MediaWiki talk:Nstab-main

#ifeq

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change content to:

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Main Page|Main Page|content page}}

This will change the word "article" to "main page" on the main page. Cheers, Al Tally ^talk 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but replaced <content page> with <article>. Maxim_(talk) 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the recent history of this system message (this diff) and the discussion on User_talk:Remember_the_dot#MediaWiki:Nstab-main (and next section). —AlexSm 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to several other projects without an issue. Al Tally ^talk 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Midom, this increases page load times for every view. I've reverted, and all further changes should be discussed with him or some other developer familiar with performance issues. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how come this has been added without any issue to multiple other projects? Al Tally ^talk 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then expect the devs to revert that some time on other projects, too;) For the reference: [1]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem, I had no clue Midom was against this. Maxim_(talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Personally, I wish that the developers would come up with a real solution to the problem instead of just axing the workaround we were using. For example, nstab-main could be evaluated and cached with the title of the page. So, instead of having to be recalculated every page load, it would only have to be recalculated if nstab-main changed or the page was moved.

See bugzilla:14267 for more discussion on caching and how this could be made to work. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The devs didn't say we can't use the ifeq, they think it's a if it ain't broke, don't fik it idea but we can do it nonetheless--Ipatrol (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's what he meant? [2] —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Mainpage-nstab now implements this feature cleanly (rev:80240). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Please replace article with {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Main Page|main page|article}}. Dagoth U r , Mad God 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above section. A developer already objected and reverted this. —AlexSm 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

{{mediawikiedit}}
Remember the dot proposed a change at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#nstab-main, then implemented it. I have reverted, pending consensus. Superm401 - Talk 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal mentioned above was archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive 46#nstab-main

A bit of boldness on my part, I've changed this message "back" to the default. I re-read the old discussion and I see a lot of meh, but not a lot of argument for or against article vs. page. There are real benefits to using "page" (it covers redirects, disambiguation pages, lists, etc.) and no real advantages to using "article" (other than sticking with tradition, and this is a wiki after all...). Please discuss first if you feel this should be reverted, but all in all, I don't see this as a big deal, unless, of course, people choose to make it one. ;-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this and originally thought "WTF?" but then turned into "meh." I do think this should have been discussed at least summarily somewhere before acting on it. Though, thinking about that, it would be a drama-fest with a lot of hot air and no resolution. Do you not think this should be advertised somewhere? (though it would be interesting to note who actually spends enough time in mainspace to notice the change ;) Regards Woody (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm also of the "meh" mindset, though I think "article" is better. I don't see it's use on "non-articles" like redirects as being a particularly relevant issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Using "page" to refer to articles is illogical and counterintuitive because it's ambiguous; article pages and article talk pages are both pages (as are user pages and user talk pages, for that matter). This could be confusing for new Wikipedians. It was a little disconcerting for at least one not-so-new Wikipedian. Woody may be right about the risk of a drama-fest, but this really shouldn't be controversial. (Maybe it would be, but it shouldn't be.) Ever the idealist, Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Content page"? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of "Article". I agree that it makes the most sense for newbies in particular. Gary King (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'page' is rather vague. Adding qualifiers ('content page', 'mainspace page', or what-have-you) would remedy that, but all the formulations I can think of sound rather clumsy – and they all would have the unfortunate side effect of further widening the row of tab-buttons across the top of the article. Editors and admins who work at lower-resolution or with tiled and non-maximized windows may find the 'watch' and 'protect' buttons pushed right off the right side of their screens.

My personal preference is definitely for the short-and-sweet 'article', though I have to admit that if the matter hadn't been mentioned at the Village Pump, I probably wouldn't have noticed the change for months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed yesterday. Gary King (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am in the minority when I say that I do in fact see the labelling of dab pages and redirects as "Articles" as an issue (of principle). But I still like "Article" over "Page" for the average article, and I can survive with dab pages being mislabeled. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the history, an admin thinks that their choice "page" is the default and therefore if there is no consensus that is what will be picked. Um, no, article has been the default for years and will remain until a general consensus is reached. I politely ask an admin to undo the change.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki's default was changed to the generic "page" years ago, but the previous default of "article" persisted here. Look up nstab-main in Special:AllMessages and you'll see what I mean. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate on other wikis, but on Wikipedia, it's not as clearcut. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please change back. An article is a page. A page is not necessarily an article. Gracenotes^T § 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I much prefer article. Though I'm also "meh" about this, if the change is easily fixed, I support it. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text back to "Article" and disabled the editprotected request above. The text "Article" has been the standard for years, and there has been no consensus to change it short of using ParserFunctions to make the Main Page happier—a change vetoed by the developers. Until we specifically have a consensus to change from "Article" (and I see more of a consensus to keep it "Article" here), that is the text that should remain in this interface message. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

articles and non-articles in main na.espace

Not all pages in the main namespace other than Main Page are articles. The only non-articles in the main namespace are redirect and disambiguations. Try to make the redirect read "Article" for the articles, "Redirect page" for the redirect pages, and "Disambiguation" for the disambiguations. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]