia new design' and take a look at
> the blog posts and comments. But take the comme
I couldn't find the deletion and block buttons, and all the scripts
various people have set me up with disappeared. So I've reverted to
the old skin; At least they made it easy to do that.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:38:56 +0100
> From: AGK
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-
> o_0 Citation needed. I've been amazed how it's become increasingly a
> talking point on my CV over the years. (I put it in "other interests"
> at the end.) People *like* Wikipedia.
That they do. People might write it off in conversation, but secretly,
when they google that obscure term they hear
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> AGK wrote:
>>> My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
>>> always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
>>>
>>
>> I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that
AGK wrote:
>> My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
>> always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
>>
>
> I prefer the old location for the search box, yes. But I think that's
> because I'm _used_ to it being on the left. I think the
> Cameron and Clegg have got to WP already? No, I must be confused, but
> the "new look" has arrived on our pages.
I don't really like it either. But whilst from an editor's point of
view the skin is less suitable than monobook (or even modern), I think
our readers will enjoy the new layout. The r
Cameron and Clegg have got to WP already? No, I must be confused, but
the "new look" has arrived on our pages.
My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
Charles
___
On 25 March 2010 23:10, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 25 March 2010 21:55, Nathan wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, geni wrote:
>>> On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
1) What is the total administrative workload no
On 05/13/2010 12:29 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 07:07, David Katz wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a
>> source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a
>> wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a b
On 13 May 2010 07:07, David Katz wrote:
> Yes, "stagnation" is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a
> source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a
> wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of
> an embarassing secret and you definitely would n
38 matches
Mail list logo
