 | This is the talk page for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy please go to the noticeboard. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
The first advice given in the page is "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." I would suggest to add " and add a link from the article's talk page to the discussion here." The rational is that the best place to look for previous discussions about an article is the article's talk page and the added link will make sure that we can access the discussion in the Noticeboard from there. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the backlog tag at the top of the page still necessary to keep? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ixtal, Ha I was just coming here to ask what the purpose of the backlog notice is and whose attention is it calling. Slywriter ( talk) 23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Boldly removed after seeing it has been a fixture since at least Aug 2020 Slywriter ( talk) 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. If someone has the time, there is a discussion regarding a sentence reverted, in Talk:Conspiracy theory#Revert. Your insights are welcome. Regards, -- Thinker78 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Here ActivelyDisinterested proposed cutting down on text in the RSN header, which as far as I saw was well received. I propose to go further with that and introduce these changes to other noticeboards as well. I will start from NPOVN. Is there anything we should add/remove further? he new header proposal is editable here.
BilledMammal, Bon courage, Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier, Alaexis, Andrevan, WhatamIdoing, A Quest For Knowledge, you are pinged because you participated in those discussions. What do you think of this reduction? Ping other users who frequent NPOVN often if you think this will benefit the discussion. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm generally supportive of such a change, all the noticeboard headers suffer from bloating and broken formatting on mobile or narrow screens.
The current header is here for comparison.
A couple of notes. The consensus statement comes of a little harsh. Maybe "... based arguments, editors shouldn't bludgeon the discussion.", and the part about WP:NORN and WP:RSN could be separated from the No Forum comment.
The more detailed description of what to post could be moved to an editor note, something the noticeboard doesn't currently have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 17:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC) - You may want to post notifications of this discussion to the noticeboard itself, just to highlight it to anyone fo wasn't involved in the RSN header discussion. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made some copyedits.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also replaced the original button style with the style used by MediaWiki.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested, is there anything you would like to add/remove? It appears that nobody cared about that notification. Maybe a sentence that you believe is redundant?
- In the meantime I made some changes to the header in FTN, but I couldn't find too much to cut, so it went from 3.2K to 2.9K bytes. I am looking to work on simplifying other headers as well, but it takes a little time.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 17:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Years ago, I re-wrote the top of
Wikipedia:Closure requests, and you might consider that style for some (definitely not most) headers. The two features I think are important are that there's a lot of text, but it's formatted to almost look like a normal page/article, so it's not as obtrusive as the same volume with a whole lot of colors. The other is that I used small colorful images for both functional (they mark the list items) and sort of "mood setting" purposes. It's a stressful page, so a little element of fun helps. Also (per feedback from many new editors) the unique images keep the page from looking just like all the other pages, and apparently sorting out which oblong gray blur is the right one a significant problem for them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's a long and overly wordy header. Modern web design (Wikipedia included) has taught readers to skip over such things to get to the actual content. The problem is now how to try and attract attention to the most crucial information, without them seeing a flood of information and just skipping. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- It has certainly gotten longer during the ~decade since I re-wrote it. There is a Tragedy of the commons problem with writing documentation on wiki: There is always room for my thing, because my thing is always important enough to give people just one more little sentence.
- On your broader point, sometimes what's important isn't "the most crucial information". Sometimes what's necessary is to provide an explanation of the whole thing, for the few people who need it. Most editors don't need this header; a few (e.g., people who are figuring out the process for the first time, editors who want to dispute what someone else did) do need the whole thing. Thus it's formatted to look friendly (for the newbies to the page) and written in paragraphs that are easy to skip over if you don't need it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere it's similar to an issue with articles, overtime good faith addition and clarification get added. Each part still works but overall the article starts to become bloated. The consensus editing of Wikipedia is great for corrections and maintenance, but each edit doesn't take the whole article into account. In the end a rewrite is needed, and doing so for large articles is no easy task. I have a lot of repect for editors who take on such work, it's beyond my abilities. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Without objection, I am pasting the new header to the main page. Feel free to edit it directly or revert my change if you believe it needs further discussion.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 12:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Without objection, I am pasting the new header to the main page. Feel free to edit it directly or revert my change if you believe it needs further discussion.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere it's similar to an issue with articles, overtime good faith addition and clarification get added. Each part still works but overall the article starts to become bloated. The consensus editing of Wikipedia is great for corrections and maintenance, but each edit doesn't take the whole article into account. In the end a rewrite is needed, and doing so for large articles is no easy task. I have a lot of repect for editors who take on such work, it's beyond my abilities. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's a long and overly wordy header. Modern web design (Wikipedia included) has taught readers to skip over such things to get to the actual content. The problem is now how to try and attract attention to the most crucial information, without them seeing a flood of information and just skipping. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Years ago, I re-wrote the top of
Wikipedia:Closure requests, and you might consider that style for some (definitely not most) headers. The two features I think are important are that there's a lot of text, but it's formatted to almost look like a normal page/article, so it's not as obtrusive as the same volume with a whole lot of colors. The other is that I used small colorful images for both functional (they mark the list items) and sort of "mood setting" purposes. It's a stressful page, so a little element of fun helps. Also (per feedback from many new editors) the unique images keep the page from looking just like all the other pages, and apparently sorting out which oblong gray blur is the right one a significant problem for them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also replaced the original button style with the style used by MediaWiki.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made some copyedits.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support in principle. — Frostly ( talk) 17:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
| This is the talk page for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. For questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy please go to the noticeboard. For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
The first advice given in the page is "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." I would suggest to add " and add a link from the article's talk page to the discussion here." The rational is that the best place to look for previous discussions about an article is the article's talk page and the added link will make sure that we can access the discussion in the Noticeboard from there. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 16:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the backlog tag at the top of the page still necessary to keep? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ixtal, Ha I was just coming here to ask what the purpose of the backlog notice is and whose attention is it calling. Slywriter ( talk) 23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Boldly removed after seeing it has been a fixture since at least Aug 2020 Slywriter ( talk) 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. If someone has the time, there is a discussion regarding a sentence reverted, in Talk:Conspiracy theory#Revert. Your insights are welcome. Regards, -- Thinker78 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Here ActivelyDisinterested proposed cutting down on text in the RSN header, which as far as I saw was well received. I propose to go further with that and introduce these changes to other noticeboards as well. I will start from NPOVN. Is there anything we should add/remove further? he new header proposal is editable here.
BilledMammal, Bon courage, Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier, Alaexis, Andrevan, WhatamIdoing, A Quest For Knowledge, you are pinged because you participated in those discussions. What do you think of this reduction? Ping other users who frequent NPOVN often if you think this will benefit the discussion. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm generally supportive of such a change, all the noticeboard headers suffer from bloating and broken formatting on mobile or narrow screens.
The current header is here for comparison.
A couple of notes. The consensus statement comes of a little harsh. Maybe "... based arguments, editors shouldn't bludgeon the discussion.", and the part about WP:NORN and WP:RSN could be separated from the No Forum comment.
The more detailed description of what to post could be moved to an editor note, something the noticeboard doesn't currently have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 17:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC) - You may want to post notifications of this discussion to the noticeboard itself, just to highlight it to anyone fo wasn't involved in the RSN header discussion. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made some copyedits.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also replaced the original button style with the style used by MediaWiki.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested, is there anything you would like to add/remove? It appears that nobody cared about that notification. Maybe a sentence that you believe is redundant?
- In the meantime I made some changes to the header in FTN, but I couldn't find too much to cut, so it went from 3.2K to 2.9K bytes. I am looking to work on simplifying other headers as well, but it takes a little time.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 17:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Years ago, I re-wrote the top of
Wikipedia:Closure requests, and you might consider that style for some (definitely not most) headers. The two features I think are important are that there's a lot of text, but it's formatted to almost look like a normal page/article, so it's not as obtrusive as the same volume with a whole lot of colors. The other is that I used small colorful images for both functional (they mark the list items) and sort of "mood setting" purposes. It's a stressful page, so a little element of fun helps. Also (per feedback from many new editors) the unique images keep the page from looking just like all the other pages, and apparently sorting out which oblong gray blur is the right one a significant problem for them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's a long and overly wordy header. Modern web design (Wikipedia included) has taught readers to skip over such things to get to the actual content. The problem is now how to try and attract attention to the most crucial information, without them seeing a flood of information and just skipping. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- It has certainly gotten longer during the ~decade since I re-wrote it. There is a Tragedy of the commons problem with writing documentation on wiki: There is always room for my thing, because my thing is always important enough to give people just one more little sentence.
- On your broader point, sometimes what's important isn't "the most crucial information". Sometimes what's necessary is to provide an explanation of the whole thing, for the few people who need it. Most editors don't need this header; a few (e.g., people who are figuring out the process for the first time, editors who want to dispute what someone else did) do need the whole thing. Thus it's formatted to look friendly (for the newbies to the page) and written in paragraphs that are easy to skip over if you don't need it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere it's similar to an issue with articles, overtime good faith addition and clarification get added. Each part still works but overall the article starts to become bloated. The consensus editing of Wikipedia is great for corrections and maintenance, but each edit doesn't take the whole article into account. In the end a rewrite is needed, and doing so for large articles is no easy task. I have a lot of repect for editors who take on such work, it's beyond my abilities. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Without objection, I am pasting the new header to the main page. Feel free to edit it directly or revert my change if you believe it needs further discussion.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 12:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Without objection, I am pasting the new header to the main page. Feel free to edit it directly or revert my change if you believe it needs further discussion.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere it's similar to an issue with articles, overtime good faith addition and clarification get added. Each part still works but overall the article starts to become bloated. The consensus editing of Wikipedia is great for corrections and maintenance, but each edit doesn't take the whole article into account. In the end a rewrite is needed, and doing so for large articles is no easy task. I have a lot of repect for editors who take on such work, it's beyond my abilities. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's a long and overly wordy header. Modern web design (Wikipedia included) has taught readers to skip over such things to get to the actual content. The problem is now how to try and attract attention to the most crucial information, without them seeing a flood of information and just skipping. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Years ago, I re-wrote the top of
Wikipedia:Closure requests, and you might consider that style for some (definitely not most) headers. The two features I think are important are that there's a lot of text, but it's formatted to almost look like a normal page/article, so it's not as obtrusive as the same volume with a whole lot of colors. The other is that I used small colorful images for both functional (they mark the list items) and sort of "mood setting" purposes. It's a stressful page, so a little element of fun helps. Also (per feedback from many new editors) the unique images keep the page from looking just like all the other pages, and apparently sorting out which oblong gray blur is the right one a significant problem for them.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also replaced the original button style with the style used by MediaWiki.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made some copyedits.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support in principle. — Frostly ( talk) 17:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)