Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Simplify the edit window

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:26, 27 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
CLOSED:

Consensus has been assessed by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs). See #MediaWiki:Edittools position, #CharInsert edittools gadget defaults - on or off?, and #Edit summary label. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a proposal to simplify the edit window, building on the upcoming changes to the editing interface (scheduled to go live on 1 October).

Basically our edit interface is full of stuff, stuff everywhere, lots of stuff! and is a bit of a mess. While what Oliver Keyes and his team put forward recently is certainly a start, there is no reason why we cannot effect changes directly to improve our edit interface for everyone. We simply need a consensus to do so (and okay from Legal if we decide we want to change the text in at least one of the copyright warnings, but we may not need to do that at all). -— Isarra ༆ 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes[edit]

Basically we remove some stuff, reorder some stuff, and profit.

Original appearance
A possible new appearance, depending on where this goes

Changes in detail[edit]

MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary[edit]

Simplify and merge main text
These currently are as follows, though some above and some below the edit/preview/changes buttons:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

It would probably look better were we to merge them into one block either entirely before or after the buttons, though which would be preferable? A potential rewording to do so (while retaining relevant parts of the second copyright notice supposing that is removed) could be as follows:

Please note that encyclopedic content must be verifiable and written using a neutral point of view, and copyright violations will be deleted. For testing, please edit the sandbox instead.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Although shorter ideas might be better, because, like, that's still pretty long. We could also make it all small text to make it prettier.

Support proposed new text?
  • Support at least for now. -— Isarra ༆ 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems better. Helder 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support less clutter. — Edokter (talk) — 12:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks much better this way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Undoubtedly will need some future refinement, but an excellent first step, and one we can do immediately. We need this so badly I'd accept it as proposed, and discuss details later. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I get that fresh and clean feeling whenever I see it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- an improvement. WP needs to be less stagnant in its look. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Oppose. Prefer using an editnotice for the article namespace relevant content, as proposed below. the wub "?!" 11:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposals or general concerns
  • Is there any way we could get the words "copy and paste" back in there? I think it is rather important, even if we do still have "violates any copyrights". --Mysterytrey 03:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, we could probably work that in, but the problem is there are a lot of different ways to violate copyright, so we can't be too specific. Another fellow suggested using an article-space editnotice for the more specific copyright and encyclopedical stuff, though, like are used on talkpage to remind people of the guidelines and to sign their posts, so maybe that would be a place for that? -— Isarra ༆ 04:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I guess including copy-and-paste won't actually improve much, unless we want to do a more detailed edit notice. --Mysterytrey 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article-space editnotice
Example using an editnotice in the same format as the talkpage ones, and with some updates based on closed portions below

Another possibility would be to move the line about encyclopedic content, verifiability, NPOV etc into an editnotice for the entire article namespace using MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn or MediaWiki:Editnotice-0, rather like the one that shows when editing talkpages, because while copyright violations will be deleted anywhere and we don't want people using random other pages for sandboxing either, the most trouble we have with that seems like it would be in the encyclopedia itself, so an explicit warning there might make more sense, like so or some such:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and written using a neutral point of view. Copyright violations will be deleted. For testing, please edit the sandbox instead.

Thoughts? -— Isarra ༆ 20:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prefer this. Otherwise we'll be adding irrelevant text and links on all edits to other namespaces. the wub "?!" 11:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider this also acceptable. Either way is much better than at present. Te most important thing is to do something quickly. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put copyright warning above or below the save/preview/show changes buttons?
  • Below looks pretty. -— Isarra ༆ 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above. Otherwise I think it is less likely to get read. --Mysterytrey 03:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot put it below: the legal department will not allow it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make the copyright warning text smaller?
  • Oppose - this stuff is important, man. -— Isarra ༆ 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don;t like the small stuff. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal will not allow it to be smaller (at least, in the mockups we've given them). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that makes that easier. Pretty cool that the folks who did comment seem to agree, too. -— Isarra ༆ 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Oliver's team - MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning now contains only the specific copyright information, and the disclaimers have been moved into MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn (an editnotice). The other text has been removed. -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice[edit]

Restarting this section to avoid confusion considering the recent changes to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning, which resulted in an editnotice appearing on every page.

Example using an editnotice in the same format as the talkpage ones, and with some updates based on closed portions below

Namespace-specific editnotice[edit]

As the wub pointed out, the text is largely irrelevant to other namespaces; while copyright violations will be deleted anywhere, 'encyclopedic content' refers to the encyclopedia, and the most trouble we have with any of this is in the encyclopedia. But that is only part of what the editnotice says (and will probably still say even if we change it), so the question is, do we want it to only show up when editing articles, like the talkpage notice does when editing talkpages?

  • Support - per proposing it, per the wub, and per the fact that having multiple editnotices on a page looks really silly (and pages in project, mediawiki, and talk namespaces tend to already have at least one). -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

This may merit updating depending on where all the editnotice is displayed. Currently it is as follows:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will.

A proposal here was to use the following, which would make more sense if only used on articles:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and written using a neutral point of view. Copyright violations will be deleted. For testing, please edit the sandbox instead.
  • Both seem a little odd for just article space, however, but trying to hammer it into people's heads that this is an encyclopedia can't hurt either way. Any thoughts, preferences, etc? -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Remove copyright warning from MediaWiki:Edittools
MediaWiki:Edittools is supposed to be for edittools, but it currently contains a second copyright warning. I would put forward that this second copyright warning should be removed, as A, that's not what the Edittools page is for, and B, it is redundant with the first copyright warning.
  • Support because I can't think of any good reason to keep it. Wonderful reason, huh? -— Isarra ༆ 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing or modifying "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission." because there may be instances where copying is allowed of non-public domain material (say Creative Commons). Chris857 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it's above the edit window, it's visible enough for me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems sensible to use the interface message as was intended. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, redundant with other warning. Kaldari (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redundant. — Edokter (talk) — 12:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course. No idea why we would need it twice, and it's a help page not a policy one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, currently redundant. the wub "?!" 11:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redundant. --Wolbo (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Part of me feels like copyright warnings are ignored more when they are repeated. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support useless. extra999 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done along with the other copyright stuff.

MediaWiki:Edittools position[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus in favour of moving it, it is related to the edit box not to the summary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edittools, as edittools, should also probably be closer to the editbox itself. Ideally we could put a change into the mediawiki core to move the entire interface message up so it's between the editbox and the edit summary field or somewhere around there, but unfortunately using the message for other things (such as the second copyright notice we currently have there) is apparently pretty common and that would mess things up for any projects that have done that. Would this be feasible regardless or are there any other system messages we could use to put the charinsert edittools next to the thing (there's the edit summary label one, but that would just be weird) for people who have the gadget enabled?

  • I say move it to above the edit summary because it just seems to work better there. -— Isarra ༆ 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to above the edit summary. Just keep it so that it doesn't look attached to the editbox. --Mysterytrey 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving it only works if you have the relatively small JS based one that most users see. The 'flat' all in one huge box that is actually the default JS charinsert tool would push the buttons to the state of 'invisible'. We should really condense all of this to the one most folks see on en.wp —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving the thing where it is in the base page but then using the js to move it might be a good way to resolve that, since yeah, we would only want it up higher if it is the small-looking one. Probably wouldn't hurt to cut down how much is in the base one as well, however. -— Isarra ༆ 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving above the edit summary, whatever technical method is used to achieve that. the wub "?!" 11:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving above the edit summary. Or at least let me set some variable from Special:MyPage/common.js to prevent the moving. I like having the box available, but I don't use it often enough that I want it in the way between the edit box and the summary and buttons. Anomie⚔ 00:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it where it was, although right now I'd be happy to see it anywhere (it's gone from my edit page, and I found it very useful). Miniapolis (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - this was already moved above, but there is no reason it cannot be moved back if the consensus falls that way. -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about moving the Edittools into the WikiEditor, like Wikimedia Commons does it?--Snaevar (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CharInsert edittools gadget defaults - on or off?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as no consensus on the one hand it is redundant, on the other hand it is easier to access than the special characters box. Of note the special characters box does scroll for me - but I am a Mac user. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the character insertion tools underneath the edit window are a part of the global interface, but there has been work on turning this into a gadget so as to avoid clutter, since it is largely redundant with the character insertion tools in the enhanced editing toolbar at the top of the edit window, and in many cases folks don't need this functionality in general. The question is, do we want the bottom character insertion edittools gadget on by default, especially considering that the toolbar with which it is largely redundant is also on by default?

  • User:Yuvipanda has now gadgetised it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is essentially what I suggested at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Edit_tools. About the code, why not to use a more specific CSS selector instead of !important? And why to load all the code even when it is not needed? Isn't better to have a "loader" and a "core" module (e.g. as suggested in the gadget proposal)? Helder 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stuff has now been moved into a gadget. It is currently on by default pending the outcome of this discussion-votey-cat-flingy-thingy. -— Isarra ༆ 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default - personally I figure it might as well be off since it is kind of redundant, but then again it is also a lot easier to use than the one in the edit toolbar, so I dunno, really. But, uh, that's what you all are for. *shifty eyes* -— Isarra ༆ 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On by default - the problem with the stuff in the enhanced editing toolbar is that half of the time bits of it don't work. The tools under the window do seem to be more reliable and available than those above.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On by default - my biggest issue with the fancy toolbar up top is that it requires using the built in scroll bar (you know, the one that isn't controlled by the mouse wheel because the mouse wheel controls scroll on the page), to do pretty much anything. Sometimes you have to use both scrollbars, and the one on the left for the blue box moves too quickly to be easily controlled. In short, CharInsert is just much, much more user friendly. When dealing with new users, who already have enough trouble finding anything as it is, give them the obvious, simple option. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume we're talking about the thing below the save page button that has the drop down menu and the "– — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ Cite your sources: <ref></ref>" thing? Just making sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, those. -— Isarra ༆ 03:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a sidenote "you know, the one that isn't controlled by the mouse wheel because the mouse wheel controls scroll on the page" Wut ? which browser is this or which mouse + driver ? Nested behavior like this should be no problem for either and if it is, consider switching because there is simply no excuse for this anymore. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On by default. I don't trust the wikieditor toolbar up top, and I think others, like me, still like the charinsert bar. --Mysterytrey 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default and then actually commit to follow up on improving WikiEditor char insert, where required. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What TheDJ said. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default. Issues with the WikiEditor should be reported/fixed as needed, and not be the reason to load all this stuff for everyone. Helder 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default. Redundant and superseded, per others. However, I think the "core" symbols on the "Insert" page of Charinsert (– — ° ≈ ≠ × ÷ ← → ·, to name a few) must be added to the initial page of "special characters" wikieditor. I struggle to find these characters in the current implementation. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agreed; we're looking into this :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default. Redundant and confusing. Charinsert is likely used by more advanced editors who can easily switch it on. Having two edit toolbars is a usability no-no. Temporary solution would be to switch charinsert off by default and remove it completely once the required / requested improvements have been made to the Wikieditor toolbar. --Wolbo (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh??. Looks like the change has already gone into effect today. This is the first I'm aware of this. I don't care to spend a lot of time in these discussions. I'm happy with (yesterday's) edit interface and want that tool bar thingy back that makes it easy to make en dashes and sign posts. How do I get it back???. Got here because of a link in Signpost, don't know if I'm in the right place. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an unrelated change, and we are restoring the toolbar. I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it given that we have had a watchlist notification live for quite a while :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. I'm not an everyday watchlist user, but I did check my watchlist earlier today and completely overlooked it. If Jimmy asked for money that way, he wouldn't raise much ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; we need to work out a better way of doing this :). My apologies for any confusion - we've got a fix developed and are just waiting to deploy. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bug? I'd like to be able to have it on as well as the advanced editing toolbar, but don't mind what is the default so long as there's a way to configure it so. At the moment there seems to be a bug: I've swiched off the advanced bar to get the basic one, but occasionally the "Copy and Paste" version (which I hate) appears instead. Especially (but not reliably) on clicking "Show preview". --Stfg (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is known; we're fixing it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) I now think On by default, for much the same reasons as others saying this. It's a really useful feature. And while I'm here, thanks for changing it so that the show-preview button doesn't send the edit window back to the start of the section. What it does now makes it much easier to preview and re-edit in discussion like this. --Stfg (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "send the edit window back to the start of the section". Are you using the live preview? Isn't this what is requested at bugzilla:39874? Helder 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off by default, although at the moment I have it switched on and it's not in my edit window. Miniapolis (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, another change bugged that; they're working on that. -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On by default: it's really useful and i use used it a lot when editing (before it vanished… even with the gadget enabled ): benzband (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On by default as I have it switched on in my preferences and it isn't working. AutomaticStrikeout 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summary label[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as consensus - unanimous support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the label for the edit summary is long enough that it pushes the actual inputbox for the edit summary onto a new line because it includes the explanation in it '(Briefly describe the changes you have made)'. I would like to move that explanation out of the label, so it all stays on one line, and into the tooltip for the editsummary inputbox itself such that that says 'Enter a short summary describing the changes you have made' instead of 'Enter a short summary'.

  • Support as proposer or whatever it is people say? -— Isarra ༆ 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both moving it out and having it in the edit summary. --Mysterytrey 03:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it should be noted that the new September version hard-codes the break between the label and the input (partially due to the length of the existing label), but perhaps this can be changed back. Rob Moen is the guy to talk to about it. Kaldari (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's silly, especially since most projects don't have that long of a thing in the first place. Some don't even have a link to an explanation, the bastards. -— Isarra ༆ 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...can we just rename 'edit summaries' to 'summaries of changes'? I know this isn't Simple, but that would just make so more sense in general. -— Isarra ༆ 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the4 future, it would be good to change the label to "Summarize your changes". But for now, let's just fix it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, currently wasting space. the wub "?!" 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Small and sensible change.--Wolbo (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find the current position of the edit summary text box to be somewhat disorienting. This would be a welcome change. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion[edit]

  • Any comments on the overall would go here.
  • I like your sample above. I would support all changes shown and explained above. Rjd0060 (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: support all the proposals —Cupco 21:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please if these changes are made, remember to update relevant help pages and screenshots. the wub "?!" 11:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very good point. Is there any good way to find all of the relevant ones? I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia's help pages. -— Isarra ༆ 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

A warning; it looks like some of the changes we're making will in fact hit everyone :S. So, the moved text will be moved for all users (as will tweaks to it) - nothing else should alter unless you're on vector and have the enhanced editing toolbar on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Could you please clarify what all your changes are affecting and thus what all would be an overlap and/or moot here? -— Isarra ༆ 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that the mockup shows some mediawiki notices have been moved - that change will hit everyone at once. It's not a direct overlap, nor does it moot the proposals here, I was just trying to keep people who have an interest in de-cluttering in the loop. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused?[edit]

Wikipedia:Glossary/User interface may help.

Button-labels?[edit]

I can't figure out where to put this comment, there are so many threads already on this page about the changed edit window, so I hope someone is watching. If this is in the wrong place, feel free to move it (and did this change go 'live' a little early?)
I think the "Citations" button on the 'Save page' Show Preview' 'Show changes' line seems to be mislabeled. It should say something along the lines of "Run Citations Tool" or "Run CitationsBot" or 'Fix Citations'. For it to just say the word "Citations" without implying that there is an action attached to clicking on it makes the label incomplete.
Also, I know that the Wiki-way is to cap the first word on titles and not cap the rest... How many people, do you think might click on the wrong button in that line of similarly-named & similarly-sized links (especially with the newly-added "Terms of Use" & CC-By-SA sentences)? Would it be possible to bold or even capitalize the pertinent wording especially on the first two buttons so they would perhaps read something like "SAVE page" or "Save page" and "Show PREVIEW" or "Show preview"? I am all the time telling new editors to use the Preview button, but maybe if we could make those first two buttons easier to distinguish visually, the easily-changed Preview would get used first instead of the immutable Save. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to talk to Oliver about that, although from what I understand none of the changes in either thing should have affected that. -— Isarra ༆ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Simplify_the_edit_window&oldid=1141874715"