That's a very good idea. A big green button "validate" at the end of the displayed wikitext content of the page may fit the need. It would open a confirmation popup with an explanation message the first k times the user click on it in order to make sure new contributors use it well (with k something like 3 or 5).
What do you think about it? I'll have some free time in a few weeks to implement a such thing directly into the ProofreadPage extension. Thomas > Le 10 août 2015 à 14:31, Alex Brollo <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Ok; imagine that while opening a level 3 page, an ajax query uploads quietly > the raw code of the page; as soon as you click the "Big Green Button" the > script could edit the code and send it to the server - in milliseconds - and > immediately could click the next page button. > > If a review of page in view mode is all what is needed to validate it, > there's no reason to enter in edit mode when there's nothing to fix. > > Alex > > 2015-08-10 18:14 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <[email protected]>: > The Big Validate Button is a good idea, > but I also would like a better navigation experience, as it is pretty slow > and cumbersome to got on the top of the page to click a tiny arrow, wait for > the new page, click edit, etc. > > Aubrey > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Alex Brollo <[email protected]> wrote: > If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the code > of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no error > to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer. > > Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. > > Alex > > > > 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <[email protected]>: > 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <[email protected]>: > > > > First point is: > > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? > > Probably yes. > Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect > the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a > lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't seems > to be crucial to me. > Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually > see the raw wikicode. > > > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without carefully > > reviewing its transclusion into ns0? > > Definitively yes. > When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the > problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It > should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since it > have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious > example here). > > > Alex > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
