Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Evaluation of Vector 2022

History merging

This was tagged by Æo to be history merged with both User:Cessaune/V22RFC3 Draft and User:Awesome Aasim/Vector 2022 Feedback Survey. Neither is strictly necessary since the first page has only one author and the latter is already linked in the history. Surprisingly it would be possible to merge both since the histories don't overlap, albeit the result would be one page created on October 3, edited until Dec 27, and then a new page created from scratch on January 3. @Awesome Aasim and Cessaune: Do you agree your userspace drafts should be history merged here? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, Aaron Liu asked to merge Cessaune's userspace draft, while later I asked to merge Aasim's as well. Æo (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cessaune [talk] 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's do this. Awesome Aasim 01:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

It's been a month and a half, it seems like time to close this. I don't think we need a normal close, just a summary of the most commonly-raised points would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about search box behaviour just started about one day ago. It's not obvious that basic search behaviour is related to the skin selection. I hope some time can go by for people to react to that commentary before this is closed. At the moment, the search functionality might not be a "commonly-raised point" since others haven't had time to study those comments. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just the survey part, sorry.

Regarding your proposal, I think while we're closing it we should workshop the proposals before opening them up for !voting (perhaps on a separate page), and you should add them in that time.

Pinging @Cessaune and @Awesome Aasim about the logistics of the proposal section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the RfC has received relatively little participation from the Wikipedia community compared to the previous ones. I also advertised it on Village pumps but it seems it was not enough. Æo (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

64 editors for a survey is enough material for a closure summary. If we had 300... that'd be overwhelming. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, given how it is structured. Probably, with a different structure it would also have received more participants. Æo (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are editors still seeking a formal close? If not, please hat the discussion to make it clear that the survey is no longer accepting responses. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is supposed to write the formal list of proposals drawn from the answers (and + or -) to the questions? I think it should be done by one (or more) of us, as the "proposed changes" section contains a subsection for a further round of discussion. Also, in the last few days JML1148 has commented Sorry this took so long to post. To be honest, I completely forgot about this. I believe that the RfC was not advertised enough, and many potentially interested users remained unaware of its existence. Perhaps we should postpone the closure further, and re-advertise it more extensively. Æo (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not generally how RfCs work, and I doubt leaving this open longer will attract that many additional responses. Maybe the reason very few people responded to this (unusually formatted) RfC was because it was a mere survey soliciting feedback regarding improving V22 (with no guarantee that the WMF will actually listen, especially not after their refusal to honor the community's consensus last time), rather than an actionable RfC regarding what to do specifically. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]