Debate:Editing tabs

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by signed users.

Arguments and suggestions for editing tabs.

Tabs

Talk

Talk (current/default)

Simple, straightforward and clear. What's wrong with that? DogP 02:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT) _and marmite 03:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. The thing is, not all talk pages are "peer review". If we had a separate science namespace (and the mob was against that) then changing those articles to "peer review" to signify that they're for important on topic discussion would be fine. But as it's a generic thing, leave it as "talk". It's also certainly not "discuss" as the tab is labelled on WP as that's a bit serious for what RW talk pages tend to turn out like. ArmondikoV^postate 11:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The reason I like talk is it opens a page that says .... Talk. That may seem like a dumb reason, but it is my reason. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 13:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk is good. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• I vouch for just "talk" JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 14:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree with all the above. Lynad^Hello? 14:58, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I vote "bitch" or "argue". Neveruse513 14:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Peer Review

• I proposed this one because I feel that if our articles need anything it is a peer review. Peer review forms part of the absolute basis of science, checking your results to see if they hold up to scrutiny. This is what we should strive for in our articles. - User $\pi$ 01:51, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Nice concept Pi, but it's just a complicated way of saying "article talk page', which is clearer. DogP 01:53, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like this but I like...Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't online much yesterday, and the new tab names came as a surprise. I didn't know which tab to click (I wasn't sure if peer review meant edit or talk, probably since I'm not a native English speaker), and position alone is not enough to identify a tab, at least for me. But if we must have peer review, how about only for mainspace? --  Nx/talk  03:37, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Absolutely not - this is completely non-self-explanatory, & an immediately turn-off for non-science-nerds. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• I like "peer review" since it fits with our scientific POV. I could see where it would be confusing to somebody used to other wikis. Secret Squirrel 20:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Discuss

1. If it is going to be anything other than talk, I would say that this would work. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)\

Edit

Edit (current/default)

Simple, straightforward and clear. What's wrong with that? DogP 02:01, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like the fact we can express a lot about what makes our wiki unique from these tags. If you are just going to give the same canned question to each one, I will give you the same canned response. 02:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Do you express your individuality in your design of electrical sockets? Sometimes, standards are good for a reason. DogP 02:10, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Unlike electrical plugs, people have brains. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:17, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

_and marmite 03:01, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Whenever referring to an article edit, we refer to it as an edit. I don't think it can be expressed any clearer. ArmondikoV^postate 11:39, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• Keep - don't make simple self-explanatory tabs arcane & complicated for no reason. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Consistant with the [edit] section thingies. Taytopacket 14:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Clear & simple. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I agree with keeping this one "edit". Easy to understand exactly what the tab is for. Secret Squirrel 20:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Mutate

...Mutate far better (though obscurish) Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• Aye. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I like this one because of the fossil record. - User $\pi$ 02:17, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Evolve

• I like this one. Totnesmartin 03:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I like this better. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 07:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I would go with "Mutate" over "Evolve" because a mutation is a quantifiable occurrence, like a single edit, whereas evolution is a long process, more analogous to several edits. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:57, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• I like this one, because it goes directly to the heart of what is probably the most contentious issue with pseudo-scientists. That is, it is as directly in-your-face against the creationists/Idiotic Design people as it is possible to be. Gauss 01:25, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Heh, but it's through the work of intelligent designers.... dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 14:08, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

History

History (default)

Me likes the default. Edit tabs are not a place to express our supposed 'personality' - that's what the articles are for. How would you react to a stove that had 'High" switched with 'Low', even if the manufacturers said "well, we meant High or Low Carbon Footprint? DogP 02:14, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

They often do that with fridges, high means higher engine power, meaning colder. Simple solution read the manual. - User $\pi$ 02:16, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Shouldn't have to read the manual to operate the wiki. DogP 02:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Why, I had to look at one to operate my fridge and I had always used it on the basis stick-food-in? - User $\pi$ 02:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Fossil record (current)

• When I arrived at RationalWiki a year ago, this was here and I immediately knew it meant two things; 1) the page's history, 2) this is a website that places evolution at the heart of its worldview. I would hate to see this one go. - User $\pi$ 01:51, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Agree with Pi Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Feh. Fine, but just seems very arch to me. DogP 01:58, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• Agree with Pi. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

1. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• Agreeing with Pi. This is a more obvious one. An obvious evolution in-joke, but its an understandable one. ArmondikoV^postate 11:38, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I also agree with Pi. JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 12:58, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Not too off the wall, and a good "on-mission" joke. Taytopacket 14:45, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like it. Pretty clear (clearer than "mutate"), won't cause confusion, and i must agree, "good on-mission joke" ;D Lynad^Hello? 15:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• For - it's cool and sciency without being obscure jargon. Also, "history" might confuse me for months after all this time. ħuman 17:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

We've had this for ages so I'm used to it but history is also fine by me. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• It's been "fossil record" for a while, fits with scientific mission and humorous. Secret Squirrel 20:06, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Lock/Unlock

Lock/Unlock (default)

• Since sysops do not "capture" pages for themselves here, the use of "capture" is counterintuitive. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Yes. DogP 02:11, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• "Capture" is a bad description.--Bob^{bing up} 02:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• "capture" is vague - when it first appeared I thought it meant taking a screenshot. Totnesmartin 03:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I've never liked the use of "capture". It makes me immediately think of "screen capture" and doesn't really make much sense to use. ArmondikoV^postate 11:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Lock/Lockdown are OK but Lock is shorter. Capture is crap. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:29, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Lockdown

It's just a tiny bit different from the default, & looks kindof drastic which is a good way to convey that this is something we rarely do. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like this. Conveys the idea better than just "lock" Lynad^Hello? 15:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I vote for "Night mode", obviously... Neveruse513 15:06, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Capture/Release (current)

While it's not the prettiest pair of labels we have, it's also the least used tab - when was the last time any of us protected a page that wasn't a sig? We could literally replace this tab with a space - or even remove it entirely - and we'd be fine. Oh, and I vote for leaving it as is. ħuman 17:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't see the point in this change. Only sysops see the tab and they usually read the sysop instructions.--Ipatrol 22:14, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Sysops read the instructions how amusing. - User $\pi$ 22:18, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Protect/*

• It's what the software calls it... can't think of anything good for the other action, unprotect is not so good --  Nx/talk  17:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Delete

Delete (default)

Default is good. DogP 02:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

In this case, i think we should stick to the default. Lynad^Hello? 15:13, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't have strong feelings on this one, but "vaporize" doesn't really scream "mission" to me like, say, "render extinct" would. Which I am not suggesting, just pointing out that "extinct" is a hard word to turn into a good tab label. ħuman 17:26, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm comfortable with Exterminate but Delete is shorter. Maybe Kill? Never ever support the Youth In Asia. (Respect, Ali G.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It should be Delete. We should only play games with fun or relatively harmless tabs. Deletion is serious. What if someone accidentally deleted something and couldn't figure out how to bring it back? Gauss 01:31, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

47 of us would be there within ten minutes fixing it. ħuman 01:37, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Vaporise (current)

• Aye. (And if it must be changed, not "euthanize.") ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• haha "Euthanize". Destroy? Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:18, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I thought of "Fossilize," but that is confusing in tandem with "Fossil record." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

• Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I like this, but really anything except euthanise plz. Totnesmartin 03:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Vapourise is nice. "Euthanise" is only funny in certain circumstances where deleting an article really is a mercy killing. ArmondikoV^postate 11:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I say thanks but no thanks on that euthanize to nowhere. Changed vote.JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 12:57, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Exterminate

• Being a Brit of a certain age I've got to put a vote in for 'Exterminate' Silver Sloth 03:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I agree with this. Brits of another age may prefer the more cyberman-ish 'Delete' though. Bondurant 03:39, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

No to this. Immediate disqualification on grounds of being a favourite CUR comment. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes to this. I like it. What would be EVEN BETTER would be the ability to make choose tags for it, so it could be delete, exterminate, vaporise, etc. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:58, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Memory-hole

This one is off the talk page, I personally find it a little to CP-centric. - User $\pi$ 03:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It'd be a bit rich of us to point fingers at CP for memory holing stuff, and then put a "memory hole" tab on every page! Totnesmartin 11:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It's also confusing - some might assume that the "memory hole" is the history/fossil record. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:11, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I originally suggested it as kind of a shock name- ie to make people think twice before they deleteon pain of us becoming CP. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 21:51, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Nuke

• It is what we do to the article... JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 14:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Euthanise/Euthanase

• This is kind what kicked this discussion off. I like because as well meaning as some of the articles are, they need to be put down genteelly. - User $\pi$ 20:15, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Extinct/Extinction

• ..or "Make Extinct"? Best fit with the other evolutionary in-jokes. Secret Squirrel 20:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Extinctify? Extinguish? I like it if we can find a verb that fits. - User $\pi$ 20:29, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. What human said above, "render extinct"? Secret Squirrel 20:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I keep going in circles on this. I don't think there is a conjugation of extinct that works. I end up at "ELE" (extinction level event) but that's just stoopid. "Call in the meteors"? Far too long. You know, I think "vaporize" is just fine. Oh shit, it's "vaporise" right now. Please let us Websterize the damn thing? Commiewealth spelling is so 17th century... ħuman 01:40, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget to change MediaWiki:Brokenredirects-delete too. --  Nx/talk  01:48, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I like the general idea of this on in that all deletion really does is hide and prevent editing. Just "Render extinct" will sufice, scientific enough--Ipatrol 22:18, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Move

Move (default)

• Aye. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Move is fine it's also less typing. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:37, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Relocate (current)

• I like this better. Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Yeah. I think it's actually clearer than move. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• It is scientific! :D JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Me like. ħuman 17:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I like it, unless someone can come up with something better. Rename does describe the process better, but for some reason its default name is move. - User $\pi$ 20:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Rename

• A common request over at WP is "How do I rename this article?". Move/relocate can suggest a drastic physical upheaval of the article. Rename is more innocuous. Taytopacket 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I actually think that's an excellent point. Rename FTW. DogP 14:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Being a bit of wiki n00b (i've thought of other ways of saying this but this one works best :D) i have had first hand experience of the slight confusion created when i saw the "move" tab. Rename is much more self-explanatory, so thumbs up all the way to this one. Lynad^Hello? 15:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The thing with "rename" is that it makes it look like a minor change. In fact renaming a page has a knock-on effect for every page that links to it - i.e. redirects. I think it's important to emphasise that, by renaming, you are axtually relocating the article - i.e. a significant change. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:15, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

hmm. Point taken. Lynad^Hello? 15:18, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Relocate it is then Lynad^Hello? 15:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Watch/Unwatch

Observe/Ignore (current)

• Yup. Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:57, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Aye. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• I like this one actually. DogP 02:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Really don't see this one changing. - User $\pi$ 03:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Not much of an issue I think. At least this one is extremely self explanitory. ArmondikoV^postate 11:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Five JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 12:57, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Aye. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• Current one is good here. Secret Squirrel 20:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Monitor/Disregard or Ignore

• Prefer Monitor or Watch to observe. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
• monitor/ignore sounds good, disregard not so --  Nx/talk  17:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Meta-Argument

My view is that WIkipedia, due to its vastitude, fame and exposure, ends up being the de facto standard for wiki-format, and we benefit by holding to that standard. If everyone drove on whatever side of the road that they wanted, it would be, uh, a bit confusing. All that said, I'm still happy to let the mob decide. DogP 01:58, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

None the less do we not set ourself apart using another format? Something mission-based, while not something completely incomprehensible, still something the shows rationalwiki's flavour? Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:09, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It it because of Wikipedia everything is the way it appears. This is one of the option the software gives us to set ourselves apart. Most of these have been here since September 2007, it would be a pity for us to revert back to default because that is what Wikipedia uses. - User $\pi$ 02:13, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Indeed. But, none the less, usability needs to be taken into account. I dont think stock/standard however. Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:16, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't think you get top notch drivers to drive your car by labelling the steering wheel as the 'rotational guidance device". DogP 02:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC gain)That example almost counters your position; because if it looks like a steering wheel and it is square in front of the driving seat, the fact that it says "rotational guidance device" people will still know how to use it if they have seen a car before. If you have used a wiki before that tab 3 mm away from the article page is the talkpage. - User $\pi$ 02:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

So the only opinions we're interested in having posted here come from people who are not only familiar with wikis, but our wiki? Doesn't sound like much of a recipe for expanding readership or remit. DogP 02:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

The layout is the same on every wiki, it shouldn't take anyone too long to learn. How much did you struggle with fossil record? - User $\pi$ 02:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I see you have been here longer than it has. - User $\pi$ 02:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC)I think if the names are intuitive enough it should be alright. I mean we could make talk=edit, edit=watch, watch=move and really piss people off, I just want to expand on the theme that has been in place now for more than 18 months. - User $\pi$ 02:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

We're driving a car? With Pi. Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't mind the labelling as it was. The new ones just seem arch and stupid. DogP 02:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Old ones seem rather boring and plain. Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)P.S We need some more voices on the matter. Where CUR? Ace McWicked^Revolt 02:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it was CUR who suggested exterminate for delete and was told not to because we aren't a sci-fi wiki; that is what got me thinking about the biological science names we already had and an idea to expand on them. - User $\pi$ 03:12, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

If they're boring and plain, they just need Marmite spread on them. DogP 02:57, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

They seem intuitive enough to me. Perhaps capture is a bit obscure, but I can think of nothing better. Also of note from the original discussion, this is the first wiki I ever edited, so the argument that everyone has experience doesn't apply. Then again, I joined far before the change. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 03:11, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Agree with DogP 100%. I leap around five or six wikis & find it disconcerting on RW when I have to think twice about what tab to click. _and marmite}~

That's a point actually. I like most of the new ones but what "sets us apart" should be our content, not gimmicks. Totnesmartin 03:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't anyone else find them a bit like slapping those big teatray wings on the back of your stock Mondeo, i.e. a bit cheesy? DogP 03:35, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yup! _and marmite 03:37, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I vote return to the mediawiki default. Why introduce unneeded transaction cost (in terms of puzzling out our "clever" labels) into our nav system? That just seems wrong. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Me too, really. These are just go-faster stripes on a car, and they frankly look silly. DogP 14:21, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

We should not do things just to be different from WP. After all that's one of the things that put the RA in CP. This is a wiki and its important that people can walk in off the street and be familiar with the important controls. At work our wiki hs been corporately badged but the consensus has been to operate like WP as that's what most people are familiar with. I well remember a scenery generator programme called Bryce which had it's own funky interface in contrast to Windows standard menus/mouse controls. It was really off-putting for a novice. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Good example & reason for standardisation. Bryce was the prog that made other 3D progs difficult for me: totally non-standard interface. _and marmite 17:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

alright now lookit

Personally I would hate to see all tabs replaced with sandard talk/edit/move shit. What was wrong with fossil record? Why fuck with the classics? Also, come on, we can sort it without having to resort plain english crap. People aren't stupid and if they are they are they are probably already at aSK or CP anyway. We can be creative. Ace McWicked^Revolt 03:45, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

ARGY BARGY! DogP 03:47, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like it the way it is. The first three tabs, IMHO, are important for noobs to be able to use easily - article/talk/edit. The others are more for experienced wiki users, and if they can't figure out that fossil record = history, they'd probably know enough to ask. ħuman 17:16, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

BTW

Don't forget that changing the names on these tabs also requires all the Help files to be updated. Just sayin'.... DogP 14:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Choose

Here's something that would make us all happy- a script is written that enables choose tabs in MediaWiki tabs. --<choose> <option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Here. That's the basic code for delete, rest should be easy from there. --  Nx/talk  17:17, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

What would be really cool, if it were possible, would be to allow users to have their own tab names - they could pick MW default, RW default, or create their own gibberish that only they would see. ħuman 17:40, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

And it looks like Nx' script could make that possible... I suspect it could be transcluded so someone adds "tabs: edit=modify; article=sludge; history=lies;" or something like that to their js file? ħuman 17:43, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC) Everything's possible (well, almost), the question is how much effort it takes. It would be pretty easy to modify the javascript code to do that (in fact, an array that only contains one element already does that), and not so easy to write a mediawiki extension that allows you to choose that option on Special:Preferences, and then do the magic serverside. --  Nx/talk  17:46, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I had thought of this as well. If people want funky tab names let them apply them like a skin. Don't force them on everyone else. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

A fine idea. As long as I don't have to look at oooh-lookitme-I'm-a-cleverclogs tab names, I'm happy as a pig in shite. DogP 17:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Wait a second, I've got an idea. --  Nx/talk  17:55, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok. Go into preferences and select (en-rw) RationalWikian English as your language. To change the defaults you need server access, but if you edit mediawiki-space while your language is set to en-rw, you'll be editing the messages for en-rw, NOT en. Keep this in mind. --  Nx/talk  18:15, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Correction. MediaWiki:Delete is the string for en, MediaWiki:Delete/en-rw is the string for en-rw etc. Special:Allmessages always shows the strings for your selected language --  Nx/talk  18:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Superb work Nx. You deserve another goat-star. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Errrr...for those of us not currently sporting our tinfoil hats Nx, can you explain, er, what all that means? DogP 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Which part?

(EC) Still ironing out some bugs though, and unfortunately it looks like some stuff has to be duplicated, because it won't fall back to the customized en strings, only the default ones. --  Nx/talk  18:29, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

WIN

I've created a new "language" that you can select in Special:Preferences. It's called en-rw - RationalWikian English, and it only modifies the tabs. System messages for this language are located at MediaWiki:<keyword>/en-rw, for example: MediaWiki:Delete/en-rw.

Unfortunately, it falls back to the default English system messages instead of our customized ones for everything else, for example MediaWiki:autosumm-blank vs. MediaWiki:autosumm-blank/en-rw. This can be fixed using transclusion for messages that are wikiparsed, e.g. MediaWiki:Blockedtext and MediaWiki:Blockedtext/en-rw, or just copying the contents over (go to https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllMessages&uselang=en, click show modified only)

Some things do not have to be duplicated, among them: Common.js, Common.css, edittools, the block expirations and reasons, recentchangestext and the sidebar. --  Nx/talk  19:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Interesting. So are we going to edit the "default" en tabs back to the MW default when this works, and add a note about it to the help pages (with screenshots)? ħuman 19:29, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Personally, I'd prefer keeping some changes in the default, for example fossil record. --  Nx/talk  19:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Or we can make the MW defaults optional, and our customizations default. --  Nx/talk  19:39, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I like that idea a lot. Could we perhaps have one more option that is really bizarre for people like CUR? One that is always changing and utterly confusing? ħuman 20:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

More effort than it's worth. CUR can use the javascript if he wants random stuff. --  Nx/talk  20:14, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

That's cool. Anyway, let me say again that having the MW defaults be an option is a really good idea. Let's people standardize if they want to, while RW in its raw state still has a little flair. ħuman 21:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok, you can now select en-mw. Of course, some stuff should be changed, such as MediaWiki:Blockiptext/en-mw to include the Vandal bin link etc. --  Nx/talk  21:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Can someone please explain how to implement this apparently incredible new thing to those of us who are, like, really really drunk? DogP 18:59, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Or, you know, in the middle of trying to figure out an online murder mystery while doing homework while running my Coyote sock while. . . you get the point. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:01, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Special:Preferences, Language. --  Nx/talk  19:33, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Can't find it. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:36, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

--  Nx/talk  19:41, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh. How do we do custom? --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:43, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I think Nx answered you with an example, second line, one section up from here. It goes in your monobook.js file I believe, and you'll have to make one for each tab. I think. ħuman 19:46, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC) You add a new MessageXX.php file to $IP/languages/messages (where XX is your language code), then edit $IP/languages/Names.php and add your new language to the list. --  Nx/talk  19:47, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Very little of this makes sense. I am not good at JS, pure and simple. I don't understand what the thing does. Does it make it random? Is it safe? How do I add it? Should I just copy, paste, and add a few other options? What the hell? --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 19:52, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

It should be expanded (currently supports delete only) and moved into it's own page, so that it can be imported. --  Nx/talk  19:55, 9 April 2009 (EDT)