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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
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. Please see Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:How to break up a page for details of when such copying and pasting is acceptable and when it is not, and how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the "copying within Wikipedia" guideline for an overview of the issues involved.
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.
I 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)[reply]
Hi 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
