Page MenuHomePhabricator

Move section edit links to the bottom of the section
Closed, InvalidPublic

Description

Author: jmfayard

Description:
Hello,
I´m a contributor to the french and german version of wikipedia.
One thing I hate is that the [edit] link is at the top of a section while I
think it should be at the bottom.

Reproducible : always
Imagine you are a new user, you search to know about Franz Liszt. By google, you
discover the article on wikipedia. You begin to read it. Very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liszt

near the end of the first section, you see :
<i>In 1851 the revised version of the 1838 Etudes d'Execution Transcendante
d'apres Paganini; Grande Etudes Apres Paganini (Grand etudes after paganini),
the most famous of which is La Campanella, a study in octaves, shakes and jumps.</i>

Arggh. It missed a lot of french accents in this sentance : three É and one é
You continue to read, and you see a "[edit]" link.
Hhu ? What´s this encyclopedia ? That is wonderful, I can correct that. I WILL
correct that.
So you click on the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Franz_Liszt&action=edit&section=1
What happen´s ? That´s not my text. Too bad, I move on.

So I made six times the mistake again and again when I began to contribute to
wikipedia, and I constantly get people who do the mistake too.

It´s not limited to new users in fact. The common sense said us it should be at
the bottom of the section. Fondamentally, here is why : you can´t correct a text
you haven´t read, and you read from the top to the bottom.

I raised the question on the french discussion page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
(Badly enough, I can´t find again the topic)

Most people agreed with me. One valid concern which was raised is what happens
when you are at the bottom an a section and a subsection and a subsubsection.

[edit]
[edit] <=== why is there 3 links, which is the good one ?
[edit]

[title of the section]
[title of the subsection] <=== this on the other hand provide information,
but takes too much room
[title of the subsubsection]

My proposal is this :
[edit §1.3.3]
[edit §1.3] <=== It´s easy to understand :
[edit §1] <=== do I want to modify the last small chunk of
the big chunk ?
AND
provide the name of the section like previously but without taking too much room
by using a tooltip thanks to the HTML attribute [title="title of the subsection"]


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

Details

Reference
bz559

Revisions and Commits

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Medium.Nov 21 2014, 6:59 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz559.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

brian wrote:

(In reply to comment #0)

Hello,
I´m a contributor to the french and german version of wikipedia.
One thing I hate is that the [edit] link is at the top of a

section while I

think it should be at the bottom.
Reproducible : always
Imagine you are a new user, you search to know about Franz Liszt.

By google, you

discover the article on wikipedia. You begin to read it. Very

interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liszt
near the end of the first section, you see :
<i>In 1851 the revised version of the 1838 Etudes d'Execution

Transcendante

d'apres Paganini; Grande Etudes Apres Paganini (Grand etudes after

paganini),

the most famous of which is La Campanella, a study in octaves,

shakes and jumps.</i>

Arggh. It missed a lot of french accents in this sentance : three

É and one é

You continue to read, and you see a "[edit]" link.
Hhu ? What´s this encyclopedia ? That is wonderful, I can correct

that. I WILL

correct that.
So you click on the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?

title=Franz_Liszt&action=edit&section=1

What happen´s ? That´s not my text. Too bad, I move on.
So I made six times the mistake again and again when I began to

contribute to

wikipedia, and I constantly get people who do the mistake too.
It´s not limited to new users in fact. The common sense said us it

should be at

the bottom of the section. Fondamentally, here is why : you can´t

correct a text

you haven´t read, and you read from the top to the bottom.
I raised the question on the french discussion page.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
(Badly enough, I can´t find again the topic)
Most people agreed with me. One valid concern which was raised is

what happens

when you are at the bottom an a section and a subsection and a

subsubsection.

[edit]
[edit] <=== why is there 3 links, which is the good one ?
[edit]
[title of the section]
[title of the subsection] <=== this on the other hand

provide information,

but takes too much room
[title of the subsubsection]
My proposal is this :
[edit §1.3.3]
[edit §1.3] <=== It´s easy to understand :
[edit §1] <=== do I want to modify the last

small chunk of

the big chunk ?
AND
provide the name of the section like previously but without taking

too much room

by using a tooltip thanks to the HTML attribute [title="title of

the subsection"]

I agree that [edit] links belong at the bottom of the section.

Currently, [edit] links are next to the headings, so it should be
clear which [edit] link to use once you have figured out how the
software works, but that will change once we put them at the bottom
instead of the top.

Your suggestion seems perfect as long as you have heading numbering
turned on (heading appears as "1.2 <subheading>" instead
of "<subheading>"). It is turned off by default and without it, it
could be a little confusing. As a related suggestion, I would have
it on by default, as Encarta does.

epriestley changed the task status from Invalid to Resolved by committing Unknown Object (Diffusion Commit).Mar 4 2015, 8:19 AM
epriestley added a commit: Unknown Object (Diffusion Commit).
Aklapper changed the task status from Resolved to Invalid.Mar 4 2015, 9:18 AM
Aklapper claimed this task.