Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 6

Clarity of listings
I agree that the presentation of the notification of discussions on Cent needs attention, and initially I felt that the suggestions made above by Andy Mabbett and supported by DragonHawk were helpful and I incorporated the ideas into Centralized_discussion. After trialing it now for a while I note that the clarity of information has started to diminish in a desire to be economical, and established good practise, such as dating the listings, is slipping. I also note that people are not turning up to the discussions as much as they used to, perhaps because it is not clear what the discussions are about. While keeping some of the excellent ideas proposed, such as only having one link, I have returned to the established style of a more fuller explanation of what the discussion is about. We can certainly continue to adjust and improve - and I agree that words such as "Discussion" and "Proposal" can become monotonous with repetition - however, I do feel that people like to know what is going on, and for those writing the listings it can be easier to use familiar natural language.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The very minimal descriptions weren't helpful. – xeno talk 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to your changes; which I have just reverted, since they ignore the recently-achieve consensus. For example your version had "Discussion regarding if removing unsourced contentious material from BLP articles can be supported with blocks done by involved admins" - which is both ungrammatical and begins with two redundant words. It is also far too verbose. The dating issue has nothing to do with these changes; and you offer no evidence of a link between the changes and a perceived lack of interest in discussions.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 06:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple points:
 * The lack of dating has nothing to do with the style change. I have long seen edits that do nothing but add pulldates for others' edits.  I think that's business as usual.
 * The theory that editors find it easier to write in natural language seems reasonable. Fortunately, this is a wiki.  People can contribute however they can, and others can edit for style.
 * The theory that people are not turning up for discussions as frequently lacks data.
 * Taking said theory as given, we still have no idea if the style change impacted it. Correlation is not causation.  If I were looking for a reason, I'd speculate first that most contributors are in the Northern hemisphere, and with spring coming around, more people are outside enjoying the weather rather than stuck inside editing Wikipedia.  :)
 * I disagree with the assertion that the old style automatically provided more information ("more fuller explanation"). More words does not equal more information.  The words removed were largely filler; the rest of the words are still there, just in a different order.
 * All that said, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. I suggest the problem is not the concept, but the implementation.  For example, I just edited several entries (before, after) to (hopefully) improve clarity.
 * Respectfully submitted, — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think that "MoS page titles - Consistency/rationalization" is too short to understand what is under discussion. Ditto "Reference works & notability (policy pump)". We should find a middle ground here. – xeno talk 12:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could well be. Do you have any specific suggestions, please?  It's valid for you to say you find something suboptimal, but without ideas for how to improve things it's hard for others to know what you want.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a return to the more natural-language formulation would be best, brevified somewhat but not to the extent it is now. It's worked for some time now. The other suggestions are fine, though. – xeno talk 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, personally, I find "We've always done it that way" to be one of the worst arguments for keeping anything. Again, that's my opinion; others are entitled to disagree.  But either way, I suspect if you don't have anything specific, you're unlikely to get the results you want.  Wiki favors those who write the words they want.  Vague suggestions tend to get lost.  I'd think we'd all like to work together to find a middle ground, as you say, but I'm at a loss here.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Melodia below. These descriptions are needlessly short, to the point of even leaveing whitespace on the right side of the template that could be used to better explain the listings. E.g. – xeno talk 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ""MoS page titles - Consistency/rationalization"" is perfectly adequate, to attract editors with an interest in MoS page titles; any further understanding can be gleaned by clicking on the link - this template is, after all, a list of links. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't, because I saw "MoS page titles" and thought it was referring to Manual of Style (titles) instead of "the titles of MoS pages". The brevity is taxing the clarity of the message. Nifboy (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out WHY such brevity is needed. I can understand not wanting to be overly wordy, but as someone else said, it can be TOO short too. What's wrong with "RFC on the Consistency of MoS page titles"? How the HELL is such a sentence too long? And again, why is the shorter version needed? What particular benefit does it give? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the text "RFC on the " is utterly redundant; this being a list of nothing but requests for comment. Changing the order of the remainder to, say, "MoS page title consistency" puts the subject first, and thus aids scan-reading. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question of why the brevity is NEEDED. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To improve readability, accessibiity and usability. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of CENT is to give readers a short, but explanatory description of the discussion. Forcing them to click through to see what it's actually about because the listings have been made needlessly short defeats the purpose. – xeno talk 14:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Also, it should be borne in mind that there's an element of marketing here: it's not a phone directory where people are looking for specific info; a listing here is effectively a call to action (in marketing speak). As such it should be framed in a way that conveys a sense of "you really should participate", without doing anything as clumsy as saying so. Hence keywords like "Discussion" and "RFC" (which perhaps convey a sense of activity which people really shouldn't miss out on) should be kept, even though they will be repetitive and somewhat redundant. Rd232 talk 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) What it's actually about, in this example, is "MoS page title consistency". What extra information is conveyed by "RFC on the Consistency of MoS page titles"? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It conveys that it has moved to an RFC level beyond mere discussion. – xeno talk 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which, particularlly since anyone can label any discussion an RfC, is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. – xeno talk 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also tend to disagree. Knowing that it a discussion is an RfC indicates that the discussion has reached out for broader community support and that more editors without in-depth knowledge of the subject could be expected to participate.  A simple discussion tells me the debate's participants may be from a narrower subset of users interested in the subject or following Cent.  These are general assumptions that are not always true, but they give a hint of how far the discussion has progressed. —Ost (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough consensus to persist with the experiment of shortening the listings. It has proved not to work. And the reverts are not taking into account that a new listing has been made, so the reverts are removing that new listing.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no experiment; and no such proof has been made. If you wish to change the existing consensus, established here through reasoned dialogue, do so here before attempting to implementing it by fiat. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus either way, so the status quo has been restored. This is how it has always been. – xeno talk 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The status quo was the abbreviated form whchh has been in use for over a month; as a result of courteous and productive discussion, which you can read above. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The status quo is what has existed for years. – xeno talk 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) A discussion with three participants doesn't count as consensus, if the above section is the one that you are touting as supporting the change. Even the short description for this thread—Listings on Template:Cent - Short, medium, or long?—is lacking; unless one reads this discussion, I don't think that that "short, medium, or long?" has much meaning. I expect Cent to provide summaries that give me enough information to know if I might be interested in the discussion. —Ost (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my immediate impression was that it was about time lengths rather than description lengths. Nifboy (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should listings on Template:Cent be short, medium, or long? So I start looking for a discussion on dates and how long stuff is listed on Cent. Cleary it's too short. Gnevin (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The entry for this discussion being ambiguous is as clear an example as any of the need to put clarity above brevity. Editing down the words of others without losing meaning is a skill, and if anyone has been doing this clumsily instead of with finesse merely in order to reduce the number of words then they should stop. Cent notices have to convey enough information to make it clear what the discussion is about: they should not be vague. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is once again a complete mess. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "You call that a complete mess? This is a complete mess!" Seriously, it's fine. Clarity over beauty, here. Rd232 talk 11:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Execpt it's not clear. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's not clear? Rd232 talk 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the entries, and the targets of the ambiguous links; which are once again in breach of web accessibility guidelines. In fact the template is now worse than when I first raised this issue. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion: we did. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's fixed, then why are you complaining it's broken? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because somebody broke it, after it was fixed. Please read the above discussion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then fix it again. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for Andy's "fix". – xeno talk 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We tried the excessively short and confusing way, the normal way is simply better all-around. – xeno talk 13:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your preferred way is both confusing and in breach of clear and unambiguous accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And seems to be preferred by a wide margin. Our default skin isn't valid HTML either. It seems we've elevated function over fashion. – xeno talk 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the validity of the default skin's HTML have to do with the issue at hand? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That strict adherence to W3C guidelines is not necessarily at the top of Wikipedia's priority list. – xeno talk 14:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see only three entries with additional links other than the one to get to the discussion/proposal/foo. – xeno talk 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's "confusing" to you is FAR less confusing to me. And WTF are "unambiguous accessibility guidelines"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those guidelines referred to above. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link" The links are titled "Discussion", "Proposal" etc. The target is clearly the discussion or proposal described on the line item. Not seeing a web accessibility issue here. – xeno talk 14:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple links with the same linking text but different targets are not "clearly identified". Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I don't share it. – xeno talk 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not; but the W3C do, and thus your failure to grasp the current problem is of no import. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for dogmatic adherence to W3C guidelines when it clearly is not desired by the consumers of Template:Cent - who are by and large tenured editors who understand the template just fine. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that is a problem; the text after the link identifies what the link is about. I don't have an expectation for linking text to be unique to a URL, and it doesn't seem like many other users do. The only current item that confuses me is the one that does not have "proposal" linked. Xeno rightly points out that the format of this template is dictated by consensus of its users, not by arbitrary external guidelines. —Ost (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The tools used by, for example, some blind people, read out the links on a page without reading the surrounding text. Each link text is therefore required to be meaningful in isolation, and unique. W3C's WCAG guidelines are not "arbitrary". Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I sympathize the users of the tools, but really the tools should be made to deal with how information is presented online; sites shouldn't have to change their formats to conform to standards created by the software mechanism. That being said, if we're stuck with current tools and if this template presents a problem for the current accessibility tools, a more accessible template could be created to mirror the same information in a different format. This would provide an visually-impaired alternative while keeping this template usable for visual users. —Ost (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the W3C WCAG team will be glad to hear from you, since you apparently believe that you know more about web accessibility than they do. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I knew more than anyone; I proposed an alternative as I was trying to address your helpfully specific example of your concern. My optimism about software that could read the sentential context of a link may have been unnecessary. That doesn't change my opinion that this template is designed in a manner consistent with the style of Wikipedia. I don't understand why this template should be changed to be inconsistent with the format of similar list templates such as the more visible {{tl|In the news} or Did you know. —Ost (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a user of JAWS, the most popular Windows screen reader; its Internet functionality has been copied over to many other modern screen readers. Having several links with the same text is only a big problem when a user is creating a list of links on a page; doing so on this page would defeat its purpose. repeated link descriptions are not a problem for proficient screen reader users like myself, who know how to read the text of a page to determine the context of a link. It is worth keeping in mind that JAWS puts each link on its own line, so a page with too many links can be hard to read. However I don't have a problem with the current format of Template:Centralized discussion. Graham 87 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Redux
The template currently includes these links:


 * Vote
 * RfC:
 * RfC:
 * A proposal
 * A discussion
 * RfC:
 * Requests for comment:
 * Request for comment:
 * RfC
 * Discussion
 * RfC

This is not good; as explained previously. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dogmatic adherence to W3C guidelines is not needed when we've decided that something else works better for us. Template:CENT is largely focused at editing contributors, not readers. I've made tweaks for internal consistency, however. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly one opinion... Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is also only one opinion. Above, others have already given indicated their preference for items to be linked this way.  Consistency is nice and I support xeno's cleanup, but I also don't think it's a big concern nor do I believe that your previously proposed format aiming for W3C compliance is right for this template; It makes it feel counter to Wikipedia linking. There is no reason why a W3C compatible template could not be created if there is a need for it, though Graham points out above that this should not be necessary since this template isn't merely a page of links. —Ost (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes straw poll closed - Remove from template?
The straw poll for Pending changes has been closed. Should this discussion be removed from the Centralized discussion template, or replaced with something? - Hydroxonium (talk &#124; contribs) 08:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Request To Add
I am requesting to add Template_talk:Cleanup-list.Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting to add Template_talk:Guideline.Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting to add Template_talk:Subcat_guideline.Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting to add Template_talk:Lead_rewrite

I am requesting to add Template_talk:Lead_too_shortBernolákovčina (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest the author of this request first try normal discussion on talkpages, and see what ensues. If no proper discussion should be forthcoming, he could always repost his request. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, this is not the please for such requests. This is the template talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that CENT should be used sparingly otherwise it would soon grow too large. However I can't see why "this is not the place for such requests", as the editor is unconfirmed. Where else should they post requests related to a semiprotected template? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought this is the place to discuss the template itself. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see. Still, I think the issues raised by Bernolákovčina are not of the proper importance and of a sufficient global nature to warrant their inclusion here. Would you agree? Debresser (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)