This page is for discussion about the page Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
I absolutely agree, but I might suggest a more vague title such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Feedback on Vector 2022 launch. Because of Question #2 etc. I would also propose a Question 3 which is a hybrid Vector 2010 with the purple links, additional sidebar TOC added, and restricted width as a default-off on-sidebar toggle. (everything else the same as V10 including the original on-page TOC) — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 18:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that, the primary proposal is whether to roll back the skin entirely. Any alternate proposals should be filed under a new Level 3 heading titled "Alternate proposals" or something. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I worry that would overly de-emphasize those alt proposals. Having the "rollback" Q be first is already clearly a benefit to answering that Q and I expect it will have the most responses no matter what we do. It's not going to be an issue, but I also don't think it's particularly important what the page name actually is, as long as it's short. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main question that is the subject of the RfC is whether Vector 2022 should be rolled back. This should be made clear in the title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: while moving the RfC also reorganise the comments into support and oppose subsections.--Æo (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: most of my watchlist entries are now discussions about the new skin; they dwarf changes to the actual encyclopedia. Let's separate this understandably large discussion to avoid drowning out other important business. Certes (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We can just have notices on those pages indicating the move, and it will help VP and VPT remain functional for longer. A small box could also be added to the top of WT:VECTOR2022 saying "here to discuss whether or not to keep the new design? and if so, how? Please discuss further here." — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A link is already on the FAQ, which I've also transcluded on the talk page's editnotice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a proposal on my talk page to reorder all comments into "Support", "Oppose", and "Discussion", similar to the format of the previous RfC. This will take time to do, however. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kizor has completed the reorganization, as discussed at § Publicizing this RfC and my talk page. I will be executing the split shortly, stand by. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to do the later. The number of inward links low for these 3 archives (197, 198, 199). WP:TPO allows for fixing links. – robertsky (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And... moved, moved, moved, edited links on the following pages:
197->196:
User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Community tension with the WMF
.. and adjusted the counter to 198 as well, some 1.5-2 hours before the next archival edit is made by the bot. If the bot ends up creating 199 instead of adding to 198, we can adjust the counter back. – robertsky (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice when the section heading claims it's an RFC, but it isn't actually a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, because the OP never added the {{rfc}} template, and either change the section heading or encourage the OP to get it properly listed.
Notice when a predictably large discussion is being started, and gently encourage them to have that discussion on a separate, dedicated page. (The goal is to keep the village pump pages short enough that people can actually use them, which definitely means a page size shorter than 500K, is probably under 250K, and might be as small as 100K. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#SIZESPLIT but for Village pumps, where we're trying to hash out a goal size.)
Does anyone else see these problems, and would anyone like to help out with the work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with #2; part of the reason we have discussions at the village pump is to get broad participation, and holding the discussions on a separate page inhibits that. Yes, the pages can become more difficult to use, but I think the negative impacts of that is less than the negative impacts of reduced participation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you might have a faster device and/or internet connection than me! I find heavyweight discussion pages very difficult to deal with. None of a page can be read in the mobile interface until the entire thing loads into memory, since all the subsections start out collapsed. If a discussion gets over about 100k, I'll just read it in diff mode if I'm tryna follow it.I think the slight downtick in participation that may be (data, anyone?) associated with holding it on a dedicated subpage with just a link on the VP itself, is probably an acceptable tradeoff for keeping the pages' resource footprint on the lighter side. Folly Mox (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One good clerky action would be to keep a regularly updated section at the main VP page pointing to the subpage. The updates could be as simple as "discussion is ongoing". It might encourage further participation and notify watchlisters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting improves watchlists, allowing us to tell easily whether a contribution summarised as "/* Discussion */ Reply" is on a subtopic of interest. Of course, the main pump would keep a short section containing a static wikilink to the subpage. Certes (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting is useful, the size of the paid admin proposal was starting to break the page. But I don't think discussions need to be moved to a subpage straight away, let them start and be moved once they get to a certain size. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 10:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IG as said above, size can be an issue - We can start putting size limits where we keep pages to <some limit to be decided later> size here, and a discussion that exceeds it is moved to another page, with a copy of the opening comment and a link to the rest of the discussion. That way, particiants get the gist of what was proposed, and can easily go participate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I often read on a mobile device and connection; I just use the desktop site. Even with Vector2022, it's far better than Minerva in terms of usability and in term of responsiveness. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed today that several inactive threads were not auto-archived. I don't know why that is but one-click seems to work just fine and I've used it to archive some stale discussions. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I've kicked it again and added a workaround in case this issue happens again. — The Earwig (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]