MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 5

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot
There's a proposal on the noticeboard for a watchlist notice (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

editprotected


 * If the DIV tags are placed on the same line as the message, then the [dismiss] button will also appear on the same line rather than in its own paragraph. It makes more sense to have it on the same line as the message that it is used to dismiss. To do this, find:

 &bull; An automated process is about to commence a mass blanking task affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see here.


 * Replace with:

&bull; An automated process is about to commence a mass blanking task affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see here.


 * And you're done. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks. – xeno talk 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising 2010 notice
Would people have a problem if we posted a short notice on watchlists looking for help with the fundraising campaign this year. Most specifically a comment directing them to the Messages page for comments and new proposals.

Thoughts: Help shape the 2010 Wikimedia Fundraiser! Propose new messages and comment on existing options on Meta.

Jalexander (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with that. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NW ( Talk ) 18:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reword, remove, or credit this; copyvio of here. Credit in an edit summary to the page works for me.  A aargh  23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever people want to do is fine to me. I'll be honest however, I don't consider it a copyvio at all. I came up with it on my own accord and your text wasn't even on that page when I did so (looking at the history it was changed on the 13th) so I have no idea how I would have been expected to credit you (I could not even have done a google search and seen you came up with it). To be totally honest I think a credit is a bit disingenuous, this version of the text wasn't yours. :/ Jalexander (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If some text is minimalist enough, then it's not a copy vio. Not sure it applies here, though.  After that, if you didn't know about it, I think only a US judge could decide if it's a copy vio or not.  - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's not the same text and "Help shape x" is hardly novel wording. – xeno talk 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative
editprotected Amy Roth and I would like to run a notice for a short time to recruit people for Amy's article quality assessment experiments. We'd like to run this: A team is forming to test Wikipedia's article assessments, as part of the Public Policy Initiative. Interested article reviewers can sign up now. I realize the watchlist notice is a little crowded right now; however, I anticipate that we would get all volunteers we need in a fairly short time period.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? Amy is anxious to get her assessment team filled up soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support this. I just removed the CCI notice and we can probably remove the pending changes notice as well, so we should have the space now. Any objections to adding Sage's notice? NW ( Talk ) 17:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep an eye on it and remove the notice when it's served its purpose.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The above watchlist notice is severely misleading and is probably wasting the time of editors outside the US and editors in the US who are not interested in assessing public policy articles. At ANI, User:Sonia has come up with the following much improved text: The Public Policy Initiative is testing a new article assessment system on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can sign up now. Could an admin replace the notice, please. Hans Adler 09:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, with a slight tweak ("under" -> "within") &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we giving watchlist notice space to one specific project? Is there any anticipated encyclopedia wide benefit from this? If not, I don't see the need.--Crossmr (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are testing tools that are under consideration for wider deployment in the Wikimedia websites. See also coverage in the signpost. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is pushing this test? Is it the policy institute project, or the community? If its the policy institute let them carry on on their own. if its something the community has come up with and they volunteered to run first, then keep it. the story itself hasn't generated a lot of encouraging feedback, so it doesn't seem to be something the community as a whole is really interested in.--Crossmr (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am minded to agree with Crossmr here. Is there some reason one the pumps and CENT couldn't be used to advertise this? Every time a watchlist notice of very limited interest is implemented increases the chances that folks will simply hide watchlist notices (I know I have), reducing the value of this interface note for information that legitimately need to be communicated to all editors. – xeno talk 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Public Policy Initiative is a Wikimedia Foundation project; the main thrust of it is to get experts and students involved with Wikipedia through classroom assignments. The assessment testing is part of this (and also part of the broader Wikimedia strategy to develop better ways of measuring the quality of our articles), so that we can measure whether or not the program is measurably improving articles.  That Signpost story has generated a little bit of constructive criticism, and there's much more at the assessment discussion page where people have been discussing the assessment testing after starting to try it out.  I would actually say the feedback has been fairly encouraging, given that quality assessment is not one of the topics that really riles us up (unlike, say, pending changes).  Part of the reason we wanted to use a watchlist notice is because less high-profile methods hadn't attracted enough people to make the tests works.
 * In any case, it looks like we've attracted close to the number of assessors that the project's research analyst Amy Roth is looking for. We'd only like the notice to remain up through Friday.  Of course, if it's widely considered not useful and not worth using a watchlist notice for, go ahead and remove it now.  But I hope people will see the value in the project even if they aren't interested in participating themselves.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. – xeno talk 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xeno. Editors' attention is one of the most valuable resources of Wikipedia, and it's not a good idea to waste it. This project is probably worth a watchlist notice such as the one we have now, but it's still a borderline case and is certainly not worth a project notice that makes hundreds or thousands of editors from Europe and elsewhere waste their time finding out that they are supposed to assess articles on US interior politics for completeness, sourcing and neutrality. This simply doesn't make any sense. Hans Adler 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem leaving it up even longer than that, if warranted. Perhaps it could be reworded (again) to reflect its US-centric interest. Or maybe just a very wide geonotice would allay those concerns?  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do editors from europe not see watchlist notices?--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Of course they do, that's the problem. We are all shown a watchlist notice that obviously doesn't apply to us. That's OK, but it wasn't OK when the watchlist notice pretended that it was of global interest and so wasted the time of editors who thought they might help. Hans Adler 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you separated the terms watchlist notice and project wide notice I thought you might be referencing two different things.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Sage's request to leave the notice only through Friday, I've removed it. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 11:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections 2010
It's that time of year again - our annual dose of politics and shenanigans comes to us in the form of the 2010 Arbcom elections. We typically post a watchlist notice for the election, and so (as per precedent) I'd like to confirm consensus for the following notices:


 * 14 November - 23 November: "Candidates for the December 2010 Arbitration Committee elections are invited to nominate themselves."
 * 24 November - 25 November: Nothing
 * 26 November - 6 December: " Voting  is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee"

These notices match the notices posted for the elections of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Note that the securepoll link will be updated to whatever we use for this election; the nowiki'd link in the above example is last year's.

Comments are appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems appropriate to me. Community-wide issue, needs attention.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Note also that the entirely incorrect dates I inserted above would, of course, be corrected to the proper ones per WP:ACE2010 - as I've just done. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've loaded up the messages so they should automatically appear at the correct times. The syntax should be clear enough in case the times need tweaking, etc. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

editprotected Please replace Voting with Voting to make it a functioning link. Thanks,  Skomorokh   22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC) ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk  03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Urgent (somewhat): RFC on ArbCom Elections Method
Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The elections need to be mentioned here for sure. But I'm not sure whether a discussion about the elections warrants this level of notice. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be sensible if the same users who are being invited to participate in the elections are invited to participate on how they would like the election run this year. I don't think there is a shortage in the times we hear the question 'who decides how the elections are run' and then the subsequent 'really? i didn't know that this discussion was even happening...i guess i'm too late'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual Content
The following sitenotice is currently active on Commons:


 * There is a poll open to adopt Sexual content as a Wikimedia Commons policy.

No doubt, EnWiki users will want to be made aware of this poll too, since we use Commons to host most images in our articles. Could someone add it to EnWiki's watchlist-details? --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but perhaps the wording:
 * You are invited to a poll on Wikimedia Commons to adopt a new policy on sexual content.
 * might be better ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added, using TheDJ's wording to indicate it is on another project. Courcelles 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Commons is sitewide, let's not restrict this to just enwiki. Perhaps it would gain more prominence in their designated zones, like on CommonsTicker or the meta:Special:CentralNotice. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about removing this and placing it on the Meta CentralNotice Admins' page instead? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A reasonable idea, but I would only be able to do half the job (removing it from here). Therefore I suggest you try contacting a meta admin for advice on this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since Meta is now using the CentralNotice to add the fund-raising banners, I'm actually not certain that would work. Courcelles 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising link
The fundraising announcement should be removed. The people running it have no interest in "collaboration". The community proposed hundreds of banners, and all of them were ignored. We shouldn't encourage editors to waste any more time on this ruse. Gigs (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to remove the fundraiser meta notice?
It seems like there hasn't been much activity on the meta fundraiser banner/message proposal pages lately, and many good messages that haven't been tested yet even as the fundraiser is nearing its end. Maybe it's time to remove the notice for it?--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, as my section above notes. I'm extremely disappointed in WMF and the fundraising people for soliciting so much community input and then using nearly none of it. Gigs (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's probably time for it to come down.--Pharos (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nakon  03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice to help reference BLPs
Proposed:


 * Help is needed to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people.

Gigs (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple, direct, to the point, looks good to me. -- j &#9883; e deckertalk 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great, well done. Have you thought of creating a banner that editors can display on their user and user talk pages to advertise the project? -- JN 466  23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we have propose that is a recurring banner, maybe for a week each month. Try it simple, as above first, then add a target value for a future run (ie under 15,000 by Jan 31 or similar), until we get the backlog under 1000 (it's just above 20,000 now). If anyone not heavily involved in the task to date thinks that the target link page isn't clear enough, then please give us feedback at WT:URBLP (or edit/improve it yourself).The-Pope (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this proposal. — J04n(talk page) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support the original notice, but I don't think that a recurring notice is a good idea. People tend to disregard things like that once they become routine. That, and it's a bit of a slippery slope: there are lots of other projects and backlogs that would love to "advertise" like this, but we can't let them all have a week.  bahamut0013  words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This case is a little exceptional considering how much strife and controversy this backlog causes.   Since everyone seems positive on the idea, and no one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and mark this with an editprotected request. Gigs (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- j &#9883; e deckertalk 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could directly incorporate this randomly unreferenced BLP generator into the watchlist notice? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest the exact wording that you think would work. Thought you were an admin anyway. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not these days. How about this?

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_84" id="UBLP">&bull; Help is needed to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people (random unsourced biography).
 * I don't particularly like it much, but it might work. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, doesn't really add much to what's there, and disrupts the flow of the sentence. The big red button on the link takes you there anyway ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it could be incorporated better, I think it would be nice to have it, to show people that finding an unreferenced BLP isn't as hard as they thought. In addition, far more people are likely to go to it from their watchlist that would otherwise not travel to WP:URBLP. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about something like the following? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are invited to source a random biography and help with the ongoing drive to eliminate unreferenced biographies of living people.
 * I think that would be excellent. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please put a plainlinks class around the random bio link, like so:  Although the link is to an external tool, it leads back to a random article, which is internal. — mc10  ( t / c ) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst it's very difficult to work out if the spike in UBLP reduction is due to this notice, or other influences, but not much else has changed in the past month other people going on holidays... and we have removed over 4400 UBLPs in the 25 days since Dec 4 (when I think the notice went live)... the previous 4400 took almost two months to do! Thank you to everyone for your assistance in this.  It's been amazingly successful, much more than I ever would have hoped for - my original "stretch target" of 15,000 by Jan 31 will probably be done a whole month early!The-Pope (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to remove this notice now? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as it has been up for quite a long time now. We could perhaps run it again later in the year? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've plotted the number of UBLPs based on the log and the increase during the time the watchlist notice was in effect is quite dramatic! Definitely might need another run in a few months to try to finish them off. The-Pope (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It did really help, wow! And yeah, another run in a few months might help us polish this off, thanks to everyone who worked on this!  -- j &#9883; e deckertalk 08:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

10th anniversary
Any objections to 10th anniversary organizing message? We've got less than 30 days to go, and there's lots being done and more yet to do. My idea is as follows, but revisions are definitely welcome...

Wikipedia's 10th anniversary is less than a month away. Visit ten.wikipedia.org to help plan the celebrations. Thanks, Steven Walling at work 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have watchlist geonotices (see MediaWiki:Geonotice.js) posted for NYC and DC. Would this be instead of or in addition to the geonotices? --Aude (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to usurp the geotargeted watchlist notices. I do think we really need a notice that shows up regardless of geography though, since there are online-only activities that are being organized and because there are a significant amount of English editors outside the obvious areas like U.S./U.K./Canada/Australia. Steven Walling at work 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppose there can't be too many notices about this :) It would be good to make sure everyone sees a notice. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support this. It sounds swell!  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 12:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted. Courcelles 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias amigos. Steven Walling at work 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to removing it at 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)? While tenwiki:Category:Events by date lists more meetings in the next weeks and months, the anniversary and most meetings were this weekend, which will end in all timezones this UTC noon. Amalthea  23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If not, someone needs to change it to "was on January 15", instead of the current "yesterday". – SMasters (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly removed. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 15:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist collaboration notice
There is a proposal at Village pump (proposals) to introduce some kind of an opt-out article collaboration notice to the watchlist to attract users. —Noisalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors recruitment notice
I'd like to run a notice for recruiting Wikipedia Online Ambassadors for about a week or two: The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be Online Ambassadors. We haven't been able to recruit enough ambassadors for the coming semester based on more local recruitment efforts (individual invitations, messages on discussion pages, etc.). We're still hoping for at least about 65 more. For background, see "Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting" in the Signpost.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jujutacular  talk 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can this be put back up? It was working pretty well, but going much slower than I expected. We still needs a lot more Online Ambassadors.  Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure; done. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jujutacular pointed out to me, it's getting crowded. This one has probably done most of the good it will; it'd be fine to take it down.  Thanks for leaving it up so long!  I really appreciate it.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed message 89. Can always go back up when you're looking for folks for next semester Courcelles 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to supplement 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'
It used to be that banners were rare. The intrusions were tolerable and effort to dismiss the banners was low/infrequent. Unfortunately, the banner frequency has increased to the point where I sometimes get multiple banners on login. This is very frustrating, particularly if I'm on a slow connection on a small device with limited time. I don't want to work so hard to get rid of stuff I don't want.

In preferences there is an option 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'. I'd like an additional option to 'Suppress all banners'. Alternatively, there could be a suppress option for each type of banner. As long as I can cut down on unsolicited messages, I don't mind. What's the process for modifying the preference options? Lightmouse (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments
Suggest publicizing this via the watchlist. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you are trying to publicise this committee a bit more, but I'm not sure this affects the average editor enough to warrant the notice here. No strong feelings either way though. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guide notice
I'd really like to put a notice up for the wiki guide study we're trying to start (both getting some direct data on how/why new editors start/stop editing (or don't) and how direct outreach can help that). Below is probably what I'm thinking of:

(wording thoughts etc obviously welcome) Jalexander--WMF 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest rewording so that the link is closer to the front of the notice.  Jujutacular  talk 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a huge rewrite.. (well it's very little I added another link to basically the same wording). Any thoughts on a better way to get it there? Jalexander--WMF 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps:


 * Or something like that. Feel free to tweak, add, etc.  Jujutacular  talk 01:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I want to make sure as many people come see it (Even if you're not interested in volunteering, joining the discussion/sharing experiences etc hmm. Part of me wants to get in the fact that it's a Foundation study but I can't find a great way to put it.

or something like that. Jalexander--WMF 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jujutacular  talk 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been up quite a while now, so I've removed it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit drive
Hi, I'm wondering if it's possible to put up a very short notice for the March copy edit backlog elimination drive? The drive is to fix articles with the copyedit tag on them. Proposed text:

This should only go up on 1 March. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there are no objections, would really appreciate if this could go up today. Many thanks! – SMasters (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SMasters (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for two weeks, hopefully sufficient? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should be more than enough, thanks. – SMasters (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog drove

 * "The Great Backlog Drive has just begun – help clear Wikipedia's backlogs for the next six weeks for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!"

How about updating this to "The Great Backlog Drive is underway – help clear Wikipedia's backlogs for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!" It's been up for a while so the timing is out of date. Or perhaps remove it as old news? BencherliteTalk 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been up for a full month, so I've removed it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unordered list
Please change the format of this message to use &lt;ul>&lt;li>...&lt;/li>&lt;/ul> (an unordered HTML list) rather than &amp;bull;s. It might be possible to use wikisyntax (* foo) in this message, even. There's no reason it should be using fake bullets, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to an unordered HTML list seemed to create extraneous space between the items, while normal wikisyntax didn't work at all. At least that's from looking at the preview.  Jujutacular  talk 06:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just tested it out and it only added about one more pixel of space between items. Barely noticeable. Note that in my testing I threw out the divs and added the classes to the li's. The code in MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js would need to be modified slightly if it is done that way. Reach Out to the Truth 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, yea I didn't throw out the divs.  Jujutacular  talk 07:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the request as it seems to be controversial and/or require further discussion or changes elsewhere. Please reactivate when you've worked out the best approach. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to go with Max's suggestion.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's Max? Amalthea  16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's the first M in MZMcBride.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, as said above, the dismiss-script needs to be adapted first to work with both  and , which will need a head start of IIRC 30 days so that it's updated in all browser caches before the structure can be changed here. Switching the import in common.js to the resource loader may speed that up, I haven't looked into the implementation though. But in general I think everyone agrees that a proper list is certainly preferable.  Amalthea  12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've modified the js earlier today, we can switch the HTML around April 29. Amalthea  16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The era of 30-day decaching time is over with the introduction of ResourceLoader; now script- and style-changes are pushed within ten minutes to all readers. \o/ <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard a rumour that the resource loader was broken. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the problem with pop-ups and what not? That's fixed now, was only for the gadgets in the first place anyway, as far as I'm aware. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If RL was completely broken, you'd be reading plaintext. It was indeed broken for Gadgets, in the sense that the caching in the Gadgets extension wasn't playing nicely with the caching in RL; but that is AFAIK all fixed now.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I believe the  in MediaWiki:Common.js needs to be exchanged with the respective ResourceLoader call first, otherwise it's still loaded via wikibits. That is probably as simple as replacing it with , but I haven't looked at the documentation thus far.  Amalthea  22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I can tell  only accepts ResourceLoader modules defined in Resources.php and , and offers no way to load arbitrary scripts via ResourceLoader. We can still profit from Commons.js being loaded through the ResourceLoader by incrementing a version parameter, but can't use it directly at the moment.  Amalthea  10:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File mover
Perhaps we should add a notice to inform that the userright file mover is now available. Suggested wording: "The file mover userright is now available for users experienced in working with files." Cenarium (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should probably pipe Requests for permissions/File mover into the words "now available", like so:

The file mover userright is now available for users experienced in working with files.
 *  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * for two weeks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages
The Community Department and I are currently working on Wiki Guides/New pages; could we have a watchlist notice to advertise it along the lines of "The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!". Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bumping this, it would be really helpful (say for 1 or 2 weeks)? Jalexander--WMF 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts
I'd like to add this notice: "400 free Credo Reference accounts available for Wikipedians; sign up at Credo".

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest changing "sign up" -> "apply" as to not imply there is a guarantee.  Jujutacular  talk 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the following wording? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors are invited to apply for one of 400 free Credo Reference accounts.

✅ Martin's version. His wording sounded less like an inadvertent ad, IMHO, but feel of course free to tweak. Amalthea 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding it, Amalthea. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011
I've proposed a full-on sitenotice pointing to this but so far it is not looking too likely and I've been told this is a better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is anybody home here? Can I just do this? Will I be yelled at by a million people if I screw it up? Lil' help? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose how you want it worded and I could put it up.  Jujutacular  talk 20:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "There is a community discussion underway to decide the future of pending changes protection. Click here to participate." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Click here" should be avoided: WP:ACCESS. How about "Join a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection."  Jujutacular  talk 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jujutacular  talk 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As of today this discussion has been reset to more structured format. Could we get an update? Something like "The community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection has entered a second phase and users are asked to endorse position statements." Or something maybe a bit less clunky that still emphasizes that the previous free-for-all has been curtailed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to endorse this most recent request. I think that most users do not realize that this is actually now a new discussion. Perhaps a more succinct wording would be "Join the second phase of a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Amalthea  09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should warn you there is already talk of further phases. This is a big issue and will not be resolved easily. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An announcement for second phase discussions Watchlist seems premature, or not the right landing page

 * Moved to appropriate thread. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 

IMNSHO dropping people into

seems very premature for a broad scale announcement. It is an ugly bucket of poo at that page. If we are to going to direct people to a discussion then it needs to have something like a cover page that puts some context and manages expectations, not that sort of page which is realistically only for the enthusiast. billinghurst  sDrewth  04:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be dropping people into messy discussions. Anything advertised here should be well structured and introduced for those not familiar with the issues. This particular discussion doesn't do such a bad job actually. The bolded link takes you to Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 which has several explanatory sections at the top including "Explanation of format", "Purpose" and "General information". &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The third phase is live as of a few minutes ago. It is actually not a discussion but a questionnaire for users to fill out. I always seem to stumble over how to phrase these type of things, if someone could update the notice to reflect the new phase it would be very much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The next phase is now up, albeit quite a bit different from the last attempt that remains under discussion for the future. I suggest adding: Join the third phase of a community discussion about pending changes protection. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing this now. The latest poll has been running for more than a week, has had plenty of input, and the consensus seems clear. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist notice for the pending protection RFC
Hi, I would like to request this watchlist notice removed in this edit without any discussion to be replaced, the RFC is still open and since removal of the notice comments have severely fallen off, the RFC is yet to be closed and may as well remain open for the usual 30 days, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ for nine days, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the notice because the poll has had plenty of input and we do not generally run watchlist notices for long periods of time. Furthermore it seemed (at the time) that further input would not change the balance of consensus which has remained fairly constant throughout the RfC. There is no reason for the notice to stay for as long as the RfC is open, so I propose to remove this notice again. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A second notice to help reference BLPs
I would like to propose readding the message:  J04n(talk page) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be rather soon after the previous notice.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What time period do you think is reasonable? The first was so effective would like another swing. J04n(talk page) 19:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been 2½ months. I'll stick it up for a fortnight? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be quite helpful. If I could, might I suggest a slight reword both for variety and to take note of the fact that we've broken 10,000, e.g., we really are, or would like to be, e.g., :
 * Honestly, I don't like that wording precisely, but I like the idea of trying to convey that we're running the last mile or two of this marathon in some manner. Suggestions/improvements welcome! --joe deckertalk to me 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think "closing in for the kill" is a little too informal and may generate some complaints! How about just saying the task is n% complete? And I can make it change dynamically so you can see the percentage coming down. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me... the best "first number" I have at hand is 52,760 on 4 January 2010. Depending on which counter you use, we're in the 8900-9000 range now. --joe deckertalk to me 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * for three weeks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on whether autoconfirmed status should be required to create articles
It's been suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles that that RFC be publicised via watchlist. Given the significance of the change, and the balance of opinion in favour at the moment, that seems sensible. I suggest


 * You are invited to participate in a Request for Comment on whether autoconfirmed status should be required to create articles.

Rd232 talk 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: This issue has been suprisingly controversial, and I think merits wider attention. The implications are very wide-ranging, and consensus needs to be equally wide-ranging if this is to move forward (or conversely, die).  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If as you say this proposal actually has a chance of gaining consensus, I agree that we need to publicize this with our most effective mechanism before implementation. Otherwise, with a change of that magnitude, many people would be certain to complain that they did not know about this. Amalthea  16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now the Jayron32 supporting view has 47 supports, the DGG opposing view 14. Rd232 talk 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been unusually active already, with a lot of good discussion. But it's a significant change and we want to make sure that people are notified so if they want to weigh in they can. So the watchlist proposal is a good idea. And regardless of whether there's a consensus or just wide support for the change.. we should proceed with caution and make sure we analyze the actual impact before making any permanent changes. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support bringing this to the attention of a wider audience. I hope something like this proposal will be adopted, but any consensus will need to be broad-based. -- Donald Albury 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

✅ - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Question (will be removed soon)
Hi, any idea how can I put a suggestion for /Watchlist page? A link to a page where I can put the question will be the best. Thanks. असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
 * What kind of question? What would you like to do, exactly? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the Watchlist page, for every entry in the watch list (article/talkpage/forumpage entry line in the watchlist) I would like to have an optional, kind of clock available; next to each entry that I can manually click(the clock or some button/link/picture etc) to make a toggle entry (invisible for not clicked/visible colored with a picture or a link with information on the moment of the click on watch).
 * This I can use to identify when did I saw the entry, and may be some information on by whom and how many edits are done after that moment so that inspecting Watchlist becomes more clear and quicker to me and perhaps many more.
 * Hope this is clear from my side. असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure I understand your idea exactly, but the place to propose it would probably be Village pump (technical).  Jujutacular  talk 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk emails

 * See also Village_pump_(technical)

Now that we are getting email notifications of user talk page changes there has been a couple of instances of confusion (as it is on by default). Suggest adding:
 * Email notifications for your user talk pages changes have been enabled (check your preferences to disable it if you wish)

Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine with me. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know they were enabled. I had previously set mine to disabled, and somebody change them at Mediawiki level back to enabled. Please do not interfere with editors' settings. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's make this notification; I wasn't aware until I saw this page pop up on my watchlist. I'm sure others would like to know before they get their inboxes spammed.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, added. --Errant (chat!) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be procedural here, but sending emails not requested is a very annoying thing to many people. The "A few ops people were sitting together, we couldn't think of any reason why it wasn't enabled yet, so we just did it on the spot." is a bit too fast and should reflect consensus. My proposal would be to enable it, but to block it by default (at least for non-anticipating existing users who are not looking at their settings anymore). If this is the wrong venue to suggest, please let me know. L.tak (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just the messenger :) you need to raise it with the relevant ops people (I'm not even sure where the best place to do that is tbh... perhaps foundation-l) --Errant (chat!) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try; would be my first experience with "ops-people" and am actually quite interested in the decision making structure there... L.tak (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is on Village_pump_(technical) (with more info). Nemo 18:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Since it seems that consensus is needed to make this change, I would like to propose it here now. Frankly, this feels like bureaucracy imo. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks okay to go up IMNSHO — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it helps, the way I found out about those RfCs was because of the brief time they were mentioned in the message atop my watchlist. Though both RfCs have gotten a lot of participation already, I would have no issues with mentioning them again on watchlists. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... which would be true for all current RfCs, I assume. Question always is which topics should be brought to the attention of all active, experienced users, not just those who want to involve themselves by watching the various noticeboards/pumps/RfCs/WP:CENT. Amalthea  14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it to be combined into one message, but certainly seems important enough to include here. — Satori Son 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the two items were already up for a while, with the cookie-IDs as they were, I'd rather not make a structural change now. Amalthea  14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ . I consider proposing watchlist items first important as well. A watchlist notice is probably the most prominent place we have to advertise stuff to experienced editors, and there are always lots of discussions and RfCs that some editors consider extremely important. Asking for support first, and having a brief discussion about wording, helps to avoid controversies and keeps the notices focused. Amalthea  14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many notices
The first two were too many at once, and also too similar. Adding a third without removing the others is way too much. A few years ago there were three or four notices, and I asked for an admin to add another notice asking whether there were too many notices. I was kinda joking, but a nice admin did add it, and that notice garnered more participation than any other I've seen. Everyone wanted the notice bloat reduced. I think we're there again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If somebody started a new community discussion about overuse of the watchlist notice, I would happily add it to the watchlist notice. – Steel 23:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would add something like "A discussion is underway about the overuse of notices on the watchlist", with discussion or whatever you feel is appropriate linked to this discussion (or a new section), I think we would find there is a consensus to have less notices. The notice can be quickly removed either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I can certainly agree with the sentiment I think an important thing to remember is trying to find good ways to get notices out that are minimally invasive. Watchlist notices are great for that. They're short text messages that are easily (and individually) dismissible. Much better then site notices and MUCH better then Central Notices which have certainly been creeping in too much. James of UR (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are other notices that are being crowded out, it might be OK to remove one or both of the notices related to bureaucrats removing the admin flag. Those RfCs are now three weeks in and have well over 300 comments each. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please remove those two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a notice about notice overload, since there have been no objections. Also removed bureaucrat RfCs. – Steel 23:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A notice about notice overload. Priceless. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... the thought occurs there's one notice we can do without, and I've removed it. It's not like there's a concrete proposal or even a well-structured discussion. Start something at a Village Pump, and if that goes somewhere, then maybe a watchlist notice. Currently, it's not even half-arsed, it's maybe 5%-arsed. Rd232 talk 00:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the other two were removed. The notice wasn't left up long enough, but last time a ton of people came here and said they don't like them.  We probably would have gotten the same result again.  Maybe it's best that no one knows about this page, and where they should take their complaints. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's that old discussion. MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details/Archive_2  It's pretty long, which is what happens when people can actually find this page.  People have a lot of ideas about how to use the watchlist if they know they can control it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing special about this page, especially when it comes to addressing the question about what ought to be a watchlist notice and what not, how many at one time, etc. You can start a discussion at a relevant Village Pump (or a separate RFC subpage of a village pump) and ideally work towards some proposals. There are a number there in the archive discussion you point to. And then maybe there needs to be a policy page for sitenotices, watchlistnotices etc, so that existing practice and any new consensus is actually written down somewhere. Rd232 talk 20:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Link change
I proposed this a while back but was ignored. So here it is again. Change:

to

Would help reduce confusion, I took a long time to find that edit link at first and I'm sure lots of users would have the same problem. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very hesitant about any change that would make the effective "home page" for many users more wordy. If anyone is thinking of implementing this, I'd recommend allowing at least a few weeks for discussion first. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that in comparison not that many people actually use the edit link for that. We might better add an 'edit' tab with Javascript. The page already has plenty of JS loaded anyways. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the request now, as it doesn't seem like there's consensus. To me, both the existing and the proposed text don't seem to be following WP:EASTEREGG. Ucucha 21:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for request for help at DRN
Proposal:"Neutral mediators and clerks are needed to address a backlog of dispute resolution requests at the dispute resolution noticeboard."This might be a little iffy since some people might consider that board to still be in a test state, but the flip side is that it is listed on both the WP:DR page and, perhaps more significantly, in the template and people are going there in good faith to get help and their requests are not being quickly addressed, leaving them in limbo. If this notice is rejected, would it be inappropriate to make this request at the Village Pump and, if so, in what subsection? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is appropriate as a watchlist notice—it's not significant enough. Sure, you can ask at the Village Pump. Ucucha (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC for Bureaucrat threshold
Don't know if this is worthy of a watchlist notice, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. There is an RfC to determine what the percentage should be for successful RfBs. Here's a suggestion. "The community is invited to comment on an RfC to determine the threshold for successful Requests for bureaucratship." I'll leave it up to others as to whether or not to put this up and for how long. The specific wording can be completely rewritten as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Added RfC for WP:ACE2011 on the watchlist notice
As per Watchlist notices, I have gone ahead and added the RfC for WP:ACE2011 onto the watchlist notices. This is very important that as much of the community be involved so that we have a better idea of how the election is going to be run. –MuZemike 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of notices
I don't think that the following type of notices fall under the remit of this page:


 * You are invited to the Cambridge Wikimedia meetup, Saturday 8th October from 15:00 onwards.
 * Sign up for the British Museum "Behind the Scenes" event on Ice Age Art, all day October 13th
 * You are invited to a Backstage Pass event at the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry, on Saturday October 1. Join curators for a behind-the-scenes tour of the museum and its off-site stores, and help improve articles related to its collections. For more information and to sign up, please see the event page.
 * Join us at the Edinburgh Wikimeet on 1 October to discuss the new Scotland coordinator position and our GLAM programme.

... but I was nonetheless hoping that someone here would be able to point me in the right direction?

Thanks in advance, —WFC— 19:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think these are Geonotices. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant. Thanks. —WFC— 19:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice for MediaWiki 1.18
en.wiki was updated to MediaWiki 1.18 in the last 12 hrs. It's not without a few bugs. I suggest a watchlist notice to affirm this and to point people to WP:VPT to review and submit issues/checks/etc. --M ASEM (t) 12:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idear. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly added this, set to expire in a week. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * discussion should be discussed? Maybe better to rephrase to: Discussion should take place ? or Changes should be discussed... L.tak (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't catch that. --M ASEM (t) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-add the hidden comment, please; it's useful to remind editors of this page what cookies have been used. — mc10  ( t / c ) 05:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a blank template for the next notice which includes the cookie number. Happy with this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for a watchlist notice
There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The proposer of the RfC was to remove the "not truth" portion, and move it lower down in the policy to remove the emphasis.

The RfC opened on October 5, and is therefore likely to close in a few days, but it was not widely advertised. As this is a significant change to a core content policy, we need broad notification and input. Could someone add a note about it to the watchlists for a few days, or until the RfC is closed, whichever is the sooner? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that this suggestion has been standing for a day now. Is there any opposition to adding a notice to this effect? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify here, per my note on your talk page, I changed the description to this, so the proposal is clearer, along with links so people can judge for themselves:


 * There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The proposal is to remove the phrase "not truth" from the lead, and move that phrase into a separate section, along with some other changes. See [ current] policy, [ proposed] policy, and [ diff]. The RfC will close in a few days.


 * SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence still needs tweaking, IMO, as most of what it says the proposal would remove would actually remain. -- J N  466  15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If this were to be a watchlist notice thing, the simplest phrasing without evoking any bias is "There is an RFC on whether to alter the lead of WP:V in regards to the phrase "verifiability, not truth"." You don't need to go into the specific actions being requested as that does lend some bias to an already heated discussion. --M ASEM  (t) 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- J N  466  15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really that big of a deal, and it should be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a big deal or not, I think it can certainly be argued that there has been enough participation in the discussion now so that consensus (or lack of) can be accurately judged. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

problem with template

 * Has it been deleted or expired? Leaky  Caldron  14:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this diff removed the last two characters of the template for cookie 107. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the template for 107 is still closed. The diff algorithm makes it appear the }} after 107 was removed, but it's equivalent to removing the }} after 108. What's the actual problem people are observing? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The message is no longer being displayed. Leaky  Caldron  16:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The template has " |until=5 November". That's why it's no longer displayed. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe the RfC is not due to be closed until 10 November. Leaky  Caldron  16:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was originally scheduled to be closed on the 5th; but the three suckers admins who volunteered to close it will not be doing so until the 10th. Further notification may be useful, to enliven 5 days of bickering with some fresh thoughts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please extend ~ more days, whenever the closing admins close, can't they autoclose this as well? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Leaky  Caldron  12:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ACE2011 phases
Can we set up the Arbcom election notices? This is based on the code that was used last year (with updated dates/links/switched to display template):

I think all the syntax is correct. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone review and implement the above? We need to have it in place by 00:00 UTC (five and a half hours from the time of typing). Cheers,  Skomorokh   18:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . I simplified your syntax a little. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. I was about to set something up, but I was beaten to it. –MuZemike 23:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it, cheers Martin. Skomorokh  13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Update with Secure Poll ID
The ID for the poll is 240, please change  to. Thanks, Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. —David Levy 06:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot a closing square bracket. Reach Out to the Truth 06:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies. I spotted the broken link, but Kaldari beat me to the fix.  —David Levy 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC for ArbCom seats
Does anybody object to having a watchlist notice for the ArbCom seats RFC for one day? Here's the line from WP:Cent. "Supplemental RFC on the number of Arbcom seats to be filled by WP:ACE2011" This RfC is supposed to wrap up before the elections start and I think it would help to get some more input from the community in the short time we have left. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I am adding an edit request as I think it would be unfair to the community to make such a major change to the ArbCom elections with the limited response we've had so far. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * , but I realise it will probably be closed shortly anyway. Sorry for the delay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia's proposed Terms of Use agreement
meta:Talk:Terms_of_use – Discussions relating to Wikimedia's proposed Terms of Use might end by December 31, 2011. Since this new document will affect every Wikimedia user, I believe that all users using their watchlists need to know about the these discussions and that their time to comment is limited. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that it is proposed to be a legal document, I completely agree. —WFC— 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there should be something. Please propose text for the message though. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the following?

"The WMF is crafting a new Terms of Use with community input. Please be sure to participate in related discussions."

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd personally swap "Please be sure" with "Editors are invited", but agree with the basic message either way. —WFC— 14:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with using "invited" is who's doing the inviting. The users participating in this thread doing the inviting, not the WMF. Steven Walling of the WMF asked me to propose text for the message; neither he nor the WMF is crafting this message. Using the word "invited" would make it appear as if the WMF is personally sending this message to everyone's watchlist, so using that word would be inaccurate. I'm thinking of replacing "please be sure to" with "you are free to" or "feel free to" since "be sure" is basically a command. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You could use "encouraged", but there's nothing wrong with "invited"—you (or the admin who posts the notice or whoever) are extending an invitation on behalf of the community and the WMF. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that we have the right to speak on the WMF's behalf, but I like the word "encouraged." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "WMF" (ever, really, but particularly not in messages of this nature). Something like this: "The Wikimedia Foundation is crafting an updated Terms of use with community input. All are encouraged to participate in related discussions." --MZMcBride (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * +1. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The December 31 deadline has recently turned from being a suggestion that was up for discussion into being a certainty. Due to the significance of this agreement, I feel that including a mention of the deadline within the message is absolutely necessary. How about the following?

"The time allotted by the Wikimedia Foundation to comment on its new Terms of use will expire after December 31st. All are strongly encouraged to participate in related discussions before the time allotted expires."

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed "on" to "after" due to this change. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . I wasn't sure whether the expiry date was important enough to mention. I corrected the subject-verb agreement as well. Hope this is okay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks good. I've also proposed a Sitenotice message for the benefit of unregistered contributors. I'm not an expert on these messages, but why is the message set to expire on December 23rd? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply because I decided that 2 weeks would be sufficient coverage on the high-profile watchlist notice. Generally we only put things up for a week or two to avoid the potential for "notice blindness" caused by excessive use of the notice. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship
Granted that this proposal could have long lasting impacts on the project, I would like to propose that it be advertised to a larger audience via watchlist notice. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW this was already brought up on the proposers talk page. Crazynast 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Dcoetzee speaks a lot of sense on that talk page, and fully endorse what he says. —WFC— 08:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Fastily. While I would like to wait a bit until next week's Signpost and/or till the RfC falls off WP:CENT, to avoid monopolizing advertising channels and to give more time to respond to opinions as they come in, if you really think now is the best time to advertise and others agree that's fine. Dcoetzee 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Shall we? Seems like things have quieted down at the RfC at this point. Crazynast 01:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going on a long trip tomorrow, so will not be able to be too responsive during this period, but nevertheless would not mind wider advertising at this point as the proposal, rationales, responses to objections are fairly well-developed. Dcoetzee 01:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

SOPA RfC
As adding banners and a possible black out of Wikipedia would not only affect every editor, but also everybody viewing Wikipedia, I think it would be wise to inform as many users as possible about this RfC. "RfC to determine what action the English Wikipedia should take in response to WP:SOPA" Does anybody object to this or have concerns? - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 05:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC) struck wording per below. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 04:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest if anything: "Request for comment to determine if English Wikipedia should take action in response to possible new legislation" Since this would be aimed at people who are not already keenly involved with WP current affairs, more info is better.  f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i>  05:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred has the right idea here, I think. sonia ♫ 05:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with this wording, and the need to get the word out. Crazynast 06:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the proposals on SOPA_initiative be mentioned as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fred's wording struck my original . I too would like the workshop added, but I could see others objecting. I'll add a Relevant discussion to the RfC, which should have the same effect. I'll add an edit request since there are no objections. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 04:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My gut tells me adding this would be taken negatively by non-USian editors who already dislike watchlist notices. If the Foundation itself is taking the interest in the SOPA aspect, then they can likely draw attention via the space they have already (I forget which special page that is, but its the same where their funding requests and other project-wise news would be located). --M ASEM (t) 16:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not supportive of this request. WP:CENT is the appropriate venue for people already interested in discussions, while if the Foundation wishes it to be seen, it can do a centralnotice. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No consensus. Anomie⚔ 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)