MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New feature

I realize there is something of a glut of watchlist notices at the moment, but I think it would be prudent to add the following message, just for next couple days:

Please note: there's a small post-edit notification that you will see starting Thursday.

This isn't a big call for discussion, but there might be a few people who see the feature and think "WTF?". This will help them out. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this is time-sensitive and no one has objected, I'm going to be bold. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Two older notices removed

I've removed the notices for the DR RfC and the education program RfC, as at five items the watchlist notices were starting to look distinctly cluttered. If anyone thinks this was a really bad idea, though, feel free to put them back in. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Masses of messages from Wikimedia UK clogging up watchlist

My watchlist currently has all this gumf, presumably from Wikimedia UK, at the top, in massive letters:

You are invited to an editathon at the British Library, focusing on Central Asian archaeology, running from 23rd to 26th October. All welcome, for one day or for several! [hide]

Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians over lunch or a drink? There are upcoming meetups in Manchester, 20 October; Coventry, 21 October; Cambridge, 28 October; Oxford, 4 November; Reading, 18 November; and Liverpool, 24 November! [hide]

You are invited to an exclusive backstage pass, with free access to Royal Birmingham Society of Artists' archives, 4 November. [hide]

Wikimedia UK is funding a two-day course for contributors interested in training others to use Wikimedia projects, in London on 27-28 October. Details and a signup sheet here. [hide]'

There's so much of it that I have to scroll down to see a single line of my actual watchlist. Which Mediawiki page is controlling this? I can't see it in the code here. --Dweller (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive questions: Is this on your en-wiki watchlist? Or are you using the multi-project watchlist? Could you post a screenshot, if it wouldn't be too invasive? I'd try starting your browser in safe mode, and disabling Javascript, to see if there's a Javascript/CSS issue. --Lexein (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be MediaWiki:Geonotice.js, the css to hide it is .geonotice { display: none; } – Steel 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the geonotice. You can click "hide" next to the messages to dismiss them, and those particular messages won't show up again (unless possibly your IP address changes; though only the last one is from Wikimedia UK). Or you can hide those and any future messages with the CSS Steel suggests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I spotted the 'hide' feature, but I think it's an excessive amount to be posting simultaneously for UK users. I'll post at the right talk page now, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Dweller. I use the non-mobile site on my Android phone to let me make minor edits while traveling, so it pulls a new copy of the Watchlist page every time because of the rotating IPs. Having two to four Watchlist notices at all time, plus one or two Geonotices is getting really excessive on a mobile connection. Not all of these things need such prominence. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage

Hi. I'd like to request watchlist notification for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. This is a followup RFC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, and tries to resolve the question that RFC failed to. Proposed copy for the RFC's current phase:

• A request for comment regarding the titles of the articles Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to abortion is currently being built; this is a followup to WP:RFC/AAT. Interested editors are invited to collaborate on its development.

On October 16th, that copy should change to, proposed:

• A request for comment regarding the titles of the articles Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to abortion is now in its community feedback phase. Editors are invited to register opinions.

On November 1st the watchlist notice should be removed.

Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Checking in on this. Is there something that I need to do here that I haven't, or decisions to be made? What's going on? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I will vouch for the desirability of this notice. So yeah, what's going on? Homunq (࿓) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We've now burned through more than half the remaining time (until the 16th) that this RFC has allocated for collaborative development. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is essential for stage two, but this does seem like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this RFC can progress unless it has at least a week for comments before going to a !vote. PLEASE SOMEONE HELP US OUT HERE or at least respond somehow. Homunq (࿓) 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does an RfC pertaining to two articles require a watchlist notice (let alone before it's active)? Why are the normal community notification channels insufficient? —David Levy 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Because this is the successor to an ArbCom-mandated RfC (on a long-running, difficult issue of course) which did get such notice. Homunq (࿓) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the ArbCom mandate that the RfC be advertised via the watchlist?

That this occurred last time (without discussion, evidently) doesn't automatically mean that it was appropriate then, let alone that it's appropriate now. —David Levy 21:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonable here. I would have thought that it was pretty reasonable for a two year long dispute to get a watchlist notification. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A dispute's duration has no bearing on its relevance to the community at large.

And it did receive a watchlist notice. The added exposure evidently failed to bring about resolution. —David Levy 21:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And it isn't "not active", it's in a collaborative building phase. It's important that people get ample opportunity to participate in that phase to reduce the screaming we'll get when people only find out about it once the form of the RFC is set. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The "community feedback" phase (i.e. the actual discussion of the matter to be resolved) has "not yet begun". However important an RfC may be, advertising its planning stage via the watchlist certainly isn't standard procedure. —David Levy 21:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an edge case. Basically, in the community feedback phase, we'll be asking people to offer opinions and arguments on a structured set of points and options, and it's going to get ugly when people show up and their favorite points and options aren't in evidence for them to offer opinions and arguments on. But maybe that's inevitable anyway and trying to forestall it is naive. And it's not like it hasn't gotten talk-space notification all over the place. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As I posted on the talk page, I think it needs a drastic overhaul before subjecting the community to it. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a proposal to shut down the RFC or any guidance as to what standards it needs to meet (that WP:RFC/AAT didn't need to, for some reason?), please consider this request still open. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to shut it down, just delay wide advertising for a little bit. If you go forward with what you have I don't think you are going to be happy with the results. Gigs (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I welcome your contributions, Gigs. The point of this request here is that unless we get a wider group of editors working on preliminary shaping of the RfC, it will have problems. So you are helping in that regard, but I still think that a watchlist notification is the only way to get wide enough non-admin participation to make this work.

So, specifically: I'd like 2 weeks of the first notification ("is being built"), and 2-3 weeks of the second ("register opinions"). I'm not going to suggest any specific dates; that depends on when the first notification is placed. Ideally, I'd suggest that that happen ASAP. Homunq (࿓) 15:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The timeframe for the RFC has been pushed out 5 days so that the community feedback phase is now scheduled to begin October 20th. So the "October 16th" in the original request should now be read as "October 20th". With that modification, we're still requesting watchlist notification as described. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we're now in community feedback phase and ready to have opinions registered. Can we get the second watchlist notice from the original request? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the successor to an ArbCom-mandated RFC which was advertised here. If this round is not so advertised, those who !voted in the last round will have reason to question the legitimacy of this outcome. That is not the way to put this issue to rest. Please, give us this notification, or at least respond with a reason why not. Yes, that means you; no-one else is responding. Homunq (࿓) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I responded above. You ignored my question.

As I noted in the same message, the fact that the previous RfC received a watchlist notice (without discussion, evidently) doesn't mean that it was appropriate then, let alone that it's appropriate now.

Why would the absence of a watchlist notice raise questions about the RfC's legitimacy? Few RfCs — including those pertaining to far more than two articles — receive such advertising.

The added exposure apparently failed to bring about resolution last time, so whatever consensus is achieved obviously can't be rendered invalid by that outcome. —David Levy 22:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: I understand that there's a glut of notifications these days and so maybe two weeks is excessive. Still, even having this notice for a few days would bring in a healthy variety of opinion and give this RFC the legitimacy it needs to supplant the previous arbcom-mandated non-consensus one. Homunq (࿓) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, there's no consensus to "supplant".

Do you regard the vast majority of RfCs (which aren't advertised via the watchlist) as illegitimate? —David Levy 22:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not consider them illegitimate. But if I had voted on the prior RFC due to notification, and then this one passed by without my realizing it, I would consider that that reduced its legitimacy. Basically, my position is that once you notify once (for some decent reason, in this case an arbcom-mandated RfC), it's best to continue doing so on that same issue until it's resolved. I also think that taking such a stand will not open the door to a flood of other "but this one is really important" RFCs as you perhaps fear. Homunq (࿓) 02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

But if I had voted on the prior RFC due to notification, and then this one passed by without my realizing it, I would consider that that reduced its legitimacy.

Why not simply notify all of the previous RfC's participants via their talk pages? (As noted at Wikipedia:Canvassing, this is explicitly permitted.) You could even request that a bot do it.

I also think that taking such a stand will not open the door to a flood of other "but this one is really important" RFCs as you perhaps fear.

That's what I was told when I expressed similar concerns in 2008. Less than a week later, we had this. —David Levy 03:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the notify, I'm in the AWB request queue because my googling around for this information (which didn't turn up WP:Bot requests) seemed to indicate this sort of thing can be done with AWB. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

David Levy: Thanks, that's helpful. Chaos: are you saying you've got this? Homunq (࿓) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on it, anyway. I have no direct knowledge that AWB will do what we need and no idea how long I'll be waiting for access, but I'm hopeful. I still think that watchlist notification would be best, but I'm sure we'll live if we can't get it. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no experience with AWB, but I know that this is a common bot task. I recommend that you compile a list of the previous RfC's participants (minus anyone you've already notified) at User:Chaos5023/RfC list (or similar) and post a request (including the message you want to send and a link to that list) at Wikipedia:Bot requests. —David Levy 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay,  Done. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you were pointed to EdwardsBot. (I hadn't kept track of what bot was used for this purpose, but I'll make a note of it for future reference.) I've fulfilled your access request. (: —David Levy 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I've started the run. I am thinking this will meet our notification needs satisfactorily; Homunq, do you agree? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good job. Homunq (࿓) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent (and thanks :). Mr. Levy and whomever else it may concern, please consider the watchlist notification request withdrawn. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: The Wikipedia Breakroom

I am requesting a Watchlist notice for a proposal to create a talk page where editors can go to air grievances and speak freely (with a few agreed upon rules) without the fear of admin reprisals for comments or actions there, implemented in a similar way to mediation privilege. In counseling this is sometimes called "the Safety Tree" ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Based on the current state of the discussion, this proposal looks to have no chance of success. As it is already being discussed at a community noticeboard, there is no reason to believe wider notification about the proposal would substantially change that. Monty₈₄₅ 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2. *above* Theopolisme 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Proposal has been snow closed.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 14:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

New User Right Proposal

A new Wikipedia wide change to the user right is being proposed. Maybe it would be beneficial for the community to give input.

Requesting addition of this message.

• RfC on whether a new user group should be added for experienced editors.

—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Is anybody going to answer my edit request?—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 12:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 There you go. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah. That 4-day pause is as good an argument for broadening the rights as any. (I don't know if this is actually the editinterface bit which was removed from the proposal, but still...) Homunq (࿓) 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is editinterface. This just proves my point though. It might as well have been a fully protected page.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the message be extended to November 11. The RfC will run for another 15 days.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 11:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Done see here --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on changing guidelines for loss and restoration of administrator tools

A discussion is on for changing guidelines for loss and restoration of administrator tools. Community-wide input helps.

Requesting addition of this message:

• Discussion on changing guidelines for loss and restoration of administrator tools

Churn and change (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion warrants a watchlist notice - I think WP:CENT is enough. Although this is a project-wide issue, the exact details of whether/how inactive admins regain their tools probably isn't of all that much interest to editors who focus on content and don't pay much attention to the inner workings of the site. I'll leave the edit protected request open to get opinions from other admins, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Comments from all editors are welcome, of course. (I was thinking that only admins would be patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest keeping this on CENT and seeing how that goes for now. I suspect you will not need the exposure that a watchlist notice brings. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I think of the admin who signs in periodically, and looks over his watchlist, reads some, and signs out. They may never see CENT (indeed, their activity may have pre-dated the creation of CENT). So a watchlist notice may be helpful in that case. - jc37 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to have a watchlist notice only visible to admins using class="sysop-show" - how would that be as a compromise? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't help those who fall under 1+2, but "better than nothing" : ) - jc37 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would advise against this course of action. Any discussion about adminship tends to attract allegations of the form "most of the opposers/supporters of this proposal are admins" and criticism that administrators are "defending their power". While these comments are usually groundless it would be sensible to avoid any appearance of bias, and showing this notice to admins only could be seen as canvassing by some. Therefore I believe it should be all or nothing (and my opinion at this stage is nothing, unless participation in the current discussions proves to be low). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012

Per the discussion at the yearly RFC, its almost time for the WP:ACE2012 announcements.

{{#switch:{{interval|n={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|11 November|21 November|26 November|10 December|format=time}} |0-1 = <!--nothing--> |1-2 = <li class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_138">Candidates for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012|December 2012 Arbitration Committee elections]] are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates|nominate themselves]]'''.</li> |2-3 = <!--nothing--> |3-4 = <li class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_139">'''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/###|Voting]]''' is now open to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012|elect]] new members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].</li> }}

I have copied the above from last year (the version that existed at the end of the election), updating it for this years dates and links. It will use 2 cookies, which if no one slips in a notice first, will make the next available cookie 140. There is a ### standing in for the secure poll number which is not yet available and will need to be added once it is determined. If no one wants to make any tweaks, please add it before Nov 11, so that it promptly announces the start of nominations. Monty₈₄₅ 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nominations open in 4 hours, based on the consensus RFC, and the lack of any objection to the specific language in the last day, I'm requesting it be added so that it promptly announces the nominations (the code will add nothing until nov 11, so there is no need to wait for the noms to open before adding it). Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 19:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Almost four hours late, but it's up live now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, it looks like I ballsed up the cookie code when I put the above code inside {{display/watchlist}}. Actually it needs to be the exactly as Monty845 specified:

{{#switch:{{interval|n={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|11 November|21 November|26 November|10 December|format=time}}
 |0-1 = <!--nothing-->
 |1-2 = <li class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_138">Candidates for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012|December 2012 Arbitration Committee elections]] are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates|nominate themselves]]'''.</li>
 |2-3 = <!--nothing-->
 |3-4 = <li class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_139">'''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/###|Voting]]''' is now open to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012|elect]] new members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].</li>
}}

This isn't urgent, as the existing code should work until the 26th November when the poll opens. After that, though, anyone who dismissed the message about nominations won't see the message about voting unless we update the code. (Of course, we also need to update the voting link before then, so it may be advisable to wait until we have the link and to just update them both.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Done I've just updated it myself. Still waiting for the voting link though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Update - the voting link has yet to be forthcoming, so I've commented out the watchlist notice code until the system is working. I figure that it's better to display no notice at all than to display one with a broken link. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I had hoped we would have already known the ID number a few days ago, which would have given plenty of time for an update, but directing editors to a poll that does not yet exist would be pretty bad. Monty₈₄₅ 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Current notice link hard to see - accessibility issue

moved to here for discussion. --Lexein (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TAFI on Main Page proposal

Would an admin be kind enough to add a mention of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editor_recruitment_with_TAFI to Watchlist-details?

• Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to add {{Today's article for improvement}} to the Main Page.

..or something of that sort. Thanks! —Theopolisme 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I don't know if it qualifies as substantial enough for a watchlist notice, but I wanted to leave a note regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices here if another admin would like to add it. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of adminship process

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this.

At some point I think this should be listed. - jc37 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package.

At some point I think this should be listed. - jc37 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Data center switchover

Hey,

Normally we would just use WP:VPT and the mailing lists for this sort of thing, but next week there is going to be a data center migration (meaning we switch where Wikipedia is served from, not moving the physical servers) from Tampa, FL to Ashburn, VA. This means at best the site is going to be in read-mode periodically for a few days, which will be obvious, but I thought it might be good to give people some advance notice, so I'm proposing...

Due to a major data center migration, Wikimedia sites will be periodically in read-only mode early next week.

Sound okay? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Affects everyone, good place for the notice. Jujutacular (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone get rid of the bullet on this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The bullet should be there, but I think I've fixed it properly now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist on mobile web

The WMF mobile web team has just released login and watchlist star/view for the Wikimedia mobile web. I thought it would be nice to let more users know via the desktop watchlist notice that this feature is now available on their phone :) Proposed text below:

Check your watchlist from your phone! Login and watchlist now available on the Wikipedia mobile site.

Thanks muchly, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a briefer and more neutral text like Login and watchlist are now available on the Wikipedia mobile website.. Remember the protocol relativeness is kinda needed in this circumstance. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for WebCite sister project

{{sudo|MediaWiki:Watchlist-details}} There is a proposal at meta:WebCite to start a new sister project to take over the WebCite archiving service that Wikipedia uses to archive citations. The WebCite service we use is having financial difficulties. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#a heads-up -- webcitation.org may go dark. This service is heavily used on the English Wikipedia with some 182,368 links to citations archived there. I believe all our featured article candidates are required to have their citations archived there before attaining FA status. As our citations are the basis for all valid content on the project, it would seem this is critical enough to require a watchlist notice. If it is possible to put the notice up for 1 week, that would be very helpful. Here's the suggestion.

Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to start a new sister project to take over the WebCite archiving service used to archive citations on Wikipedia.

This is just a suggestion and can be reworded however anybody sees fit. Thanks for your help. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not required for FAC, but it should be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Adding a {{sudo}} as there seem to be no objections. 64.40.54.103 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist notice proposed at WP:VPR

I thought people here might be interested in this watchlist notice request I've started at WP:VPR. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFA2013

Hey guys, we've had a request at WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2#MediaWiki Watchlist message for a watchlist message for this RfC. Until now, no substantial RfC concerning RfA has passed in the 10 years of RfA; currently, there are several proposals in this one which seem to be passing (and I can't say more than that, since I'm one of the closers). This may be an RfC more Wikipedians would like to know about, but I'm not taking a position either way. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a cause worthy of a watchlist notice - could you propose a specific wording? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The second round of the RfC ends today. If we get consensus here to add a watchlist notice, then it should go up at the start of Round Three, and we won't know when that is until the second-round RfC voters indicate that post-round discussions are over and they're ready for Round Three. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about the lack of response here, as well - it might be worth posting at WP:AN if further requests go unanswered. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Add a help link?

As far as I can see the Watchlist page currently doesn't have a link to Help:Watchlist. The preferences page and the user contribs page both do have such help links. Would it be worth adding a help link to the watchlist? —Noiratsi (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancel that, I just found the help link (the word "watchlist" is linked in "...pages on your watchlist"). In that case, can we make it more prominent? I don't feel it's clear that it's a help link. —Noiratsi (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments

Would it be possible to get something up regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments? Perhaps "The Arbitration Committee is seeking community comment regarding candidates for the Audit Subcommittee"? NW (Talk) 05:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't see any problems with the wording, so I put it up just as you suggested. The expiry date is set to April 18. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Auto Patrolled Discussion

As this would be a change to the core functionality of administrators I think a watchlist notice would be appropriate. Suggest:

There is a discussion on whether to make the autopatrolled right an optional part of the administrative toolset and community input is needed.

Regards, Crazynas ^t 20:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Crazynas ^t 18:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems the discussion has been very well attended. Perhaps the notice is not needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note about the Commons Android app

Hello! There's a Wikimedia Commons Android App that lets you upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, and the beta is at a stage where more exposure to experienced users would be very useful. Can we have an entry in the Watchlist notice? It's already a part of the notice on Commons, and having it on enwiki as well would be most helpful. I'm thinking of text along the lines of

Help test the latest beta of Wikimedia Commons Android App - install it and provide feedback!

Thanks! YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done--ragesoss (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"No big deal" RfC

I have opened an RfC that attempts to answer this question: Does the Wikipedia community currently treat adminship as if it is no big deal? The RfC is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/No big deal? I would appreciate it if the RfC was advertised with a watchlist notice that reads:

• A Request for Comment, which asks if adminship is really no big deal, is currently open and your opinion is welcome.

Please leave it up for a month. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this watchlist notice; a series of watchlist notices that lead to unproductive RfCs will make it harder to get the attention of the larger community when the people who tend to debate these things finally come up with something that most of them support. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." —David Levy 22:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Allow me to point out that I was surprised by Dank's comment above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  For future reference, this isn't a type of edit that should be assumed to be uncontroversial. We can't advertise every RfC via the watchlist, so in the absence of an official WMF request or some sort of emergency, a discussion opportunity usually is needed. —David Levy 23:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the rough hierarchy of notifications, it usually goes something like "discussion > (wikiproject?) > formal rfc > rfc manually advertised lots of places > WP:CENT > watchlist notice > sitenotice". I'd try advertising it in other places before escalating to something as prominent as a watchlist notice. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New User Rights Proposal

I am relaunching an RfC for a new user right to be added to Wikipedia. Like the last time, it will need a site notice. Please have it read:

• A Proposal to create a new user right called "protected page editor" is being discussed and community input is needed.

Please have it expire in 1 month from date it is put up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Poke.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done and hopefully done correctly. --auburnpilot talk 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that its been one month yet so why was the notice removed? Valth001 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. That's why WP:DATESNO discourages ambiguous dates like 5/04/2013 - to your average Brit (like me or MSGJ), that's 5 April 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay I did misinterpret the date (and assumed the template was not working with that particular date format). However, I also think a fortnight for this notice would be sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this notice as the discussion has now had plenty of exposure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is not yet over. The notice is still pulling in plenty of people. Please leave it up for the last nine days.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm opposed, for the reasons I and others have mentioned below. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Deactivating EP template, apparently not uncontroversial or backed by consensus. Amalthea 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

new account creation and login

Proposal, linking to the WP:VPT thread and so on:

New login and account creation pages are coming. Try them now!

Any objections? I was thinking I could do this now, or wait until the testing period and do a "Hey, this is coming soon as default" notice. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not an objection as such, but how about temporarily adding it to MediaWiki:Loginend and MediaWiki:Loginend-https, instead of (or maybe as well as) a watchlist notice? This would give users the option to try the new interface when they actually need it, i.e. when they're logging in. If you put it on a watchlist notice then users will have to log out to try it, and I'm guessing that would make a big difference in the number of users who are willing to go through the effort. It's also similar to what Google does when they introduce a new feature on Gmail - after they have the feature working they let people try it on an opt-in basis, at the actual point of the user experience that it would eventually be used at by everyone. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh. Good idea. I will do that. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk

Request for comments on the Main Page

Can the following be added as a watchlist note:

• A Request for comments on the Main Page's design, content, and purpose

Background: The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. Though it has been advertised on WP:CENT, WP:VILLAGEPUMP, and Talk:Main Page, many editors don't follow those pages. A watchlist notice will allow many more editors who have an interest in the main page to participate in the RFC. - Evad37 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, see here. Please note two things: (i) I boldfaced the first of the two links to make it clearer which one was the one with the discussion; (ii) I set the expiry to 6 June, that being the date mentioned at the top of the RFC as "This RFC will stay open until at least 6 June 2013". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, the boldface does make it clearer, and 6 June is fine as an expiry date - Evad37 (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Messaging system at Commons

At Commons, we have a new watchlist notice system. A creation wizard is still missing but this will be also available soon. Most relevant are commons:Help:Watchlist messages and commons:Template:WatchlistNotice. -- Rillke (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks pretty elegant. I'd definitely be interested in trying to merge the geonotices and watchlist notices on en.wp into a similar system. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This should likely be incorporated into Wikipedia. I can start a proposal thread tomorrow. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An alpha-version of the wizard is now available at commons:Help:Watchlist messages/Wizard. Publishing does not work yet (I have to review some Wikitext-to DOM JavaScript parsers before. -- Rillke (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

The WMF will be publishing a blog post about the VisualEditor shortly. We'd like to link to it from the Watchlist notice. Notice should say something like:

VisualEditor is coming! Read a blog post with the background and details on an upcoming test.

(Once we get the address, we'll obviously link it into "Read a blog post"). This should expire on/about 24 June.

Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Philippe's proposal with the link is:

VisualEditor is coming! Read a blog post with the background and details on an upcoming test.

A possible alternative with more emphasis on the link and the main message would be:

VisualEditor is coming! Read more about the background and details on an upcoming test.

guillom 10:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this instead?

VisualEditor is coming! It will be available to all logged-in users from early July—please help us to test it.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the call to action quite a lot! Thank you; implemented. (I set expiration to 30 June given that call to action, but this can be modified of course if need be. The more testers we get in advance, the better.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find the current text confusing. VisualEditor is already available to all logged-in users on enwiki, just not by default. Do you mean it will be the default, it will be available on other wikis, or for IPs, or... Ypnypn (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): or @Okeyes (WMF): Can we remove, or should we update, based on the postponement? –Quiddity (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For the time being, I've removed the text about the A/B test beginning today and restored the cookie number used before it was added. I also made it clearer that the VisualEditor is available to test now and changed the wording from "early July" to "the near future" (as the full rollout stands to be delayed as well). —David Levy 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, David; the right response :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest adding a notice now that the editor is live and pointing to any appropriate place to report bugs/issues/etc? --MASEM (t) 22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've re-added a notice now that VisualEditor enabled, using the same wording as the CentralNotice banner. I've set it to expire on July 6, but feel free to tweak as appropriate. guillom 19:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello, WikiProject Good Articles will be opening a Recruitment Centre on June 19, 2013 to teach any registered user how to review good article nominations and find Wikipedia's good content. I believe that this is significant enough to have a short message being placed on watchlist's because Good articles are a major part of the English Wikipedia. Though these articles are not up to Featured Article standards, GA's are still another "level" that promote some of Wikipedia's good content; however, there are a very low amount of users that actually review these nominations causing these quality articles to be "under-rated". This also results in user's working hard in writing these articles only to realize that their work won't pay off for several months because there is such a large backlog. Therefore, by mentioning the Recruitment Centre on the watchist's we hope to get more good article reviewers to not only reduce the backlog, but also find Wikipedia's good content that waits for months to be found.--Dom497 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello?--Dom497 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dom497: Hi. I'm not a regular at this page (and not an admin), but I suspect the admins watching this page want: (1) Specific/exact text, that is requested to be included, (2) an indication of how long the notice needs to be displayed for (in hours/days), and (3) some sort of evidence that there are numerous editors who support the endeavour and are waiting to help an influx of trainees (I.e. link to a discussion about the new recruitment centre).

Additionally, you might want to consider using the other methods of promotion, as watchlist-details notices tend to be restricted for "high-priority" announcements that everyone needs to know. - Eg. Add a notice at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk and Wikipedia:Community bulletin board and announce it at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous).

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

I would like to advertise Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC with:

There is an ongoing RFC as to whether the Visual Editor should be enabled for new users and anonymous editors.

—Kww(talk) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should be more widely advertised; I'd support a watchlist notice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done until 2013-08-07. I just set the expiry for a week since none was suggested, feel free to extend it as appropriate. Legoktm (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Template editor RfC

I propose that we add a watchlist notice for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. Here is my proposed wording:

• Please comment on a proposal to add a new user right for trusted template coders.

Do others think this is worthy of a watchlist notice? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd link the word "template" but otherwise agreed. equazcion ^(talk) 14:20, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea for our newer editors; well spotted. Also, I think the watchlist notice should run for a week. The RfC has still got a few weeks to go, but a one-week watchlist notice should be more than enough to publicise it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here? equazcion ^(talk) 18:53, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Templates affect every part of the project as do userrights. It is important for people that don't normally watch WP:RfC to be informed of this proposal so that they may able to participate in the discussion. So adding a watchlist notice is completely justified. Best. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also important because RFC isn't currently working :) equazcion ^(talk) 22:57, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
• Due to the lack of any objection, I've gone ahead and added the notice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Mr. Stradivarius, I just realized the notice might make it seem like we're proposing to disallow template editing in general for anyone without the proposed right. Maybe it should be this:
    • Please comment on a proposal to add a new user right that would allow trusted template coders to edit protected templates.
  • As much as I'd prefer to keep it simple, I think many in the general population might not look into the proposal past their initial preconception. What do you think? equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point; so changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks :) equazcion ^(talk) 00:03, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-namespace RfC

I would like to advertise Talk:CSD:#RfC: Should CSD: be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces to deletion? with:

There is an ongoing RFC as to whether or not the CSD: pseudo-namespaces should be an exception to the immunity of pseudo-namespaces from being deleted.

Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with using {{cent}}? Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm, I've added it on that list as well. That being said, links that have been followed ~20K times in the last month that have suddenly turned red should be important enough for this to be on the Watchlist notice as well. Technical 13 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, the RFC is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace‎. No opinion as to a watchlist notice. equazcion� | 17:57, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)

 Nopes. And, for the umpteenth time, take this to WP:DRV, if you believe the closer was wrong. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRV is not the appropriate venue for blatant violation of policy and consensus. Technical 13 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If, as you claim, the deletion close was a blatant violation of policy, or consensus, then WP:DRV is exactly the correct venue. I've closed the discussion, as RFCs are not meant to be a vehicle to overturn specific deletion outcomes, so there is no longer a need for a watchlist notice. Monty₈₄₅ 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC elections

I would like to advertise the upcoming FLC elections. Such elections will run from October 1 to 30, and are designed to select two new FLC delegates (the one in charge with promoting-archiving lists, etc.) Discussion about this has been held at the FLC talk page (not much participation though) and both Giants2008 and me (the current delegates-directors) are happy with the idea of the election. The notice should not appear until October 1 at 00:00. I propose the following text:

• From October 1 to 7: The FLC elections to select new delegates are being held. The nomination period closes on October 7.
• From October 8 to 14: The FLC elections to select new delegates are being held. The questions period closes on October 14.
• From October 15 to 30: The FLC elections to select new delegates are being held. Participate before the voting period closes on October 30.

But anyone can (of course) feel free to propose a better text. I have never asked for a notice before. Any thoughts? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable addition, and suitable for this notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether to run this, but if you do, FLC should be spelled out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is already October 1 on UTC. Can a kind admin please add this to the watchlist? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, after improving the wording in a discussion with Hahc21 on IRC. I'll try and remember to update it in a week, but please ping me just in case. Legoktm (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you please undo this? The process and page describing it seem to be quite lacking so this notice seems to be causing more confusion than helping at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/2013 elections. Maybe this is an important process that would benefit from widespread attention but the explanatory materials are insufficient right now. ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps this needs a little more preparation first. I've removed it for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I appreciate the quick action. Hopefully the folks involved in this process can get things worked out and in action soon! ElKevbo (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think I have taken care of all the concerns. Can somebody check if the notice can be posted again? By the way, the timeline has changed. Nominations will last until October 14, then voting until October 30. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a good idea. As shown last time, most people just don't care. Focus on editors already active in the featured content processes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, looks like that's we'll have to do. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • You could, in theory, ask a bot operator to deliver the same message to people on a certain list (such as people with at least one FL) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on WP:BRIGHTLINE

An RfC has opened on whether Wikipedia:No paid advocacy (BRIGHTLINE) should become policy. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. As this is an issue of concern to the whole community, could we have a watchlist notice about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:  Done[1]. AGK [•] 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, AGK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ACERFC Watchlist notice

The Request For Comment on the December 2013 Arbitration Committee Election is currently open. Additional participants in the discussion would be welcome.

• I'd like to request the above (or something similar) be added as a watchlist notice expiring Nov 1, the RFC has been open for 2 weeks already, and I think it could use some more participation. Monty₈₄₅ 22:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Monty845: please feel free to add this notice per Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#Standing notices and historical precedence (2012 ACE RfC, 2011 ACE RfC, etc.). ArbCom election stuff doesn't really require discussion as it affects the entire project. As to wording, I would suggest something like last years message.

    Editors are invited to comment on the rules and procedures for the upcoming Arbitration Committee Election, including selection of the Election Commision.

    Or something similar to that. Thanks. 64.40.54.169 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • So added. If anyone wants me to tweak the wording, just ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.54.75 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Typo: Could you please change "Commision" to "Commission"? Thanks, The Anonymouse (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The Anonymouse (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• The WP:ACERFC has finished and been closed, so could a kindly admin remove the notice please? Thanks. 64.40.54.185 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It was no longer being shown because it had expired 1 November; nevertheless, Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.54.112 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

New draft namespace

I am unsure whether this RFC should be added as a Watchlist notice, but my personal opinion is that it would impact a large number of users to be added in the notice. If it does satisfy the criteria, please add the following notice -

An RfC has opened for the creation of a new namespace for all Draft articles. See the Village Pump.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a well-formed proposal which would affect many editors, so I would be inclined to add this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment A new namespace affects all aspects of the project, including technical areas, administration, patrolling and of course editing. This really should be on a watchlist notice because of its far reaching ramifications for the project as a whole, so I'm adding a sudo. As for wording, I would suggest, Editors are invited to comment on a proposal for a new Draft namespace or something similar. 64.40.54.179 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

 posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would include a tiny bit of rationale there. It's a long proposal and most people are gonna likely skip reading it, opting instead for the quick judgment. The notice currently reads like a solution in search of a problem, as if to say someone thought it would look pretty to have a draft space. I'd say this:

• Editors are invited to comment on a proposal for a new Draft namespace that aims to organize the constant influx of new article creation requests.

... or something in that vein? equazcion → 12:52, 8 Nov 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't try to include arguments for having the namespace in the notification. It should be as short and as neutral as possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is neutral. It "aims" to fix an issue, and there's no claim that it actually will. Mentioning why something is being proposed is rather standard, and doesn't make it non-neutral. equazcion → 21:22, 8 Nov 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections have started

Per the WP:ACERFC and Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#Standing notices, could a kindly admin please add a watclist notice for the Arbitration Committee elections that are currently running? It should be similar to last year's notice with the dates and links updated. Please note the edit in last year's diff had to be tweaked a bit. Thanks very much. 64.40.54.211 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody already added a watch list notice, though it's simpler than last years. AGK [•] 10:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is Already done. (non-admin closure) ~HueSatLum 13:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.54.139 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Protecting Templates due to vandalism

The RFC on template protection will potentially impact a large number of our editors. Hence it probably should be included as a Watchlist notice, I think.

Suggested wording is - Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to introduce Pending Changes protection on templates to deal with vandalism

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, with slightly amended wording. (For a speedier response in future, always use {{edit protected}}!) AGK [•] 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please remove the Watchlist notice as I've retracted the RFC per overwhelming consensus against it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Please add a notice linking to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Suggested wording: "Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to decide conditions for use of Pending Changes level 2." Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

‎Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Anyone mind if we promote this? Wording:

The Core Contest is running for a fifth time from 10 February to 9 March 2014

Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've put it up for a week. Feel free to tweak it if you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Typography refresh

This is happening soon...

The default typography for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites will change soon. (Learn more, FAQ)

Unless there are objections, I'm going to post this shortly, since the change will go live soon. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done with help from Legoktm :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Counter RfC

I started and edit counter RfC regarding the optin requirements. Since this will affect everyone on en.wikipedia, I feel a site notice is appropriate. The discussion is found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Edit Counter Optin.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Already done by User:Rschen7754. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholar applications

The Wikipedia Library would like to run a notice letting editors know about three open positions with the Visiting Scholar program. This program gives editors free remote access to an academic library's online and physical holdings. We need to let as many editors know about this as possible, starting as soon as possible this week and running until May 1st. Sample text:

There are three Wikipedia Visiting Scholar positions currently open to experienced editors. See this page to apply for free access to an academic library's resources.

Questions, or feedback? Let me know. The Interior (Talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've put it up for a week. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 22:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo! mail problem

As of April 2014, any email sent through the interface by users having a Yahoo! email address set in their preferences will not reach their recipients at all, without the person having any way to know that is occurring (except indirectly by noticing they aren't getting any responses). See here, here and T66795. Currently, the only solution is to not use Yahoo! email. There must be thousands of users with Yahoo! email addresses and it's not a good thing that they learn there is a problem passively, by composing and sending emails and realizing it failed without knowing why, or never learning and continuing to blithely send emails while being fooled into thinking the person never responded. Suggested watchlist notice below--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

|text='''Yahoo! email addresses no longer working''': because of a new security configuration instituted by Yahoo!, as of April 2014 and continuing, emails sent by Wikipedia users through the Wikipedia interface, via a Yahoo! email address, do not work. At this time the only solution is to set a different email provider. To change the email address associated with your account, visit the email options section of your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]].
}}

• It would be less obtrusive for this to be displayed in the send email interface. –xeno^talk 20:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• I think that this is a big enough problem for some users that a "both/and" approach would be warranted: a week in the watchlist and a year in Special:EmailUser. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that there should be a warning in the Preferences entry item, because for people who occasionally forget their password and have only entered an email address in order to use the "email me a new password" feature, finding out when you send an email is going to be way too late. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Password reset requests should still work because they come from Wikipedia (not the user). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. –xeno^talk 23:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha, yes: they're from wiki (at) wikimedia.org --Redrose64 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Workshop Facilitator Training

Hello, Wikimedia DC is hosting a training session to teach best practices for workshop facilitation. We would like a watchlist notice from now-August 15 saying: "Are you interested in learning how to host effective workshops for new users? Apply to attend Wikimedia DC's training session, held from August 29-31. Applications are open until August 15 and all domestic travel will be funded." Thoughts? Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just spotted this has gone up - definitely worth a notice, but it's currently being broadcast worldwide. Would you mind if I moved it to a geo-targeted notice for North America? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Oops, that's my bad. A geonotice would be awesome, thank you! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Doing it just now. Hopefully this won't annoy too many people who have to click "ignore" twice! Will set it for Texas on up. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

...okay, the geotargeting looked pretty hairy (especially if we were trying to get Hawaii - you ended up with most of Mexico, Cuba, etc) so I've set it up as two notices - one targeting Canada and one targeting the US. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Thank you SO MUCH! I am crap with technical stuff. Very gratefully, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

The Anome and I have been talking about this for a while, and we've sort of gotten distracted. So apologies for not bringing this to you weeks ago, but would you mind posting this as a watchlist notice for about a week, for logged-in users only, whenever it's convenient?

An appeal from the developers: we've been improving VisualEditor, and we're looking for volunteers to test it. You can opt-in to it via Beta Features

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I've put it up for a week, and tweaked the formatting slightly to fit in with the other notice that's up currently. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation taking applications for two Wikipedian positions

Wiki Ed just opened a search for two part-time positions for experienced Wikipedians. I'm proposing a watchlist notice for about a week:

Wiki Education Foundation is taking applications for two paid positions in the Classroom Program: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities.

--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not a central notice? Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Watchlists are usually best for editor-oriented notices like this; a centralnotice seems a bit overkill. Sage - just to check the obvious, are these globally available positions and not US-only? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Gray: Excellent question. I just asked, and it looks like we're still trying to get an answer from our HR provider as to whether it's possible. I guess it makes sense to do a geonotice instead, unless and until we can answer "yes" to global availability.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's not yet clear, do you want to hold off for a couple of days until you know for sure? If not I'll run a US-only geonotice. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(For anyone wondering, it's now up as a US-only geonotice) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Stub contest

The Wikipedia:Stub Contest is now up and running - is there any objection to a short notice? Something along the lines of:

The Stub Contest is now open through September - expand stubs and win prizes! More details.

Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to link Wikipedia:Stub Contest twice in the message? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if you're as absent-minded as I am :-). Either link works. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - any objection to my putting this up with the corrected link? Andrew Gray (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Done as #180. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Request

@Andrew Gray: Hey, WikiProject Good articles will be introducing the GA Cup on October 1, 2014. The objective is to decrease the massive backlog for Good article nominations through a fun, friendly competition. We are encouraging both new and old reviewers to participate (this is a great opportunity to attract new reviewers). I'm not very good with writing messages for the watchlist but maybe something like this would work:

"WikiProject Good articles is holding the first GA Cup! The competition starts on October 1 and sign-ups close on October 15!"--Dom497 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Can you take a look at my request above please? Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need Andrew Gray?  Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - meant to deal with this one a couple of days back and forgot entirely! Martin, thanks for putting it up. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

BASC reform 2014

We definitely need to add a link to the RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014). We need as much participation (and visibility) as possible. I'd do it myself but I prefer to consult here first. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Request (10/6/2014)

Because it involves a core content policy, WP:PLAGIARISM, I would like to request a watchlist notice for an RfC that can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#RfC. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you try WP:CENT and come back here if the discussion is not getting much participation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but is there any good reason why this is a bad candidate for a watchlist notice? This is about a core content policy that affects every Wikipedian. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a guideline, not a policy. The RFC was closed last week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Request (31 Oct - 2 Nov)

Possibly in the wrong place, I've made this request for a Watchlist notice to run from 11:00 UTC on Friday 31 October until Sunday 2 November. Thanks, Jheald (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Please remove both the notices, both are expired. Thanks, Jim Carter 19:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: They've expired, so are no longer displayed on the watchlist. Next time that somebody adds a message to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, expired messages can be removed at the same time. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to discontinue RFC/U

Add:

• A proposal to discontinue Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is underway. Comments are welcome.

NE Ent 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why hasn't this been done, no idea. So I just did it. Thanks NE Ent. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hahc21: I was about to decline this request, watchlist additions outside regular announcements require consensus. It's already at cent, the consensus seems clear already and I'm not certain that this would benefit from larger community input. Cenarium (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• There was a dispute later yesterday when someone went and closed the RFC, with several users asking for more community input on the matter given that RFCU was a decade-long process. I think it would do good to have as much eyes as possible on that RFC. → Call me Hahc21 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done I was about to agree with Hahc21 and add the notice, when I saw that he already added it himself. Closing down a long-standing dispute resolution venue would require the consensus of a broad section of the community, so I think a watchlist notice is justified in advertising it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Arbitration Committee Election Notice

After 00:01 tomorrow (i.e., 00:01 24 November UTC) could you please add a Watchlist notice for the Arbitration Committee Election linking to the main election page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014 - thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for trying to get it set up, QuiteUnusual. Mike V • Talk 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike V: I think that "Voting for members" is misleading. Can I suggest it to be changed to "Voting to elect the members..." or something similar? → Call me Hahc21 12:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for watchlist notification

Hi there. I'm hoping someone could add this as a watchlist notification from Dec 3 or 4 until Dec 17th. to display to logged-in users. Would you please let me know if this is possible?:

• Please vote on tools or gadgets that you want the Wikimedia Foundation to improve. This is pilot for a larger survey coming in Q3. The WMF will consider results when planning the product roadmap for future quarters. Learn about the privacy practices and terms for this third party survey here.

Thank you so much. --Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you so much, Xaosflux! Very appreciated! -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)