User talk:Barkeep49/Sidebar closing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

DannyS712 I've created this for us to work. My thinking is that the user page serves as our close (and which relects without statement, the consensus I see as noted below) while this can be our discussion. As a note, this is my third time reading through this in its entirity (as it existed on that date) and you'll see that there are a few places where I note that I need to do another re-read. My reading of consensus is as follows is below. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


DannyS712's read through

This is based on a preliminary read through, and I will fill in the sections I missed. I'm aware that our job is to assess the consensus of editors involved in the discussion, but since some of the discussions were not based on all of the info (see phab tasks) that may be more complicated than normal. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712 the phab ticket stuff is important but all we can do is close on consensus - to say we have more information is a kind of super vote and not a weighted reading of consensus. To the extent you think it should be considered you could withdraw as a closer and participate in the discussion. Else I think we can think about that in terms of how we frame the overall close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Okay, will close based solely on the discussion, but can we include a note about the wikidata consensus against may be moot, and the mute consensuses may need to be revisited, in the close? DannyS712 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I was suggesting. Feel free to take a crack at starting to write that on the mainpage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: What should be done about the sections already closed? DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? They're closed and that consensus is what it is. I don't see any issues with the sections already closed having judged consensus differently than I would have. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: the discussion regarding the new contribute section did not include placement of the user page-only links (contribs, block, etc) in the new layout --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I've compared our pieces and we're in agreement except for the few above. In terms of an overall close or reconfirmation RfC I don't see a need for either here and feel fine just closing each section with the possible exception of including our current/consensus layout chart for reference. Thoughts DannyS712? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I think an overall close box should be added just to be clear that its over, and to centralize the notes about what may need to be discussed again in the future. I'll write up an overall and point by point close based on both of our comments above soon DannyS712 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, apologies as I was the delay on this for a while but noting that I am planning to "go back to my roots" (e.g. focus on content creation, GA, and NPP) soon. So I am hoping we can finish this up today or tomorrow so that I can be appropriately attentive to any follow-up and discussion that is necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combined result

@Barkeep49: does this accurately reflect your current position? I've highlighted places that should be addressed before this is closed --DannyS712 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For print/export (10) I wrote consensus against but came to your position and just wrote the wrong thing; fine with a no consensus close.
  • Fine with no consensus on Printable version (12)
  • As for introduction (1) I feel pretty strongly that things were too all over the place to have any kind of consensus about wording and where it should point to. I think this needs a follow-up discussion (and/or RfC)
  • We agree that Featured content (1) should be removed. Whether to label it weak or consensus is a tactical one. As I noted yesterday I think labeling things as weak consensus undermines that consensus - it might be weak but it's still present, if it weren't present it would be no consensus. It emboldens those who feel the opposite way to challenge it.
  • We're in agreement on permanent link (3)
  • As for current events (2), the proposer supports. The second person supports but has a wording they prefer. The third person opposes. The last person supports the alternative wording. There is consensus to change there as I don't see the proposer being against that alternative wording. It's low participation but just because they didn't write support for the same thing doesn't, in my eyes, mean there's not consensus.
  • Community portal (7):If we're going to have follow-up discussions, and given the my strong feelings about introduction I think we are, I see this as needing one too. Hub for editors is probably defensible but I think, given my overall stance, this is preferable.
  • Wikidata tooltip (14): same general tactical feeling as featured content. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: So we recommend a follow-up discussion, including:
    • Introduction - consensus it should be added, needs discussion regarding wording, etc.
    • Community portal - consensus for a change, needs discussion for what to change it to
    • Perhaps also include the current events tooltip in the follow-up?
    I'll also remove the "weak" consensus notes before the actual close, it was just included here for my reference to tell how similar our analysis was DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Including current events for follow-up works for me. In terms of mechanics I was assuming you'd post your overall draft which we'd get consensus on before doing the close? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my plan DannyS712 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DannyS712, how's it going? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Sorry, was having some internet connectivity issues today. Will post soon DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft close

Overall close

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was a very wide-ranging RfC, with dozens of individual discussions and questions. There are a few specific issues that need further discussion in order to be implemented or to find a consensus.
  • We found consensus to add a link to an "introduction to contributing" page, but there is no clear consensus regarding elements including, what page should be linked to, what label text should be used, its placement on the sidebard and what the tooltip should be. A follow-up discussion or RfC should be held to establish this consensus.
  • We found consensus to change the tooltip for the Community portal link, but there is no clear consensus regarding what the new tooltip should be.
  • Owing to low turnout, further discussion is needed regarding any change to the tooltip for the current events page's link.

We have included individual closing statements for each of the discussions below. In total, we found consensus for the following link changes (not including labels and tooltips):

  • Adding a new contribute section
  • Moving "print/export" above "tools"
  • Adding a link to an introduction page
  • Removing the links to featured content and the wikipedia store
Our names
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sub-discussion closes:

Remaining issues

  • Contribute section - where should the special page's link go? Recommend for further discussion?

@Barkeep49: feel free to expand on my overall statement, and please let me know if I misstated your position on any of the sub discussions. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DannyS712 for tackling the first run at this. I have made revisions to the close statement above to formalize and otherwise tighten it up a bit. Will look at the sections below soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Danny I understand your reading of Special Pages as not having consensus. The reason I find consensus is that of the people who mention it at all, there is a clear consensus in favor. It was brought up early and referenced frequently so I effectively count the people who say nothing as neutral on that topic and thus get to consensus. I also do not think this needs a further discussion as I find the consensus clear in the original. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications look good to me. I took another look, and agree with putting special pages under tools DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, I have implemented the close which just leaves your signature in appropriate places. While this page is obviously there I think when we get questions best to not refer to it directly (though we can certainly summarize our discussions). Many group RfCs are closed off wiki and while I think we benefit from the transparency and format of doing it here I also don't think drawing too much attention here is helpful in the close being accepted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Are you also going to implement the changes? At least the tooltip ones are pretty easy to change DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Also, you didn't sign Special:Diff/960636914 DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or Special:Diff/960637228 DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, per Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions it's the rare RfC close that I then implement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49/Sidebar_closing&oldid=960643817"