This forum is a discussion about improving the "Forum rules and guidelines" article. If you'd like to participate, please register.

If you need help with Firefox, please ask a question.

[Done] Add a ToC it makes it easier to link to sub sections, currently it uses bullet paragraphs.

  • 5 Replies
  • Last reply by AliceWyman
  1. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    I know I suggested this in the long running discussions. And much else besides

    If this had a ToC then it would have sections instead of bullet point paragraphs. That makes it much more functional.

    The content is seen at a glance from the table but most importantly if someone needs to quote a paragraph or section of the guidelines, for instance someone is spamming or is hijacking a thread or not following some other guideline it is easy to link directly to that section.

    Normally I would edit it and ask for review, but it is a policy article. It is also very contentious having taken two years to make a few changes.

    I know I suggested this in the long running discussions. And much else besides If this had a ToC then it would have sections instead of bullet point paragraphs. That makes it much more functional. The content is seen at a glance from the table but most importantly if someone needs to quote a paragraph or section of the guidelines, for instance someone is spamming or is hijacking a thread or not following some other guideline it is easy to link directly to that section. Normally I would edit it and ask for review, but it is a policy article. It is also very contentious having taken two years to make a few changes.
  2. AliceWyman 4805 posts
    Report Abuse

    I made a new revision that adds sections, which is pending review. It has 11 10 separate sections! Could this be organized better? Are linkable sections even needed?

    I don't think it's necessary to link to specific sections. I simply say something like this, and quote the section that applies:

    See the Forum rules and guidelines:
    * For support requests, do not re-use existing threads started by others, even if they are seemingly on the same subject. Ask a new question instead.
    
    I made a new revision that adds sections, '''which is pending review'''. It has <s>11</s> '''10''' separate sections! Could this be organized better? Are linkable sections even needed? I don't think it's necessary to link to specific sections. I simply say something like this, and quote the section that applies: See the [[Forum rules and guidelines]]: * ''For support requests, do not re-use existing threads started by others, even if they are seemingly on the same subject. [/questions/new Ask a new question] instead.''
    Modified by AliceWyman on
  3. AliceWyman 4805 posts
    Report Abuse

    John99 said

    Normally I would edit it and ask for review, but it is a policy article. It is also very contentious having taken two years to make a few changes.

    I added [Review needed] to the thread title.

    ''John99 [[#post-9745|said]]'' <blockquote> Normally I would edit it and ask for review, but it is a policy article. It is also very contentious having taken two years to make a few changes. </blockquote> I added [Review needed] to the thread title.
  4. John99 3665 posts
    Report Abuse

    Thanks Alice.

    I think that the section link is important in long articles especially as we now probably have many users likely to use mobile devices with smaller screens.

    Yes I realise how everything policy related is very contentious that's why I thought it definitely needed a discussion. I would happily approve your amendment but I have drawn it to Madalina's attention instead in the circumstances (I have mentioned it here )

    I often link things in the way you suggest above but where there is a more specific link I use it. Sometimes if appropriate I even mention it is a long article and can be scrolled. I usually expose the article title and section when I post links to sections so I could write

    See Answering questions on the Support Forum_off-topic-questions or Troubleshoot and diagnose Firefox problems_5-reinstall-firefox (You may want to scroll to read the other topics)

    Instead of here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/answering-questions-support-forum (there's a section for off-topic questions). or Clean Reinstall

    It goes to the correct place in the article. And as we are aware by using [[]] it shows the correct version for locale OS & Fx version (Applicable for ordinary KB articles rather than policy docs)

    Thanks Alice. I think that the section link is important in long articles especially as we now probably have many users likely to use mobile devices with smaller screens. Yes I realise how everything policy related is very contentious that's why I thought it definitely needed a discussion. I would happily approve your amendment but I have drawn it to Madalina's attention instead in the circumstances (I have mentioned it [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/710531?last=61209#post-61209 here] ) I often link things in the way you suggest above but where there is a more specific link I use it. Sometimes if appropriate I even mention it is a long article and can be scrolled. I usually expose the article title and section when I post links to sections so I could write ''See [[Answering questions on the Support Forum#w_off-topic-questions]]_off-topic-questions '' or ''[[Troubleshoot and diagnose Firefox problems#w_5-reinstall-firefox]]'''_5-reinstall-firefox''''' (You may want to scroll to read the other topics) Instead of '' here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/answering-questions-support-forum (there's a section for off-topic questions).'' or [[Troubleshoot and diagnose Firefox problems#w_5-reinstall-firefox |Clean Reinstall]] It goes to the correct place in the article. And as we are aware by using <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki> it shows the correct version for locale OS & Fx version (Applicable for ordinary KB articles rather than policy docs)
  5. AliceWyman 4805 posts
    Report Abuse

    My July 28, 2014 revision was overwritten in /kb/forum-rules-and-guidelines/revisi.../74995 so it is no longer pending review:

       Revision id: 74995
       Created: Sep 5, 2014 12:14:19 PM
       Creator: deb.bhattacharya6
       Comment: removed share article
       Reviewed: Yes
       Reviewed: Sep 6, 2014 7:03:26 PM
       Reviewed by: jsavage
       Is approved? Yes
       Is current revision? Yes
       Ready for localization: No
    
    My July 28, 2014 revision was overwritten in [/kb/forum-rules-and-guidelines/revision/74995] so it is no longer pending review: Revision id: 74995 Created: Sep 5, 2014 12:14:19 PM Creator: deb.bhattacharya6 Comment: removed share article Reviewed: Yes Reviewed: Sep 6, 2014 7:03:26 PM Reviewed by: jsavage Is approved? Yes Is current revision? Yes Ready for localization: No
  6. AliceWyman 4805 posts
    Report Abuse

    I made a new revision to add back the edits that were pending in my last unreviewed July 28, 2014 revision. (I also deleted the previous July 28th revision that I had deferred.)

    Joni reviewed and approved it so I removed "[Review needed] " from the thread title.

    I made a new revision to add back the edits that were pending in my last unreviewed July 28, 2014 revision. (I also deleted the previous July 28th revision that I had deferred.) Joni reviewed and approved it so I removed "[Review needed] " from the thread title.
    Modified by AliceWyman on