This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals page. |
|
Portals | ||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There is a big need to create separate pages for the RFc survey, the discussion, the ideas, and currently nominated portals for deletion. The page is already experiencing issues when editing the page source, especially when adding a new idea, as doing a section edit will not do much since there is only to sections on the page (mostly everything on the page is a sub-section). The major issue that is being faced is performance issue, where typing a word has a long delay to appear on the screen. Right now the delay is noticeable, but if the page gets any larger, or the content is not split into more sections or pages, this delay could cause multiple issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, whoever adjusted the section levels (have not found exact edit in page history) to put everything appearing below "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" as a subsection of that section has essentially guaranteed an unending string of new sections opened by users just for their individual comments (since it is now very difficult to add new comments to the "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" section itself). I have not checked to see how relevant (or not) the remaining <!-- HTML comments --> in the source are, now that that change has been made. Would someone else like to do that? -
dcljr (
talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — [Struck out remarks that are no longer relevant. -
dcljr (
talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)]
As discussed in a few different places on the RFC page itself, someone needs to decide how this RFC will be brought to a close. Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, it seems obvious that the closing mechanism will have to be #4, removal of {{ rfc}} tag (and associated notices), because none of the other things are going to happen (e.g., the discussion petering out on its own). But there will almost certainly have to be a long period of "digestion" between "ending" the RFC and providing a closing "summary". I have suggested elsewhere that the one-month mark (May 8th) would possibly be a good time to "lock" the discussion, although now I think simply removing the RFC tag (and the many notices around the wiki that point to the RFC) could be done on that date. In any case, I defer to those experienced with RFC closures, so I have asked for input about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. - dcljr ( talk) 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth Jimbo suggested that we take a look at how portals are handled in other languages of Wikipedia, and compare them to the ones here. Has anyone done this yet? (I don't speak or understand German here) - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I just added {{ Annual readership}} at the top of this talk page, thinking it might be of some use when deciding when to close this RfC (or whether to reopen it, if it gets closed automatically by a bot). Here's a similar graph for the page where this RfC first started (on 8 April):
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
The RfC was moved to "this" subpage on 18 April.
For ease of comparison, here's the graph for the subpage (same as the one at the top of this talk page):
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
- dcljr ( talk) 05:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The following was just posted to the project page with the section heading shown here (above):
There is no AFD template on the current events portal, so I just became aware of this deletion request. For Gosh Sakes please get rid of the dreadful Current Events Portal at least !!! There you have people who know nothing of the Venezuela crisis attempting to maintain WP:NOTNEWS style entries which have been wrong every time I have checked. I recall years ago the same thing happening with some health portal somewhere (cannot recall) where advocates for autism had taken over the portal to push POV, and no one else was aware. Wikipedia is not news, and the few editors who are trying to maintain the Venezuela situation should not be sidetracked by the mess that is happening on this portal. And you should put the blooming AFD tag on the portal to assure others can participate in this discusion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As it was out of chronological order and clearly based on a misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., that the RFC was still going on), I have moved it to here. I suggest we mark the entire project page as being in an archived state (i.e., not just the "Survey" part) and discourage any further discussion there. - dcljr ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals page. |
|
Portals | ||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There is a big need to create separate pages for the RFc survey, the discussion, the ideas, and currently nominated portals for deletion. The page is already experiencing issues when editing the page source, especially when adding a new idea, as doing a section edit will not do much since there is only to sections on the page (mostly everything on the page is a sub-section). The major issue that is being faced is performance issue, where typing a word has a long delay to appear on the screen. Right now the delay is noticeable, but if the page gets any larger, or the content is not split into more sections or pages, this delay could cause multiple issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 00:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, whoever adjusted the section levels (have not found exact edit in page history) to put everything appearing below "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" as a subsection of that section has essentially guaranteed an unending string of new sections opened by users just for their individual comments (since it is now very difficult to add new comments to the "Discussion: Ending the system of portals" section itself). I have not checked to see how relevant (or not) the remaining <!-- HTML comments --> in the source are, now that that change has been made. Would someone else like to do that? -
dcljr (
talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — [Struck out remarks that are no longer relevant. -
dcljr (
talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)]
As discussed in a few different places on the RFC page itself, someone needs to decide how this RFC will be brought to a close. Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, it seems obvious that the closing mechanism will have to be #4, removal of {{ rfc}} tag (and associated notices), because none of the other things are going to happen (e.g., the discussion petering out on its own). But there will almost certainly have to be a long period of "digestion" between "ending" the RFC and providing a closing "summary". I have suggested elsewhere that the one-month mark (May 8th) would possibly be a good time to "lock" the discussion, although now I think simply removing the RFC tag (and the many notices around the wiki that point to the RFC) could be done on that date. In any case, I defer to those experienced with RFC closures, so I have asked for input about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. - dcljr ( talk) 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth Jimbo suggested that we take a look at how portals are handled in other languages of Wikipedia, and compare them to the ones here. Has anyone done this yet? (I don't speak or understand German here) - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I just added {{ Annual readership}} at the top of this talk page, thinking it might be of some use when deciding when to close this RfC (or whether to reopen it, if it gets closed automatically by a bot). Here's a similar graph for the page where this RfC first started (on 8 April):
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
The RfC was moved to "this" subpage on 18 April.
For ease of comparison, here's the graph for the subpage (same as the one at the top of this talk page):
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
- dcljr ( talk) 05:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The following was just posted to the project page with the section heading shown here (above):
There is no AFD template on the current events portal, so I just became aware of this deletion request. For Gosh Sakes please get rid of the dreadful Current Events Portal at least !!! There you have people who know nothing of the Venezuela crisis attempting to maintain WP:NOTNEWS style entries which have been wrong every time I have checked. I recall years ago the same thing happening with some health portal somewhere (cannot recall) where advocates for autism had taken over the portal to push POV, and no one else was aware. Wikipedia is not news, and the few editors who are trying to maintain the Venezuela situation should not be sidetracked by the mess that is happening on this portal. And you should put the blooming AFD tag on the portal to assure others can participate in this discusion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As it was out of chronological order and clearly based on a misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., that the RFC was still going on), I have moved it to here. I suggest we mark the entire project page as being in an archived state (i.e., not just the "Survey" part) and discourage any further discussion there. - dcljr ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)