Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies
Latest comment: 23 days ago by Pigsonthewing in topic Too long
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Wikipedia controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 |
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | Fram controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Wikipedia controversies. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
 | This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Redisgn
edit| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In early 2023, Wikipedia redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. (Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Wikipedia has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why. |
Add target of Virgil Griffith list
editI think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Revert of short description
editHi Babysharkboss2, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary WP:SDNONE. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that WP:Short description actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Wikipedia, rather than about controversial topics covered by Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- What hidden tab?
- TypistMonkey (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · Peter Southwood (talk)
- Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · Peter Southwood (talk)
- your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that WP:Short description actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Wikipedia, rather than about controversial topics covered by Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
[..] overlong
what does overlong mean? Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)- Too long. See WP:SDLENGTH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not "too long" Read WP:SDLENGTH. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Too long. See WP:SDLENGTH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Wikipedia, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Wikipedia. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Too long
editThis page is very long. The best split would seem to be by decade. Would that be OK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)