This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was adopt subpages for FA and GA nominations. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
OK. After an SH discussion, I'm bringing the issue of transitioning the FAN and GAN pages to subpages as laid out in that thread.
Links:
- Sample GAN page (static snapshot from over a month ago): Clicking section edit links takes you directly to the individual nomination. FAN page would work the same way.
- New GAnom and FAnom templates to handle subpages: These work in the same way as {{Tc}} and provide simple step-by-step directions. Clicking the redlink brings up a preloaded form, as well as a special editintro giving basic instructions for new nominators. Note that the preloads and editintros won't work until they are copied into the Template: namespace.
Advantages over the current system:
- The main FAN/GAN pages look almost identical to the way they appear now.
- Editing individual nominations is much easier due to smaller page sizes and multiple section headers.
- Both nominators and objectors can watch an individual nomination without having to watch the whole page (watching the main page can also be useful for receiving notification of new noms).
Three more from jSarek:
- Having a subpage from the start means not having to copy/past completed nominations into a new page, reducing the workload in closing a nomination somewhat.
- Preservation of the edit history of a nomination after it is closed. Currently, the copy/paste into a new page method loses the edit history; if you want to see how edits to a nomination progressed over time (for instance, if there is an indentation ambiguity making it unclear whether a line is a response to the line above it or not, something often made clearer by looking at the history), you currently can't unless you track down the dates in question in the immense change log of the main FAN/GAN pages.
- It will be easier to see what is happening on Recent Changes with each nomination subpaged.
Advantage over the GAN subpage trial from one year ago:
- Nominations are {{transcluded}} rather than [[linked]] on the main pages, eliminating the "out of sight, out of mind" issue that prompted the AC to reject the idea.
Possible disadvantages:
- The process of nominating a new article is slightly more complicated with the addition of the extra step of transcluding the new subpage on the main page. I feel this, however, is minor, as both the nom templates and the editintro that appears during the creation of the subpage make it clear what needs to be done and give the exact code for easy copy-and-paste.
- The actual process of converting the FAN/GAN pages over to this new system may be complicated and time-consuming, but I volunteer to perform the transition myself unless the AC or Inq would prefer to do it themselves.
Please approach this with an open mind. I really dislike it when people vote against a proposal simply because "the current system works" or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." IMO there are three faults in that line of thinking here:
- Just because "the current system works" doesn't mean it can't work better or more efficiently. No matter how well something works, there is usually a way to improve on the current design. As my father likes to say, "If it ain't broke, make it better anyway."
- Secondly, the system is broken. Among the complaints: Tommy9281 said he can't edit the FAN page from his phone due to the size of the page; Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith has complained about lag in the edit box, which comes from the large amount of text in it (this is purely an IE issue, but not one I feel should be ignored); and I believe a few users have complained about the difficulty of watching a single nomination. These are all valid complaints that are addressed in some way by this proposal.
- Finally, the great thing about a wiki is that nothing is permanent. If unforeseen issues come up or we just don't like it, we can always vote to go back to the old system.
Support
- As proposer. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Works well with us. I don't understand why it wouldn't work for you.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 19:49, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Support. jSarek 07:00, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- There's so much QFTage in the last part of this proposal that I think all I can say is yas plaise. Thefourdotelipsis 07:48, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. More organized as well. Hell, I do believe this is similar to how FANs and GANs are handled on SWFanon. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:51, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's a good idea, and it doesn't need to be feared because it isn't the status quo. - Lord Hydronium 08:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely, per my comments on the SH thread. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 11:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- "Why fix something that isn't broken" doesn't work here. Cant' we at least test this? -- 1358 (Talk) 11:32, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Per my comments on the SH and props to Jon for working it all out. NAYAYEN:TALK 12:32, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh hell yes, it's about time. Xicer9
(Combadge) 14:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC) - I haven't really liked similar proposals in the past. This time, it's the transcluding that sells it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:43, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It also makes the chance of stumbling over things go away, which was the problem with the last proposal for me. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:16, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Per Hydro. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:04, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Per Culator. Nice solution. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- This almost single-handedly fixes lag issues brought upon by Internet Explorer when editing the super-large Object pages. Good work! Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 18:49, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- --Eyrezer 22:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Why not, it'll make archiving easier :P. Though I'm not sure I like the look of the sheer number of edit links next to everything and having the objectors names be headings, but that's minor. We should probably consider using transcluded pages for the WP:RFR page as well. Grunny (talk) 01:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:41, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know. Seems a little lazy to try to make the process easier for people. But I guess I'll live. Havac 08:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
- If only because then I'd know what was being edited when people click the "vote count" edit link instead of the section title edit link. —fodigg
(talk) | 18:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC) - Jedi Kasra (comlink) 20:17, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
As usual, please do not add new voting options without discussion here first. Thank you. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
Further advantages to this new system: 1) Having a subpage from the start means not having to copy/past completed nominations into a new page, reducing the workload in closing a nomination somewhat. A minor advantage to be sure, but an advantage. 2) Preservation of the edit history of a nomination after it is closed. Currently, the copy/paste into a new page method loses the edit history; if you want to see how edits to a nomination progressed over time (for instance, if there is an indentation ambiguity making it unclear whether a line is a response to the line above it or not, something often made clearer by looking at the history), you currently can't unless you track down the dates in question in the immense change log of the main FAN/GAN pages. This would fix that. 3) It will be easier to see what is happening on Recent Changes with each nomination subpaged. jSarek 07:00, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Good points. I've copied them to the proposal above. :) —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 16:43, May 17, 2010 (UTC)