Help talk:Unreviewed new page/Archive 1

Archived development talk

Infopage

MB, I agree with your edit wrt COI. However, I am not entirely convinced that this should not be marked as an {{infopage}}. The relevant guideline says that infopages are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. I think that is exactly what this page is doing: clarifying why articles are not marked as reviewed, and how they become reviewed. Infopages can become guidelines through consensus, so I do not see why this potentially becoming a guideline would impact what this should currently be marked as. Finally, I do not see why the fact that this is not linked to from matters. The template's documentation does not say it is only for use on pages with many incoming links. If this page is still a draft, the documentation recommends adding the |nocat= param; this instruction implies that it can be on the page while it is still a draft. House Blaster^talk 02:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, yes I consider this a draft at this stage. What I meant by saying it is not linked from anywhere is that no one should be even looking at it yet. The guideline you mention is talking about WP: project level pages. This is within a Wikiproject area and I don't think we need to worry about any tags yet. That is a matter that can wait until it is finished and moved to WP:something (I'm not sure "Unreviewed article help" would be the final name). MB 03:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster, I think MB is right. Naturally comments are welcome, even at an early stage, but I haven't finished copy-editing it yet, This is very much in developmental stage and the format of the new feature it would eventually support has not even been decided on or been discussed for consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have something that is clean, uncluttered, inspirational for new users. and not a wall of policy text. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung, yes it looks nice. Your clean format is a big improvement over my original version. MB 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fabulous! One thought: I think the scam warning should be at the top of the page. People might get their answer in the lead and click away, never seeing the critical warning. House Blaster^talk 22:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB and HouseBlaster: There's nothing grates on my eyes more than seeing a cluster of banners on the top of a page. That's why I combined the nutshell with the ombox, and also queried if the Help banner is really needed - it's not mandatory. This help page for example, does not have the help page banner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some value in stating if a page is a policy/guideline/essay or whatever. A agree the banner is ugly clutter. I just removed it and put "Top text" instead - just a thought. MB 16:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting way to do it. I like it! Are there other pages that use top text in this way? I do think we should spell out WP:INFOPAGE (something like Page type: Information page), as this page is meant for newer editors who are probably not familiar with wikijargon. House Blaster^talk 16:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made an adjustment. I have never seen it done elsewhere. If you are looking for a project, you could propose doing this on all pages and replace the banners. Maybe put a box around it. Use different colored backgrounds for the class (policy/essay/etc). MB 01:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Column width

Kudpung, the two columns are of different widths. I looked at this on an iPad yesterday, and it was even more apparent with that screen ratio. I had this fixed once just by using standard Wikitable markup and you un-did that. Was there a reason? MB 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise I had reverted. I was probably doing something else. Please correct it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you did not revert it. I made a bad assumption. The column problem is still fixed. The two columns are the same width on my desktop browser. With my smartphone, in desktop mode, they look fine also, same width. Holding the phone in landscape orientation, it looks the same. In portrait, the images don't display but the text is formatted fine. Switching to mobile view, landscape is fine but portrait view is unreadable - the images are displayed leaving room for only 1 to 3 words on a line (but the columns do appear to be the same width). On my iPad, I see the problem where the second column appears to be about 2/3 with width of the first column. This is how it used to be everywhere. My iPad is very old with an unsupported operating system and other websites don't always render correctly either, so that is probably the reason. MB 01:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive web design is never perfect. It was horror for web designers when visits to websites from phones overtook desktops and laptops. Fine for reading web content but a disaster and highly discouraged for actually working on websites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going live

At present, two systems will link to this page, the 'Move to draft' script, and the 'Unreviewed page' button on unreviewed pages, and others may follow. As soon as one or the other of these goes live, please archive these development discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]