MediaWiki talk:Viewsource

'How to edit'

See Template_talk:Sprotected for a proposal to change this message. Haukur 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it says how to edit. How about this: edit this page (read only)? —Keenan Pepper 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that's quite confusing as well. What sort of editing is read only? :) How about "who can edit? / view source" Haukur 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, these are all too long, including my suggestion. View source is good because it consisely summarizes what you can do. Actually, you can make changes and preview them as well... —Keenan Pepper 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To say "edit" and "read only" gives the reader diametrically opposed positions within a single group of five words. Far worse than "View source" which might not be the most user-friendly message but at least doesn't contradict itself. --AlisonW 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, keep it as "View source". Prodego ^talk 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need to have "view source" there. I remember myself being confused by it when I first came here and looked at the main page. "Discussion" and "history" I could understand, but that "view source"-tag was more mysterious, and I don't think readers care enough about the wiki-source of something they can't edit to defend us having that label up there along with the other important ones. (Not to mention that you won't see the main page source when you click it. The source of that page (and many others) are tucked away in various templates). I can see uses for being able to see the source when editors want to copy some constructs from a locked page and I'm not against the feature of having the source accessible this way, but I think we can make better use of this label text and instead state something that makes it clear that the page is uneditable for them or that they should click it to get information about the locking. People experienced enough to be interested in copying wiki-syntax between pages will know (or soon enough learn) that clicking the old edit-tab will reveal the source. We don't need to be this clear about that when there are more important information we can put there. But it should be short, I think. How about just: "Edit ?" (The question mark will make people click it and they'll then see the locking explanation, and it's different enough from the standard "edit this page" that people will notice the difference. Shanes 04:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very good analysis and suggestion. "View source" is probably a vanishingly rare use case and those who want to do it already know how. Haukur 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of the view source tab is to view the page source. If you disagree with that function, overhaul MediaWiki:Protectedtext to cater better to new users, then come back to change Mediawiki:Viewsource to reflect that. That said, I threw "View source (editing disabled)" as a compromise out on AN which lasted a few hours; keeping as "View source" is my first preference for now. ~ PseudoSudo 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree with that function (as a primary function) and I have changed MediaWiki:Protectedtext to cater better to new users - though I agree that more changes are needed. The primary function of this tab should be to advice people on how protected pages work, probably a far more useful and common functionality than viewing MediaWiki source. Haukur 09:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is good; I am convinced by your argument. However for the short term, as james points out below, the text on the tab needs to stay as it was until these changes are fully implemented and we have a larger discussion on the issue. ~ PseudoSudo 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, can we not change it until we come to some sort of agreement? It really looks silly changing text like this 10 times in 24 hours. Weird to load the 3 protected pages I have tonight to see a different edit tab for each one. FWIW, I like "View source (editing disabled)", but we need someone to look at a protected page at 800x600 before we use that. Cheers. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone revert this now, "edit?" lookes horrible. It just looks so unprofessional. View source was 1000 times better. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, then, I'll revert to "View source" for now but please let's agree on something more helpful for the future. Haukur 12:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The options I've seen come out of this so far are:

• "View source" (obviously)
• "How to edit / view source
• "Edit this page (read only)"
• "View source (editing disabled)"
• "Edit mode (read only)"
• "Edit?"

Personally, I like "View source (editing disabled)" but I think it could do with a bit mroe emphasis on the "editing" - something alone the lines of "Editing disabled: view source" or something. "How to edit / view source" just seems a little tacky to me. "Edit this page (read only)" is an oxymoron. "Edit mode (read only)" is also an oxymoron (and since when did we call it edit mode?). "Edit?" just makes no sense to me. "View source" is easliy missed by newbies. Just my two cents. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd prefer if it said View page source instead of just View source since it clarifies what source you are viewing. It would also assimilate with Edit this page instead of just Edit (MediaWiki default). Additional comments regarding editing disabled and stuff would be okay, but just don't make it too long, or the tab would look oversized compared to the others. G.He 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"View source (editing disabled)" would be good for protection but not so good for semi-protection. Maybe "View source (editing limited)" might be slightly better? The thing is that any Wikipedian can edit a semi-protected page, and anyone else can too if they sign up and wait a few days. That's a far cry from what "editing disabled" suggests. Haukur 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How about View page source (Editing restricted)? Maybe "restricted" would be better than "limited" since it basically is a restriction in a way? Limit sounds like some functions can still be performed, and that's not the case when a newcome comes across a (semi-)protected page. G.He 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be my first choice but I still think it would be an improvement on "View source". Haukur 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, too long. I'm leaning towards the ones with edit mode. How about edit mode (restricted)? —Keenan Pepper 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's okay... Though "edit" really shouldn't be in there at all, should it? G.He 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what started this whole thing! People were confused because they couldn't find the "edit" button. Also keep in mind that many text editors use this same terminology; they'll let you "edit" a file even though you can't "save" it. —Keenan Pepper 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... How about: edit (read only) in relation to the "no save"? G.He 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very similar to something I suggested, but people complained it was contradictory. I don't think it's contradictory, but we want it to be absolutely clear. —Keenan Pepper 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think edit (read only) is great. It's clear for the people looking for an "edit" button, but clearly shows that it is not really editable. View page source (Editing restricted) also works for me.—Mets501 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a simple editing disabled would be great. Whatever it is, I don't think we should have edit mode (read only). view source is acceptable to me.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 23:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As a lowly non-admin. contributor, I am annoyed at the changing wording. "View source (editing disabled)" is okay, but there was nothing wrong with the original. "Edit mode (read only)" is just plain confusing. It ain't edit mode if you can view only. --Nelson Ricardo 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As another non-admin contributor, Nelson Richardo and me have defyed you, Keenan Pepper. It's still an oxymoron. Someone, please revert this or change it to "View source (editing disabled)". I would myself but I'm not an admin.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's edit mode because you can change the text! You can even see how it would look with the preview button! The only thing you can't do is save it, hence "read only". The same language is used by dozens of text editors (which are still "editors" even though you can't save). —Keenan Pepper 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you cannot change the text. I tried. It d'nae work. --Nelson Ricardo 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I must be going crazy. I distinctly remember the "view source" page having a preview button, but now it's not there. It must have been a figment of my imagination. So, since you really can't so anything but view the source, it should probably say "view source". —Keenan Pepper 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think the tab is a bit too long? Or is it just me? G.He 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not me, but I like my tabs big (my edit tab text has 50px of padding on each side, so it's about 150px wide). And it's only being used on protected pages, so I it's fine IMO. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 09:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Main Page, the face of Wikipedia, is protected, so everyone will see the message. --Nelson Ricardo 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should do something like we do to rename the main page's "article" tab to "main page", but to its edit tab? I dunno, but what we've got now instead of just "View source" seems to at least *hint* that that is where the edit tab appears. But no, I don't think many people who visit the Main Page are going to be worried by the size of the tab. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 10:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with its current width (Opera, 1280x1024). ~ PseudoSudo 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine in Firefox 1280x1024 and also with the window resized to 800x600. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the tab is why too long and meen. It ward be nise it to say "edit(read only)".**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but you have to convince all the people who say that's a contradiction. —Keenan Pepper 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

VPT discussion

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#MediaWiki:Viewsource. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Change View Source to Edit*

It is proposed to edit MediaWiki:Viewsource to change "View source" to "Edit this page*" "Edit*". The star will indicate to experienced users that they can't directly edit the page, while new users will be encouraged to find out more about editing. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Details:

1. First, it is acknowledged that users have got used to seeing "View Source" as a signal for whether they can edit a page - even though they are supposed to look at the protection templates (either big ones at the top of the article, or lock icons top right). For semi-protected articles, this doesn't matter - new users won't have got used to this [and old users can edit semi-protected articles so don't see View Source here]. So it only applies to fully protected articles, and these in the main have the large templates at the top of the article (in addition to the top right lock icon). So this is a relatively small change for people to get used for a few articles. (Plus, via the Edit Request button they can actually make changes to the article - and they're probably not aware of that if they treat "View Source" as "don't click here, you can't do anything anyway".) Nonetheless, this is an issue, and the simple addition of a star ("Edit this page*") should be enough of a cue for experienced users to identify articles they can't edit by looking at the tabname, as they're used to.
2. Second, the justification for changing "View Source" to "Edit this page" is three-fold: (a) with the addition of the Edit Request button they now can edit the page, albeit by proxy; (b) it sends an important message that every page is, in principle, editable by everyone, and thereby encourages participation. Importantly, changing the tab sends this message even when readers don't click it. (Exceptions to the 'any page is editable' idea are substantial in number, but very low in percentage, and all have good reason; and it's the basic idea which needs promoting to get more people into doing mode rather than just reading.); (c) it provides helpful links for people who've never edited to get started, prompting some to investigate further.
3. Third, there is value in showing people what the innards of an article look like (the "source"), even if they can't edit that page immediately. Again, it contributes to showing how things work, and giving people the idea that they can contribute. The "can't edit" notice they see above it gives helpful links, makes general points about protection, and provides an Edit Request button.
4. Fourth, before commenting, I'd ask you to visit, as a loggedout user, (a) the View Source tab of a random semi-protected article (b) the View Source tab of the Main Page, which has a custom message. Consider how helpful that is to a newbie (suggestions for improvement welcome), and then consider whether that help should be hidden away behind a tab with such an unfriendly, "don't click me" name. Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this. Semi-protection is inherently confusing to new editors; we're just trying to make the best of it. If a new editor comes to a semi-protected page, their two clues that it is protected are the "view source" tab, and hopefully a semi-protection template. The view source tab is not intuitive; they'll be looking for an edit tab, and get frustrated when they don't find it. Nothing about the phrase "view source" implies hat you can't edit this page. The large semi-protected templates are helpful, but a very large percentage of us (including me) seem to have migrated to the small padlock icons, for appearance sake. These are also unhelpful to new editors, as you don't know they mean anything when you're new. So a new editor is likely to look, in vain, for an edit tab, and eventually just give up in confusion. If the tab is changed to "edit page", then when they click on it, an edit notice explains what is going on. This, to me, is significantly friendlier, and more intuitive. It helps new editors, and doesn't hinder advanced editors (who can be expected to understand the padlock icon). Win-win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I think fixing the UI inconsistency is an important additional point supporting this change. As you say, whilst for experienced users "View Source" = "can't edit", for newbies "View Source" maybe equals "where's the edit button gone?" Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think that so many people have become accustomed to this that changing it would only mislead people to think that they should be able to edit the page (the asterisk can't be immediately explained except in an editnotice, which would become tl;dr, etc.) Although "View Source" might be a bit confusing for those who have never seen it before, it doesn't actually imply that you could edit this page and then realize that you couldn't. If anything, I am not opposed to "View Source" being changed, but maybe to something such as "Can't edit" or "Edit". —fetch·comms 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I present myself as a counterexample to the claim that only autoconfirmed users have enough experience to have gotten used to "view source." 69.208.3.180 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ha, you're right. What I exactly said was "old users can edit semi-protected articles" - but that assumes the old users got an account, which not all do. However it is still true that it affects relatively few people, and anyway can be got used to pretty quickly. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support something along the lines, but if we're letting them edit-request, why not call the tab something like "edit request" (see if there are any better ideas)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I commented in the same proposal in the other place, if you want to provide a link to the edit request or more info then I don't see any reason why this has to be in the view source tab, which while it may be occasionally of interest to new users, most likely isn't. Why not look at another way to provide more info to new users when they can't edit a page (e.g. a 'Can't edit?' tab) or if the edit request is all you want, provide a direct link to the edit request and call it, guess what? 'Edit request' (not edit this page). (The reason why the info is currently provided in the view source page is surely primarily for people who do click on it and wonder why they can't edit, not because we're trying to encourage people to click on it to learn such things, as I've said, I see no reason why this has to be done in the view source page.) Personally I think perhaps an edit request tab, which takes you directly to an edit request 'page' perhaps with some additional info from the viewsource page if you feel that's necessary would be better.

And of course in the same vein, if you really want to provide that info in the view source tab for whatever reason, then it is highly misleading and confusing to suggest to an editor they can edit the page when they can't, and IMHO is likely to just anger them and make them less likely to contribute then be interested in contributing. The asterix thing just sounds like the sort of small print nonsense you see in ads which does indeed annoy people because of the way it can mislead (and as I've already said this is a good example of a rather misleading case). It's probably true some won't think we're purposely misleading them, they'll just think our designers are too stupid to be able to make the 'edit' tab show up as something different when you can't edit, but I don't think that's any better.

Something like 'can't edit?' as I suggested above and I think in the earlier discussion isn't going to trick users although I'm not saying it's the best wording seems better then tricking users. Heck we already get complaints about the anyone can edit slogan, even though we in no way suggested anyone can edit every page.

Also the idea that experienced or old users are not going to notice this much because they'll only notice it on fully protected pages is inherently untrue, there are plenty of users who don't always log in, and even quite a number who for whatever reason don't get an account (it looks like we may have one in this very discussion). Yes these users may notice or learn to, the asterix or padlocked icon BUT the claim was made above so I'm responding to that.

BTW, the claim was made in the other discussion suggesting that this is going to help users without the editing mindset realise they can propose changes in the talk page. I would like to see some evidence for this because it seems rather unlikely to me. If a user doesn't have an editing mindset, why on earth would they click on 'edit' anyway? In fact, we have plenty of examples where a page is editable but a user still proposes changes to the talk pages. I find this hardly surprising and I think is the much more likely case. Even if a user can edit a page, many users particularly those without an editing mindset aren't going to even try simply because of that different mindset. A small subset of those will think of proposing changes in the 'discussion' tab (if you notice an error in a newspaper article you may right to the author if listed or the editor if not, similarly in a blog post you will point out an error in the comment). There may be a tinysubset of users without an editing mentality who will think of helping by clicking on 'edit' or 'edit this page' but won't for 'discussion' but without further evidence I'm going to guess the number is low.

And as I've mentioned, misleading users into thinking they can edit isn't likely to help them gain the editing mentality, it's much more likely to annoy them and heck may even teach them there's no point clicking on 'edit' since they can't edit (or they never know if they can, so why bother with the lottery?) and instead they'll always just propose changes to the talk page.

Since as mentioned above, it seems to be if users lack an edit mentality then they're not going to click on 'edit' anyway, if you really want to try and improve both, it'll likely be better to rename 'edit' to something like 'improve this page' and discussion (talk pages) to something like 'propose improvements' or 'suggest improvements' perhaps with an edit request or similar link show at the top of each talk page at least to non-autoconfirmed users. Again not saying these are the best examples, I'm not even sure they'd help much. While there's nothing wrong with finding ways to encouraging users to edit, making them realise they can and making it easier to do so, we need to appreciate that ultimately for most people without that mentality, you can fool around with naming and whatever you want but users aren't going to edit not because they don't realise they can edit or because they can't find a way to edit (both of which are largely moot anyway) but simply because they have no desire to edit which is their right and isn't something we can do much to change.

BTW for the consistency angle although I clearly don't think this is a good case when we should aim for perfect UI consistency since things aren't consistent and this does matter to the end user, why don't we also change the view source window so it shows a normal edit box? After all, if you claim you want users to learn, this seems like a decent idea.

P.S. As I mentioned in the other proposal I did check out the viewsource page by logging out at the time I made my first reply.

P.P.S. If you want to see what IP see when a page is semiprotected you don't have to log out anyway, MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext does it.

P.P.P.S. It seems to me this proposal falls right into the purview of the usability initative team. They must even have some research or plans about what to do here. While they're in the process of rolling out the new skin so probably pretty busy but has anyone even asked? If they think tricking users into thinking they can edit when they can't then fine, I'll bite my tongue. Obviously we don't have to follow them but it just seems odd to me that we have a team being paid to do what we're apparently trying to achieve here (albeit not just for the English wikipedia) but we don't at least see what they think and/or if they have any plans.

P.P.P.P.S. Why 'edit this page' anyway? In the vector skin it's called 'edit' not 'edit this page'. I opted into the vector skin several months ago so I've primarily commented on the view point of the vector skin and since it's about to be or has been rolled out to everyone (and it was specifically mentioned it was going to be rolled out soon in a sitenotice before this discussion started) this makes sense to me. In a similar vein to the way RD232 asked me if I'd checked out a semiprotected page for a logged out user (answer being I had), I have to ask did he/she check out how things look in the vector skin? Because even if it hadn't just been rolled out and hadn't been mentioned it was about to be rolled out in the sitenotice, it was always clear it was going to be rolled out to everyone sometime in the future, so I do find it rather odd if we're discussing something based on how things look in monobook rather then the vector skin, particularly as the vector skin is a skin designed by a team dedicated and paid to improve usability making it easier to edit in particular and who have actually done their own research to help them in their goals.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand your whole "tricking people" view. The asterisk is added for a reason, to enable people to distinguish; I haven't found a better way to do that (greyed out suggests you can't click; strikethrough would just look weird and suggest the same; "can't edit" or variations thereof is weird and/or too long). An explanation is provided as soon as people click, and via the Edit Request they can edit. However I take your point that in the newly-default Vector skin, it should be "Edit*". This is probably better anyway, being slightly less suggestive of being able to edit the page directly. Again: it's not a trick, because you can edit the page, albeit by proxy, via the Edit Request link. PS The reason I didn't notice the Vector thing is because though I switched to Vector a while back, I've got so much Javascript mucking around with my tabs, I'm pretty sure the tab was already shortened to "edit", so I didn't see any difference. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm suggesting above, I would suggest an edit request tab which would look something like this "`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'_,%202%20December%202024&section=new Edit Request. This is a very quick and dirty mockup obviously, there is some redundancy for example, and may not be the best way forward but IMHO is better then conning people into visiting the view source page for no reason if our primary purpose to help explain why they can't edit the page and help them make an edit request. I appreciate adding a new tab would require more work but IMHO if we really feel we should do something like this, it's far better to do it the best way we can rather then take a half-hearted measure because it's easier. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your mockup is confusing and unnecessary. You can propose a separate "Edit request" tab without that, pointing to the existing link in Protectedpagetext. I'm not sure this is a good idea, because on pages which are semi-protected for good reason it may lead to lots of frivolous edit requests; but it's worth discussing. My initial reaction, though, is to prefer the status quo where the Edit Request button is accompanied by explanation and help links. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, because "edit this page" would be misleading, as you can't edit it. I'd rather go with giving the view source a specific style, e.g. making the text gray or color the whole tab red or yellow. The German Wikipedia has such a script and it looks really good. This would also save us the need to always add the pp templates to an article, as this would happen automatically. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You must have a userscript - German WP by default does nothing special as far as I can see. Also, the point I'm trying to make is that you can edit, by simply using the Edit Request button. Yes it's less direct than usual, but it's a whole lot more direct an input than a lot of readers (99.9% of whom never contribute at all) really understand. And there is an explanation on the tab of why they can't edit directly, plus the info that if they register and make some edits+wait a few days, they can edit directly (if it's semi-protected). PS Don't forget that with Flagged Protection / Flagged Revisions (coming soooooon....) we have to rethink anyway how we communicate to users exactly what happens when they click Save; it will change the whole way users think in terms of expecting edits to go live immediately. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-viewsource is also relevant to this discussion. It currently says "This page is protected. You can view its source". Again, not exactly an invitation to find out more about editing. Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd be curious to know what proportion of the top 1000 articles by hits are semi-protected (cf Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages). Because this is where the difference between "don't click me - this is some boring shit (and BTW you can't edit; wondering where the edit button's gone? We ain't gonna tell ya!)" "View source" and possible alternatives matters most. It's probably substantial, because it tends to be these prominent articles which need semi-protecting. So exactly on our most popular pages we tend to not give out the message "anyone can edit". Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the reference above to "tricking" new editors above; I think it will make *more* sense to them, not less. We have lots of competing goals here, we can't satisfy them all. Some of them are:

1. Limit the number of tabs
2. Make it obvious when a page is protected
3. Make it obvious for new editors that pages in general can be edited (even when they're looking at a protected page)
4. Don't confuse new editors about what is going on with a protected page
5. Make it easier to make edit requests
6. Avoid change; people generally don't like change unless there is no other option

The current situation ("view source") is good at 1 and 2 (for established editors) and 6. Changing to "edit*" is good at 1, 2 (once people get used to it), 3, 4 (as long as the edit notice is well written), and 5. It fails 6. I really think changing to some version (tweaks are fine) that has the word "edit" in it would be good. It isn't a trick, and it isn't a lie, it's a way to guide them to the edit request template.

Also, while I'm here, I'd say we're either worried about this wording, or not. It doesn't make sense to say "don't change it because it will bug established editors who are used to it", and then turn around and say "don't change it because no one looks at it anyway". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support changing this wording; the "view source" function is pointless for the vast majority of editors, and we are losing a great number of potentially valuable edits because editors don't know how to contribute to protected pages. I propose Request an edit as an alternative. Clicking on the tab would load a new section of the talkpage with {{editprotected}}/{{editsemiprotected}} preloaded, and n00b-friendly instructions on how to make a helpful request. Then all the editor has to do is type out what they want changed, save the page and the helpers will be alerted. It might also be useful if someone mentioned this discussion to the WMF usability team, as I understand they have done the research and whatnot. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message at the usability wiki, and just emailed one of the team. I can see the merit of an "edit request" tab which, when you click on it acts as if you've just clicked the "edit request" button on the View Source tab. The downside is losing the context of explaining why the page is protected and other help links (particularly the benefits of registering in the context of editing a semi-protected page), which I'm reluctant to lose. Although in principle the editnotice for the edit request could carry that burden, it's already a mighty enormous dual box edit notice... As Floquenbeam says, there are complex tradeoffs here. Possibly adding an Edit Request tab, alongside "Edit*" (with explanation etc) would be the best solution (at the expense of Floquenbeam's point 1, and going against the new Vector skin's space-saving philosophy). Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support the "edit request" tab. It would be indeed less confusing for newbies.
  But I would oppose a "Edit this page*" "Edit*" tab, or an edit tab with a different colour background. The symbol "*" would be confusing, I would look for a footnote at the bottom of the page. Grey would indeed mean that the link is inactive and you can't click. Other colours would be confusing, since they wouldn't mean anything to the average user. Among the other tabs, a red or yellow tab would look like a Christmas tree. Dodoïste (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment "Edit request" or "Request an edit" would be fine for me, because this wouldn't be misleading. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can live with "edit request" without too much difficulty. One argument for "Edit*" is that it's shorter, but "edit request" is only 1 character longer than the current "View source". One issue is that if the "edit request" goes to the current tab, it would probably need the Edit Request button being highlighted more prominently. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Shorter" does not mean the users will understand it. Is it more important to understand a word or to read it quickly? Usability experts say the length of a text is not the most important thing to take into account. The user wants to understand and be efficient, the user doesn't want to find himself hesitating on what to do. I highly recommend "edit request". Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, shorter is better all other things being equal - using less screen space. Clarity has to be weighed against brevity, or we'd have tabs with whole paragraphs in them! However we agree clarity is the most important thing. That said, I'm not entirely convinced that "edit request" is the clearest possible expression of what we're trying to say: we know what "edit request" means, but what exactly does it convey to a random visitor not familiar with it qua Wikipedia term? Who's exactly requesting what from who, under what conditions? "Edit" - even with a mysterious star - could be argued to be clearer, especially since most pages have "edit" on. I don't think either one is necessarily massively clearer than the other, but also I'm not sure we're the best people to pick the best thing. All I do know is that getting the word "edit" in there in some form is massively better than the status quo, which conveys nothing relevant at all. Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Edit request" or even "Edit" (with the strikethrough), if we can give a tooltip saying "Click to request an edit" or somthing like that.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We can, via MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-viewsource. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What about those of us who would still like to view the source? I'd support a seperate "request edit" button, alongside "view source". Sorry if this is indeed what is being suggested, but from I gleaned the proposal is to replace this tab? --.:Alex:. 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One reason why "Edit request" is problematic, and "Edit*" better - since the original proposal is merely to rename the tab, not change any functionality. However the "dropdown menu" approach below might accommodate everything more clearly. Rd232 ^talk 13.52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support With the Vector skin, the "Edit*" tab would be fine with me, but instead of simply giving users a tooltip message, we should provide a drop-down menu that would provide the following three options:

1. View source
2. Request edit
3. Request unprotection

--SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support the concept, though I'm undecided on the ideal wording. "Edit*" seems fine to me if the asterisk is defined, but I won't speak for all users. With the status quo, I question is if casual readers know what "View Source" means; an alternate wording would send present the source as what is behind the article and what would be editable without users having to know that source means source code. —Ost (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If the page is editable, the label should logically be "Edit." If the page is not editable, e.g. the Main Page, then the label should not imply that it is but should instead say "View Source" so that users and others can learn whatever techniques they see that they are interested in. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Right. So immediately below a Support comment making an excellent point about "View source" being clear as mud to the average passerby, you jump in with a support of the status quo implying that it's just fine, without addressing the point. WP:NOTVOTE. Rd232 ^talk 13.52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I placed my comment last on the page, which is where I understand they go. And the status quo IS just fine. There is a difference between viewing source and editing. Chancing "View source" to an asterisk following the word "Edit" obscures rather than enhances meaning. In the nonce, if my opposition should have been posted elsewhere please advise. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't follow the nom's logic at all. As others have commented, "Edit this page" means, literally, "Please press this link and actually start editing this page; thanks". Similarly, "View source" means, literally, "Please press this link if you wish to see the data that editors have contributed to this page; you can't edit any of it, though, just as you can't edit the page that pops up when you press "View source" in your browser". Anyway, fooling people into pressing the link just to make them read the protection notice and look at the wikimarkup is a bit off, if you ask me. And the vast majority of pages are editable, so we aren't losing anyone unless all they want to do is edit the mainpage, and probably isn't a bad thing if we lose them... Perhaps change to "!Edit this page"... I would support a dropdown list of the sort suggest above, though --Jubilee♫clipman 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (a) "Edit this page" is not (now) being proposed - "Edit*" is. It's already been noted that the latter is better for the reason you say - it's less suggestive of immediacy. (b) as Ost316 points out above, "View source" only clearly means "view source code" to geeks. On an encyclopedia, "view source" is actively confusing to a degree that hadn't previously occurred to me (c) although the proportion of protected and semi-protected pages is tiny, these are often very prominent pages accounting for a much more significant proportion of total page hits. And once again, this is NOT "fooling" people because they CAN edit - by proxy and/or after signing up and getting autoconfirmed. Not being able to edit immediately is not at all the same thing as not being able to edit at all, which is the traditional encyclopedia model and which too many people still don't really get about Wikipedia. However SoCalSuperEagle's idea of a dropdown is worth pursuing - I'm not sure how technically easy that is, maybe someone could ask at VPT. PS your ! (=NOT) suggestion would be suitable for a hypothetical geekopedia, but not Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 13.52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry I forgot that the nomination had been changed. I am begining to see the logic now. Frankly, much of the above was a bit ... ahem... tl;dr... ahem... so I skipped over most of it... ahem... One thing: "View source" hasn't caused any complaints, as far as I am aware, so why "fix" it? We still have thousands of regular editors and that number goes up every day as far as I can tell. Maybe they got sick of seeing "View source" and decided to sign up? Or maybe not: the IP above points out that "View source is no obstacle to regular IPs, as you acknowledged. That said, I can see why "View source" could be confusing. Perhaps I could summarise and comment on all the counter-proposals: Edit (quite good but a little whacky), !Edit (too geeky), Request Edit (change in funtionality), Can't Edit (wrong). Your Edit* is also a bit obscure, frankly. How about Locked? That does what it says on the tin! And hints at a key... --Jubilee♫clipman 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Oppose - I don't see how tricking users into thinking they can edit is the right way of showing people they can edit. Maybe a "why cant I edit this page" FAQ, or the drop down menu on the Vector skin proposed above. I just don't think this one is a good idea. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 08:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - the description of point 1 is exactly why I am opposing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 01:28, 31 May 2010
• Strpng Support for a request an edit button, this could encourage many constructive additions to semi protected articles. Acather96 (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support. I think this is a good idea that just needs tweaking: 1. There's an obvious usability issue with protected pages. New editors are confused or frustrated by them. 2. What's worse, "View Source" is not only an unexpected surprise, it leads to an even more intimidating page than normal. I'd tweak the proposal thusly: 1. Change Edit to Request Edit. 2. Done 69.142.154.10 (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)