MediaWiki talk:Longpagewarning

Link to documentation

We may want to link the part of the documentation in the message, e.g.

[[Wikipedia:Page size|WARNING: This page is $1 kilobytes long]]; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller [[Wikipedia:Section|sections]].

--User:Docu

I gave it a shot. Let's see if anyone complains :) Dori | Talk 19:10, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Having this warning in a small green font made it completely unnoticeable. If anything, a warning should be larger and in a stronger color than the default text. I've removed the size and color to make it more noticeable and delinked the word Warning so it appears black not blue or purple. Angela. 18:48, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reduce visibility

This warning used to exist primarily for technical reasons. Can we tone it down a little now that it is not a technical issue? Maybe replace "WARNING:" with "Note:"? —Christiaan 15:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we should tone it down. "Note:" would certainly be an improvement; perhaps also shrinking the size of the text?

James F. (talk) 16:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

Note: This page is $1 kilobytes long. Under current article size guidelines, articles that exceed 32KB are considered undesirably long. Such articles should eventually be restructured in some way, perhaps by making them into a series of shorter, related articles. However, such major changes should be made with due deliberation in consultation with other active editors of the page. Read the guidelines for further information.

I don't think the type size needs to be reduced. What I think is necessary is to get rid of the upper-case word WARNING, the apparently-underlined-and-highlighted "This page is ### kilobytes long," and the language that can be taken to imply that something must be done about this right now.

(The article size guidelines should incorporate some policy advice on how best to reorganize long articles...)

If nobody screams too loudly, I'll put this (or any better suggested alternatives) in tonight (i.e. about six hours from now). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I've had some more thoughts about the wording. This is what I'm going to use:

Note: This page is $1 kilobytes long. Under current article size guidelines, articles that exceed 32KB are considered to be too long. It may be appropriate to restructure this topic into a related series of shorter articles, or split off a section of it as a separate article. However, these are major structural changes which should not be made hastily, and should be made by consensus decision of other editors of the page. See the guidelines for details.

In the last sentence, I'd change "which" to "that". Our article on restrictive clauses says that many writers would use "which", but quite a few of us consider it substandard. I agree with the toning down. JamesMLane 04:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

Note: This page is $1 kilobytes long. Under current article size guidelines, articles which exceed 32KB are considered to be too long because of technical and Internet connection limits, along with some stylistic considerations. It may be appropriate to restructure this topic. However, this is a major structural change which should not be made hastily, but instead by consensus agreement among editors of the page. See the guidelines for details.

For only a few extra words, it succintly explains why this limit is in place, which I think would be quite helpful in persuading people. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts. Howzabout this? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: This page is $1 kilobytes long. Pages considerably over 32KB are considered undesirable because of issues with page loading speed and readability. A former limit of exactly 32KB, prompted by technical limits in a few now-seldom-used browsers, no longer applies. Structural changes, such as replacing very long articles with several shorter articles, might be appropriate, but should be made carefully and with proper discussion beforehand. See Article size for details.

Any of the three versions here look okay to me; I was just providing my own version. I prefer keeping it as short as possible, though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current version is waaay too long.. five lines on my screen... and reads like it has all the faults of a design by committee.. can't we have "This page is longer than 32kb long. Please see [appropriate link | this page] for why this may be a problem and how to address it." ? Pcb21| Pete 14:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - I came across the new warning earlier and was surprised at how it had grown (see similar length debate on MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning). I got half way through posting a similar message a while ago before my browser (guess which one) crashed.

Since this message goes at the top of the page, conciseness is critical. Would not something like "Note: This page is [ ] kilobytes long. Pages over 32KB are undesirable: see Article size for details. Please consider replacing a long article with two or more shorter articles." be better? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We need to keep tinkering, I guess. I agree that conciseness is critical. I wanted to keep the details in Article size. Some think the message is better if it at least gives a hint as to the reason for the limit. The problem I have with your version is that what I think is important is to make it clear 32KB should not be considered a hard limit any more, and that something should be done about long articles but that people shouldn't feel its urgent to do something just because a page is 33K or 35K. I'm trying to get away from ill-considered splits justified by "the 32K devil made me do it."

Note: This page is [ ] kilobytes long. Pages much over 32KB are undesirable: see Article size for details.

or

Note: This page is [ ] kilobytes long. Pages much over 32KB are undesirable: see Article size for details. It may be appropriate to start discussing how this article could best be replaced with two or more shorter articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just now you actually plumped for:

Note: This page is $1 kilobytes long. There's no longer a hard-and-fast limit, but pages much longer than 32KB are undesirable - Wikipedia:article size for explanation. It may be appropriate to begin a discussion with fellow editors about whether this topic should be covered by two or more shorter articles, and if so, how they would best be organized.

but to me this sounds like that sort of awkward NPOV language you see in articles so often. Is

It sounds like it because, uh, well, it is... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is $1 kilobytes long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for why this could be too long, and how to fix it.

no good? Pcb21| Pete 22:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Make it so. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is so. Pcb, thank you for cutting the Gordian knot. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The new message sounds awkward to me. It's also strange to say "fix it" when the message doesn't even really get across the idea that there's something that needs to be fixed. I'd suggest:

This page is $1 kilobytes long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size to learn why it could be too long and how to shorten it.

Same ideas presented in the current version, just worded a little differently. – flamurai (t) 13:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

If we really want to change it again, how about:

This page is $1 kilobytes long. Wikipedia:Article size explains why this could be too long and how the article could be shortened.

OTOH, I quite like the present versions snappy informality. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As do I. I had been brooding about the wording still being too strong, and the contradictory messages of "why this could be too long" (tentative) and "fix it" (imperative). But to heck with it. It's short and sweet. We can wordsmith any nuances we like at Wikipedia:Article size, for the tiny fraction of editors that actually care and click on the link. The message has been toned down to the point where the average reader will ignore it, which is what I wanted. I mentally tried to come up with a replacement for "and how to fix it" and everything I came up with sounded like "the sort of awkward NPOV language" that Pcb21 disliked. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I will support the shortest, least urgent possible candidate for replacement of this warning, in the interests of preserving screen real estate and reducing overall stress level. I think the warning is especially inappropriate when shown on Talk pages, which are often edited by newbies asking for help and which should probably not be boldly restructured by them (us). --Xiong 18:17, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Note The old warning, after several changes, was replaced PCB's suggestion, namely:

This page is ### kilobytes long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for why this could be too long, and how to fix it.

This change was made on March 1st.

Xiong, are you commenting on this latest version? Is it OK? It is certainly short. Do you think it is still too urgent? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like it. --Xiong 04:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I do not think the "and how to fix it" is needed.

I suggest:

This page is ### kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable, see Wikipedia:Article size.

zoney ♣ talk 22:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do, too. Although I'm not 100.00% sure it's grammatical. Let's try it and see what happens. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree. But please don't put comments out of order when adding your own. I liked the last version at 04:58, 2005 Mar 14. Now the entire point has become moot, as Somebody has fixed the engine so that it no longer invokes this template at all. (Thank You!) I'm unwatching this page, Talk to me if you like. — Xiong (talk) 02:33, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Div tag

Please take extra care to close the <div> tag on this template, as well as any other HTML tags you use. Unclosed tags can do strange things to the other elements on the page. Rhobite 00:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)