Template talk:RfA watchlist notice

Template protection?

@Cenarium: Since this is shown on every watchlist of everyone with an account, it can be said to have 27,424,499 transclusions, is that enough to qualify for template protection? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 14:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Did it before I even saw your suggestion! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't overly concerned because it's not reader facing, but I've no objection to it being raised to TE. Cenarium (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've updated to Full Protection, as are done for most templates in mediawiki space. There should be enough people watching for edit request if really needed.— xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Error?

Template display values for other value of the other page , e.g. 1+1+sometext causes that whole string to appear. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Example please? I don't think there is an error, and I did some testing before deploying — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    view talk edit 

    There is currently 1+1+1+2/1 request for adminship open for discussion.     (Expires tomorrow)

You have $1 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).

— xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BIG deal, and it does fail out if putting TEXT in there. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. As long as the evaluation is between 1 and 19 it will display currently. If I wrap the contents with {{#expr:}} it might display the actual value? But as that page is now TE protected I don't think there is anything to worry about ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Until

Am I misreading this, or is the until parameter being hard set for 1 day only? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A bit of a hack. As the notice will disappear when there are no RfAs, I couldn't see much purpose for an expiry date. The "tomorrow" will always be in the future and so will never expire. I'm sure we could tidy it up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, seems like a decent compromise. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

This should also detect RfBs. There is, as of this writing, an open RfB and the template doesn't know about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Some notes:

• {{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0|1|0}} yields: 1
• {{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count}}>0|1|0}} yields: 0

Adding an addition operation would trigger the count to change:

• as *{{#expr:({{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}+{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count}})}} yeilds: 1

Additional language would be needed if we want this to include text for what kind of request is open - but the good news is that the source data is being maintained. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've made an update in Template:RfA watchlist notice/sandbox. I've requested that it be synced at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang and Xaosflux: Okay,  Done - please ensure it's proper now. –xeno^talk 19:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There are probably good ways to simplify the logic at Template:RfA watchlist notice/text if it's split into subtemplates for RfA and RfB perhaps, but for now, it's sensitive to when the counts are 0 and otherwise. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Does it re-pop for those who have dismissed it when it changes? –xeno^talk 19:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It is still one message backed by one cookie (class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_{{{cookie}}}), so there wouldn't be any behavior difference. If a user dismisses it, changes to the message wouldn't make it re-pop in my understanding. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so that means I should increment the cookie so that those who have dismissed it can see the RfB? –xeno^talk 19:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the cookie would need to continue to be incremented manually when there are changes to RfA/RfB counts. Though in this case, folks who've seen the RfAs probably saw the RfBs too. But then again it seems like it's always safe to increment the cookie. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it. Seems to be standard practice. –xeno^talk 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

Please amend the text to "A request for adminship is in progress.", or in the case of multiple RfAs "n requests for adminship are in progress.", per mini-discussion here.

: Noyster (talk), 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you sandbox it please? The logic needs some careful thought. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Noyster: When there are, say 3 RfAs and 2 RfBs, the text is currently: There is currently three requests for adminship and two requests for bureaucratship open for discussion. Are you proposing 3 requests for adminship and 2 requests for bureaucratship are in progress. or Three requests for adminship and two requests for bureaucratship are in progress.? If the latter, unfortunately it looks like {{Cardinal to word/0 to 19}} does not support capitalization of the first character at the moment. The functionality for that can be built in though — Andy W. (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done with Special:Diff/744818666 — Andy W. (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Make the messages clearer

I was redirected here from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#2_requests_for_adminship_in_progress_on_my_watchlist by xaosflux. Like I said there, I found the message confusing because I didn't know if I was nominated (seemed very weird/like a glitch) or what was happening. But of course I soon found out it was about voting on someone else's adminship.

I'm not to sure how to formulated it, but "There's an new request for adminship and your vote counts. [dismiss]" is what I came up with on that other page.

Max Nordlund (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Max.nordlund: how about: "... your input is welcome." (in general we avoid calling RfA inputs "votes"). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this text but for a different reason; it would encourage more participation. The discussion at WT:RFA indicates that making a change with that specific intent may need a consensus. Mkdw^talk 17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: that sounds like the ticket. How can this be implemented? This is protected, if I understand correctly. Max Nordlund (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Max.nordlund, your proposed text does not clarify the issue you bring up [Edit: nor does the alternate proposed text]. Grammatically it makes the same announcement without any possessive nouns and only adds an independent clause at the end that also does not clarify that the RFA does not belong to the reader. Voting does not eliminate candidacy in most types of voting processes and anyone familiar with the RFA process would likely also understand how many checks and balances take place before an RFA goes live (including requiring the candidate to endorse a nomination). I don't mean to single you out, but objectively, this announcement has gone out to tens of thousands of editors dozens of times within the past year and further. This appears to be the first time someone has expressed they found the message unclear, but even if it were reported in a handful of cases, the notice from a public announcement standard would be deemed highly successful. I think we run the risk of complicating a simple sentence which could actually make the message even more confusion to the wider public. Also, I should point out that RFA is not a vote either. Please see the "discussion, decision, and closing procedures" section. I'm not opposed to change the message, but we should have a clear reason and outcome for doing so. [Edit: Struck out issues addressed above; I started writing it before there were other comments] Mkdw^talk 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a blue link. You follow it, everything is then made clear. The confusion of 1:10000 doesn't merit a change. Leaky Caldron 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not the only one who are confused, see the thread I linked above. Yes, this goes out to all users on this site, albeit only a few of them sees it since you need to check your watchlist. As I said, I'm not sure about the formulation, but I do think it's important to communicate clearly to the user what the target of the link is. Even after I followed it @Leaky caldron: it took a few minutes until I saw the little info box with the current candidates and their votes. It is also not just about the numbers, or why else would Wikipedia even exists over WAP? It's about clarity and while I understand that you power users get it, as a newer users I don't. The notice is above the search box visually separated from the rest of my feed, and reads "A request for adminship is in progress. [dismiss]". That doesn't make it clear to whom it is addressed to, why it's even there in the first place or what the link is supposed to take me. If you want more engagement for the RFA then having a proper call to action in the notice would definitely help. The only reason I followed that link is because I was think there may have been a glitch/wrong name situation.

To summarize, I personally found the message unclear (at least when there is only one candidate), there's no call to action to guide the user, short isn't necessarily the best. Sounds better? @Mkdw: Max Nordlund (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"...albeit only a few of them sees it"... I'm sorry, but that's very inaccurate. There are 31 million editors on the English Wikipedia and 123,930 active editors. Watchlists are arguably the most utilized function page on the site. Making things more clear is always better -- that principal is not being debated here. I was pointing out, grammatically speaking, your proposed revision text does address the issue you initially raised about ownership of the RFA.

Now you're raising a different issue about to whom the notice is addressed and why. That can certainly be improved but it also sounds like for you the biggest issue was visual which would potentially require a technical layout change? Or is the issue trying to craft a more effective message so more people participate? That might need to be addressed at WT:RFA as the current discussion there suggests that is a debated topic. It feels a bit like this discussion is jumping around on what the actual problem is here. Mkdw^talk 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The note about who reads it come from reading the RFA talk page, but I'm obviously misstaken. The point about the position of the notice was an attempt to explain why, in part, I got so confused. However since that seems to require a technical change, and changing the wording does not, I think the latter is the best course of action right now, and while we're at it why not try to make it more enticing per the concerns raised at WT:RFA? Max Nordlund (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am also in favour of changing the text. Currently it is ambiguous. I came to this page precisely for the reason that seeing the message on my Watchlist was confusing. Like others here, I understood it to refer to a request on my behalf. I don't agree with user User:Leaky caldron that the situation becomes any clearer after clicking the link. Veritycheck (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently the text of this watchlist notice is identical to the entry at the centralized discussion box ("CENT"). Pigsonthewing and I recently got it changed from "There is currently a request for adminship open for discussion". He and I are hot on keeping links in CENT short enough to fit in one line of the box wherever possible. There is more space to play with in the watchlist notice section, so the text used there could be expanded; but I'm not sure either reverting to the previous wording or devising any new wording would solve the problem raised here. (If you read in the news "A trial is in progress" do you think it's you on trial? How about "A funeral will take place tomorrow"?): Noyster (talk), 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It certainly can be longer, some of the contentious points we came up with last time were: It should link to WP:RFA, not to individual RFA's; It should not include candidate names. Outside of that there is room to expand. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Confusion happened again. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"In progress" is too vague, as it doesn't clearly communicate what is expected of the editor who is reading the notice. Before this 7 February 2016 edit, the message said "open for discussion", which more clearly implies that the editor may join the discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Centralized discussion implies that all included items are requests to join discussions, therefore "in progress" is fine there. However, watchlists are mostly for notifications of edits to pages that the user is "watching", not for requests to join discussions, which is why the nature of the notice there needs to be more explicit. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The 7 February 2016 edit changed the message to transclude {{RfA watchlist notice/text}}, which was created on Feb. 5, 2016. {{RfA watchlist notice}} was added to Template:Centralized discussion on on 5 February 2016. So the change here took effect with this 17 October 2016 edit, as a side-effect of the request to change the {{Centralized discussion}} notice. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK so:

CURRENT: ...are in progress.

PROPOSED ...are open for discussion.

Is this enough? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) The rationale for the change stated above was to "keep links in CENT short enough to fit in one line of the box wherever possible". Currently there are six lines in {{Centralized discussion}}, and this message is the shortest of the six. "in progress" is 11 bytes; "open for discussion" is 19 bytes, thus this change just adds 8 bytes to the length of the message.

(2) There is also the issue, "Even after I followed it (the link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship) it took a few minutes until I saw the little info box with the current candidates and their votes."

What's expected is still unclear because the page also discusses nomination standards and procedures, leaving the notified editor wondering, Did someone nominate me? Or am I supposed to nominate someone?

To attempt to solve this, I suggest adding a second, more specific section link, and emphasize that link:

in progress. → '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions|open for discussion]]'''. e.g.:

Six requests for adminship are open for discussion.

Also tweak Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header so that User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is at the top of the Expressing opinions section. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent could be moved up to just below the search box. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I updated the '...are open for discussion' part and added the link, before changing the bold "call to action" target the other page would need to be adjusted and I don't think this page has sufficient participation to warrant that - please discuss further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Header. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no objection to this proposal, which goes about as far as could be in the direction of spelling out what is happening within the framework of a brief message with links. There may still be some who won't get the picture, and run away thinking the open discussion is all about them... New editors are subject to all sorts of misconceptions - I know I was - and for most the fog clears before long: Noyster (talk), 00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 May 2017

Please change |cent to |cent=* {{RfA watchlist notice/text|bold=no}} (and simultaneously remove the bullet to the left of where the template is used at {{Centralized discussion}}). This is to prevent the display of an empty list item when HTML Tidy is removed. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 16:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 March 2018

Change "Two" to "Two" as it is rare to have two RfAs at one time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @L293D: This is actually from Template:RfA watchlist notice/text. Please work up your change in the sandbox first. Note, if you want count-conditional font weights you will need to work up another selector. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2019

Currently, the text "request for bureaucratship" and "request of adminship" link to the "about" sections, rather than the "current requests" sections. Thus, please replace it with the current sandbox version, which links to the specific sections. (diff) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 On hold I think we had an RfC on this, looking. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @DannyS712: this is mostly per MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive_8#RfA_discussions - that discussion wasn't very long but did touch on points from the other RfC (of why we have this at all). This talk page isn't very well watched, so if you want to change those links I suggest opening a discussion at WT:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Reading through that discussion, it seems to me that the concern was linking to specific nominations. This change would just link to the current requests section of the main page, which is what is implied by the link of "request(s)" - linking to the requests. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: that part was pretty clear, not to link to specific noms, the other part is if people following the link should land on an explanation of what they just landed on or not. Keep in mind, for some editors they may be brand new to the Rfx process since they were summoned from their watchlist - and may have no idea what it is about. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: okay. Thanks for the explanation. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2020

Please implement this change from the sandbox, per this discussion at WP talk:Requests for adminship. Thanks! Sdkb (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Sdkb (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Restore this revision before April Fools' Day caused it to be disabled. Now it's time to turn it back on for some legit stuff. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done by QEDK. Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Add CSS class to list item to enable hiding the RfA notice

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Ability/Mechanism to disable annoying push notifications there is a discussion on how to hide the RfA watchlist notice. I suggested one way to enable this would be to add a CSS class to the list item for the notice, so users could customize their CSS file to hide the notice. Feedback at that discussion is welcome. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl sure, css class is "cheap" here, so no objection. How's wlnrfx? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of something a bit more descriptive, like watchlist-message-RfX (based on the common class currently added, watchlist-message). I don't have a strong opinion about it, though. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

that seems fine too; if no comment in a few days just open an edit request and we'll do it. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

+1 Sohom Datta (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done added directions at Template:RfA watchlist notice. @Isaacl and Sohom data: — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (I had prepared the sandbox to make a request, but now it's not needed.) isaacl (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)