Wikipedia talk:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments 2 Portals 3 Comment 4 Concern 4.1 potential titles – please help us brainstorm something acronym-friendly 5 Pushing towards the finish 6 Oppose 7 lineage 8 lineage

[edit] Comments

User:Quiddity and I have drafted this page out of what we have found "in the field": pages with graphical designs tend to deteriorate over time because of uncoordinated edits. We are applying for status as a guideline. Not a style guideline: this proposal, though it deals with style, is actually directed at user conduct. Note that while it is still proposed, it refers to itself as a guideline for simplicity, and less work to rewrite it later if and when it is ratified. --HereToHelp 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal was initally mentioned at Village Pump(policy) where it has received full support. --Quiddity 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it was developed in my sandbox before being "transplanted" here.--HereToHelp 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals

Let's not include Portals in this. I've come across portals that seemingly nobody maintains, that are badly outdated, badly formatted, etc. Among these were Technology (box-header) with ugly colors and rounded corners, that I just boldly went in and changed. Though, I think all the portals linked from the main page are now in acceptable condition, in terms of colors and layout. Still not sure if they all have regular caretakers, though. Beyond these main portals, I'm much less certain that other portals have regular caretakers. If anything, this policy might be suitable for only the portals linked from the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and even mention in the policy that they are slippery slopes. Yeah, I'll adjust that.--HereToHelp 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have one question- is this policy meant to restrict editors from making major stylistic changes or is meant to simply encourage users to discuss? B/c if it is meant to restrict, I strongly disagree, and if is meant to encourage, then it shouldn't be a policy. --Osbus 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is meant to be guideline strongly discouraging, but not restricting, such edits without prior consensus.--HereToHelp 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe we could add another diff example from the community portal's last 2 months, after the help:contents example in the intro (and clarify that diff link sentence). --Quiddity 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Or a whole example subsection. What sort of diff do you have in mind, just one to show how much it's been through?--HereToHelp 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Use the Community Portal design that had the yellow background, blue borders, and solid green sections. That was horrible. --Osbus 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Osbus, do you have a response to my response to your initial query?--HereToHelp 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if it is accepted as a guideline, not a policy, will I support. Right now, it seems to be a policy. --Osbus 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's definitely not a policy, but a guideline for user conduct. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at my first post, I say that we are indeed going for guideline status. When I get a chance, I'll tone down the absoluteness of the wording.--HereToHelp 02:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

While I appreciate the concepts presented here, it looks like an attempt to legislate what should be common sense. I'd like to think this is unnecessary (though maybe it is). As a result, I fear that more and more arbitrary guidelines are on the way. ProfMoriarty 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was common sense too, until the recent ordeal on the Wikipedia:Community Portal, as well as sweeping changes on Help:Contents. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Common sense is not common.--HereToHelp 02:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So that's it? Just like that, we have consensus?--HereToHelp 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your guideline doesn't warrant for much opposition...it's just, well, common sense. --Osbus 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just codifying common sense, rather than establishing anything new.--HereToHelp 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So can we change the template at the top from proposed to accepted? --Quiddity 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the policy of course, but could this be moved into some other more all-encompassing policy, or have the name changed, it's purely an aesthetic problem I have, and not that important, but that policy name is a mouthful :) - cohesion 08:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but it's shorter then some of the other names we came up with. You can call it DDGLO and everyone will (or should) know what you mean. If you can give me a better idea, I'll take it. As far as being more encompassing, that's the pont: we encourage work on articles, but not on pages with graphical layout.--HereToHelp 11:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You could cut out overhauls. --Osbus 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "Overhauls" seems bad not because of of length but becausewe're talking little things too. "Draft" could go, too. Wikipedia:Discuss graphical layout changes? Although, if we could leave "draft" in, I'd like to.--HereToHelp 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing "overhaul" to "changes" works for me, but only if we must. I'd like to leave "and draft" in there too. --Quiddity 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but then we lose our acronym (DDGLO) for the less-pronouncible DDGLC. We could do Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout alterations, but that seems unecessarily wordy. Also, I'm going to be out for a few days, but before I do I'm going to say, "If nobody objects by the time I'm back, we're making this guideline!" (essentially) on the CBB.--HereToHelp 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy here the title suggestions we had played with on my talk page, so that anyone can potentially brainstorm us up an acronymable title ;) --Quiddity 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] potential titles – please help us brainstorm something acronym-friendly

• Don't make changes to graphical layout without prior discussion
• Graphical redesigns should be discussed.
• Always draft layout-overhauls.
• Draft and discuss layout redesigns.
• Discuss, before redesigning major pages.
• Discuss design changes before making them
• Discuss graphical design changes before making them
• Discuss and draft graphical layout alterations
•  ?

(or keep the current)

• Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls

I'm strongly in favour of keeping the current title (as is HereToHelp). It seems to best cover the context and content of the guideline. (though i suppose the word "graphical" is debatably redundant..) --Quiddity 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphical separates the pages we're talking about from the articles.--HereToHelp 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true, ok, striking out. --Quiddity 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. See you Friday-ish.--HereToHelp 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, do you two know each other or something? :) --Osbus 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Only since March, when i joined the MainPage redesign where he was very active. (not in RL, no) ;) --Quiddity 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I've never met any Wikipedians in real life. That is, the really active ones. --Osbus 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. That's why i proselytize wikipedia to all aquaintances and friends ;) --Quiddity 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when a Wikipedia meeting comes to New York I'll meet others...I think I'd be surprised to see what people looked like. --Osbus 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could it have an easier shortcut though? WP:GRAPH or WP:DISCUSS or something... the current DDGLO is a bit clumsy. Maybe even WP:GLO BigBlueFish 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:DISCUSS sounds simple and easy to remember. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant that I would be inactive until Friday. And yeah, WP:DISCUSS sounds good.--HereToHelp 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed. --Quiddity 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pushing towards the finish

No one seems to have objected, so I will take some advice I got at the village pump: If no one objects to this in a week, we make this guideline. There's been an overwhelming sense of support, and I don't think that's going to disappear. Note that I will be out for a few days, however.--HereToHelp 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Well done Heretohelp :) -Quiddity 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All in a day's work.--HereToHelp 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

This is an anti-wiki proposal. It is wrong to select examples of edits one or two people thing were bad and use them as an excuse to ban Wikipedians from showing initiative. Golfcam 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We're absolutely not trying to stifle initiative, but to prevent edit wars and the related-confusion at the indicated top-level pages. Hence, "Draft and discuss ...". --Quiddity 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't anti-wiki b/c its a guideline. If it was a policy, then that'd be different. --Osbus 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. Trust us, we have experience "in the trenches" of page design. And of course, take it with a a grain of salt (it's only guideline).--HereToHelp 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True this is only a guideline and NOT a official policy of Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So—just checking—you support this as long as it remains guideline? (I might oppose it if it was to be policy).--HereToHelp 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lineage

hi im not no kind of historian but i read alot of things im just hoping to get some insite on the race lineage

[edit] lineage

what site can i go to to talk about race and other and how they are related in some matter no race want to say what desendents come from and if so why no other race claim to be the desendents of african people but here's the kicker every race willing to brake there neck to prove that there ancestor come from somewhere unknown