Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →We need to fix the admin recall process: add a word for clarity |
→Date redirects to portals?: Reply |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 60:
*'''Yes''', speaking as a recognized ''portalista'', portals have not yet been excised from the pedia. In this case, User:J947 makes the essential point. I'm not convinced that even incomplete, out-of-date portals are any less encyclopedic than the 2 million or so Wikipedia articles nobody bothered to edit last year. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*Portals are not part of the encylopedia as we understand encyclopedias: sources of information. They serve as navigation within an encylopedia. We would not see a Portal as the final delivery of information, any more than we would see a contents page, index, blurb, or advert as the final information page. These are all ancillary. People mostly land on a Wikipedia article page without a Portal. I have used Wikipedia for nearly twenty years without ever needing a Portal to direct me to where I want to go, and I would assume this is true for the majority of people. Redirects are designed as a signpost, and we frown upon a signpost simply pointing to another signpost. People would generally only arrive at a Portal if directed there from a link that should more helpfully point to the appropriate article. The Belgium Portal is mentioned above as a good Portal. If we go to the Belgium article and scroll down, there is a link to the Belgium Portal. But the Portal mainly provides us with a digest of the Belgium article, including a link back to the Belgium article, which itself contains more links to Belgium related articles than the Belgium Portal. Huh? Seriously? Why are we taking readers away from a sublime source, rich with information and links, to an inferior source? There is nothing on the Belgium Portal that is not available on the Belgium article page - including links to news. But there is much on the Belgian article page that is not on the Belgium Portal page. My suggestion is that ALL links to portals such as the Belgium Portal should instead go to the main article page. Why are we redirecting people to a redirect page when we can send them to the main article on the topic? Portals are a waste of our time and resources, and are a misdirect for readers. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 22:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] Are you also specifically opposed to redirecting to the current events portal, which is more "encyclopedic" than "navigational"? [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not exactly comfortable with [[2006#August]] as a target as that itself is a signpost, but I see little value in us having two such signposts - that simply duplicates and confuses things. Either we have [[2006#August]] or we have [[Portal:Current events/2006 August 16]], and I'd much prefer we simply get rid of Portals, so I would obviously opt for [[2006#August]]. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The CE portal has more information for the reader, so I prefer it (see my arguments at [[WP:RDATE]].) [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 23:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] Your argument breaks down as soon as you realise that disambiguation pages and set indexes exist and that redirects to those pages are extremely common and uncontroversial. We also redirect people to outlines, broad concept articles and overviews. What is the "main article page" for a date? In all but a few exceptional cases there isn't a single article but multiple, and so just as if they had searched [[Mercury]], [[Bitter ash]] or [[Stuffed flatbread]] we present them with a menu of content that is relevant to their search term and let them choose what it is they want to read about. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*::See my answer above. I don't see the point in duplicating signposts. We have [[Belgium]], so we don't need [[Portal:Belgium]]; and we have [[2006#August]] so we don't need [[Portal:Current events/2006 August 16]]. Signposts are not part of the encyclopedia, but they are navigational aids which lead us to further information. However, we have built into every article multiple signposts to further information. We don't need to have duplicate signposts outside of mainspace to which people are directed away from mainspace to consult. It is a waste of our time and resources, and a misdirection for readers. Internal links are an elegant way of signposting to further information. Navigational templates are a little clunky, but are useful. Portals take readers away from the encyclopedia, and are a pointless timesink for both editors and readers. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Portals are just as much part of the encyclopaedia as set indexes and navigational templates. [[Portal:Belgium]] and [[Belgium]] fulfil very different roles in the encyclopaedia, neither is a duplicate of the other. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== Issues with antiquated guideline for [[WP:NBAND]] that essentially cause run of the mill non-notable items to be kept ==
Line 392 ⟶ 398:
:::::::He was going to lose if he didn't apologize, and he didn't want to apologize. That simple. As others have said, that was his choice to make, and I respect it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Except that he ''did'' apologize, although there were differing views of whether that apology was enough. This oversimplification is what's wrong with the way discussions happen in this process. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::He woulda had to apologize more, then, including for the stuff that came out during the petition, and any other stuff that may have come out during the RRfA. He woulda had to answer questions about it, make promises, etc., basically go through what Graham went through, and realize that even that (answering questions, making promises) might not be enough (as it wasn't for Graham). It's not at all irrational for someone to choose not go through that. Being an admin isn't worth all that to some (e.g., to me), especially if you might not get it despite your best efforts. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"Someone decided that it just isn't worth it" does not equal "the process worked". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, those two things are not the same. If you want to know why I think the process worked, it's because it stopped disruption, did it faster than Arbcom, and I think with less drama (though admittedly the third one is purely subjective and speculative). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Um, thanks for sharing? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::On the petition page, I conducted a careful analysis of the evidence. Nobody refuted what I said there. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||