Talk:Vector 2022

Editnotice request
Wikipedia related topic. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  23:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ While this was requested in good faith, I don't feel adding this edit notice without an explicit consensus for it would be appropriate given people making arguments like Special:Diff/1135232031 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that the edit notice is appropriate here, despite any concerns from a particular WP:POV. Graham (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this a standalone article?
We don't have articles on the Facebook, Reddit, Digg redesigns (the last one pretty much killed the website) etc. All of those got orders of magnitude more coverage, so how is this having a standalone article not WP:UNDUE?

Surely this can just be integrated into History_of_Wikipedia or maybe even a subsection? Legoktm (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Notable redesigns of websites
 * Well, in theory, I guess.
 * Anyway, I can understand that argument, this article was kinda created out of an urge to incorporate the topic and (at the time) not having any better idea as to how to do that. If there's consensus to merge this article to History of Wikipedia I would be happy to do so. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with 's sentiments above. This is a subsection at best. If there's no vocal opposition, I'll probably boldly merge to History_of_Wikipedia within the next few days. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. My first thought when I saw this article is that it might not meet WP:PERSISTENCE. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up at AFD. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC discussion as source
I see we're currently using the RfC discussion as an inline citation (twice). I assume these should be removed as sources? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I believe we should keep it. The RfC itself is mentioned in the Slate article, so its relevance to the topic is backed up by a secondary source, and citing a historical Wikipedia discussion as a primary source is a norm in articles about notable Wikipedia-related topics. There are sources to Wikipedia in, for instance, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy (where the relevant discussion is included as an external link) and other such articles. WP:ABOUTSELF gives allowance for self-published citations when it is relevant to the subject, and this is one case where that applies. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  21:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)