Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022

When moving someone's words to another page, please ping

@InfiniteNexus: In the future, please ping people when you move their words to another page (other than archiving, of course). Yes, a lot of people to ping in this case, but it's still a thoughtful step in wikicommunication. Moving someone's comments to another page has the potential for recontextualizing them in sometimes subtle ways (granted, not a big deal in this case), and the original authors might not be watching the new page by default, missing responses, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary in this case, but I'll keep that in mind. But regarding the original authors might not be watching the new page by default, missing responses, etc., if the original author was watching the old page, they would have noticed the move (and the talk page discussion that led to the move), and if the author was anxious about responding to replies, they would have proactively checked the old page, which has a link to this page. So, not really a big deal in this instance. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus, if you were subscribing to the old section, you were still subscribed to the moved sections. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This RfC is just a venting area

Withdrawn CactiStaccingCrane 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

With due respect to User:HAL333 (initiator of the RfC) and everyone else, I think that this RfC had provided little value the improvement of the skin itself aside from causing conflicts and maybe brainstorming a few improvement to Vector 2022. I think that most participants are here only to express their opinion about their dislike/like of the new skin and a few have already made border-line WP:Harassment remarks towards other editors. This is not helpful at all for developers, readers and editors. CactiStaccingCrane 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC) No, it’s a poll on whether readers and the community want V2022 to be the default, and there’s a 60>% majority saying they do not want it to be so. Of course nobody wants to discuss “improving” V2022 because that isn’t what this RfC is about! Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Correct. I don't want to "improve" V2022, I want to replace it with V2010. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The attempts to "organize" the second section...

Please stop. Or rather just undo. This is a giant mess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: appears to have started to move things around, then quickly abandoned that project hours ago. Now an unregistered users seems to be adding numbers for some reason... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think his efforts are well-meant, but maybe he should seek some help. Æo (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Between the stop-and-go reorganizing, the apparent socking or canvassing, and the various edits to the intro text attempting to bias it in one direction or another, the RFC is suddenly becoming an unmanageable mess, it seems to me. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites this unregisterd user is me, Steue. I did not log out intentionally, I don't know when and why I logged out.

These numbers are just temporarily for more easy orientation for me.

Can you tell me, how I get an indented line to "not interrupt the automatic counting" like

1. A

B

1. C

Steue (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See Help:List § Common mistakes. (Incidentally, that link was much easier to access and retrieve with a table of contents in the sidebar than with it at the top of the page.) isaacl (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you isaacl now I know how to.

Steue (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Steue's trying to do (and I'm a veteran of the bullshit that was the CRASHlock debates). While I do have to criticise how he went about it, he's clearly trying to make the section easier to interpret, and we should understand that he's going to make mistakes if he's not familiar with wikicode. Assuming others don't do so, I'm likely to rejigger that section to put each argument in the appropriate section later tonight. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: This oldid contains the list as it was before Steue began his reorganisation: I suggest you use it, since Steue messed up the indenting entirely. There are only two new comments in the list thereafter: this and this one.--Æo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've finished the job. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And I've fixed most of the indenting. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to fix some myself when doing the sorting, but I know I probably missed a few. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I have caused you trouble. I only returned to this talk page because I did'nt know what to do with the RfC chunk, which you put in "Comments". I was still working at it and not aware that InfiniteNexus had already done what I had intended. After all, it got done. You really showed me how old and slow I am. I never thought that participating at the wp would cause me to :=(((. Thank you Jéské Couriano for your warm words. Good night. Steue (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the group effort, all. Personally, I think big reorganizations during times of high activity wind up being more hassle than they're worth, and don't think there's much need to separate supports/opposes unless we're looking to do a straight head-count, but I appreciate others find it neater. All's well that ends well. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to beat yourself up, we know you were acting in good faith. It wasn't clear based on your inactivity and the comments above whether you had abandoned the project, so I decided to just go ahead and finish it up for you, especially given that people were already asking questions. In the future, please use your sandbox when conducting major reorganizations or overhauls such as this one, so as to minimize disruption and avoid confusion. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are folks putting 'support/oppose/neutral' etc in their posts

We already have the survey subsections named 'Support', 'Oppose', 'Neutral'. So, why are editors adding (in bold) 'Support', 'Oppose', 'Neutral' to their posts. Example - If you've posted in the 'Neutral' subsection? then we already know your stance is neutral. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it could be because they want to make their thoughts clearer, because it's common practice, or because the posts here were not initially split between supports and opposes. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, when I voted the votes were not separated out yet, so it was imperative to indicate whether it was support, oppose, or neutral. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also some people who wish to say it with passion; "Strongest possible support", or "Weak oppose", or my favourite "What makes an editor turn neutral? Lust for barnstars? Advanced privileges? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's good to say so even if it is sorted into subsections. For example, some people are saying "Strong support" or "Weak oppose" and such. Makes sure that it's a spectrum of opinion rather than two polar opposite camps. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty standard for RfCs and others of the sort, like CfDs. Half of the time people's comments aren't sorted and so it becomes a hodgepodge of varied opinions.

Plus it also helps me differentiate at a glance because certain bolded words call certain icons through my custom Javascript (like whenever someone says Oppose). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• In addition to all of the above, it makes it easy to tell at a glance where one person's comment stops and another's begins. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a RfA? It's convention. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk.— Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this RfC too soon, I mean with all the adaptions that are taking place?

I know the question can also go the other round in isn't the launch too soon. I doubt the discussion closer will take the votes into account that were made before the adaptions were made for example yesterday. I believe many wcould invest their time better in getting back to editing wikipedia elsewhere. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I expect the closer to take all comments into account, unless they specifically say "roll back because X" where X is a temporary problem which has been fixed. If they're going to discard early !votes, we at least need to be pinged so that we can review our statements and repeat them if still applicable. Certes (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

...and yes, this process is very disruptive. I've done a fraction of the useful editing that I would have done had I not been following the Vector 2022 discussion. However, that problem is caused as much by the hasty release as by the calls to roll back. Certes (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course this goes both ways and the same applies to the foundation. They too would get more things done if we didn't throw a tantrum every single time. No one is having fun here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not surprised by the RfC happening right away, it should've been expected. I am more concerned with the perception (whether true or not), that Vector 2022 was deployed by default before it was fully ready. One of the key lessons learned from the VisualEditor rollout was that it was rushed, and more time "could have prevented a lot of pain and frustration" (source). The fact the the "page tools" change was deployed the week after the default flips just adds to the perception that Vector 2022 isn't ready. Legoktm (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good practice to let discussions run their course. Assuming all rules are followed (civility, on topic, etc.), folks should get their say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)