Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Lvl-2 headers at WP:ARCA

Can we please reformat ARCA to use lvl-2 headers for cases rather than lvl-3? A page with only one lvl-2 header makes the header rather useless. (No page should ever have only one lvl-2 header.) Also, the lvl-2 header says the same thing as the lvl-1 header (the page title), making it further useless. If every case request was a separate lvl-2 (instead of a lvl-3), it would be much easier to read on mobile (right now it's kind of impossible to read on mobile because you have to scroll past ALL of the cases to get to the one you want). And you'd be able to collapse the individual ARCAs in the V-22 TOC (currently, can't be done). PS: in reality, what renders as a level-2 header is actually a level-1 header (which, I believe, shouldn't be used at all), and what renders as level-3 headers are actually level-2 headers (the headings of the individual ARCAs), but the point is that the page renders it as one level-2 followed by multiple level-3, and so the request is to reformat the page to remove the level-1 header, so the level-2 headers will actually render as level-2. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (ARC), /Clarification and Amendment (ARCA), /Motions (ARM), and /Enforcement (AE) each have one level-1 header so that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (RFAR), which transcludes each of those subpages, will have those four level-1 sections.

However, those level-1 headers could be included only at RFAR rather than at the subpages, such as by putting them in <includeonly> tags. That is already done for AE.

That would certainly make it easier to navigate on mobile, since mobile only collapses the highest level of section headers on a page. But this would also remove the header from desktop, and people may find the header useful to the extent "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment and Clarification" and "Requests for amendment and clarification" are a bit different. (I don't believe {{If mobile}} would work; the hidden level-1 header would still prevent level-2 headers from being collapsible.)

A {{Fake heading}} could be put there instead to preserve the current appearance on desktop—

<includeonly>= [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment]] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>

—though it wouldn't show up in the table of contents. SilverLocust 💬 08:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @SilverLocust, the edit you made fixed the problem for me. Now I can comment at many more ARCAs--hey, wait, why did you self-revert? 😄 Levivich (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds more like cause for an arbitrator to revert the change. 😁 I don't have any substantive input on requests (since clerks do not participate substantively in arbitration decisions), so there is less reason for me to read everything once I'm fairly sure an edit isn't disruptive. SilverLocust 💬 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree this was annoying while I was on the committee. Izno (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility of comments

Regarding this comment: if one of the clerks would like to copy edit it so it begins with a *:, it would be appreciated. In its current form, the list style of the first-level list item changes from * to : and back to *, which causes screen readers to make extra list end/start announcements. Alternative, a pb template can be added to separate the two comments instead, which would further minimize the number of list start/end announcements and be a bit closer to the current visual appearance. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)