Forum:CT:Main Page FA tweak

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Main Page FA tweak

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 Begin using "Read more" link in addition to linked bolded text for Main Page Featured articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:44, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, we had an SH discussion over whether to bold conjectural titles. That died out, but during the short discussion, I proposed delinked the bolded text and placing a (Read more…) link at the end, just like that. That seemed to gain some support, but the discussion died out soon after, so I'm bringing it here for a vote.

To avoid any confusion, this diff shows the exact change that would be made. Note that the bolded text remains; it is only delinked. My reasoning for this (quoted from the SH thread) is "I sometimes have trouble quickly finding the correct link on the main page for conjecturally-titled articles, and when I first found this site about two years ago, it was even more confusing because I didn't know at first that the bolded link (which, by the way doesn't stand out as well in blue as it does in black) was intended to be the link to the FA." and "the bolding isn't as obvious when that text is also blue instead of black. Specifically, when bolded text is also a different color from the immediately surrounding text, the color variation is what stands out, and the bolding fades into the background. That's why I would prefer using the "read more" link in place of, rather than in addition to, linking whatever is in bold—so that the bolded text, conjectural or not, can stand out from the rest like it's supposed to." —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 16:05, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support

As proposer. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 16:05, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
We should be catering for our readers by making it easier to read. Looks neater too. Oh, and use a 4 dot ellipsis instead of 3 =P. Lastly, if a vote starts to have both links then my vote would change to that. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I'd definitely be all for using the "Read More" link, but only in addition to, and not instead of, de-linking the conjectural titles. Mainly for the sake of consistency—the current proposal would have us presenting some articles with linked titles (the non-conjecturally-titled ones) and some without; I think that would seem less professional and potentially more confusing to just the casual reader than the current system we use. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Per Jon. CC7567 (talk) 22:37, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • My mistake; I should have been more clear. Though the proposal arose out of a discussion regarding conjectural titles, this is intended to apply to all articles, conjecturally-titled or not. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 22:39, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • While I do appreciate the clarification, I don't believe that such a change is necessary, so my vote remains the same. CC7567 (talk) 22:41, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification; but per CC & Tope. I'd still prefer we use both. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:47, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
The "clarification" point made definitely has now convinced me that this change is not needed. I wouldn't mind including a "Read more" link in addition to the original link, but I see no reason to get rid of what we already have. Bells and whistles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:45, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, let me re-quote my reasoning for only using the read more link, which has already been said twice: "Specifically, when bolded text is also a different color from the immediately surrounding text, the color variation is what stands out, and the bolding fades into the background. That's why I would prefer using the "read more" link in place of, rather than in addition to, linking whatever is in bold—so that the bolded text, conjectural or not, can stand out from the rest like it's supposed to." —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 22:51, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand your reasoning has already been said twice. That's why I didn't request clarification a third time. My decision stands as is. I respect your opinion. Now I would appreciate if you would respect mine. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:57, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just use both

  1. Very opposed to de-linking titles of canonically-titled articles. Not horribly opposed to using it instead of linking the bold words in articles with conjectural titles, because I am in the camp that we really need to get away from over-using the conjectural titles before we become fanoneering laughingstocks. But the plain and simple truth of the matter is that we already use the linked, bold title and that's what people will be looking for in the first place. Most readers aren't brand-new readers, despite the fact that they are continuously trickling in. Graestan(Talk) 23:49, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Moving my vote here. Nayayen is correct: we should be catering to our readers. But that doesn't mean every visitor to our wiki is from the same mold. The dissension in this very CT shows that some people look for the original link, and others might benefit more from using the "Read more" link. So the logical solution is to use both. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I still think we should use 4 dots. Just because we can. NAYAYEN:TALK 23:56, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Toprawa. CC7567 (talk) 23:59, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Grunny (talk) 00:00, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Ditto. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  7. After careful reconsideration, I have to agree with Grae and Tope. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 00:04, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Teh winnerz! Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:11, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Bada bing. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  10. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 00:37, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Hey, if it works for Wikipedia... Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 15:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  12. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 15:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:44, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Tried to see if there's "Read more" link more than one occasion. Tm_T (Talk) 17:54, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
  15. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:13, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
  16. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:52, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Master Jonathan, you may want to start a second vote to add the Read more without removing the bolded link. --Eyrezer 23:09, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I see no point in redundant links, so if this fails (which it appears it will), I'd rather stick with just the bolded link than have two links. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 23:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so that the Inqs don't have to replicate the raw code for the read more link every time a new article is placed on the queue, I've wrapped the code given in the demonstration diff into an easy-to-use template, {{Rm}}. Syntax for the template is simply {{Rm|article name}}, which produces the same link displayed in the demo. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 22:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)