UESPWiki:Archive/CP Subpaging

Subpaging
Collected here are several topics concerned with the practice of subpaging. --Wrye 15:21, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Wiki Values: Open Discussion and Consensus Action
''This topic was originally created as pointer to the Principles Controvery topic, but quickly switched to Hoggwild5's suggestion that the discussion be subpaged, and so is included here.--Wrye 15:21, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Two of the core values (if not the'' two core values) of wiki are Open Discussion and Consensus action. I feel that we've been drifting away from that in recent months, and discuss that trend at length above under Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit War. These values are a basic issue and determine in a fundamental way what this "place" will be now, and in the future. I hope you'll take the time to wade through the verbiage.

(Note: I'm placing this pointer here for those might notice this topic, but not the seemingly smaller topic of "Edit War". However, to avoid confusion, if you have comments to make please add them there, rather than here.) --Wrye 03:28, 2 December 2006 (EST)

:I'd like to make a suggestion here -- this discussion is probably important enough that it needs to have it's own set of pages on the Wiki -- perhaps a page similar to the user sandbox pages under the Community Portal, with a link on the Community Portal page.  The reason I'm suggesting this is that:
:# There are currently two subheadings that involve this discussion; this makes it easier for commentary to get overlooked by those trying to follow and input on the discussion.
:# I expect that there will be a great deal of commentary made on this subject, and there is a risk of this subject taking over the Community Portal page and other issues getting overlooked.  In addition, the discussion can be left up for however much time the Community decides is appropriate without having it take up an inordinate amount of space on the Community Portal page. 
:A short paragraph introducing the discussion can be left on the Community Portal page, with a link to the discussion pages for this subject.
:Just my thoughts on the matter. --Hoggwild5 04:56, 2 December 2006 (EST)

:: I suggest moving this under a sub page of this page, and I suggest that we name the page  . It's important, it's about principles, it's princple. It's a "prolonged public dispute, debate", it's about controversial matters, it's a controversy. Artistic wordsmithing at it's best. :) --Aristeo | Talk 05:21, 2 December 2006 (EST)

::There are pros and cons to moving the content to a different page. The size and importance argue for a separate page. OTOH, moving would result in loss of the page history and a bit less advertising. (The community portal is watched by many, and subpage would be watched by few, and so a lot less people would notice an argument going on.) 

::Weighing those arguments, I was actually about to approve a move to different page when I noticed that Aristeo, having disregarded the basic principle of dispute resolution, had blanked my comments on the spammers talk page again. While my trust in Aristeo was low before, it's pretty close to zero now. So... 

::No. Do not move the discussion to another page. This is an important community discussion. It should stay here. --Wrye 20:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)

:::I also feel that this discussion should not be moved elsewhere, at least not yet. Once some sort of conclusion has been reached it should be moved, but until then I feel it's important enough to remain on this page. — Endareth  21:26, 3 December 2006 (EST)

: The suggestion to move this topic to a separate page was not to trivialize the importance of the topic -- it was exactly the opposite.  When this topic started, I could clearly see that there was going to be an incredible amount of discussion on the issue.  My suggestion that the topic be given its own space was to prevent this topic from overwhelming the Community Portal page and causing other issues that came up while this topic was active to be overlooked.  Any implication that there was any intention to the contrary is a misunderstanding on your part, and I'm somewhat offended that my words have been twisted in such a manner.  If you'll refer back to my opening statement you'll see exactly that.  I was very clear in my suggestion.  In addition, I suggested that a short summary of the discussion topic be left on the community portal with links to the primary discussion page.  That way, anyone interested in following the discussion could easily find the pages; plus this lends itself to actually printing off the discussion pages without getting additional topics not germaine to the discussions, making it easier for responders to refer back to previous comments by other editors while they are compiling their commentary without having to constantly toggle back and forth.

: Since there are contributors here that are demanding that other readers take the time to read the sometimes long winded diatribes that are taking place on this topic where the same statement is made over and over and over again, I think that turnabout is fair play and you can take the time to read a concise, bulletpoint discussion of why the suggestion was made in the first place.   By asking you to take the time to read it, I'm not implying that you should agree, just simply asking that you provide the same level of courtesy that you are demanding from others.

: I'm not going to repeat everything that I stated previously in support of the argument to provide the discussion with its own space, even though that seems to be commonplace in this discussion.  I find that behavior implicitly insulting to those of us taking the time to read through the discussions; repeatedly stating the same thing over and over again is not going to change the way the information is interpreted by the reader, nor is it going to cause the reader to change their opinions on the matter just because the author feels it is necessary to subject the reader to the same verbiage over and over again.  --Hoggwild5 05:10, 4 December 2006 (EST)

::I agree with Hoggwild5. Yes, it is an important issue to a few people here. But this is the community portal for UESP, not Wiki philosophy. UESP, content and community, is formed around the Elder Scrolls series of games from Bethesda. UESP existed before this Wiki. Wiki was implemented because it met some of the design criteria Daveh wanted when he redesigned the site. We may move away from wiki in the future. The content and community will go with it. It is not the methodology of presentation of the content that matters as much as the content itself. By all means, come to an agreement. And people will want to follow your thoughts, and maybe weigh in as you resolve it. You are the administrators after all, and it is your responsibility to work through it. But from the perspective of the Elder Scrolls Series of games, I don't see justification for this to take the majority of attention and space in the community portal. Maybe at a Wiki-centered site, yes. Or a site on the philosophy of management, but at UESP? It should be separate. --Sstasino 11:17, 4 December 2006 (EST)

::: Actually, given the last few posts here by various people, there does seem to be at least the beginnings of a conclusion–or at least we might be in a position to agree upon a bullet-point summary. If this is the case and a summary can be agreed on I withdraw my objections to the content in question being shifted. — Endareth  00:18, 5 December 2006 (EST)

:::: Summaries would probably be made in the formal form of policy and guideline pages such as . Anyone making a summary of the actual discussion is asking for trouble because different people have different opinions about different situations, and we all have the evidence to prove it. --Aristeo | Talk 19:06, 7 December 2006 (EST)

:::: Looks like we're all okay with the discussion being moved. Actually, I've proposed below that subpaging be done more generally and consistently. Also, bending Aristeo's suggestion slightly (I try to avoid using "The" in article titles when possible) "Principles Controversy" is fine with me. 

:::: As for the summary, How's this?
::::: Principles Controversy: Controversy over basic UESP Wiki principles and practices, including: Archiving (what and when), Civility (nature and enforcement on talk pages), Consensus, Irc Usage (limits as a decision making forum).

:::: For the move, if it's done pretty much as a straight cut and paste (with minor header releveling), then it shouldn't matter too much who does it. However, it would be best if someone relatively neutral did it (e.g., Endareth, Ratwar, Dynluge).

:::: In related note, I suspect that the discussion is about to slow down after this first heated exchange. I'd like Nephele's continued input, but I understand she's going to be busy for a couple of weeks. And we're all entering the Christmas season -- which of course, means: shopping, family visits, vacations, and of course -- new games under the tree! --Wrye 20:15, 7 December 2006 (EST)

::::: That's fine. :) I might make come polishing-related revisions if you make the change. --Aristeo | Talk 00:11, 8 December 2006 (EST)

::::::  I'll see how much time (and energy) I have for this over the weekend, and perhaps try to chip in on a couple of the policy pages.  As for moving the discussion to a subpage, that's fine with me. --Nephele 11:07, 8 December 2006 (EST)

In order to keep the Community Page from becoming too long, this section may be moved to a subpage in the near future. For more info, see: Community Portal Subpaging. --Wrye 18:50, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Community Portal Subpaging
I propose that we start subpaging individual topics on the Community Portal page as they promise/threaten to become quite long. (Here, I am largely expanding Hoggwild5's suggestion under Open Values above.)

Aside from the Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit war, there are probably several other topics which are long enough and yet still live and so could benefit from subpaging. In particular (after some renaming):
Anonymous Editing
Bread Crumb Change
Curing Stupidity
Morrowind Quest Pages
Patrollers (not long yet, but probably will be)
Principles Controversy (instead of Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit War)
Tamriel:Books Copyrights

I would suggest a navbar similar to the Archive links be added at top (Just below the archives links, if possible) with links to these subpages. And/or (perhaps better) add a level two section at the top of the page, titled "Major Discussions", which would have links to the subpages along with brief descriptions of each, and indication of status (Active, Resolved).

Wikipedia Comparison: I'm not sure what qualifies as a good comparison at Wikipedia. At first, Village Pump, seems reasonable, but the turnover on that page is huge (anything older than 5 days is archived, and anything in archive is deleted after 14 days). We're not that active, so that doesn't seem relevant to me. 

Note that for the Aristeo vs. Wrye (nee Principles Controversy?), I think that we're heading towards making our policies more explicit, which will result in new pages that won't be subpages of the community portal, but would be regular article pages (i.e., with separate article and discussion areas). However, that won't happen until after further debate/discussion. --Wrye 19:42, 7 December 2006 (EST)

:I haven't heard any objections to this yet, so I'm planning on doing it within several days -- maybe late this weekend. --Wrye 23:37, 14 December 2006 (EST)

:: I think it would be a very good idea. Just my 2 cents. Isak 12:51, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Done. Plus, new Major Discussion sidebar: In order to keep even the TOC from being too crowded, I've removed the old headers -- hopefully the new sideboard does the job well enough. Note that with the new design, I've tried to remove clutter, but still keep the major discussions section very obvious. If this design doesn't work, we can revert or try something else.

The only thing I didn't move was the community values section, which maybe should be merged into this section? Not sure. Anyway, I'm busy with several new mod-integration features in Bash (leveled list merging! Yeah!), so I'm leaving it until later. --Wrye 23:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)