Wikipedia

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 6

< MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages
(Redirected from MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details/Archive 6)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by GabeMc in topic Beatles RfC
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Adoption of WMF resolution on controversial content as Wikipedia guideline

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The part of that is not about new software features (i.e. the personal image filter) was put up as proposed guideline, WP:Follow the principle of least astonishment. Currently, the participation is mostly limited to editors that were highly involved in previous discussions. Perhaps a notice here would be appropriate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too small and negligible impact for most WP articles to require a watchlist notice. Post at CENT and VPP appropriately instead. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Masem's assessment of the importance of this RfC. I disagree with ASCIIn2Bme's timing; there are too many uncertainties (meaning of "controversial," meaning of "principle of least astonishment", is the resolution mandatory, or a suggestion?) that need to be clarified before we can launch a meaningful RfC. But, once those points are cleared up, we should put it to the widest possible editorship. This Board resolution directly challenges WP:NOTCENSORED, or at least the way many vocal editors interpret that policy. If it is mandatory, we need to adjust, or clarify that policy. Even if it is not mandatory, we need to, out of respect for the Foundation, give the advice our most considered attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not launch the RfC myself. I too would have preferred ironing out the details first. But once the ball got rolling... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought it was you. I'd really like to shut that down for a month or so, or at least until we've clarified the issue of obligation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Binding content discussions

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Sggest to add something along the lines of "RFC on the implementation of Binding RFCs, a community process for the resolution of intractable content disputes."

I'm asking here because discussion at the village pump has been low, even with advertising on CENT. I think it warrants a watchlist notice because such a change would be a major change to our dispute resolution processes. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hardly anyone reads CENT. But the discussion itself is rather poorly structured, so I don't think advertising it here is going to fix that. You'll just get more noise or repetition of things already said. There obviously seems to be no consensus to adopt that page as guideline/policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, that is your personal opinion. Discussion at the village pump has been in support of the idea, so please do not take your own comments as the opinion of the wider community. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There are two or three people on VPP supporting this, and about the same number questioning the proposal, just as are on its talk page. Although I doubt it will attain consensus in its current form, I support a watchlist notice because it does have the potential to affect many high-profile articles. However, where is the binding discussion taking place? There are parallel discussions on VPP and on the proposal's talk page, which seems a bit of a WP:FORUMSHOP to me. The one on the talk page has received more feedback, I think, but you are linking to the other one in your proposed text. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that it's a raw "some support, some oppose". The proposal is in its infancy. I know it can be improved. I sent it to th village pump for discussion as comments have been slow. I don't consider it forum shopping to ask for opinions. If I asked people to support it in several places then of course, but I merely want input, comments and suggestions so as a community we can make this work. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Community consultation on SOPA act

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

In order to allow time for the WMF to technologically support any action taken regarding WP:SOPA, we need to be able to begin preparing in advance. For that reason, we are launching a discussion to try to determine what consensus may have developed for community response. Please weigh in on the consultation page, at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action. Could we please have this added to the watchlist notice? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
+! () Bulwersator (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The sooner we don't have to hear anything more about bloody SOPA the better, so yes please tell everyone to hurry up and decide...FINALLY! fredgandt 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering the wide ramifications of the discussion, and that has a time restriction inherently built inside of it, this should go up here, and maybe even as a sitenotice. Can you give us the text you want to put on the sitenotice? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&method=listNoticeDetail&notice=enWP+SOPA+RfC --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disabling edit request - a bit late to do anything now. - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

A request for comment has been initiated to discuss the structure of the leadership for the Featured Articles department at en:wiki. Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. A watchlist notice would help draw the attention of a wider group of editors. The RFC will run for a minimum of ten days and a maximum of 30 days. Thank you for considering this request. --Dianna (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion would benefit from well-crafted opinions from a wider cross section of the community, not a higher volume of votes (or "!votes" AKA "votes"). Any watchlist notice should make this clear. —WFC— 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it has been set up as a vote with clear questions/statements for people to support/oppose, e.g. "Raul is reconfirmed in the FA director role". I suspect a fair number of people would like to have their say on that, so I support adding the watch list notice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote. —WFC— 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please get this up; the RfC has begun and is off to a lopsided start with mostly insider opinions. Alarbus (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Allrighty then, could someone explain where the line is drawn (I, for one, hate site-wide banners and wish they were not a default to be turned off with gadgets, rather off by default and only turned on with gadgets), and if every process (which is best understood by those who actually participate in it) needs site-wide advertisement, can we also get site-wide banners for RFCs about Disruptive editing, RFA processes, DYK copyvio issues, elections for MilHist coordinators, elections for WP:GOCE coordinators, and others that have a broad impact on the mainpage? In fact, why don't we have site-wide banners for every featured process RFCs (there are about half a dozen), since they all are displayed on the mainpage? There are currently a multitude of discussions at DYK that could benefit from more eyes, and there are copyvio issues being obscured by GOCE copyedits-- can we get site-wide RFCs on these issues? If someone could change gadgets so that these things are turned off by default, it would be grand, since most editors find their way to discussions they care about without a banner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not a critical site-wide impacting RFC. CENT and VPP are appropriate locations to gain interested readers' attention. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guild of Copy editors once had a site-wide banner for a copy edit drive. It's a good idea to advertise, to increase participation. --Dianna (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose – per User:Masem, there is no call for a site-wide banner in this case, not a good idea...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    Getting input from outside the Featured Article Empire is not a good idea? Alarbus (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    Getting input from outside the usual FA crowd is fine. But watchlist-details is not the only way, nor the most traditional way to do this; that's why there's CENT and VPP; this also gives non-registered editors the opportunity to see the notice to response. We have learned from the past that a majority of editors very much dislike anything that is not of a critical nature to be broadcasted on watchlist-details, and thus reserve it for cases that really have a direct effect on all editors (such as the binding RFC RFC going on now). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A minority of even active Wikipedians have any interest in the Featured Content processes; a tiny minority of registered users have any interest. Putting this at the top of the watchlist would imply that this is an issue that impacts all of Wikipedia and every Wikipedian. Not only do we know that's not true, we know that pretending that it is true leads to unproductive drama. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a discussion which is important to the whole project as it represents part of our public face (ie the main page TFA), so everyone should be informed and offered the opportunity to get involved if they're currently unaware of it. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. What kind of people try to prevent publicity like that? How Machievellian. Reminds me of the same people voting against having a vote to have a vote to have an election? If I were against a proposal of yours (for instance Kudpung's RFA effort), I would NOT try to stop him publicizing it. I would wish him the best actually. That is because I beleive in teeing everything up fairly, rather than trying to edit war/control processes.TCO (Reviews needed) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think there are more FA pages than pages that need "binding RfCs". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Dank: You talk good sense, like always. But I would like to point out that what happens up at FA sets the standard for best practices for the whole wiki, and therefore has site-wide implications. --Dianna (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for DYK, on the mainpage, with frequent copyvio and faulty hooks-- could we get a site-wide RFC, please? Ditto for "elections" at all six featured processes, which are featured on the mainpage, along with OTD, and ITN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
That's gracious of you, Diannaa, thanks. Disclaimer: I don't come to this page much, and generally my inclination is to vote "no" here, because notifications to every registered user tend to pull in people who not only don't know the issues, but arrived annoyed that they were summoned to something where they don't know the issues. I think the usual bad results would be worse for a discussion about the Feature Content processes, since the issues are even more impenetrable than usual. Notifications have already gone up at WP:CENT, at News & Notes in today's Signpost, and everywhere else that anyone could think of ... and I have no objection to notifications going anywhere, really ... except an "in-your-face" notification to every registered user. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect it seems to me that a site-wide blast is simply counter productive to the ultimate improvement of one of the most complex, creative, quality sensitive, and valuable projects in the encyclopedia. The featured article project is opened to all but at the same time it is a project that heavily critiques submitted articles and theoretically presents only the very best after a long and arduous process. It's complex and rarified nature narrows successful inclusions almost by necessity, and is a very tough process to endure - certainly not for everybody; and not fun for most...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania scholarships deadline

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

We'd like to remind Wikipedians about the Wikimania 2012 travel scholarship deadline, which is February 16. [1] I think watchlist notice would be a helpful reminder.

Something like this:

Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Agree Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We already used central notice for a week for this. Now it's steward elections, and don't want to overuse central notice anyway. Cheers --Aude (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New RFC process trial run notice

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I got a request to add a notice and thinks it complies with the use of this page, but wanted to post here for a couple hours before I implement it. Thanks. MBisanz talk 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done As no one objected. MBisanz talk 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

COI RfC

Please announce the ArbCom-requested RfC on COI here. It surely has more site-wide impact than the abortion-related titles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC needing more attention

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the following watchlist notice. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally include a watchlist notice for such a narrow focussed RfC. Have you tried WP:CENT as a first step? I've disabled the request for now, but it can be reenabled if there is agreement that this notice is appropriate here. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Just from discussions, we thought that a watchlist notice would be necessary [2]. I don't think centralized discussion is appropriate either if this "narrow focused" RfC isn't accepted here because CENT requires a broad-scoped discussion to be considered as a topic there. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images. The RfC is all-but-mandated by ArbCom, and has policy ramifications. It's not online yet, but I want to make sure there are no objections to including this as a watchlist notice before it goes online. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest using:
!vote is unclear and unnecessarily complex. Crazynas t 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is I need to differentiate it from the abortion RfC which isn't voting yet. "!vote" is well-understood by the community. Maybe just "active"? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The wording has already been changed, I assume the concern that prompted this request is addressed now. Amalthea 08:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice for new shop community launch

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hey all,

I'd like to post a short(ish) message on the watchlist as part of the community launch of our new shop to try and encourage feedback as we're tweaking things and trying to make it better (/get a feel for what people want). My thought is below but very open for opinion. I'd like to get it up Wednesday or Thursday if we can and leave up for a week.

Thoughts? Jalexander--WMF 00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You would save a lot of grief by dropping all text from "and offering both...". It's one thing to use the watchlist notice to inform editors of a new feature and to invite feedback, but promotion even of good causes will cause unnecessary trouble. Anyone remotely interested would check the link where presumably it mentions the discount, so any mention here is superfluous. I would suggest further brevity:
The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for feedback at the community launch of the new Wikimedia Shop with official Wikipedia merchandise.
Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with your proposed wording (replaced above). I almost didn't put it there originally but was trying to make it easiest to 'just go'. It isn't hard to find so i don't imagine they will 'not' find the code if they actually want to order something (which is most important) and the store feedback more important then orders (though I do want feedback on that process to ;) ). Jalexander--WMF 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If I found a reference to a merchandising shop in the watchlist notice I'd consider it advertising. I would recommend posting it at the village pump instead.
BTW, your HTTPS certificate is incorrect for the domain.
Amalthea 08:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
yeah, sadly we know about the https issue. Checkout is just fine but there is a mismatch right now because of software limitations if you try to go to https before checkout. We're working with them to try and adjust that and for now an exemption for shop.wikimedia.org has been placed in to the httpsEverywhere release branch for the next deployment of that (which seems to be where we hit it the most). Jalexander--WMF 18:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We've had it on the VP for the past couple days but while I'm an advocate of announcing things there it's sadly not a very good place for mass communication with the community. The Village Pump Miscellaneous for example only gets about 180 views a day (120 from VP-misc and 60 from VP-all ) and many of those are the same people. We could obviously do a CN for logged in users or a site notice as well (and we might do something like that for the full public launch but haven't really gotten that far yet planning wise) but I think that something on the watchlist is the least obtrusive way of getting information out to a large portion of the editing community. I also think that, while this is certainly as addy as something could get here it is reasonable in this case especially given the subject matter and that we really aren't looking to get any 'profit'. Hopefully you find it less 'addy' with the removal of the discount information. Jalexander--WMF 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
'Oppose'. This 'word' should not get out; "shop." and frankly the whole notion of wikimedia merchandise should not exist except as freebies. Pogo was right. Alarbus (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd still really like to get some feedback on this and find something we can put up. Talking to other editors I think there are a couple good ideas they came up with and I'm open to a lot of flexibility:

Jalexander--WMF 17:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I think I like the first better, though maybe put the word "wiki-gear" in there somewhere(!). Getting community feedback for the pre-launch of this seems like a good use of the notice.--Pharos (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The time has finally come to settle the mess left over from last year's RFC. A carefully structured RFC to be overseen by three previously uninvolved admins (already recruited) is ready to go live. As was the case last time, it would be best if there were a site-wide notice about it as it effects everyone. As soon as that is ok'd the RFC will open and the notice can go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a Pending Changes RfC should be added to the watchlist notice. This affects editors directly, and as seen previously many have strong opinions on it. Any result might be rejected if people felt they weren't properly informed about a discussion of such a possibly fundamental change. Amalthea 08:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know how to do this, and it seems like every time I propose wording for such a thing there are objections I didn't anticipate and my wording gets rejected, but here's all I think is needed: "A Request For Comment is underway to decide the future of Pending Changes". That is the one and only goal of the RFC, although the option to kick the can down the road and deal with it another day is on the table. Can we just do this? It's never been real clear to me how these decisions are made. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Seeing no objections this has been   Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Abortion article" watchlist notice

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It has been suggested that there is a problem with people assuming that the articles under discussion at WP:RFC/AAT are "our abortion articles" with consequent misunderstanding of the fact that an article's title pretty-much specifies its topic. Can we change the watchlist message from

"The RFC on the abortion article names as requested by the Arbitration Committee is now open for voting by the community. Please consider providing your opinion."

to

"The RFC on the title of two abortion-related articles, as requested by the Arbitration Committee, is now open for voting by the community. Please consider providing your opinion." ?

Thanks,

Yaris678 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Y Done--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

IPv6

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It would be nice if meta:IPv6 initiative and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject IPv6 Readiness could be put on to canvass more developers, since no-one seems to be interested.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Does all of that really need to be worked out in advance? If you build it, they'll come.
Regarding tools, I think Twinkle is prepared already, and popups should only need a small fix in recognizing IPs. But I don't intend to check until I find an IPv6 edit here, not least because it's then much simpler to test.
Amalthea 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My goal is to solve all problems before World IPv6 Day. My analysis (see the IPv6 subpage in my userspace) shows some glaring unsolved problems, especially those concerning policies and not technicalities. Yes we are participating in World IPv6 Day.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Spammy notices

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Can someone please tell me how to remove these silly spam messages from my watchlist? I'm sick and tired of hiding them, only for more to appear a day later. I've tried all manner of things but nothing seems to be working. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that every time a new entry is added a new "dismiss" cookie is enabled and the entire updated list goes back on at the top of everyone's watchlist. I find it rather easy to ignore myself, but maybe someone at WP:VPT would know how to disable it permanently, the folks over there know all kinds of neat tricks like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
While I'm of the opinion that these particular messages are the easiest to ignore and so are really helpful for editor communication (no one reads VP overall so it's pretty bad for example) you can hide them all with some css .watchlist-message { display: none } Jalexander--WMF 21:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I have that in my monobook.css file and still the spam appears. I also have ".siteNotice { display:none; } .watchlist-message { display:none; } " in my common.css file and that does nothing. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure it's supposed to be #watchlist-message { display:none; } – Steel 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This works: #siteNotice, #watchlist-message, .geonotice{ display: none !important; } and also blocks some of the other annoying crap that keeps being forced upon us. —danhash (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok I've added that to my monobook.css file and all messages seem to have gone. I thank you in advance if they don't return :) BTW, I reckon these messages should be opt-in, not opt-out. Parrot of Doom 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right, they should be opt-in. If people really need to know this stuff it can be located on a separate page linked to from the main page or the sidebar, or it can go in the Signpost, Wikipedia:Goings-on, or any of the Village pumps. —danhash (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree, the intention is quite certainly to publicize things that editors should be informed about. It may be overused, but some issues (like Arbcom elections) need the this aggressive publication. Amalthea 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps there should be a button up top, "click to reveal important messages". I've been here years and have zero interest in arbcom and the like. Parrot of Doom 09:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but at the same time others require that discussions of fundamental changes that affect all editors, like pending changes, need to be broadly advertised in order to be valid (i.e. not on an opt-in basis).
I think we need a mechanism to push such notices to editors, but I agree that it should be used sparingly. FWIW, how to opt out has been long described in Wikipedia:Watchlist notices which is linked in the hatnote above, and there already are other opt-in ways of publication like WP:CENT.
Amalthea 10:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As it is now, these notices get loaded with JavaScript, so they are not there when the page loads, then after the page loads they pop up, pushing content down. Even clicking dismiss does not make them go away, because they always load, whether they are dismissed or not. First of all, the "hiding" of these messages is down with a cookie, so they have to be dismissed on every computer you use every time you clear your cookies, but even worse is that even with the dismiss cookie in place, the page loads, then the messages load, then they hide themselves. I can hardly think of a worse way for this to happen. Any messages like this should be loaded statically with the page and once they are dismissed they should not display ever again. —danhash (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1000 free 1 year accounts available from HighBeam Research; applications opened officially yesterday.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The HighBeam Research collaboration (project page: WP:HighBeam) is gearing up. Since March 13, over 250 editors have signed up for free, 1-year accounts with the online research database, and there are 750 more available.

One of the goals of the project is to promote the application process widely and to make sure all editors are informed of the opportunity. A watchlist notice would alert the community about the nice thing HighBeam is doing and give them an opportunity to participate. The application process ends on April 9th, so I would only ask for the notice to remain up during the next 5-6 days. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Any response to this? The account sign-up period ends tomorrow, but there are 575 accounts left, so it would make sense to advertise it over the next week. Please let me know if that's possible. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting extension on the Pending Changes message

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can replace the current Pending Changes message: 

{{Display/watchlist |until=23 April |cookie=118 |text=A [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012|request for comment]] is under way to decide the future of [[WP:PC|pending changes]]. }}

with the following: 

{{Display/watchlist |until=23 May |cookie=200 |text=A [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012|request for comment]] is under way to decide the future of [[WP:PC|pending changes]]. The discussion will be closed on 22 May 2012.}}

The discussions have been extended: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012&diff=489337701&oldid=488993115. Pending Changes is something that might change Wikipedia fundamentally, so it's important that users checking Special:Watchlist, especially new users checking Special:Watchlist for the first time since Pending Changes will affect new users and their revisions the most, learn of the discussions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but perhaps it should say, "The discussion will remain open until 22 May 2012," instead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, yes, I agree; so, that's a   done again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC on the watchlist formatting changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Please link WP:Village pump (technical)#RFC. I really do not want another false consensus like when this was "approved".--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than a link to yet another "I like it/I don't like it" RFC, a link to a page explaining how to disable the new feature might be better.  An optimist on the run! 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh, no. We want users' opinions on this, and that would be far more productive than an explanatory page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I think all that most users will be bothered about is how to switch it off if they don't like it (which is a simple fix). As the message would appear when they see the watchlist, this is the ideal place to do this. An RFC, on the other hand, is just a debate.  An optimist on the run! 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Then how about both? RFCs work best if we have the whole community instead of just a subset.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A great number of users are concerned about how youse felt it was appropriate to implement significant UI changes without appropriate community discussion in the first place; and, why you have failed to revert it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) (colloquial second person plural to clearly indicate the use of second person plural) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What on earth gives you the impression that I was responsible for the changes? The reason I have "failed to revert it" as you put it, is beacuse I'm not a developeer and didn't implement it in the first place. If you look in the "simple fix" diff I provided above, you'll notice I've opted out of the change. It's better to provide a fix rather create a song and dance about every change.  An optimist on the run! 06:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
My indent level wasn't replying to you personally, and I replied in the generic second person, the second person plural (which I have clarified). Poor process causes shitstorms. In this case poor process in decision making and implementation. And in this case nobody seems to have taken responsibility for the change so far. Applying individual user level "fixes" isn't a "fix" when sectional arrogance causing consensus problems in the community is the real and substantive problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently, everyone's watchlist is visually changed back to plain vanilla. I have done this in the css as a temporary measure while we do some stakeholder communications. The facility to highlight unread pages remains available in the software, and a page has been set up at WP:CUSTOMWATCH with some suggestions as to what is available to users. A discussion as to next steps has been started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Next_steps. Shall we close the discussion here for the moment, and come back when we have a proposal. We need to both inform users that they can customise their watchlist and find out if there is a majority preference, and I think we need something that's well laid out if we are going to present it to potentially all editors who use watchlists. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfc on watchlist changes - part 2

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

We now have an RfC going at User:Elen of the Roads/Watchlist survey (people started filling it in before I could move it anywhere else, hence it's in my userspace. As whatever is the final outcome will become the default for everyone, it would be nice to get as much feedback as possible. There is never going to be a default that everyone likes, so it would also inform all watchlist users that they can customise their watchlist to something they like better. Could we possibly have a watchlist notice on this, something like

"What should the new default watchlist look like? Give your feedback on watchlist styles and find out how to customise your watchlist at User:Elen of the Roads/Watchlist survey"

Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey. I support adding a watchlist notification for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No particular concerns over moving it - people just started filling it in where it was. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay I've moved it. For an project-wide discussion like this, it is probably more appropriate to be in project space rather than someone's user space. Gives it more credibility as well perhaps. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice   Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 RFC

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I started User talk:Jasper Deng/IPv6#RFC, and I feel that the community needs to discuss the implications of the protocol, much more than just what has been discussed already.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... this looks important but it would go over the heads of most people and watchlist message might not get the attention of the people you want anyway. Wouldn't it be better to:
  1. Post a message at WP:VPT
  2. Post message on relevant talk pages, such as at WT:STiki. Getting the developers of tools on board will be very helpful. I think STiki could be an interesting case in point because it uses machine learning that looks at (amongst other things) the IP address of "anonymous" editors.
Yaris678 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Those both failed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying you have done both of those things? I didn't notice any comments at WT:STiki. Yaris678 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Complaint regarding POTY notice

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to register an objection to the sparse Picture of the Year nomination dialog currently in the page. It is my understanding that the watchlist notices are supposed to be text based minor synopses of the issue that is worthy of attention and not graphic advertisements. I have dismissed it from my UI, but I feel this opens the door to future "banner style" notices that destroy the "extremely significant" nature of the watchlist notice system. I will post linking notices at the appropraite village pumps and at WP:MWM. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. We tried to get CentralNotice like the years before but this didn't work (at least not yet). One significant line might be enough. Just {{edit COI}} it or an admin who is reading here can implement it without such a request? Thank you. -- Rillke (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Would also add the commons landing page from the link is poor. Regards, SunCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've accepted that most people are just going to dismiss this notice and move on, however my complaint is more of a "Policy setting" nature to ensure that future ones are restricted from putting banner announcements in there. Obviously the Fundraising drives will always have their place, but it's more a attempt to guard against future adverts. Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to a text notice per the request. Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff meetup confusion - it's the Welsh language wiki meetup

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure where to put this, but the current link to a Cardiff meetup in the English Watchlist links to the Wicipedia meetup (the Welsh language wiki - entirely its own thing). It wasn't apparent at all for a while that this wasn't an 'en' event, or possibly somehow both (I initially put my name down for it), but after some discussion they changed their text to make it clear and I obviously withdrew my name. I'm sure there was some confusion here on the noticeboard side.

Just to say, if anyone does think it's ok to promote Wicipedia on the en noticeboard - honestly it really isn't. The official language of Wales, Cardiff and the English Wikipedia is English - there cannot be confusion over that. Good luck to them, but the en noticeboard isn't the place. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is acutally a WP:GEONOTICE not a watchlist notice. As far as I can see this addition was not discussed anywhere so I have removed it for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but it's back and I can't see any discussion. I don't mind starting it if there still is none (ie somewhere other than here) - do you know where would be the best place? Would it be on the talk of page you linked to? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Some discussion going on at the talk page of the editor who reverted me, see User talk:Dominic#MediaWiki:Geonotice.js. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 deployment

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

We've had a number of incidents where admins have blocked IPv6 addresses because they thought they were accounts with deliberately confusing names. Could we post a watchlist notice with an example IPv6 address so people know what to look out for, and a link to further info? Equazcion (talk) 00:46, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Shall we just make this visible for admins? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I've cobbled something together. Feel free to tweak! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Is there some centralized discussion about these addresses and how to, well, address them? Might not be a bad idea to link it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:IPv6 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah but page is fairly useless and doesn't have any practical information ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no centralized place that has discussion and info. WP:IPv6 seems like the place to make it happen though. I added links to WP:IPv6#Resources:
Regarding whether to make it an admin-only notice, I think other editors should probably be made aware too, since everyone reports username issues etc. Equazcion (talk) 16:28, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was already posted. It looks good (thanks MSGJ!) but I didn't notice it. Could it be made to stand out a little more? Maybe just bold the beginning, "Editors are advised..."? Equazcion (talk) 16:52, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I think we should probably keep the bold headline back for more major announces. The italics do a decent job, I think. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
One would think that just following the link such as 2001:718:1E03:5184:8CA3:8DDA:38D5:6D2B and then simply reading "This is the contributions page for an IP user" would be enough ... apparently not. Still, I think a temporary bold notice would be more appropriate on the contribs page in Sp-contributions-footer-anon (for the code to recognize IPv6 see Template:Anontools). — AlexSm 19:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice idea - done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I like that too, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 00:17, 15 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Random

This is seriously the most random watchlist notice I've ever seen. I'm a total layperson about this sort of thing, so I'm not going to deny that I thought this was a joke. I had to Google the random characters to even find this talk page, only to discover that the initial concept for this notice was to notify admin. Is there no other way for admin to communicate among themselves (the Patronus Charm comes to mind) than by bullhorn across everyone's watchlist? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just a temporary measure, and it is for all editors who use their watchlist because such editors should be aware of the recent change that affects their watchlist and history pages. Just about everyone is used to something like 192.168.12.34, and it is useful to know that stuff like 2001:718:1E03:5184:8CA3:8DDA:38D5:6D2B is effectively the same. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The notice does contain a link where you would've found out it wasn't a joke, no googling required. I'm not sure why you weren't compelled to check there? Maybe another link to the wikiproject would help, dunno. Equazcion (talk) 08:19, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

RFC on change to WP:BLOCK and unblocking policy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC: third party request for unblock discussing third-party requests to unblock blocked editors. Since this is a very important policy, it is felt in the discussion that a wider range of editors should be notified about this RFC. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=499783385&oldid=499733974 – A similar message should be posted on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Proposed message:

The Wikimedia Foundation would like to want to hear the community's opinion on whether it should join the Internet Defense League. Please visit the discussion page on Meta.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37

Latest comment: 12 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

This is already at CENT, and has been noted at several noticeboards, but (though I am hesitant, because I'm shy of "drive-by voting", and this is a lengthy proposal that should be fully read), I think that maybe this should be placed as a watchlist notice.

I obviously welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely support. I would be a necessity for a proposal of this kind in my opinion. --RA (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Me too. I think this needs to be seen and commented on by as wide an audience as possible, and I think the proposed wording will allay any fears about drive-by voting. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not crazy about that wording. "A type of admin to help with backlogs" will encourage drive-by voting, no matter what disclaimers come after, because it sounds like an obviously positive thing. I think "a new type of admin" is fine alone -- make people read the details and justification somewhat from the proposal itself, before trying to sell them based on buzzwords. Equazcion (talk) 01:16, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The proposal has always noted that about the backlogs (and yet you and others have opposed), so I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. I did leave out the phrase "content-related", would you prefer it if I added that back in? - jc37 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "to help with backlogs" is inappropriate. It isn't clear that we'd be creating "a new type of admin", so I suggest the following wording:
"There is a proposal to create a new user group with some of the tools available to administrators. Please read the full proposal thoroughly before commenting."
—David Levy 01:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote the proposal. I wrote the above summary. The two are not contradictory. You're welcome to not like the proposal, but please do not misrepresent it. - jc37 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I assure you that I haven't intentionally misrepresented your proposal. You stated that you "welcome others' thoughts", and I sincerely attempted to improve the wording. If you disagree with something that I wrote, please simply explain your objection. There's no need to hurl accusations.
At the RfC, I've gone out of my way to praise your efforts (despite my opposition to the proposal), so I'm taken aback by the above response. —David Levy 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have, perhaps "misrepresent" comes across stronger than I intended it to. My apologies. But for whatever reason, you seem to have been misunderstanding the proposal, both what has been stated in it, and my repeated attempts to clarify.
The summary I wrote above reflects the intent of the proposal. Unless you can now read minds to determine my intent, I presume that you should accept that that is the intent of the proposal. If there is anything in the proposal you feel contradicts the summary above, I'll happily discuss that with you on the proposal's talk page. - jc37 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that your intent is to "help with backlogs", but others disagree that the proposed change would accomplish this, so it isn't appropriate to include such a conclusion.
As an analogy, suppose that someone were to propose a change intended to "solve all of our BLP problems". It wouldn't be appropriate to advertise it as "a proposal to make a change to solve all of our BLP problems", regardless of the author's intent. —David Levy 02:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, technically by that analogy, any attempt to summarise the proposal would fall afoul of that : )
I could agree with your concern if it said "attempting to fix RfA" (something which I feel it will help with somewhat, but which there is clearly room to have a difference of opinion on.)
That said, it occurs to me that while I may intend that result, even if we grant these tools to trusted individuals, we have no guarantee they will use them : )
I'll edit my initial summary above in a sec. - jc37 02:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, technically by that analogy, any attempt to summarise the proposal would fall afoul of that : )
No, it's possible to factually describe the proposed change without citing benefits predicted (by some) to arise from it.
I could agree with your concern if it said "attempting to fix RfA" (something which I feel it will help with somewhat, but which there is clearly room to have a difference of opinion on.)
That the proposed change would "help with backlogs" has been explicitly disputed. In my opinion, it might even have the opposite effect by making it more difficult to become an administrator (under the current definition).
That said, it occurs to me that while I may intend that result, even if we grant these tools to trusted individuals, we have no guarantee they will use them : )
And either way, they could become administrators (with the ability to help with backlogs) under the current system.
I'll edit my initial summary above in a sec.
Thank you. I still have some concerns. Based on the discussion that's occurred, it isn't clear that members of the proposed group would be called "administrators", so "type of admin" might not be accurate. And the "built-in removal process" is a secondary detail, so it needn't be mentioned (which comes across as non-neutral). New suggestion:

There is a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of admin permissions, granted via the standard RfX process. Please read the full proposal thoroughly before commenting.

—David Levy 03:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Replace "permissions" with "user-rights" - the term actually used. And change "via" to "through", and admin to administrator. So:
Otherwise, I suppose that works. - jc37 03:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "permissions" is used too. (See Wikipedia:User access levels.) I'm not attached to it, but because an administrator is a type of user, "administrator user-rights" seems redundant (and we also refer to a "user group" earlier in the sentence). How about "tools" (another common description)?

There is a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator tools, granted through the standard RfX process. Please read the full proposal thoroughly before commenting.

Does that seem okay? —David Levy 04:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If we say "tools", then it should be "tools and associated responsibilities". ("associated" is better - clearer - than "related", but either word would be ok I suppose.) - jc37 04:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that it's accurate to claim that such users would have abbreviated responsibilities. Administrators aren't obligated to use all their tools — a misconception that we should seek to dispel. Admins are obligated to not misuse their tools, the very same responsibility that members of the hypothetical new user group would take on.
What's wrong with just saying "tools"? And what's your objection to "permissions"? —David Levy 04:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been my experience that in reading/writing Wikipedia policy, it's "tools and responsibilities" together.
And I said "...an abbreviated set of..." - The set is abbreviated. (there are fewer in the user-right package). The individual tools are not abbreviated. The individual responsibilities are not abbreviated. - jc37 04:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been my experience that in reading/writing Wikipedia policy, it's "tools and responsibilities" together.
Wikipedia:Administrators contains twenty-eight instances of "tools", one instance of "responsibilities", and no instances of "tools and responsibilities".
How, in your view, would simply saying "tools" be problematic? And what's your objection to "permissions"?
And I said "...an abbreviated set of..." - The set is abbreviated. (there are fewer in the user-right package). The individual tools are not abbreviated. The individual responsibilities are not abbreviated.
My concern is that this could be taken to mean that administrators are obligated to use all of the tools at their disposal (e.g. that they have a "responsibility" to block users), a misconception that's already too common. —David Levy 05:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
We're not writing policy on admins here, we're notifying about a proposal.
This takes your last suggested compromise wording and uses "user-rights" (redundant or not, it is what they are called) instead of tools. I've added it above. - jc37 15:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
We're not writing policy on admins here, we're notifying about a proposal.
I'm unsure of the part of my message to which this is intended to respond.
This takes your last suggested compromise wording and uses "user-rights" (redundant or not, it is what they are called) instead of tools.
Again, they're also called "permissions". Wikipedia:User access levels (the page to which Wikipedia:User rights and Help:User rights redirect) contains eighteen instances of "permission"/"permissions" (not counting the hatnote), five instances of "user right"/"user rights", and seven instances of "userrights" with varying capitalization (most of which refer to the names of a MediaWiki interface page and flag). Where are you seeing the hyphenated "user-rights"? And what's your objection to "permissions"? (Even the aforementioned "userrights" flag is labeled a "permission".) —David Levy 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also fine (David Levy's wording). FYI I edited {{cent}} and replaced with that wording, as I just realized it had Jc37's proposed wording above until now. To Jc37, if you feel this is an inaccurate description, suggest something else -- but as the writer of the proposal it would also be wise to leave it up to others to decide a neutral way to advertise it. Equazcion (talk) 01:37, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I'm a big one for presuming good faith, but you've made it abundantly clear that you oppose and are doing what you can to see this proposal killed because you're afraid it will prevent some future proposal of yours. So please pardon me if I'm dubious of you claiming neutrality in this case.
David's wording will promote confusion as it implies that some tools will be given out freely to editors (like rollback), which is flatly false. - jc37 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like you're assuming good faith at all actually. And as I said, if you feel David's wording is inaccurate, suggest something else. Equazcion (talk) 02:04, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how my wording "implies that some tools will be given out freely to editors (like rollback)". Please elaborate. —David Levy 02:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be clearer to simply focus on the distinctive rights this user group would have, e.g.:

There is a proposal to create a new user group with access to deletion-related admin tools granted through a process similar to requests for adminiship.

After that let the proposal speak for itself. --RA (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added this message, with the last sentence taken from those suggested earlier. This seems neutral enough to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The proposed package would include tools unrelated to deletion, and it's been said that the same request process (not a similar one) would be used. I've edited the message accordingly. —David Levy 22:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I still have concerns with the wording, but I'll trust MSGJ's assessment.
That said, I added the word "standard", as that was expressly noted as being important. - jc37 03:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hello everyone. I'd like to request a watchlist notice for Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. My proposed wording is this:

There has been agreement in the mediation that led up to the RfC that we should use a watchlist notice, and it seems an obvious choice for one given that the previous RfC in Oct-Dec 2011 was criticized for not having had a watchlist notice at first. If anyone here thinks this is a bad idea, though, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 00:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For a little bit more context, the mediation agenda included the provision that there would be a watchlist notice, and the mediation participants have made this explicit in the RfC instructions. Also, there was no objection to it in this thread in the mediation about advertising, and it has been independently suggested on the verifiability talk page. I thought that this had been discussed more before the mediation as well, but I can't find the discussion, so I may have mis-remembered it. (For this reason, I've temporarily removed the {{edit protected}} template.) I still think it is an obvious candidate, but I'll wait for some opinions from uninvolved editors before adding the {{edit protected}} template back. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - wikilink to this page

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It would be helpful if all MediaWiki:Sitenotice, MediaWiki:Anonnotice, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, and meta:Special:CentralNotice notices contained a link either to this page or WP:Watchlist_notices, or some central help page about notices and managing them. This could be a superscript (info) link, after the (dismiss) link. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a better plan might be to create a noticeboard for them all. While they are all different, there are some similarities. And then we could link that noticeboard at various places to help editors join in the discussion. (Template:Noticeboard links, for example.) - jc37 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A central place for requesting notices might be a good idea. And perhaps we could establish a clearer policy on when notices are appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

CVU RFC

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have started an RfC for the Counter-Vandalism Unit concerning their wish to have a bot notify subscribed users when vandalism is elevated. To get the bot approved, consensus needs to be in support of such a bot hence this RfC to find out. I would like to add a watchlist notice for 14 days that says

Please consider.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a relatively minor matter of little relevance to the general editing community. I'm not clear on why an RfC is even needed, but listing it at WP:CENT should be more than sufficient.
In the future, please use the {{editprotected}} template "only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." If discussion is required, this should occur beforehand. —David Levy 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy - obviously not a matter which requires a watchlist notice. Even CENT seems unnecessary for this. A bot to notify members of a WikiProject should be uncontroversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. So noted.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

meta:Requests_for_comment/Global_bans

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=499948973&oldid=499932309 – A similar message should appear on everyone's watchlists. Proposed message:

A global bans proposal is in the works. Feel free to participate in the discussion on Meta.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. This is pretty important; other communities like Commons have watchlist notices up as well. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This definitely deserves attention. The proposal would allow Meta to ban users from en. even over our local objections, that is a VERY big deal. Monty845 17:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
+1 this needs more eyes. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Added until 30 July.--v/r - TP 01:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Because of some MediaWiki changes, some custom CSS for styling of watchlists doesn't work anymore. My proposed message is, "If you use custom CSS to display unvisited changes on your watchlist, and it isn't working anymore, see Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists for the updated code." Changes are welcome. David1217 What I've done 21:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really relevant now. David1217 What I've done 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:V RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A watchlist notice was run for the WP:V lead RfC for ten days near its beginning. The organizers of the RfC would like to request that a reminder notice of this very important discussion, affecting a core policy, be repeated for perhaps two days as the RfC reaches its deadline for closure. The proposed wording is:

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I second / endorse the request, and please act quickly. To run through/until July 28th. An important matter where, for many reasons, extra publicity is very important. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As the mediator of the MedCab case that led to the RfC, I agree that it would be useful to have a notice up for a couple of days before the discussion ends. I think it is better to have more publicity now than to run the risk of editors complaining that they weren't aware of the discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Just noting that the deadline is July 28, so please someone act on this request promptly. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  Done T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Free research database accounts available, signups ongoing now

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Proposed Message

Sign up for free research databases: There are 125 Credo Reference accounts available here; 250 HighBeam Research 1-year accounts available here; and 1000 Questia 1-year accounts available here. You need a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikimedia project.

Discussion

I want this message to go to *editors* on any Wikimedia projects that could benefit from free access to these English language research databases. I am frankly not sure what the best way to do that is. 'Blanking' the anonnotice and replacing it with <p></p>, would display only to editors in a sitenotice. Alternately, we could use a watchlist-notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 August 2012‎

I changed the second <nowiki> to a </nowiki> so that it closed correctly. You could have used the syntax {{tag|p|content=}}, which generates <p></p> --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  Done. Added for one week. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! That's perfect. Ocaasi t | c 16:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A new project Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement was created a while ago and it needs some more editors to get started. Could we consider a watchlist notice? Ryan Vesey 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit window changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Proposed message Some changes are being rolled out to the edit window on 1 October. Please provide feedback!

Rationale These are going to hit quite a few users; we'd like to get feedback ASAP :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, hold it for the moment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a worthy watchlist notice, but I worry that the exclamation mark might annoy some people. How about this tweak:
Some changes are being rolled out to the edit window on 1 October. Editors are invited to provide feedback.
Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Could we have, hmm, "will be made" rather than "are being rolled out"? Plainer and shorter. I'd also change it to "the edit window interface", but I'm less attached to that one. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Middle ground of "editing interface", perhaps? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. "Interface" is probably more meaningful than "window" anyway. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. My editing interface is a keyboard. If you mean the window, say window. Plain English! Leaky Caldron 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Touche :). Can we go with window, then? The more advance notice, the better! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That certainly seems fine with me. AGK [•] 17:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Last shot at the text:
  • Some changes will be made to the edit window on 1 October. Editors are invited to provide feedback.
Any objections, speak now, or forever hold your peace... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Happy for this to be included in a watchlist notice, but it is far too early. Why does it need to go up 10 days before anything changes? Editors will dismiss the notice and forget all about it before then. I would suggest putting it up from 29 September. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but the linked section doesn't really lend itself well to feedback. Now more organisation from the start might have helped, but particularly after there have been so many changes to the changes and after the discussion that is already there, newcomers cannot be expected to know where to continue it, nor what is still relevant. Please, consider starting a new section for this stage of the game with everything restated as it is currently, and perhaps break the ensuing discussion up by topic as well.
Also, I feel I should mention that there is another RfC on similar changes, but regarding making the changes to all skins and in the interface itself. This was created partly in response to the changes announced on VPT, because it was indicated that there would be no RfC about them and that they would only affect one skin. I do not know how much of this still holds or how else these two sets of proposed changes may interfere or overlap, however, and I can only apologise for any ensuing mess, but that this is in large part precisely because of how hard to follow the VPT discussion has become might indicate that you may want to hold off on announcing either of these until at least that much is sorted out. -— Isarra ༆ 05:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that these changes (the ones listed on the VP) will go through, in a week or so, and we need to notify people about them; the other changes, in the RFC, may happen but not in the immediate future and are still being discussed. The best approach, I think, is to notify about the one that's going to happen, and once it's gone live point people towards the second discussion, which can build on the first set of changes. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but the notification is very confusing as it is. -— Isarra ༆ 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education Working Group/RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There is an RfC on the future of the Education Programs for the US and Canada, here. I'd like to request a watchlist notification of the existence of this RfC. It's a significant RfC in several ways:

  • The WMF will no longer support the US and Canada Education Programs after 31 May 2013, which will impact thousands of students currently editing Wikipedia as part of that program. Currently there are 65 courses registered with these programs and many classes have been turned away. Overall, hundreds of classes, and several thousand students, have participated in the programs. The proposal on which comments are being requested is for the creation of a new organization to continue the role of the Education Programs in those two countries.
  • Thousands of editors interact with the students in these programs, as ambassadors in many cases, but also simply by working with the students on the pages they edit.
  • The students have provided, overall, a high volume of edits that has significantly improved the quality of the articles they worked on (though not all classes have been equally successful, of course). The goal of the education program is to assist instructors in using Wikipedia to benefit the students, but also to benefit Wikipedia by improving content. Hence an RfC on the continuation (or not) of the Education Program is a significant event.

Editors who know little or nothing about the education programs need an opportunity to understand that a very significant change is in the works, and a chance to comment on, and support or oppose, that change. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide copy for this notice? Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
How about: "Editors are invited to comment on a proposal for the future of the US and Canada Education Programs"? We discussed in the working group whether such a notice should be geographically limited, but the consensus was it should not -- the participants in that program may be located in the US and Canada, but the editors who work on the articles the students are assigned might be anywhere in the world. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. On a purely fiscal basis, in addition, if the proposed organisation does become self-sufficient (or if it doesn't) all editors will be impacted by any social/technical changes that freed up money provides (or social/technical changes that take slightly longer because the programme keeps drawing from the WMF pot). I'll tweak the copy a bit just to clarify what the proposal is about and shove it out now. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Now enacted; I made the link a bit more prominent, and tweaked the copy to make clear it was about the future organisation (the future could involve what we stick on the matching tea-sets ;p). Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Notifications are not shown if the watchlist is empty

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MediaWiki shows MediaWiki:Nowatchlist for users with empty watchlists, so they do not receive these notifications.

What about moving them to a template which could be transcluded in both MW messages? Helder 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ACERFC

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC has begun. It is an important community process and additional visibility would be helpful. Suggested prose:

  • Editors are invited to comment on the structure, rules, and procedures for the upcoming Arbitration Committee Election.

I'm not particularly attached to the specific wording, but included it as it seems the admins reviewing here often request prose. The RFC is scheduled for 30 days this year, ending Nov 1. Thanks, Monty845 15:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I request the following be added:
{{Display/watchlist |until=2012-11-01 |cookie=134 |text=Editors are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012|comment]]''' on the structure, rules, and procedures for the upcoming Arbitration Committee Election. }}
And the commented out one will need to have the cookie # updated. Monty845 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  Done here. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC on America and Canada education

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't see the discussion that led to this being added to the watchlist, but I'm not sure that something that's geographically focused should be on the watchlist. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Did You Know

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal here to allow newly promoted good articles into DYK's main page slot. It's been on {{cent}} for a couple of days, but I figure since this affects the main page and indeed all content creators it would have greater appeal than just to those who frequent DYK. Certainly the discussion would benefit from outside input. I'll leave it here for consideration. – Steel 23:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments13 people in discussion

Editors are invited to help reach a consensus regarding whether to upper- or lower-case the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four"

  • Rationale - The RfC will remain open until 00:00 UTC 15 October 2012. In the interests of garnering the widest consensus possible, and ending a time-intensive and long-running dispute, (which began in earnest in late 2005) we hope that by advertising the RfC to the widest possible Wikipedia audience, the RfC's closer will be better able to evaluate and declare if a clear consensus has indeed been arrived at and in the broadest way possible. A watchlist notice until 15 October will help the community form a lasting consensus that will be far more likely to put this matter to rest long-term.

Kind regards, Hiding T 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose having this in the watchlist. Extreme case of overkill; not an issue of global concern to the whole community; besides, the RfC has had plenty of input already and is hardly in need of desperate measures like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose bringing in people for whom the matter is of no importance and who have never previously given it a moment's thought. Rothorpe (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • In rebuttal I quote Wikipedia:Consensus: When talk page discussions fail – generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue – Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. Hiding T 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • This is a black-or-white issue, so there's one, the other, neither or both. Neither, mid-sentence avoidance, has been tried and found wanting; which leaves both, a form of software that has me see lowercase while you see upper, how's that for a middle-ground fresh perspective? Or see my previous answer. Rothorpe (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Withdrawn. My apologies, I hadn't realised there was such opposition to the idea and had hoped we could try and reach the biggest audience and make sure the RFC was conducted in the fairest way possible. Personally, I believe justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done. Hiding T 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would add to Rothorope that engaging people who have never given it a moment's thought is actually beneficial as it provides new viewpoints that can help determine a stronger consensus and avoid the idea that any group of editors own an issue. Hiding T 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
How can people who have never given a moment's thought have viewpoints? Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Because they come to a matter with no pre-conceptions and an open-mind. It's the whole basis of building consensus and requesting comment and I'm somewhat a little confused that you don't understand that. It's part of our policy on consensus, that we actively seek outside opinion. Hiding T 17:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Next time you're ill, will you go to a doctor or someone with an open mind? Rothorpe (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
That argument falls down when the investment of time is considered. Doctors require several years of advanced study, but commenting editors only require several minutes of reading. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hiding, I think you should wait until people other than two editors who are active in the mediation weigh in here - the whole point was seeing what the community has to say. I don't know that it will fly, but two mediation-involved editors on one side of the dispute who have said they don't favor a watchlist notice shouldn't dissuade you from trying here. More than ok for them to state their opinions here, of coursem but it seems to me the point is to see what uninvolved editors think as well. Tvoz/talk 19:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. The watchlist note will help get new eyes on the matter, and it will more firmly establish the RfC as being the definitive answer. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't endorse the request, but as it was made on behalf of other users, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Hiding is, of course, under no obligation to support it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, because this should be the last we ever hear of the issue. —Torchiest talkedits 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, thank you. I think watchlist notices should only be used for things that (will/have the potential to) affect large number of editors (not a very specific group). There should be other places for such notices. Perhaps CENT? Rjd0060 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This issue is far too trivial for a community notice and it has already wasted too much of Wikipedia's resources. It is now time to move on. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Support - A WL notice can be easily dismissed with the click of a mouse, so lets not pretend that this is the UN, and a one sentence request too much to ask. This involves 400+ articles and perhaps 1,000 editors, so yes, this does affect a very large group of Wikipedians. Even those not directly involved would love to never have to hear about this dispute again. I think I speak for everyone involved when I say that we want to put this issue to rest long-term, and by garnering the largest possible consensus we would be able to do that more effectively. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The issue is minor, but there are wider MoS implications and this potentially could affect a much larger group of articles about entities with "The" as part of their names. As Binksternet says, let's get some eyes on it who haven't been in the trenches for years on the subject. Tvoz/talk 22:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Watchlist notices are reserved for messages of the utmost importance, drawing attention to issues with far-reaching implications in the Wikipedia editing community. This is a normal RfC, which should be advertised via the standard channels.
    Cluttering the watchlist with relatively unimportant notices is harmful, as it leads editors to stop paying attention (thereby defeating the messages' very purpose). And the more we add, the more they tend to multiply. (It's happened in the past.) —David Levy 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and it is not appropriate to use Cent either. This is a local discussion, most people do not really care. Even some of those who have taken part in this discussion don't really care. We just need to finish this. Rather more to the point would be to propose that after this discussion is closed, regardless what the result is, that if anyone disputes the conclusion or tries to open any new discussion on the matter, that person should be taken outside and executed in front of their poodles and pet rabbits. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per (two editors have voiced my concerns) Rothorpe & David Levy Mlpearc (powwow) 00:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per Torchiest and Timbo's Second Rule. It's easy to call something "unimportant" from a distance, but I tend to think it is important. - Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    I wrote "relatively unimportant" (emphasis added). Of course it's important to those involved in the dispute, just as countless other Wikipedia issues are. We can't advertise all of them via the watchlist. We include only the ones that are most important to the community as a whole. —David Levy 13:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    You're welcome to that opinion, of Course, and to be fair I did selectively quote you. But I think the principle at issue here is that of proactiveness (proactivity?). The capitalisation issue hasn't been a site-wide issue yet, but It's been a damn persistent local one, and given the subject matter It's nothing less than miraculous that it hasn't spread. It's been going on at this point for Almost as long as Wikipedia has been in existence. I don't think there's a person on either side of this who doesn't want this to be the last We hear of it, so I don't see why this form of notification should be spared. To be blunt, I look at all opposition to watchlist notices in this case as mind-numbingly bureaucratic. - Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    As noted above, Wikipedia has countless "local" issues, many of which are equally persistent. I've taken part in such discussions myself, and yes, settling these matters once and for all would provide tremendous relief. But I don't seek to advertise them via the watchlist's notice section (on the basis that additional participation would magically solve the problems), thereby opening the floodgates and transforming it into a bloated WP:CENT duplicate that editors actively ignore/suppress.
    I expressed similar concerns in 2008, at which point my "slippery slope" argument was dismissed as unfounded worrying. Less than a week later, we had this. —David Levy 10:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The end date of the mediation is approaching, and the idea, I believe, was to give editors a chance to comment - this is feeling like a pocket veto, despite a fairly even split here. Three notices went up today or yesterday - one more surely would be no more disruptive. As it is the mediation end date might have to be moved - can this be decided on please? Thank you. Tvoz/talk 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - The parties to the mediation had previously agreed upon a 30 day duration for the RfC. I seriously doubt there will be any extension of that close date beyond the agreed upon 15 October. WL notices were brought up long before the poll went live, and shortly after it went live, and virtually nobody supported it at the mediation page. This last ditch effort to get them approved in the final hour is not going to change the poll's agreed upon end date of 15 October. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    Thus saith the Lord? It's one thing to express your opinion at the appropriate time and place, which you did above in support of the request (before you decided it was a "last ditch effort"). But it's another to make a declaration like that here now. I was just asking for a decision, here where the request was made. If we got one, we would discuss what happened next either way, at the mediation - that is, if the mediation were operating in a collaborative environment more interested in reaching a true consensus than winning an argument. But that appears to be a pipe dream, and this is not the place for this conversation. Tvoz/talk 05:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    All I meant was, the time to push for WL notices was several weeks ago, not two days before the RfC closes. I do support it in principle, that's why I breached it a couple of weeks ago at the mediation, but to be fair, Evan was the first to mention it well over 30 days ago. There was no support from you, or anyone else for WL notices then, or perhaps we may have gotten it passed. As it is, it's not going to pass now. I tend to agree with the opposes, this is far too trivial for WL notices. We tried, we failed, now it's time to move on, in more ways than one. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive_6&oldid=1164995045"