User:Cessaune/sandbox

Summary of question #1 RfC arguments
At this point, it is unlikely that any groundbreaking argument for or against is going to be presented, so I am going to organize all the arguments and rank them two ways: how I think proponents for those arguments view themand how I think WMF views them. I read through pretty much all the responses, and I am condensing the major arguments because there are way too many.

Support

 * 1) IDONTLIKEIT - okay. Pretty self explanatory.
 * 2) *0/10 for WMF. Why? Doesn't explain anything. Doesn't give any reasoning.
 * 3) *10/10 for proponents of the argument - they simply dislike the change so much that a lot of people don't feel it is necessary to articulate specifically what they dislike.
 * 4) WMF bias - survey on general user opinion, survey on border type, email outreach - to name a few instances where discussion has taken place. People have called "canvassing", ""
 * 5) *6/10-10/10 depending on who's talking - there have been numerous instances where it
 * 6) *0/10 - WMF won't comment on their own alleged bias. This is a fact of any company, so no reason to get mad at WMF. I'm sure a lot of WMF employees disagree with the way that WMF as a whole is handling this, but WMF isn't going to entertain—or even acknowledge—any argument that they are biased. Again, this is a fact of any company.
 * 7) White space - people have complained about the white space between the TOC and the article, the non-persistence of the toolbar leaving a lot of white on the right side, the general loss of space on bigger screens, to name a few arguments.
 * 8) TOC - many people dislike the new floating TOC. People have talked about the floating TOC itself, while others have talked not about the new TOC but about the loss of the old one.
 * 9) *1/10 for WMF - the new TOC is objectively much better for users, based on what I believe to be an unbiased A/B test held by WMF (I can't find the link, sorry). Personally, I think this is one of the only times where WMF's resistant to change argument is actually effective. I wholeheartedly agree with the WMF stance on this one.
 * 10) *7/10-10/10 depending on who's talking - for many, this is the main problem with the new UI. The non-persistent TOC is an integral part of every single iteration of Wikipedia, and essentially every online -pedia built on MediaWiki software (or not; Britannica comes to mind) since the beginning of the Wikipedia project and even beforehand (Nupedia and such).
 * 11) Width - People have talked about the width being a problem they have with V2022. People have described it as being
 * 12) *3/10 for WMF - based on a test they held (man I really can't find the link, that's annoying), the smaller width is objectively better for readers.
 * 13) *4/10-10/10 - for many, this is a minor annoyance, for others, this is a dealbreaker. The extremeness on the argument, I have observed, typically falls along partisan lines: readers are kinda annoyed with the width change; editors tend to be more agitated.
 * 14) Icons - many editors have expressed dislike with the new icons, as they hide so-called important commands in dropdowns.
 * 15) *4-6/10 for the users - no one's really dying on this hill, but many dislike it and would rather have plain text that only needs to be clicked once, as opposed to icons that require you to click twice and sometimes three times.
 * 16) *2/10 for WMF - this is the crux of WMF's resistance to change argument. Click twice.
 * 17) Accessibility - link color changes. Accessibility is a major focus in to basically all arguments

Oppose
An interesting thing I have observed is that a lot more oppose arguments boil down to ILIKEIT than support arguments that boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. There are many reasons to like it, but a lot of oppose arguments are not being specific about those reasons. I guess it's easier to give reasoning when you dislike something than it is to explain why you like something.
 * 1) ILIKEIT - again, pretty self explanatory.
 * 2) *0/10 for WMF. Pretty much the same as saying IDONTLIKEIT.
 * 3) *8-9/10 for proponents of the argument - they like the change, and do not see any major fault with it (barring the natural user annoyance that comes with a major UI/UX change) so a lot of people don't feel it is necessary to state specifically what they like.
 * 4) TOC - many editors have noted the new TOC as a positive highlight, particularly noting its ease of use and persistence.
 * 5) *10/10 for WMF - they already have evidence (in the form of a test, not a survey) that the new TOC is more effective. They aren't going to change this back.
 * 6) *8-10/10 - people like it. It sticks with them, allowing people to navigate to anywhere they want without have to a) mindlessly scroll to find what they want or b) scroll to the top to find it.

Basically no one is completely infatuated with the new interface (though a lot of people consider it an improvement), but many completely hate it. editors are not required to cite sources in talk page discussions. - SPecifico