Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update

General discussion

I didn't see any good place to ask a question about something that wasn't already proposed, so I bring this to the talk page. If someone wants to move it to the main page, fine.

I use the "Related changes" link quite often as a quasi-watchlist; however, I often times quite frustratingly click on the "Recent changes" link instead. Since these two links look similar on a quick glance, can one of them be re-named for clarity? Unfortunately, I don't have a good idea off of the top of my head. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting thought, but in order to be a viable change, I think we'd need a suitable alternative for one of them, and I don't know of any such alternative. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Closure

As we start to approach the 30 day mark, the discussion is still active but is starting to slow. So this might be ready for a close in the not too distant future. I've had my eye on this to do a close and would welcome (as they say) another experienced editor to join me in assessing consensus. Otherwise for those who might be curious know that there is somebody ready to do a close at an appropriate time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'd be happy to close it with you - let me know when you want to proceed DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Great. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this RfC (I've commented and won't be involved in a close). I would think that for a change of this significance, there should be a confirmation yes/no RfC on the outcome. Normally it's ok for a close to pick the entrails and add this or subtract that to give a result, but that's not a good way to design the fundamental structure of the sidebar. Normally a closer cannot make a decree that another RfC must be held but I don't see how the complex suggestions can be integrated into a result that we could say was sufficiently supported to make a change that affects every page. Ideally the result would be implemented perhaps at test2wiki: or at least an accurate mockup, and then people would see what they voted for. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This thought had occurred to me as well. Well not the test wiki part but the confirmation RfC/mock-up part. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I have listed this RFC at WP:ANRFC so an admin can close it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I am an admin (not that that should matter in this case per WP:CLOSE). I will mark it as doing over there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. Interstellarity (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that we're very close to a close on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to be made

Could an admin please make the following changes, to implement the results of the RFC?

• Mediawiki:Sitesupport, change to "Donate"
• Mediawiki:Contactpage, change to "Contact us"
• Mediawiki:Log, change to "User logs"
• Mediawiki:Tool-link-userrights, change to "Change user groups"
• Mediawiki:Mute-preferences, change to "Mute this user"
• MediaWiki:Interaction, change to "Contribute"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-n-randompage, change to "Visit a randomly selected article"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-n-sitesupport, change to "Support us by donating to the Wikimedia Foundation"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-n-aboutsite, change to "Learn about Wikipedia and how it works"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-n-recentchanges, change to "A list of recent changes to Wikipedia"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-t-upload, change to "Add images or other media for use on Wikipedia"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-t-permalink, change to "Permanent link to this revision of this page"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-t-wikibase, change to "Structured data on this page hosted by Wikidata"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-t-log, change to "A list of logged actions by this user"
• Mediawiki:Tooltip-t-mute, create with the text "Mute emails or notifications from this user"

• (I can't figure out where the PDF tooltip is. It should be changed to "Download this page as a PDF file".)

These changes should be done by an interface-admin:

• At Mediawiki:Sidebar:
  • Move the lines with "Wikipedia:About|aboutsite" and "contact-url|contactpage" above "sitesupport-url|sitesupport"
  • Delete the line containing the text "Wikipedia:Featured content|featuredcontent"
  • Add, above the "TOOLBOX" line, a line with the code: ** Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard|upload This should be done at the same time as adding the related line to Mediawiki:Common.css, so that we don't have two upload links at the same time.
  • In Mediawiki:Common.css, a line should be added with this code: #t-upload { display: none; } This is to hide the existing Upload link, as a temporary measure until it can be removed by the devs.

• In Mediawiki:Common.css, a line should be added with this code: #n-shoplink { display: none; } to remove the Wikipedia store link. (Also as a temporary measure until the devs are available.

Some of the rest of the reordering, including the movement of "Cite this page" and the Tools items, will require a Phab task. --Yair rand (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly added the edit (interface-)protected template. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

All the first batch  Done except the PDF tooltip — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: #t-upload { display: none; } did not work as intended. Please advise — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be working. Took a while to take effect, despite clearing cache, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The other changes have been made to Mediawiki:Sidebar. I am waiting for confirmation for Mediawiki:Common.css — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

All  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And found the PDF tooltip at MediaWiki:Tooltip-coll-download-as-rl — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yair rand, has anyone filed phab tasks regarding the "temporary" measures? Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Not as far as I know. --Yair rand (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've filed phab:T255381 for the removals and moving the Cite link. There's a complication with the reordering of the "In other projects" and "Print/export" sections, as some related reordering was done by the devs in the meantime, so I'm not sure how the results should be interpreted now. --Yair rand (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward from here

First of all, a huge thank you to Barkeep49 and DannyS712 for taking on the mammoth close, to everyone already getting to work on implementation above, and more generally to everyone for turning out and making this such a vibrant discussion.

Danny and Barkeep, for the items that require follow-up, I was wondering if you have any suggestions about where such a discussion should be held. I'm not sure how closely most people are still following this page (it has 40 watchers), so my instinct is to maybe host it at WP:Village pump (proposals), and then move it back here for historical archiving sake once it concludes. I'd be happy to help set that up, although we should probably wait a bit to allow a chance for any challenges to closes to be aired (I've created a subsection for that below).

Oh, and as a bit of tidying, would it be alright for me to change the colors of the closed sections to make it easier to tell at a glance which ones passed and which ones didn't? Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on closes

This section is for discussion on or challenges to the closes made in the RFC. It should not be used to comment on the merits or lack thereof of any proposals, but rather on the consensus that was reached while the discussion was open.

• Page information tooltip: Renata effectively changed their !vote, so it looks like 2-1 in favor of "Technical information about this page" to me, which would probably call for further discussion, similar to the current events tooltip. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  On the whole tooltips were among the hardest to close given the very limited participation of editors especially relative to the magnitude of the change. This was closed as no consensus meaning that further discussion could be had as it is not clear what the community's position is on the topic. However, and I'm speaking for myself here as this is not something Danny and I discussed, follow-up RfCs are rarely as well attended or participated in as the initial one and adding too many topics to be discussed could muddle the ability to find consensus in the areas that would most benefit from further discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Addition of an introduction to contributing page: Of editors who expressed a preference for a specific page, my count is 4 !votes for Help:Introduction, 1 !vote for WP:Contributing to Wikipedia (note that Wugapodes changed their !vote), and 1 !vote for WP:Adventure with Help:Introduction as second choice. Additionally, 5225C !voted Support per nominator, which would make the count 5-1-1. This appears to me as fairly clear consensus for Help:Introduction. Regarding the title, the renaming of the group from "Interaction" to "Contribute" makes the case for "Editing tutorial" over "Tutorial" a lot weaker, so I see consensus for "Tutorial", the name that received the vast majority of the support before I changed it late in the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just FYI will be making a proposal about this [1]--Moxy 🍁 11:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Moxy, please restrain yourself in accordance with the clear note at the top of this section. This was discussed during the RfC and I'm not going to take the bait by engaging on it here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Except your head count doesn't really reflect second choices. And Wugapodes changed it to a generic "whatever's accessible" which you (Sdkb) say is and Moxy seems to say it isn't. I think the whole discussion is muddled and there are really multiple issues that also need resolving:

  • What the label should be
  • What the tooltip should be
  • Where it should be located

  So more discussion is needed for this already. Hopefully that secondary discussion, for which a closer could certainly include the thoughts of people who participated here and not there, will also lead to consensus on where it should point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  If we weight second choices as 0.5, the count looks like 5.5 for Help:Introduction, 1 for WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, 1 for WP:Adventure, and 1 for Help:Introduction to Wikipedia (the first Help:Introduction subpage). That still seems pretty clear to me.

  Moxy and I both had one !vote, and we were not on equal footing regarding the accessibility question, given that consensus was behind me at WP:WikiProject Accessibility.

  Regarding the tooltip and location, I honestly don't see that being much of a point of contention. No one suggested anything different than what I initially proposed.

  DannyS712, I'm curious to hear from you as well on all this. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly need more talk on this matter ....very disheartening to see anyone push a page all can see does not retain readers . Refrain myself for doing what is best for our readers?? Would have no problem if it was on one page with a TOC and worked in multiple platforms - but promoting something that is losing us editors is simply nuts and should not stand. As mentioned many times before .. think of what is best to retain editors...not what looks pretty!!... as outlined at the help project, accessibility project and editor retention project. --Moxy 🍁 22:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Where to put the "Special pages" link: This one's definitely tricky, so I won't go so far as to say I think it's an incorrect close, but it is certainly muddled. In my proposal, I was explicit that universal editor-focused links are consolidated [in the contribute section], while page-specific editor-focused links are consolidated in the "tools" section, so the many editors that expressed generic support could be seen as endorsing that framework, even if they didn't mention the special pages link specifically. And under that framework, there is no question that Special Pages is universal, not page-specific. Would it be alright to include the question of where to put this link in the follow-up discussion to make consensus clearer? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  It would not be alright with me as I feel there is a clear consensus. This was a proposal with multiple elements. The location of the Special pages link was brought up early and discussed frequently throughout. As such it is my read of consensus that those who choose to generically support were neutral on that topic while favoring the overall reorganizational scheme. As such I think the read of the consensus is among those who discuss this issue specifically and among them there is a clear consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. I think it's justified to place less weight on the !votes that didn't specify explicit support for moving special pages, but to give them no weight at all seems a little extreme given that they !voted for the proposal as a whole. If we assign 1/3 weight to such !votes, the tally is 9 1/3 to 8 in favor of the move (at 1/4, it's 7.5 to 8). I can see where you're coming from, but it seems more like no consensus territory to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  You keep trying to put numbers but this was not a vote and so I am reluctant to start discussing on those terms with either this discussion or the one above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Order of sections

Thank you to the closers! But I think the order of sections is not showing right at the moment.

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2020_left_sidebar_update#Move_"Print/export"_above_"Tools" the order should be: Print/Export, Tools, In other projetcs, Languages. I right now see: Tools, Languages, In other projects, Print/Export.

So print/export needs to be bumped up and languages/projects switched around. Or is this waiting for some software action? Renata (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the rest of the reordering, including the movement of "Cite this page" and the Tools items, will require a Phab task. --Yair rand (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pppery/Yair rand/Renata, did a phab task ever get opened on these items? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion opened at the Village Pump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Left sidebar update follow-up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)