https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50540
--- Comment #49 from kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com --- (In reply to comment #47) > (In reply to comment #45) > > I would suggest that we go with > > > > [beta editor | stable editor] > > No. That RFC (linked in comment 45) ... suggests better advertising that > VisualEditor is beta software. It specifically asks about the "user interface", not the advertising. (In reply to comment #48) > > ,,, we don't need to point out that it's beta in the > section edit links (it would just be more annoying). I suggest that you go back and read that section. The question is explicit. Answer 1: The "edit" button should explicitly say "beta editor" Answer 4: Please label that Edit button more clearly as the way to the Beta version. Answer 7: Indeed, per Kww (i.e. per answer 1) Answer 17: per User:Kww (again, per answer 1) Answer 26: There is no reason the "edit" button shouldn't mention the fact it's using VE Answer 28: Per kww (i.e. per answer 1) Answer 34: Per kww Answer 39: Label "Edit for beta or worse" (just kidding). Perhaps label as "Edit slow" or "Edit risky" or such All the remaining supports were in the context of actually changing the *button text*, even if the question said "user interface". The only mention of the warning that it is beta came in the "Oppose" section. The very fact that two of the only three oppose votes mention placing the warning after VE has been invoked makes it clear that people commenting are commenting in the context that the *button* should warn people that it's beta. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
