Content deleted Content added
→Some cleanup: Reply |
HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 12:
::::::You added this entire sentence "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months." There is no need to be explaining details of draft space to this audience. That should be explained to someone when/if there article is moved - it doesn't belong in this summary. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 05:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, I'll remove that part pending discussion. I did think it was important to mention though, because we told people they could use draftspace undisturbed "for a while", but this is only true up to a hard deadline. Also, while this page is ostensibly about the review process, it is currently [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Help:Unreviewed new page|only used]] in a message sent to people when their article is moved to draft. It seems to me that if we're going to do that we need to give a bit more space to drafts here. Would you prefer to mention G13 in the drafts section? What do you think, {{ping|Peppery}}? – [[User:Joe Roe (mobile)|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe (mobile)|talk]])</small> 06:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::: I didn't get that ping because you misspelled my username, but anyway I don't care. I only care that you don't state things that are technically incorrect or give false impressions, which I felt the original wording I modified did. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::I think links are helpful to give context on wiki-insider jargon that new users may not be familiar with, and are widely used across help pages for that reason. However, I can tone it down and we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis.
::For example, I really think it's helpful to link "Wikipedia's core content policies"/"core policies" to something. A long-standing problem with NPP's communication has been the use of phrases like "not ready" or "minimum standard" without actually saying what that standard is. Linking to [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]] right at the start tells users what we actually expect from articles, which may be obvious to reviewers but can be opaque to new users. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The text on the page is not some random one-draft writing. It was discussed by several users and linguists with experience in UX and writing instructions for readers including non-native English users, as was the 'Move to Draft' script which you don't like. Several versions of the page and the script developed made until they were just right and appropriate from the new user's perspective. For example, "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months" was ''deliberately'' left out, otherwise what you get is users immediately moving their draft back to mainspace. This new system is only a few hours old. Affected page creators will soon tell us if the page is not informative enough or simply leads them to wall of text of policies. Let's give it time and let them speak for themselves. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::::[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]], I know you have put your heart and soul into NPP. I know you are doing what you believe to be best for the 'pedia. I do not need to 'assume' good faith is present; I know it is. All that said, I am going to gently and respectfully point out that off-wiki discussion does not produce consensus. This is what produces consensus—[[WP:BRD|a bold edit gets reverted and then discussed on-wiki]]. I am, quite frankly, reminded of the way the WMF operates: "we [referring to anonymous shadowy figures] had this discussion behind closed doors, and decided that this is the best way forward. [[:meta:Community Wishlist Survey|We will take suggestions later]]." I am also getting some [[WP:OWN|ownership]] vibes, especially number 3 in [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements|#Statements]]: "these editors are experts in UX/instruction writing. Please do not make any changes without discussing on the talk page first." Both [[WP:CON]] and [[WP:OWN]] are policies. We cannot [[WP:LOCALCON|decide they do not apply to NPP]], unless you are explicitly invoking IAR? In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?<br/>For example, to Joe's point above: a link to a fork of [[Wikipedia:core content policies]] appears to be an improvement: the lead is concise, direct, and to the point. It clearly explains what our three core content policies are. A TL;DR with just the lead seems like a fine target for a link.<span id="HouseBlaster:1667964325811:Help_talkFTTCLNUnreviewed_new_page" class="FTTCmt"> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
== Some cleanup ==
| |||