Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

message: Less than 24 hours since launch, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? is already at 140 KB and got over 100 comments. I think this should be moved to a subpage so as not to overwhelm VPR for a month. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this, this was the original plan as discussed at WT:VECTOR2022, before another editor jumped the gun and posted their own RfC here. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 sounds like a better place to house the RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move Vector RFC to subpage? 

message: I think we need some unofficial clerks for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).  The two main tasks (IMO) would be:
* 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm doubtful that there's any decrease in participation.  About two-thirds of Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported a policy change was on dedicated subpages (and only one was at a village pump).  All but one thing at Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported a policy change and everything at Wikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something was on a dedicated subpage.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I've split off a long discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emoji redirects.  That brought the page down to just above a quarter million bytes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for some unofficial clerks 

message: 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 Sideways from this world ..... today 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Per User_talk:%CE%A3#General_archiving_not_occurring, I think it might be a general problem with Special:Contributions/Lowercase_sigmabot_III and/or some settings in it. Someone in that thread pinged  as someone who might know what to do Soni (talk)  23:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving, again.