Tech:An Edit Button for the first non section
Moved from en:Wikitravel:Feature requests by Evan
The edit buttons for the sections are very useful. Would it be possible to have an additional one for the text before the first section, because at present if you want to edit that bit you have to edit the entire article. DanielC 18:02, 12 May 2005 (EDT)
- I notice that if you edit the page then there is still an edit button at the top of the page - which seems a bit redundant if you are already editing the whole page. Perhaps if you were editing a section and wanted to edit section 0 (the section before the first one) then this button shows edit section 0 instead. That way two cliks of the edit button gets you the introduction section. I always edit section 1 then change the section number to 0 in the URI and call the page again to edit these introductory sections.
- Alternatively on sectioned pages, edit means edit section 0 if you have your user preferences set to show edit by section. Would mean anonymous users would have to click edit twice to edit a whole page. Logged on users could turn off edit by section in their preferences. -- Huttite 02:08, 25 Dec 2005 (EST)
Copied from a duplicate request for the same feature:
When a page has section headings (like this one) it is no longer possible to clik on an  link to edit the text before the first section heading as a separate section. Instead one must edit the whole page or click an edit section link and change the URL so the section number = 0. The functionality exists but the link does not. This is fine if there is no text before the heading but on WikiTravel, section 0 is where the introductory text and a lot of the wiki backlinking information is placed. In previous versions there were often 2 edits side by side, one for section 0, the other for section 1 when a heading was at the top of the page. It seems that this old bug has been over-corrected. Could an  appear on the section 0 text if it exists?
- My understanding is that this is by design -- I can't remember the reasoning, but when I asked on IRC Tim Starling said this had been removed on purpose. I'll follow up. --Evan 12:40, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)