MediaWiki talk:Newpageletter

Introduction
This discussion started on 24.08.2004 by proposing a yellow icon (image not shown here) to indicate new pages in the recent changes view. The discussion and opinion polls spawned off into three different ones and I (the proposer) decided today to move all in my opinion minor discussions to a secondary page (archived discussions until 30.08.2004) in order to concentrate on the main question: --Nyxos (Talk) 01:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Note: It appears that there was a consensus against any of the other two options.  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A mockup (using temporarily a small new icon) can be visited here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Recentchanges. Please take note, that this survey here does not consider the use or decision of a small icon any longer; on this page you can vote for or against a letter on a coloured background. --Nyxos (Talk) 05:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: Show N in Recent Changes
Show N in Recent Changes was originally proposed by User:Krik. Do you like to have markings such as N for the new articles in the Recent Changes list ? --Nyxos (Talk) 07:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For (= highlighted N)

 * 1) Psychobabble. Scanning new articles more easily = good.
 * 2) Angela
 * 3) Phil | Talk&mdash;I like it, it's simple and makes the least possible change. I've even found a simpler version, see above
 * Important remark: for server bandwidth reasons, the tag with the least number of bytes should be finally chosen - I had a chat with TimWi about this aspect. --Nyxos (Talk) 16:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Nyxos (Talk) 15:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- I vote for the alternative, too, because it fulfill my needs in a way which appears not to interfere (layout is kept intact without further tricks)
 * 2) Support. I'd like it even more if it's italicized. &mdash; PFHLai 16:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
 * 3) This is also the easiest solution that would be extensible to marking the "m" used to flag minor edits. Colin 17:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I tried it on my Wiki, however I found, that the impact of the MediaWiki:minoreditletter label should be as small as possible, otherwise it's a real eye-catcher - should not be an eye catcher. I actually use this [[image:corr.png]] on my wiki. &mdash; Nyxos (Talk) 17:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Denni ☯ 17:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
 * 2) Pedant support this, as long as it's in the stylesheet and NOT deprecated code like &lt;font&gt;... so the user stylesheet can operate on it.  Otherwise I oppose the change, vote keep unhighlighted N that's not a graphic.  Dwindrim's image above looks like a hyphen viewed on several of the computers here.  if it were a tiny text that says 'corr' it would be resizable and accessible.  Accessibility is a key issue for public webspaces, and there is legislative activitiy to require public webspaces to be accessible to handicapped users.  Use of style rules and .css makes it easy for the differently-abled user to access the wikipedia, and completeley satisfies every proposed legislation on the issue that I have seen.  Pedant 18:02, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)  I like the idea in principle though Pedant
 * 3) –Hajor I suggested N a few months ago, but this alternative is good, too.
 * 4) What Pedant said. David Remahl 18:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, agree with Pedant. &mdash; bdesham 18:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) My support too. Opposers can turn it off with CSS anyway if they don't like it. Gazwim 21:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) But make it customizable with css, e.g. &lt;span class="newmarker">N&lt;/span>  The default CSS could highlight it yellow.  [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:26, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Andre 03:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) As long as I can turn it off :)
 * 9) Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Biekko 18:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) It's good, since it calls more attention without wasting time with images &mdash; Kieff 01:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12)  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I just did it for myself in my personal css, and it's very nice.
 * 13) Tarquin as long as we use "&lt;b class="newarticle-mark">N&lt;/b>" for compatibility and customizability.
 * 14) Tarquin is correct. &mdash Taku 23:53, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I support this under one condition and one condition only. You must be able to turn it off in preferences. If this is not done, count my vote as against. &mdash;  metta,   T he S unborn   &#x2638;  06:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) There's no reason not to support this, as it doesn't throw off any margins. I support this.    &mdash; 33451 | Talk 18:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) New articles are often the ones in most need of editing. They should stand out in the recent changes list. - Mihnea Tudoreanu
 * 18) --Lst27 17:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Den fjättrade ankan 18:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Sempron 04:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) - For reasons stated above
 * 21) Cabalamat 10:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 22)  &mdash; siro  χ  o  19:53, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) RMG 23:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) The N is too bland.

Against (= keep unhighlighted N)
Note to opposers, it will be possible to change to color of the highlighting or turn it off, so keep this in mind before making any opposing vote. User:Krik 10:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So why not just leave the default as the unhighlighted N? LuciferBlack 14:00, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most of the supporters support it on the condition that it can be turned off. User:Krik 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Just make the class and then have it in whatever colour you like in your css, people should not have to keep an endless list of hacks in their css just because you think it's a good idea at the time to have yellow on RC, or blue, or underlines, or animated easter bunnies.. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   11:04, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)


 * 1) 24.123.221.2 16:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Eequor 18:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) - ew ew ew!
 * 3) I'm no Thoreau fan, but he's right here: Simplify, simplify, simplify.  Keep the N, it's simple, it's clean, it's obvious.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) LuciferBlack 21:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) - I agree with PedanticallySpeaking. One must not forget the golden rule of KISS: Keep It Simple, Dumbass.
 * 5) Geni 21:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Goobergunch 00:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Too bright for my tastes; simple is better.
 * 7) Livajo 00:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I'm a big Thoreau fan. Go simplicity.
 * 8) N Alone stands out quite well enough. --Tagishsimon
 * 9) DavidA 15:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) - If it's not broken, why fix it?
 * 10) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Seth Ilys 17:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC), unless someone proposes that we indicate new articles with an smiley face.
 * 12) What Goobergunch said. Erich 06:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Ayman 12:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) - N all the way.
 * 14) Farside 19:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I see absolutely no reason to highlight the N. If someone wants to see a list of new pages, there's a separate page already for it.
 * 15)   Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   11:04, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
 * 16) Infrogmation 02:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) andy 18:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) make it fat would be enough, the yellow color is too much
 * 18) I don't see why being new is important enough to be emphasized that much. Eurleif 22:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Ah no... squash 07:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, why? It's ugly as .... Thomas Horsten 07:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) damn, that's bright.  The current N works fine Cavebear42 20:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. The code is complicated enough already. The last thing we want to do is add extra code and spew extra HTML for a feature that is not very useful anyway. Tannin 22:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No. I'm a wikipedia neophyte and I was curious about the N (so I clicked on the survey). The highlighted N seems alarming, I would have feared the N.
 * 5) No. Warofdreams 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with Tannin.  -- SS 19:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Ambi 09:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) No.  highlighted N is unnecesary, stands out fine as it is.  No need to complicate things.--Samuel J. Howard 16:00, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Nah. . .  simplicity is better than complexity.  Bandwidth should be economized wherever possible, and additions such as this proposal should only be made where there is definite user enhancement.  I found the new articles just fine without the yellow CSS highlight.  --avnative 18:58, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I think the default should be exactly how it is now ("N"). If it can't currently be changed via css, I support enabling that functionality, with the caveat that I think there are many more pressing issues I'd rather have the developers work on. Also, the yellow is just too big and bright--I'd prefer Hajor's red N, if anything. But my main objection is that it seems like a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist given the presence of Special:Newpages, which some of the "For" voters seem to be unaware of. Niteowlneils 21:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Leave it the way it is. It is easy to notice, but isn't over-intrusive. Sure, it will be possible to disable it/change colour etc. but I agree with a previous comment in that why should people have to remember endless lines of code just to get their page to appear in the recent changes without annoying people. What next? make it play a Happy Birthday MIDI file whenever you move your mouse over a new article? There is also the point of the lazy people, who won't bother disabling it. In fact, I don't see why 'you'll be able to disable/change it' is a valid argument supporting a Yes vote- if it is bad enough to NEED disabling/changing, then it shouldn't be introduced in the first place--Cynical 21:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) No. Simple is best. Except in my sig. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 21:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Capital "M" for minor edits sucked too. --ZeroOne 21:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) I don't see the point, personally -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 22:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I see nothing wrong with the current ("N"). I also have no problem with making its style a MediaWiki user preference, but the default should be the simplest option. -- Mattworld 23:13, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I'd like to point out that mine is a protest vote: I see no valid reason why the competing proposals &mdash; one of which I submitted &mdash; should have been removed and/or archived away as "second class proposals". Much more importantly, I think it's outright wrong to state that new proposals can't be added. I would probably have been ok if I had logged in one day and this (admittedly rather minor) change had gotten implemented. But if you're gonna do things democratically to start with, you can't turn around halfway and decide to present a moving target to the electorate. Ropers 18:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) anthony (see warning) 12:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) The highlighted N just seems too obnoxious. The current unhighlighted N seems sufficient to me.--[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo  >>Talk<<]] 05:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) K.I.S.S -- KneeLess 03:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes: K.I.S.S.. We need it as much as flashy colourful signatures... - Nabla 14:28, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
 * 1) Too flashy and distracting, without useful purpose. Keep as it is. -- Naive cynic 23:17, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

For css class only
Use "&lt;b class="newarticle-mark">N&lt;/b>" without giving newarticle-mark any properties in default css, as Tarquin suggested. Yath 06:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This should be N . Jamesday 16:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) --Yath 06:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 06:09, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
 * Update: Sorry to tell you all, but I noticed severe problems with this solution both under Netscape 7.1 and InternetExplorer 6.0 in the last couple of days: i t does simply not work under all circumstances. E.g. after revisiting the WikiPedia, the css and the highlighted N were gone and I had to flush the browsers' cache as indicated in the preference skin menu. To be honest, I am not convinced that the css solution is suited, as long as not all browsers render text as we want it. The &lt;font&gt; solution however works perfectly. --Nyxos (Talk) 20:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Your user CSS should work. If you change the site CSS, that won't work reliably. Jamesday 15:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Happy to make it possible to highlight it, provided it defaults to the current state. Jamesday 15:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This makes the most sense, maybe a class, and in preferences as well, you can always make everyone happy by giving people all the options. There is no need for this to be set in stone. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|☎]] 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about a test period?
Might I suggest that the two options each be activated for a brief test period, say 24 hrs each? That would enable us to see how they look in context; a "don't panic; only a test" note could be appended to the current poll announcement. It'd also get more people over here to vote. –Hajor 00:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Agreed – this is what I requested to some Admins – simply switch it on for  awhile. See German WikiPedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Recentchanges - we simply "did it". &mdash; Nyxos (Talk) 06:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed – without &lt;font&gt; tags though. &mdash; Pedant 16:33, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed &mdash; LuciferBlack 21:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed &mdash; I suppose.  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Definately: The bold N sounds like it could work, but I need to actually see it in action before I vote. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 02:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Agreed   &mdash; 33451 | Talk 18:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) OK. I voted against the proposal, but a test period is fine.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree.  [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree. What Ezhiki said.  Goobergunch 20:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternatives and older discussions

 * Please do not add alternative proposals here. --Nyxos (Talk) 14:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There were some alternatives with less votes and discussions, please visit archived discussions until 30.08.2004 --Nyxos (Talk) 14:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Permission to do...
Angela told me I could do this (technically) but I better get consensus here:

I'm not recommending you do this unless there is consensus for it at MediaWiki talk:Newpageletter, but to get, for example, a yellow N for you with no change for anyone else, you would need to do the following:
 * 1) In MediaWiki:Monobook.css, add #newarticlemark {font-weight: normal;}. 
 * 2) In MediaWiki:Newpageletter, add N 
 * 3) In User:Ilyanep/monobook.css, add #newarticlemark {background: #FFFF00;} 

Angela. 22:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

So -- can I do that? &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  22:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Or a simpler solution would be to do N (no formatting) and then just change it on my monobook.css page. Still I want to see if I can do this without being lynched.   &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  22:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't use div, div is a block element so it would be put on its own line. Also the &lt;b&gt; is added by the MediaWiki software itself and does not need to be in Newpageletter. Goplat 23:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Shoot -- what's a non-block element that supports the id tag?  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  04:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be using "id" for an item that appears multiple times on the same page. It should be class. (to make a CSS style use class instead of id, use . instead of #). Goplat 16:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I did  so if anyone thinks of anything better, do it. :)  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  04:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The usual way to give some text a CSS style without anything else is to use , but that's not allowed so on Wikipedia is used instead. Goplat 16:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But font is deprecated.  &mdash;  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * &lt;b&gt; is deprecated too. And if you replaced it with &lt;strong&gt;, that would be invalid HTML, since it's already in a &lt;strong&gt;, and those aren't supposed to nest. &lt;font&gt; is the best way to do this, since &lt;div style="display:inline"&gt; is only allowed inside lists for some reason. Goplat 21:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Span is fine - it's only blocked in wikitext. Jamesday 16:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a great feature of being able to alter our css via a sub user page, is that documented anywhere? If not for this conversation I would not have known. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|☎]] 21:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It SHOULD be a span with a class, not a b with an id, but of course the page is protected so I can't make this correction. -- SS 15:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have'nt heard the news? everything that should have span now has font, div or b since close minded people want to disallow proper html on wikipedia. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   18:07, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Now in a Span
Heads up: to adjust your CSS page to make the yellow highlighting come back, you need to add: .newpage {background: #FFFF00;} Adjust the colour to taste. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * And I was wondering why it disappeared randomly when I returned after my wikibreak. &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  02:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)