If people agree that the warning is too prominent, remember it can be
edited at
[[MediaWiki:Longpagewarning]]
- the talk page has been unedited for over a year.
Pete
p.s.
One reason that the 32k was displayed more prominently than other
problems is that it has the capacity to affect other users - if you have
an inept browser and edit a long page you will cut off the tail of the
article and affect others. Unicode issues only affect the person with
the defective browser.
dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
I don't know whether PJacobi is "on a
hunt," but I am not at all happy
about the current state of the "Prem Rawat" and "Criticism of Prem
Rawat" article. While trying not to extend that battle here, I want to
make two points:
a) HYPOTHETICALLY (i.e. I DO NOT want to argue about whether Prem Rawat
actually is an example of this situation): SUPPOSE that there is a topic
that is being contentiously edited by two factions, A and B, that
include most of the WIkipedians actively interested in working on the
topic. The two factions could cut a deal in which they produce two
articles, one presenting faction A's viewpoint and one presenting
faction B's viewpoint, and agree that they will each tolerate and stay
out of the other faction's article provided the other faction does the
same. In this case, you have two POV articles--and because of the
agreement by the two factions and the disinterest by other Wikipedians,
the situation is likely to be stable.
Surely we agree that that is a VERY unsatisfactory situation, and not
what is meant by NPOV?
If we have to have this sort of thing, we need to figure out out a way
to legitimize it, e.g. with a template saying "This article represents
one view of a disputed issue. For the other view, see..."
b) In any case, I really dislike seeing the 32K limit being brought up
as justification for doing things. 32K is a reasonable _guideline,_ and
that articles in, say, the range 32K to 96K should be refactored
_eventually_. But it should not be regarded as an urgent necessity.
Particularly in the case of a disputed topic, the article should be left
to stew and mellow. _When it has reached a stable state_, the need to
break it up should be discussed.
But breaking up an oversized article shouldn't be a high priority.
Breaking up a 32 to 96K article is just _cleanup,_ and it's a _lot_ less
important than a lot of other cleanup. _As long as no single section_ is
over 32K, people with older browsers can participate actively in almost
every part of the editing process. About all that they cannot do is load
the entire article as a whole in order to make major changes in the
section organization.
I think the 32K limit is often used as a convenient excuse for unwise
breakouts--specifically, POV splits and subtrivia. ("I couldn't put the
vital, encyclopedic, verified fact that John Kerry flip-flopped in
August, 1960 at the Central Street McDonalds when he ordered a Quarter
Pounder _and tried to exchange it for a Quarter Pounder with
Cheese_--the main article is over 32K!)
The 32K limit gets an unjustified amount of attention because a warning
is displayed automatically. The wording of that warning ought to be
toned way down. This is just one of many issues involved in browser
compatibility, and not the most important one.
I notice that no warning is displayed about the use of Unicode
characters, even though these also present problems in older browsers
(and sometimes newer ones!) In gauging the seriousness of these issues,
note too that using characters outside, say, ISO Latin-1 actually
presents problems to people passively _viewing_ the article, whereas
articles over 32K are still viewable by everyone (and editable within
sections by everyone).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/