Talk:Link style vote
Hello. I am wondering if anybody can inform me more about this issue's background.
- If this is just an informal discussion, as opposed to a formal vote (the page content suggests the former, while the page title implies the latter, at least to me.)
- If this is just about English Wikipedia's setting, or all wikipedia, or all Wikimedia projects (including Wikitionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote)
- If the results of the vote will be taken as a binding decision.
- If votes will be validated and counted. (Any qualification for voting, such as 5 edits at any wiki?)
Tomos 02:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- The idea is to make a binding decision for all Wikimedia projects, but since the vote has not been discussed with Jimbo yet, the end result might still be rejected by him. Let's see how the vote turns out first, though, as it currently looks like the status quo is being favored. There are no qualifications for voting, we'll count on honesty.—Eloquence 02:34, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarifications. That helps. Tomos 02:41, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Erik, this sounds like you want to make it binding... but only if the results favor your preference. --Brion VIBBER 02:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Huh? If a majority decides for underlining, then things will simply stay as they are and that will of course be "binding" unless there is a dictatorial ruling to the opposite effect.—Eloquence 04:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think the best summary would be: A survey of opinion, which currently lacks official authorization to be a binding decision, but upon the results of which action will likely be taken. Or something. -- Jake 04:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- If it is binding, shouldn't this vote be advertised (much) more? BL 21:06, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There seems to be a feelng among some Wikipedians that Wikipedia and its sister projects appear to the "public" as old, stodgy looking sites, and that this will somehow deter people from visiting. I am not sure I understand this view. A lot of work has gone into making the appearance of the site as functional as possible, without anything that will detract from people actually obtaining the information they came here to see. An extreme example is: we don't have DHTML zooming things around the screen, as that would just distract people from the content. People don't come here because of the fancy layout, they come for the words (and some pictures of course). It appears that most people feel that missing link underlines or dynamic link underlines will subtract, rather than add, to the sites usefulness.
This sort of concept has probably been expressed more clearly elsewhere - if you know where, please add a link. Nanobug 11:46, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Along the same line of thinking that brought this vote up, wouldn't it be cool if WP had a stylesheet that set the font? I have always used the ugly default font which is times new roman until I saw the picture at Link style vote and understood that I could change it in the browser. I'll bet most people are in the same boat as me. BL 21:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In the non-underlined version of the image, it has a nice friendly "Edit this page", while in the underlined version, it says "Protected page" in unfriendly writing. Obviously a psychological attempt to swing the votes towards the non-underlined dark side... Also note the attempt to give the idea that underlining links leads to a smaller wikipedia with less articles. Cyp 00:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Dammit! Can't I get anything past you guys?—Eloquence
- LOL. That has got to be a joke, right? right? I think Erik has better things to do than carefully manipulate the images so that it would have some sort of subconscious effect on people. --Snoyes 01:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
My vote is for underlining by default. It is the behavior of browsers in general, it provides a quick visual cue, and it avoids confusion. Also, has anyone tried the non-underlined option under lynx/links? It could be that it's harder to see the links in non-graphical browsers. ¬ Dori 02:47, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Lynx ignores these settings.—Eloquence 04:20, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)