MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext

A small link list

Auron asked if we could add links to important things on Recent changes as it's done here. I think it's a great idea and would like to collect some wanted links. My start:

• Logs
  • New pages
  • New images
  • Deletions
  • Moves
  • Uploads
  • Blocks
• Special pages
  • Orphaned pages
  • Orphaned images
  • Wanted pages
• Guild Wars Wiki
  • Policies
  • Formatting guides
  • Projects
  • Requests for comments
  • Admin noticeboard

poke | talk 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't harm me, but I don't see a point. Why would one need those links when checking the recent changes? Why not just make a quick reference page for yourself if you need the links often and add a custom link to the top bar with some js? -- (gem / talk) 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone on the wiki can use those links, and they're in a really convenient place - instead of hunting through your userspace for a links page, you can hit any really useful page straight from Recentchanges.

And, in the case of block logs etc, those really aren't easily accessible. Unless a block (or move, etc) has been performed in the recent changes list, you can't find the log for it without hunting through some obscure page for an offhand link. -Auron 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not too sure that most of the wiki users need these, and I don't think that something that only helps a few advanced users is worth it. However, I'm not too opposed to them either, so if there is enough support then go for it.

What comes to the actual list of added links, the log and GWW pages look pretty ok and useful, but the special pages should probably not be there, since a really small minority uses those exact ones, and I don't see that those specific special pages are any more or any less useful than many special pages that aren't included. -- (gem / talk) 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not very sure what the idea is here, but sure.--§ Eloc § 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gem, I don't think the majority of users really use Recent changes. Those links wouldn't take up much space so they won't be distracting. But for those who really use the RecentChanges (mainly for patrolling), those links are very useful. poke | talk 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how 'Orphaned pages' or 'Formatting guides' have anything to do with RC patrolling. That's why I'm questioning this. I agree that a quick reference like this might be useful, but I don't see how it relates to RC patrolling, which would be the only reason for having this on the RC. The log links I might understand, and possibly some of the GWW ones, but definitely not the special pages. -- (gem / talk) 19:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice for bored patrollers to have some links to find some work (Wanted pages for example :P); I think that patrolling is not only "looking out for vandalism" but also looking for new additions, checking someones contributions and maybe helping out with Formatting ;) At least that is something I do from time to time when I'm really bored and press F5, F5, F5 :P poke | talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh, that's a point, although I personally just have multiple tabs open when I'm too bored. One for RC, one for watch list (I use my watch list to bookmark pages that I might want to visit/work on later), one for my impro project, and one or more for misc projects and things that I might want to do.

Maby we can work out a list of links that would be of use to a larger number of users and the hardcore RC patrollers. -- (gem / talk) 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Made a proposal here. I removed the Special pages part, as you're right that it's a bit useless :P poke | talk 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That little box is really nifty! And I think those links would be more beneficial to everyone :) - anja 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to show you this small addition (which atm does not fit to the link list in my sandbox); it moves the namespace selection to the right side. poke | talk 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm okay with the proposal, but can you remove the GWW part from the admin noticeboard link as it's redundant. I'd like to see the namespace selection thing in practice before saying anything about its usability, but it looks nice. :) -- (gem / talk) 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, missed that one ;) For the namespace thing, just add that to your monobook.css (I will make an adjustment, when the links will be added; maybe we can add it then to common.css):

div#nsselect
{ position: absolute; top: 100px; right: 20px; width: 200px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid silver; }
div#nsselect label[for="namespace"]
{ display: block; padding: 2px 5px; margin-bottom: 3px; color: #FFF; background: silver; font-weight: bold; }

poke | talk 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortly said: I like it. -- (gem / talk) 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good :) poke | talk 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

links

Most of the links for the logs were not correct, I have fixed them now though, but just in case you want to fix the one in your sandbox poke. --Lemming 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah already seen.. For some reason I always got a database error when I tried to change the page again.. The one in my sandbox will be removed now ;) But thank you :) poke | talk 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I got a strange database error too the first time I tried, but I hit back and tried again and it worked, was a little odd. --Lemming 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Implemented

Now that I see it, I find it it highly annoying. It may save some editors a mouseclick now and then, but it means that every editor has to scroll down an extra time every time they use RC. And using RC would be the primary purpose of the RC page. Wouldn't mind if it was on the bottom of the page, but I guess then it would be no faster to use them than existing links. Backsword 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How small is your resolution if it is annoying to you? I run 1400x1050 myself, but tested it with lower resolutions too. Even with 1024x768 it doesn't annoy me, although on 800x600 it does. It only hides the 3-4 last lines, which isn't much on larger resos. -- (gem / talk) 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you want to take a look to this discussion also, as it safes a lot space which is in sum nearly the same as before. poke | talk 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that look nice, as long as it dosen't cause the probelms mentioned in the linked page anymore. Backsword 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not resolution; as I mentioned other users it can't be for a specific one. Rather, it's about where one normally begins reading; the top of the page. Thus my mention about not having anything against it being placed elsewhere on the page. Really, the links are a personal selection and I doubt most people happens to need just those links there. Those pages are only one extra click away too, so it seems to me to cause more annoyance than it saves, measured over the total user base. Backsword 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See the below discussion. You can easily hide the box now that it has an ID. See User:Skuld/monobook.css for an example how to do it. -- (gem / talk) 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"as long as it dosen't cause the probelms mentioned in the linked page anymore" - CoRrRan used the css I posted here which I did before the link-box was added; after that I changed the code and posted it to common.css - So there was never an issue. And for 800x600 users; we never paid attention to resolutions below 1024x768 (which is low-standard atm); otherwise there would be a lot pages which cannot be displayed for them. poke | talk 10:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an option for anon users, and I'm intentionally keeping all settings unchanges just so I see things the way normal users do. There is a danger that when you have the technical skill, you implement enough changes to that the way you see the wiki (also applicable to other things) that you then design it to suit that view, rather than that of the intended audience. Backsword 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Random users who surf the wiki for information do not use the recent changes. It's an editor tool. -- (gem / talk) 12:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On principle, I'm aginst any division opf pages into sections for the elite and the plebs. We want the threashold for "random users" to become lasting contributers to be low. Backsword 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. And this small box doesn't prevent that. It provides some links which might actually let them to get to know the wiki better. -- (gem / talk) 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any random link could.

In general, I think it should be up to the technically advanced user to cutomise their interface, not the 'average' users job to restotre it to base state. Backsword 11:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ID tag please

Asap, its annoying. Infact, why not just have it in javascript? Very few users will ever need this. — Skuld 09:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... what? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

add id="rclinks" or something to the table — Skuld 10:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. id="rcQuickLinks" (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers — Skuld 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User merge log

I think this log should be added. What do you think? - J.P.Talk 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think that is going to happen very often, so I'm going to say it's unnecessary. Misery 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually began to think the same soon after posting, but i thought to try :D - J.P.Talk 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User creation log.

I know my last suggestion was pretty much a fail. But when user merge is rare (for now atleast), user creation is what happens all the time. I'd like to have fast access to user creation log from RC. Link box doesn't have anything that's straight account-related right now, besides block log. Any thoughts? Or is this also a bad idea? :D - J.P.Talk 12:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is actually nothing that someone gets from looking at recent user creations.. :S poke | talk 12:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)