Talk:Vector 2022
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Novem Linguae in topic Why is this a standalone article?
 | This talk page is for discussing the encyclopedia article about the Vector 2022 skin. For discussion about the skin itself, visit Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vector 2022 redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Editnotice request
[edit]
Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Vector 2022 | This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Page/Vector 2022 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article relates to Wikipedia itself. Please note that links to non-article namespaces should be treated as external links and not included in the body. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and all references to Wikipedia must comply with WP:ABOUTSELF.
Wikipedia related topic. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done While this was requested in good faith, I don't feel adding this edit notice without an explicit consensus for it would be appropriate given people making arguments like Special:Diff/1135232031 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree with BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 that the edit notice is appropriate here, despite any concerns from a particular WP:POV. Graham (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is this a standalone article?
[edit]We don't have articles on the Facebook, Reddit, Digg redesigns (the last one pretty much killed the website) etc. All of those got orders of magnitude more coverage, so how is this having a standalone article not WP:UNDUE?
Surely this can just be integrated into History_of_Wikipedia#Look_and_feel or maybe even a subsection? Legoktm (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Notable redesigns of websites
- Well, in theory, I guess.
- Anyway, I can understand that argument, this article was kinda created out of an urge to incorporate the topic and (at the time) not having any better idea as to how to do that. If there's consensus to merge this article to History of Wikipedia I would be happy to do so. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more with Legoktm's sentiments above. This is a subsection at best. If there's no vocal opposition, I'll probably boldly merge to History_of_Wikipedia#Look_and_feel within the next few days. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. My first thought when I saw this article is that it might not meet WP:PERSISTENCE. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up at AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
RfC discussion as source
[edit]I see we're currently using the RfC discussion as an inline citation (twice). I assume these should be removed as sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I believe we should keep it. The RfC itself is mentioned in the Slate article, so its relevance to the topic is backed up by a secondary source, and citing a historical Wikipedia discussion as a primary source is a norm in articles about notable Wikipedia-related topics. There are sources to Wikipedia in, for instance, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy (where the relevant discussion is included as an external link) and other such articles. WP:ABOUTSELF gives allowance for self-published citations when it is relevant to the subject, and this is one case where that applies. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 21:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)