Content deleted Content added
→Some cleanup: cmt |
→Revert: Reply |
||
Line 17:
:::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?{{pb}}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>
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Unreviewed_new_page&diff=1120788685&oldid=1120674001 This] is pure [[WP:OWN|ownership]] behaviour Kudpung, and you know it. I've never encountered such hostility over the bare fact that I dared edit a page before – very ironic, given what it's about. Obviously a lot of effort went into the initial versions of this page, and it shows. It's well written and it's a huge improvement over what we currently confront new editors with. But if you didn't expect other people would [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and try to make a good text better, you are on the wrong project entirely. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
== Some cleanup ==
| |||