Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence

Based on our experience at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence, a thoughouly confusing page, I have made a change in format requiring that each person who enters evidence present evidence in their own section only. Fred Bauder 15:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. →Raul654 20:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the link to the workshop to [[../Workshop|/Workshop]] because when you open cases you won't have to fix the links manually. If there's something wrong with this, please let me know and revert. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would please me greatly if this template did not use my name as an example. Cute, but... :-)--Jimbo Wales 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to reflect two points arising in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy:

• Length is mostly for the primary evidence, responses should be kept short as well, but are not necessarily part of the "rule of thumb" 1000 words/100 diffs. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence#Evidence Presentations

• Clerk judgement on reasonable evidence length/layout may apply on cases with unusual complexity. comment clerk opinion

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm credibly informed that nobody reads this talkpage, I've crossposted the message to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration.

Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of help:diff, which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to?

Also, help:diff is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two. I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence. So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention this simple tutorial and/or this really, really simple tutorial at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevantparagraph to something like this is what I have in mind:

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See Diff and link tutorial.

Bishonen | talk 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks good. I wonder in general if the header is too wordy, and could use a rewrite from scratch, but everything in there now seems to be something that needs to be said. Hmmm.... Thatcher131 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melsaran, that's an intriguing point about offset parameters you added, but... when I edited the template instructions recently to simplify them, and asked the arbs and clerks for input — see the history, and the replies here, and especially Thatcher's reply above — it was clearly a concern to keep them as clean and simple as possible. For new users, I think your addition may add to the noise level and make them even less confident about submitting evidence. Wikinerd and gnomes, on the other hand, can probably get there without telling. And people in between, like me, who do need telling, will be frustrated by not getting told how to use these parameters. Perhaps you could ask about it on WT:RFAR ? User:Newyorkbrad recommended me to do that, as nobody, he said, reads this page. Best, Bishonen | talk 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, that's a good point. I could create a help page about offsets (there's currently nothing about it in Help:Page history) and link to it, because you're right in pointing out that it is a little confusing to just mention the word "offset" without an explanation here. I'll think it over and see what's the best solution :) thanks for your thoughts. Melsaran 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you decide when and where to explain offsets, please let me know; I've never heard of them. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]