The Instant View Editor uses a three-column layout, so you really want to use it on a desktop screen that's wide enough. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Back to the main page »



Link Preview

Issue #3

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems like we should keep this block.

I'ts a summary-like block that comes before the article. Initially, it seemed like this block is always duplicated in the article body, usually at the very top, and can be safely removed. But apparently it's not always like that.

Sometimes (in this case, for example) this text appears again only deep in the article. Or is duplicated, but with an addition:

So it occurred to me that it's kind of like a pull-quote (a sentence taken out of the text for emphasis).

My thoughts:
- this text exists in the source, even if duplicated;
- thus we probably should keep it;
- but it's formatted differently and separated from the rest of content;
- so it seems appropriate to format is as <aside> and use an <hr> after it.
Pavel T.
So why you removed this block in gallery articles if it's so essential? :)

My thought is we shouldn't keep this block because it's strange summary version that duplicates 1-to-1 one of the article paragraphs (first or last), even if there are only 1 or 2 paragraphs:

I don't think that we need to keep 1/2 or 2/3 of article in <aside>. 2/3 is here, for example:
Accepted by admin
I agree that the summary must be preserved. But <aside> isn't suitable formatting for it.
Pavel T.
It's NOT correct and useful summary, sir! It's full duplicate of first or last paragraph.

Take a look, please: ("summary" = article, 1-to-1) (1/2 of article in "summary")
Accepted by admin
It's not critical, since the article author decided to duplicate the content in the summary. Since the template doesn't detect whether the content in the summary is duplicated or not, it's better to preserve it.
Type of issue
IV page is missing essential content
Mar 6, 2019