Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dlthewave (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 14 March 2018 (→Firearms/Mass shootings RfC: Poll update discrepancies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WT:VPP

Section sizes in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) Section size for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (23 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,085 2,085 LLM/chatbot comments in discussions 1,232 213,635 opening comments 28,702 28,702 section break 1 12,668 12,668 section break 2 17,190 17,190 section break 3 15,563 15,563 section break 4 89,296 89,296 Section break 5 45,995 45,995 Alternate proposal 2,989 2,989 Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures? 17,737 17,737 Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons 9,771 9,771 Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move 12,070 12,070 CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references 8,212 8,212 AFD clarification 7,059 7,059 RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation 60,872 76,285 Discussion 15,413 15,413 Audio-video guidance 1,724 1,724 Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles 5,210 10,142 Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections 4,932 4,932 Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule? 15,411 15,411 Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles 3,516 3,516 I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined 887 887 Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? 2,060 2,060 Total 380,594 380,594

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Notability within bio

Full original section heading: Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That title was so like the title of a Victorian novel. Impressed. Aditya 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Convenience" links in WP's tabs

Who makes heavy use of the "Table of contents", "First discussion", "End of page", and "New post" links near the top of each VP tab? I use them only on rare occasion and believe they are examples of poor user interface design. I suspect the visual clutter detriment far exceeds the intended benefit of more convenient navigation. If these links "made sense", then every page with a longer table of contents ought to have them. They aren't ubiquitous because it's overkill. The "New Page" link is duplicating the native Mediawiki "+" menu item. The "First discussion" and "End of page" can be found easily by normal browser scrolling like we do on talk pages. Those two links seem particularly useless to me. The first is linking to the oldest active discussion and probably the most likely thread to be stale. The click-through rate for that link must be very low. The second is linking to the end of a page in a way that requires one to use the scrollbar most of the time anyway to scroll back up to see the beginnings of the new threads you are interested in. The "Table of contents" link has the same issue: often the TOC is so long you need to use the scrollbar anyway so why not just use it in the first place? Heck, the links themselves and the horizontal rule (!) contribute to lengthening the top of the page, which adds to the very vertical space problem that some of these links are trying to solve. I am sure some people use these links but I suspect they are not heavily used. The question is a matter of design and after considering them for a bit I believe they should be removed. It would make the initial VP experience much cleaner and clearer for newer visitors. Thoughts? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the TOC so I can see if there are any discussions I'm interested in rather than scrolling through the whole page. I don't much use the rest though. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the TOC too. I am not suggesting we remove it. I'm suggesting we remove the link to the TOC. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as the TOC, why not just use what WP:TH does with it? We use a scrollbar in the TOC itself instead of having to scroll through the page itself. — Gestrid (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The WP:TH's scrollable TOC seems okay to me but I don't really view a scrollable TOC as an advantage to the normal TOC because either way the user has to use the scrollbar. But modification to the TOC itself is seperate than my suggestion. It's the link to the TOC that I'm suggesting to remove. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To be more specific. In {{Village pump page header}} I am discussing the possibly removing the code:

<div class="hlist" style="text-align:center;">
* ]
* ]
* ]
* {{Edit|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|section=new|New post}}
</div>

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that. I see what you're talking about now. It wouldn't bother me to get rid of that, but it also doesn't bother me to have it there. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't even notice that. I don't use it. If it's ok with everyone else to get rid of it, it's ok with me. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I created a mockup of how I think a "minor" redesign of the VP might look. It consists of three changes: A) the removal of the links above, B) a reordering of the tabs, and C) more rounding on the tabs for a refreshing visual change. Now that I can see my ideas in practice. I notice two things, the removal of the links encourages the editor to actually read the header text of each tab but there may be some value to the "Table of contents" link and "New post". At the moment I am still considering Change A. Change B I think is a slam dunk improvement. The "Idea lab" tab ought to be first. It also has the advantage of not have a redirect notice banner like the "Policy" tab does so there's less visual clutter for new visitors. C was intended just to remind me whether I was on my mockup or the real VP but it kind of looks and feels like a nice change. After I stew on it for a while and think of other potential changes, I may post to the "Idea lab" or even "propoals" regarding this. Thank you for your input. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Along with laziness, apathy, and time limitation, clutter is one of the reasons people don't read the tops of pages. Every element should earn its keep, and these links don't. They are "nice to have" for a small fraction of users. I've never seen a need to use any of them and I think I'm functional enough at VP.
2. Unless one of our skins omits the standard "New section" link, I see no point in a redundant "New post" link. Multiple ways to accomplish the same thing is unjustified complexity—and tends to add to confusion and learning curve for new users.
3. I'm neutral as to Idea lab first, but it should precede Proposals.
4. Neutral as to curved tabs. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Mandruss. Order-wise there's not much choice for the tabs. We both agree that "Idea lab" must be before "Proposals". Because they are closely related it makes sense they be adjacent. And as the first stage for ideas, it seems like it ought to be first. The "Miscellaneous" tab must obviously come last. "Technical" is almost like a "Miscellaneous" category so should come directly before "Miscellaneous". And "Policy" similar to "Proposals" so must come to the immediate right. Not sure what if any thought went into having "Idea lab" in the middle. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Since we already have a "new section" tab less than two inches above the "new post" tab, do we really need it? and (2) I clicked on the "first discussion" tab and nothing happened, so what is it supposed to do? Aditya 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I never use that set of links, and I am willing to support removal if no significant opposition arises. However I oppose changing the shapes of the tabs. It's an I don't like it oppose, however I expect any support for it would be an equally weighty I like it. Alsee (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed for first sentence in this article?

Does the first sentence in Two knights endgame need a citation? Bubba73 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73: The lead of the article usually does not need citations if it simply summarizes the article per WP:LEAD (those other sections would normally contain referenced material). There are exceptions, like when a sentence is contentious. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The first sentence of the article states what it is about, but an editor has repeatedly put "citation needed" on it. Bubba73 04:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to request a source for that sentence, given that it is definining the problem with some very specific claims ("the defending king possibly having some other material" and "The material with the defending king is usually one pawn"). The reference doesn't need to be inline in the lede, but it should be explained somewhere in the body text how we arrived to that definition and what reliable sources have defined the scope of this endgame. Diego (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I would even argue that the amount of detail to describe what the defending player could have is too much detail for the lede, and should be the first section to describe the situation, thus providing a clean place in the body for the sources for that. That lede doesn't summarize the article very well and is more being used as a background/setup paragraph. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

obnoxious formatting

right now this page is rendering basically unreadable on small screens. It appears to be being caused by a photo gallery in the discussion about trains, which is so long it should probably be on it’s own dedicated subpage anyway. It’s really obnoxious having to zoom in in order to read anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked the user who added those images to refactor that part of their comment, but they have not responded yet (and have not edited this wiki since Dec 17th). Do you, Beeblebrox—or anyone else—think the problem is pressing anough to refactor the image gallery for them? - dcljr (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because there’s no reason for one user’s edits to be inconveniencing others. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Did this fix the problem, Beeblebrox? - dcljr (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see it until after it was fixed, but it definitely would have been appropriate to apply an immediate fix. It surely falls within the intent of talk page guidelines: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read, as well as IAR for cleaning up any problem. Even on my widescreen desktop it drove the page to a fugly horizontal scrollbar. Alsee (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the page is rendering normally now, thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firearms/Mass shootings RfC: Poll update discrepancies

In my opinion, it's inappropriate to include this unofficial tally in the RfC without an explanation of why the counts do not match the !votes. I'm moving it here temporarily. –dlthewave ☎ 23:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies

There seem to be a few discrepancies in a recent update to the tally. I count the following:

• 11 for 1A (instead of 19)
• 18 for 1C (instead of 13)
• 7 for 2A (instead of 18)
• 27 for 2C (instead of 21)

I'm sure there's a reason for this, such as adding ambiguous !votes like "oppose" to one of the categories. @Thewolfchild: could you explain your methodology? –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, first off, I did say; It's by no means meant to be official, final or even determinative.. It's just a rough tally. but that said, when people simply wrote "oppose", what do you think they mean? And where would you count their !votes? - WOLFchild 05:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how you arrived at these numbers. –dlthewave ☎ 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)