Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Header

Moving the report boxes downwards
, I noticed you the current RfA box and the recent RfA box down the page. My usual habit was to go first to the main WP:RfA page, then use the "current RfA" box to navigate to the individual RfA subpages. I have no idea who else does that, but this change disrupts that a bit. I understand that the boxes are now thematically linked to the sections they're in, but I feel like their purpose of providing an overview of the current state of RfA is better served by having them at the top. I dunno. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do that too, and I liked it at the top. Especially because it can be inline with text, I don't see the point in putting text above it. KSF  T C 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's awful, it's just a morass of text which you have to now wade through to get to the RfAs themselves. Nick (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand and am not totally surprised at your reactions. The rationale for this was in the discussion here: . – wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see that - thanks for the link! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017
please change "votes" to !votes 95.49.104.143 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Continuing to re-post the same request (and as a noted WP:LTA) is not advisable. Izno (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"Two Thirds" Description
recently changed the description to read as follows: In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below two-thirds will fail), where "two-thirds" previously read 65%. Since the 2015 RFC specifically used 65%, I think it's best to use that language, even if two-thirds is a close approximation. I know this isn't a policy document per se, but I think it's best to be consistent everywhere. I especially think we should avoid changing while there's an RFA going on currently sitting at 66.8%. I'm fine if others want to change the wording (especially since 65% still appears in the same sentence), but I think there should be some discussion first. MarginalCost (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not inconsistent to say 65% is discretionary and almost all RfAs below a two-thirds_vote will fail. Both parts of the sentence are true. The grey area is always judged by bureaucrats, who don't just count !votes, but evaluate them and consider the neutral comments. Jonathunder (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Messing about with the layout
The current version is dreadful. It looks like you've tried to squeeze the items below the "Search RfA" box onto one line. On my PC, from left to right, I see:

Requests for Current time is 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page Requests for adminship and bureaucratship

The next line begins adminship (RfA) then a big gap, then the table. On the next line, there is more text, beginning "is the process by which ..."

Please revert, and if you intend making further changes, test them in a sandbox and get community consensus. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFX report being unreadable in portrait orientation of smartphones was discussed in WT:RFA. But I reverted the changes per your request. Meanwhile, I created a sandbox version... just copying the lead. George Ho (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies . The changes did not affect the layout in desktop view (using a mobile device) but they apparently did affect the default view of desktop users. Perhaps the same is true when using mobile view from a desktop compared to the default view from a mobile device, IDK. But it does make testing more difficult when you've one or the other, but not both. Nevertheless, you are correct and I will abide. Aside that: perhaps you could have a look at the accessibility issue affecting Mobil device users in the default view (as proficient as you are well know to be). It shouldn't be a matter where page rendering for one group adversely affects usability for the other.  The current situation does adversely affect the default view for mobile device users (a large and growing group) while concern for correcting these I'll effects remains minimal! Please review the entire thread at . Thank you, best regards, and be well.--John Cline (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, and others: I believe I've found a workable solution. Using if mobile I was able to correct some things in mobile view without changing anything in desktop view. I've done all the testing I can do and I've invited others to help by looking at the sandbox version, especially if they have a PC. Any way, User:John Cline/Outhouse is the equivalent of Requests for adminship with User:John Cline/sandbox transcluding content in place of the /Header. Once I confirm that no adverse conditions exist, especially for actual PC users, I plan to move forward with the changes. Please have a look and let me know if things are in order. Thanks --John Cline (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tested the page on a smartphone. It works well, but I wonder whether "if mobile" needs protection. If not, then... ah, well.... George Ho (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If no response from Redrose64, then consensus can be implied. Right? George Ho (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to have someone using an actual PC verify that their default view is unadulterated; just to ensure there's no difference between the true desktop view and the desktop modification for mobile. There shouldn't be, but verification would be prudent.--John Cline (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:John Cline/Outhouse is better than the version that I first linked, although the live version is even better. Why does the Outhouse one need that big blank space? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it doesn't need extra white space; I'm looking to see what I can find.--John Cline (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . George Ho (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Checked my smartphone; the portrait orientation appears unaffected, though the Mobile View on desktop/laptop... Well, at least the template is still scrollable on smartphones. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK then. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * from the sandbox. Still works well differently on mobile and on desktop. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)