MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 9

Protected edit request on 18 August 2016
Requesting the following addition regarding the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program:

"Brown, Temple, and UNC are the latest educational institutions to open access to their research resources (databases, journals, ebooks, etc.) for Wikipedians interested in particular topic areas. For more information, see WP:VS/A."

Wasn't quite sure whether it would be best to spell out the link at the end rather than use a shortcut. Decided to err on the side of space. As for scheduling, two weeks would be ideal, starting as soon as someone OKs it. :) Thanks!

Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Slight refactor to shorten line:
 * Applications for institutional resource access (databases, journals, ebooks, etc.) from Brown, Temple, and UNC are open for Wikipedians interested in particular topic areas.


 * ✅, let me know if the refactor is an issue. — xaosflux  Talk 12:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an issue, sort of. People don't apply for access (like one of the Wikipedia Library partnered publishers), but to become that institution's Visiting Scholar. The position is basically for institutions to find a capable Wikipedian who can use their resources to make a difference in a particular topic area. It's a little bit more involved than just applying for access, because it's a credentialed position that gets a university login, etc. So again, the current wording isn't wrong, but I have a strong preference for the original.
 * I based the length of that one on past announcements. The last one that ran, back in March, was about 30 [displayed] characters longer.
 * Nonetheless, as an alternative shorter version, how about:
 * "Brown, Temple, and UNC are the latest institutions opening access to their research resources (databases, journals, ebooks, etc.) for Wikipedians interested in particular topic areas."
 * Or "See WP:VS/A at the end instead of linking the "opening.." text, if that's too ambiguous.
 * Thanks. Sorry to nitpick. Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Used your first one - please let me know if any issues! —  xaosflux  Talk 01:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
Though it's not a major issue, can somebody please correct the spelling of this notice: Permission groups for New Pages Patrolers are being discussed at Patroler Right Proposal. "Patroller" is spelt with two "L"'s, not one. Thanks, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's a somewhat duplicate request below. Closing this one. non-admin response — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spelling fixed - leaving the next section open regarding verbiage. — xaosflux  Talk 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , there's another "l" in the link. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wording
Please change the patroller right RfC text line from:
 * Permission groups for New Pages Patrollers are being discussed at Patroler Right Proposal.

to:
 * A new user right for New Pages Patrollers is being discussed.

This should be as simple as possible. "A new user right" is much more clear than "Permission groups" - from the latter, it isn't even obvious that something is being changed. Also, the word "patrollers" contains two "l"'s. Pinging and. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm all for being simple - however I think it is important that the verbiage is clear that this is not just creating something new, but also removing a capability from thousands of existing editors. I'm at least bordering on involved by having this opinion - so will leave to this another administrator to deal with now. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My original suggestion was: A proposal to move the New pages patrol permission to a dedicated user group is open for comment. — xaosflux  Talk 17:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So, something like "a new required user right"? Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 17:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe The requirements for New Page Patrolling are being discussed. - making it more about the overall change and less about the technical one? — xaosflux  Talk 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. I'm not sure if we should also toss in a note about Twinkle, though, as it seems to me like it's a pretty important part. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a change that hopefully you will be happy with &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We're discussing a simple watchlist notice here. Perhaps my  entry  on  RfC Cent  is also too  short  for some.  Does that  notice have to  be so  technical with  mentions of 'move' of user rights that  nobody knows exist? People associate user rights with  rollbacker, reviewer, admin, and bureaucrat. Also, I  think   adding 'required' to  the the notice would make it  non  neutral -  the idea of the RfC is to  get  consensus to  see if the community  feels if it  is required or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, rather than spend valuable editing  time discussing  a simple advert  for an RfC, maybe we should just  drop  the watchlist  notice alltogether. It's not  mandatory  and only  dre3cently  became commonplace recently.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Saw all the ec's on that - how about not mentioning the 'back end' at all - what do you think of that last suggestion? — xaosflux  Talk 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 August 2016
We're currently announcing new TWL partnerships. Would appreciate the following notice being added:

New Wikipedia Library free research access: American Psychological Association (psychology books and journals), Emerald (journals on a range of topics), Nomos (German-language law and social sciences books and journals), World Scientific (scientific, technical, and medical journals) and Edinburgh University Press (humanities and social sciences journals). Many other resources are still available. Sign up!

Thanks! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

malformed HTML
Follow up from: Village pump (technical)/Archive 148

Having block elements on this page is causing a minor HTML issue. We can resolve this by moving the div and ul sections to MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. I did a quick test and it appeared to be successful, but not sure if there are any processes or other pages that may break if we essential move the watchlist "messages" to the other page. Please comment below. — xaosflux  Talk 23:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Updates (ranked somewhat, first few are uncontroversial):
 * If Display/watchlist entries will now be listed at MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary, it needs a change in its first line.
 * Move Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details preferably without leaving a redirect
 * Update link to new page on templates Template:MediaWiki messages and Template:MW notices
 * Update the wordings at Watchlist notices, Software notices
 * Doc page link updates: one, two
 * Correct other links listed Special:WhatLinksHere/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details (ex. Administrators, Geonotice, Help:Watchlist, Requests for adminship, Catalogue of CSS classes, Geonotice)
 * Correct redirect Template:Watchlist-notice?
 * Guessing there are no needed CSS updates (The "watchlist-message" attribute doesn't change so it shouldn't break scripts)
 * — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not apparent to me that we're taking any action... are we? — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Link updated to archive — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do want to deal with this still - one day when I have more time. — xaosflux  Talk 23:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Deferred changes
As this is related to the hot button issue of pending changes, I believe a watchlist notice is in order. Suggested wording: "Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to allow edit filters, bots and ORES to defer edits for review." Cenarium (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest you wait for people to respond to the CENT notice. No evidence that this is a pressing issue. Suspect most editors will not understand the technicalities in how the RfC is phrased. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed the request. I'm not really sure how to make it simpler to understand, I even asked at the idea lab but got no reply. Cenarium (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist Message Request
Hi there, I'd like to request the following message to be placed as a Watchlist Message for the next ten days or so:


 * Win a share of $1500 in Amazon vouchers by participating in The Africa Destubathon between 15th October and 27th November.

The contest has already got nearly 60 signups to tackle the 37,000 or so Africa related stubs, so all further competitors are always welcome. Would also be happy to keep the message up until the end of the contest, but I thought that'd be a bit much to ask! I could also come up with a longer message, but I took the hint on a previous nomination that it's better to keep them short and sweet. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * for 10 days &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, may we add a newline between the new display watchlist entry? Without the newline, it's shifting the contents of entire watchlists to the right a bit (at least for me) Amending: I believe what's needed is a close comment — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 20:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC) amended 20:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Close comment fixed my watchlist. – Steel 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like the dollar sign needs to be escaped, since $1 is the variable for the number of watched pages. Right now, the number is displaying for me as 25,611500 (25,611 being the number of pages I'm watching [yes I know, it's a lot]). clpo13(talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Replacing  with   should solve this issue — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Escaped. — xaosflux  Talk 23:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, for cleaning up after me &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance this listing could be amended? We've had some further funds come through and the prize pot is now almost $2400. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 October 2016
Please change "15th October and 27th November" to "15 October and 27 November" per MOS:BADDATEFORMAT. (It's ironic how we're not following our own MOS here.)

nyuszika7h (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[Request] New Wikipedia Library partners
Can someone please add this?

New Wikipedia Library free research access: Foreign Affairs (journal of international relations and U.S. foreign policy), OpenEdition (journals in the social sciences and humanities), Édition Diffusion Presse Sciences (French-language scientific journals), ASHA (speech, language, and hearing journals) and Tilastopaja (athletics statistics). Expanded research access from EBSCO (many new databases) and Taylor & Francis (plus Strategic, Defence & Security Studies collection). Many other resources are still available. Sign up!
 * Displays as:

Thank you! Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very long. Three lines (plus a little bit of a fourth) on my 1280px screen. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think too much bolding too - normally the bolding is only on the action that the reader needs to follow to act on the message. — xaosflux  Talk 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are details that you think can be removed, then please go ahead. As for bolding; bolding on Wikipedia Library and perhaps the two final partners (who have expansions rather than being new) could be removed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

PC2
There is a new RFC about WP:PC2 at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Previous discussions about PC2 were advertized on the watchlist, see e.g. 2014 request, 2013 addition. I think the level of participation should match that of previous discussions, hence I suggest to add it with the wording:
 * "Editors are invited to comment on a proposal to redefine Pending Changes level 2 and use it on Wikipedia."

Not adding protected edit request yet to see if there are objections. Cenarium (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorsing (co-proposer). It's probably disagreeable if the RfC did not have the same amount of visibility as those previous on the subject. As a non-admin, I'm adding the template. May I suggest changing and use it on Wikipedia to "and establish usage criteria". — Andy W. ( talk ) 19:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewording is okay. Cenarium (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections to posting &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ slightly reworded. — xaosflux  Talk 13:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

PC1
Isn't it the norm to get some kind of consensus here before ? Non-admin RFC drafters are not accorded this privilege. - NQ (talk)  23:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2016 – ArbCom nominations are open
Could an administrator please add the following announcement which should read: Nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open until Tuesday, 23:59, 15 November (UTC).

I've just copied and modified the announcement from last year. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though the next cookie number was 273. :) Mike V • Talk 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah shoot. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The nominations are actually open for another day, they close at 23:59 today. The expiration date was the 15th, I tried to change it to the 16th but it didn't shop back up on my watchlist (I never dismissed it). Is there something else I should have done to keep it up one more day? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is showing now. — xaosflux  Talk 01:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 November 2016
In response to the recent (and ongoing!) admin account compromises, please could this be placed on the watchlist to urge administrators to change their passwords. (Also, responding interface-editor/admin - have you changed your password?)

-- samtar talk or stalk 14:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Katietalk 14:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fully-Protected Edit Request: November 23, 2016
Could someone add "A discussion is in progress to establish whether or not an editor without the "new page reviewer" user right should be prohibited from patrolling new pages." or something similar? The RfC has already been placed at centralized discussion, and the two previous discussions were widely publicized as well. The results of this RfC could have fairly wide-ranging impacts, so I think it would be best to get as much participation in it as possible. Withdrawn it was decided at the RfC page that this wasn't needed. Gluons12 ☢&#124;☕ 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/RfC_on_patrolling_without_user_right before deciding if this is needed. — xaosflux  Talk 03:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 November 2016
To post at 0:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC):

Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Activating edit request. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RfA notice verbiage
Some tweaking of this verbiage is being discussed at Template_talk:RfA_watchlist_notice. If you are interested, please see that discussion. — xaosflux  Talk 02:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The WikiCup
I'd like to request the following message to be placed as a Watchlist Message for the next fortnight or three weeks:

"The 2017 WikiCup begins on January 1st, 2017. Signups will remain open until February 5th. Let's improve Wikipedia's content and have a bit of competition in the process. The prize pool (introduced this year) is over $400."

The contest currently has around 50 signups, but there are probably many editors who are unaware of its existence, and further competitors are always welcome. Would also be happy to keep the message up until the end of the sign-up, but I thought that would be a bit much to ask! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made a few edits, will this work for you:


 * The 2017 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2017. Signups are open until February 5th. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition. This year's prize pool is $425.
 * (ping) — xaosflux  Talk 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should think your version would be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 14:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Watch list Notice Request
I'd like to request a watch list message be placed regarding the current RFC at WT:Harassment over changes to the outing policy. This policy change has wide ranging implications that could result in the outing of several editors' off wiki identities.
 * I'd like a generic "You are invited to participate in an RFC regarding a proposed change to the Harassment policy" or however the RFC notices are usually displayed if possible.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a formalized RfC running on that page, if we did have this link it would need to be directly to the RfC. Once ready, you should start over at T:CENT to see how much "advertisement" support there is. —  xaosflux  Talk 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's at WT:COI and already listed on CENT. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats it I got turned around. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So this is actually a RfC on the COI guideline? We don't normally watchlist notice guideline RfC's. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that however I'd argue this is a fairly important one to consider making an exception for. This will pretty much give outing a gold star allowing editors to reveal someone's identity over some perceived COI. This is something that doesn't just effect a small group of editors. This is something that could allow someone to link to anthers actual identity on wiki, regardless of how anyone feels about this particular issue it should be made known as much as possible to the community. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is any part of the discussion going to suggest promoting this guideline to a policy? — xaosflux  Talk 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * from my reading it could potentially change the Outing Policy too not just the COI guidelines --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so "in general" policy changes belong here - can you rewrite the blurb, mentioning the policy change - and update CENT, and make sure the other policy page directed to the RfC that may change policy to make sure it is well advertised first? — xaosflux  Talk 18:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey. The location of this RfC is quite odd/obscure, given that if some of the proposals which currently have a good deal of support pass, we'll actually be substantially changing Harassment to allow some limited outing on-wiki. The page on harassment and outing is a policy. Hope that clears things up. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree if this is policy impacting it warrants a watchlist notice - the actual policy talk being possibly being changed should tagged to the RfC that will impact it, and just verifying we have a accurate notice text to go here - the notice should mention the policy and likley guideline being reviewed and the bold link should be to the actual RfC. — xaosflux  Talk 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators
Requesting a Watchlist notice for the following election: New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period. See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February. Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March
 * looks good - thought of adding it to WP:CENT? I'm not sure if it would belong there but it seems like it would? -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 16:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it but I'm not sure if elections are allowed to be posted there. I've asked for a watchlist notice though, we'll see if that gets allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think a watchlist notice for every editor is overkill for selecting coordinators for wikiprojects. T:CENT may be more appropriate as it is more of an opt-in; though mass message to the New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list (perhaps as part of such a newsletter) is probably the best approach. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD - at the very least would an uninvovled administrator please review this. — xaosflux  Talk 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved admin note - I have to agree with xaosflux on this one. Even though NPR has clear site-wide importance, it seems that only editors that have been involved in page patrolling are likely to find this notification useful. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr, at the last count, as Xaosflux knows, there are at least 1,400 new page patrollers... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, but that's out of 135,640 currently active editors. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already explained to elsewhere that this is not a Wiki project. Unlike AfC, MilHist, WP:WPSCH, etc, NPP is a core function and one governed by policy under the aegis of the Foundation. Obviously the lack of interest in the way Wikipedia quality is controlled is more extensive than I thought. Dissapointing really, especially as  has been involved with this NPP project from the moment I went live with it in October and knows only too well how much time and energy I've put into it. I will remind that every autoconfirmed user is a de facto page patroller. Or does someone have another idea how we are supposed to reach them? And if they do, kindly use their time to do it. These are some of the reasons why I'm stepping back from an active role on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am supportive of the new page reviewing project in general - I don't personally think this project's election warrants this type of notice, and suggested some alternatives above. As far as potential policy matters, every edit is "governed by policy" - that's what policies do. I'm not seeing any community or foundation policy that requires formal coordination, much less named coordinators. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Taking a step back, I am not seeing where this election idea has been discussed on-wiki. Has Kudpung acted unilaterally in setting this up? Where is the consensus that such elected positions are needed? If this process has broad community consensus then I could easily support the watchlist notice, but there is no evidence of this yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have marked the request declined. There is no evidence of consensus for such elected positions (though seemingly not completely elected since Kudpung added himself as coordinator emeritus). There is no basis for providing any kind of authority to such "coordinators" (which the stated need to use admin tools would suggest). Per longstanding consensus, no editor can have any kind of special status compared to others, except if there is sitewide consensus for it (such as the Arbitration Committee or the Bot Approval Group). I appreciate the need of recognition expressed by Kudpung, but this isn't the way to get it, your efforts are already much appreciated, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of you are misunderstanding the role of a coordinator here. The coordinators are volunteer positions with no extra power over any other editor. They're merely points of contact to help new page reviewers, perform some measure of quality control (awarding trivial "awards" to those doing a good job, bringing those doing a bad job to community attention if necessary), and generally coordinate efforts to continue improving the new page reviewing process. This has nothing to do with recognition,, although no-one could doubt the high quality of the job has been performing for years. This is about having a go-to person with regard to new page reviewing. It also gives a go-to person to act as a liason between the new page reviewing community and the WMF, something which is badly needed to develop and maintain smooth relations and technical support for new page patrolling. I shared many of the concerns expressed here when I initially saw the nominations being made, but after a review of the actual tasks to be performed by the coordinator listed at New pages patrol/Coordination, it's very clear that there's no "power" conferred by the position. Allowing the community to designate someone as a point of contact for a task is well within the bounds of what's acceptable. As for ensuring the consensus is widespread, well, that's what this watchlist notice is about! ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If no authority were granted to coordinators, then surely there would be no need for any of them to be sysops for the stated purpose to use the tools. You mention liaising with the WMF, it's something anyone can do and I for example, as a developer, have done on several occasions and not being a coordinator shouldn't prevent me from doing so. I sincerely hope this won't devolve into a bureaucratic mess. And sorry but an emeritus position has everything to do with recognition. Cenarium (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course they are misunderstanding it, . They are just flexing their muscles as self-appinted 'coordinators' of the watchlist notice project. Note also (to use a hackneyed RfC vote rationale) that WP:WLNI I think we should have an RfC and then an election for coordinators here. Lighten up, or do you, like so many others - apparently - really want Wikipedia to bcomee history in a couple of years - a dinosaur of the Internet full of junk that no one wants or can trust? If you're such a good developer, most notably, the pioneer of a concept of  some MediaWiki extension designed to keep the encyclpedia cleaner , why don't you help the Page Curaton extension instead of taking swipes at those who also do some of the real work around here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're being unhelpful, and I'm not the one who brought this thread back from the grave. You seem to think that only new page patrolling matters, and as long as new pages are OK everything is OK, you forget that pages can be edited when they're no longer new. All the work at NPP would go to waste if pages were subsequently allowed to turn into, as you say, junk. And I'm a volunteer, I do what I want, you don't dictate me where I should contribute. And no, it's not flexing one's muscle, it's what sysops are selected for: determining if and when protected pages should be edited. Cenarium (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Expand Cyberbot I onto this page
Cyberbot I's RfX Reporter bot can be expanded to cycle the cookie when a new RfX shows up. Now that I'm an admin, it would be trivial to add. Thoughts?— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 02:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In prior discussions this was purposefully left manual to avoid flagging people for nominations that are likely to be SNOW/NOTNOW'd. — xaosflux  Talk 02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. That would be easy to detect though, but ok.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 02:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you get it to include Xaosflux's fun ? That's really the only reason I keep this on my watch list. For what it's worth, I think a proof of concept might be interesting to see if you think you can weed out the potential snow closes. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally easy to detect. The bot can simply ignore the RfA if it has a support rating of less than 30%.  Those generally get SNOW closed or withdrawn fast.— CYBERPOWER  (Be my Valentine ) 02:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resource Exchange notice
Could we have the following notice added for about a week? This is similar to notices that regularly go out relating to the Wikipedia Library to raise awareness, and this resource is of a similar level of usefulness to our broad set of content creators.

Need sources? The Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request!

Feel free to copy-edit as necessary. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Requesting a new notice, displayed until=1 April 2017


 * Please participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?"

Thanks. (I'm also leaving pointers at some of the larger WikiProjects, and group noticeboards.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support notice but 3 weeks is probably longer than needed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say 1 week is more appropriate, but 3 is too long.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 13:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that works. This is a deliberately long and slow multi-stage process, so 1 week seems fine (I've updated the date above, from 14 April to 1 April). I (or whoever else volunteers to help facilitate the Enwiki local discussion) will probably request one or two more in the months ahead, but they'll be more detailed, less general. Thanks all. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No editing twice in coming weeks
I think you may want to run an announcement similar to this one from last year.

It could say something like this:

"Wikimedia Technical Operations is planning a major infrastructure migration on Wednesday, 19 April and Wednesday, 3 May, starting at 14:00 UTC. This process is expected to take 20 to 30 minutes each time. During these times, you will be able to read, but not edit any page.  The team apologizes for the disruption."

There is also more information at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. Please ping me if you have any questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Access [Notice needed]
Hi, we have new access available. I'm not permitted to use my volunteer admin rights to adjust a watchlist notice for WMF activities. Can someone please post this? Thanks and cheers!

Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library free research access: Bloomsbury (Who's Who, Drama Online, Berg Fashion Library, and Whitaker's), American Psychiatric Association (psychiatry books and journals), Gaudeamus (Finnish humanities and social sciences), Ympäristö-lehti (Finnish Environment Institute magazine), and expansion of available Gale and '''Adam Matthew resources. Many other resources are still available. Sign up!'''
 * Displays as:

✅ Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Please add info about the strategy process (displayed until June, 9):

Join the Cycle 2 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, and debate about the themes of our strategic directions.

. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One month? Isn't that a bit long?— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the links says to go to a survey, but it is "coming soon" - when is that going live? — xaosflux  Talk 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the Cycle 2 will last a month, between tomorrow and June, 9. There are local pages for that (meaning, the discussions don't take place exclusively on Meta - they deserve to be announced here). It'd be nice if there was info throughout entire period. as for the survey - after Saturday. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As the "call to action" of the message will be to drive people to the page, waiting for the survey to be live is probably a good idea, or they may not come back. — xaosflux  Talk 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but we receive much more feedback on wiki than from surveys. On-wiki feedback is basic, and surveys are only additional. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, but as Xaosflux said, I'm not going to add it until the survey is up. What time tomorrow will that be?— CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The survey bullet point can be hidden with in the meantime. The Cycle 2 starts just "tomorrow", so I expect 00:00 UTC is fine. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So far, . #1, today is yesterday's tomorrow and it's still commented, and #2, the Cycle 2 ends on June 12, not 9. (Sorry, I'm just a messenger, I have no influence on the dates and changes). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have activated the message for a week which is the standard timeframe. If there is consensus for longer then we can extend it. Also removed the italic formatting because we don't usually use that style on these messages. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I used italics only because it was a quotation. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like this announcement to be visible ideally until June, 12 - the last day of the Cycle 2. The strategic discussion is important for the entire movement. This isn't a typical editing initiative, like Wiki Loves Anything, this isn't about only enwiki, only WMF or only affiliates. We (strategy coordinators) have problems with an effective outreach. I personally think that the wide community underestimates the issue, maybe it's too abstract, just like people in general care for their parking spots, but not necessarily for the urban planning. Whenever I post on village pumps, I receive little or no reaction, like I was a mass message bot. That's why I think irregular timeframe here is needed. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have extended it to June 12.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Does "Join the Cycle 2" sound weird to anyone else? Shouldn't it either be "Join Cycle 2" (best choice, IMHO) or "Join the Second/second/2nd Cycle? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds a bit odd - what bugged me more is it seems this is already on global notice (?) - requiring multiple dismissals. — xaosflux  Talk 22:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cycle 3
Hi, the final round is ongoing. Please could we add this notice:


 * Join Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, and discuss the challenges posed by the research from New Voices.

There will be fresh content once a week throughout July, so ideally it would remain open that long, or be renewed once or twice over the month, but I understand if that is objected to. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I'm already seeing this via a force banner campaign - see notes above. Only weakly opposing - if another admin wants to add it they should feel free. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If it is already a global notice we shouldn't be duplicating it here &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on current notice
, where is the discussion and consensus to put the current watchlist notice for Dispute resolution/2017 RfC up? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I only provided copy editing on this - assuming it should be in place, standard bolding, etc is appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this appears to be a disputed notice with no prior discussion to putting it up, I have taken it down for now. Feel free to put it back up when this is resolved.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection to reversion (I just got a "you were reverted" alert); if it comes back, please bold the call to action. — xaosflux  Talk 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I'm not sure this RfC rises to the level of needing a talk page notice. Most of the current discussion is either "Why is this RfC happening?" or "I oppose all the ideas". I currently have no opinion on any of the proposals currently, but I was wondering how it got to the watchlist without a consensus that the RfC was necessary and that it should be there. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was more than an hour before it was . We typically only put an RfC on watchlist some time after it has been publicised through normal RfC channels. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User rights RFC
Plan to add this active RFC:
 * A request for comment is currently open regarding allowing account creators the ability to mark new accounts as confirmed.
 * Any comments or objections? — xaosflux  Talk 17:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOT RfC
An RfC has commenced at WT:NOT that would change that policy in a substantive way, impacting on all articles relating to recent events. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary Given its wide potential impact I think it qualifies to be on watchlists. I suggest that it be added for the duration of the RfC, one month. Coretheapple (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Potential wording: -- Coretheapple (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A  request for comment is currently open regarding restricting use of media commentary in articles on current events.
 * No need at this time: hasn't been advertised through the usual channels yet: no CENT notice. I'm not sure it would be neccesary even after that: we're talking about one paragraph to NOT, not anything that would change userrights, affect WMF policy, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I dd see ot added to Centralized discussions, if that's what you're referring to. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah nevermind, don't know why I missed that; I'll blame it on being on mobile. The other point still stands: this is not actually a major change and falls well short of what normally gets a watchlist notice. There is no need to add it at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think adding a paragraph to a fundamental Wikipedia policy is by definition major, and would have a major impact on how articles on current events are created (for better or worse, depending upon one's position). I've seen less consequential proposals advertised on watchlists. Coretheapple (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL
Can we add something like: Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The ACTRIAL experiement is currently running which retricts non-autoconfirmed users from creating articles in the main namespace.
 * ✅ with an expiry of 1 week, should be long enough for interested editors to see the notice -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:There'sNoTime User:Kaldari Please take that banner off immediately. This is a very bad idea with no support from ACTRIAL participants  It will actually harm the trial. Ping User:Kudpung Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that a watchlist notice is superfluous to requirements. It could even inspire people to exploit various workarounds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * removed. Perhaps it shouldn't have been listed at the ACTRIAL page as needing doing then -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * thank-you. I'm not sure how it got listed there, someone's idea I guess Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * will not have notified anybody. The link to the other user's page must be correct first time, it must go on in the same edit that your signature is added - and it must be a fresh post, not an amendment to an existing post. See WP:Echo. However, my edit will notify . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist-details: new default message for the number of watched pages.
Hey

A change is coming concerning the Watchlists (see the announcement) and we plan to rephrase Watchlist-details original description.

At the moment, this is sentence the your wiki: "You have $1 NaN pagess on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."

Old default (before it has been changed, standard on quite all wikis): "NaN $1 pagess on your watchlist, not separately counting talk pages."

New one (to be deployed on all wikis): "NaN $1 pages ares on your Watchlist (plus talk pages)."

The one on your wiki and the new one are quite similar. We plan to make this change for consistency with other wikis.

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the change of wording is fine, but removing the help links is not. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, why should those be removed? — xaosflux  Talk 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that the links would still be present, and Trizek simply forgot to include them. Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really care for unbolding the number either. — xaosflux  Talk 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We plan to make this change - We, the English Wikipedia community put a lot of effort in to customizing this message and do not expect it to be changed here without consensus here. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, this is not to say that new verbiage may not be welcome, just that we don't expect it to be implemented out of process. Feel free to place a ready-to-go edit request for your proposal. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion in the post by Trizek (WMF) or the interpretation of it. As far as I can tell, the only change is that the MediaWiki default for MediaWiki:Watchlist-details has been reformulated. The English Wikipedia has customized the message and our version is shown both before and after the change so nothing changes for us. It only affects wikis without a customized message, and users with other languages at Special:Preferences than our default "en - English". We have also customized MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/en-gb so British English is unaffected here, but Canadian English (en-ca) is affected, and those foreign languages which have made a similar change to the MediaWiki default. MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/en-ca displays the new default so it's seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?uselang=en-ca. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The World Contest
Hi,

Would it be possible to add a watchlist message until the end of the month advertising WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. Something along the lines of:


 * The Women in Red World Contest is running during November. Win a share of a planned $4500 prize fund by creating articles on women.

If we can't add the alert for that long, could it be added for whatever length is more appropriate but immediately before the start of November? Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * have funds actually been secured for this, as well as how they will be dispersed? The project page referenced above suggests they are still pending. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to have to call in Dr. B to answer that as he's been the central organising force behind this. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last two edits will not have called in anybody (other than page watchers like myself). To notify a specific individual like you need to get the notification syntax right the first time: if the notification fails, a subsequent correction will not then send a notification. More at WP:Echo. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't realised that. Miyagawa (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the grant has been approved and I will have the second and final instalment in my bank account in a week or two. The WMUK Grant for 335 dollars is pending though so perhaps just say "over $4000".♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ posted for 2 weeks. — xaosflux  Talk 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ACE 2017 Electoral Commission
Nominations close in a few days, and we've only had one editor nominate themselves for the 2017 ArbCom Electoral Commission so far. Any objections to including this in the watchlist notice? It would look like this:

Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I supposed not, it is only for a day - may need to extend this date a bit... — xaosflux  Talk 03:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No objections here. And yes, the date should probably be extended a bit. Alex ShihTalk 03:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've added the notice and made adjustments to the deadlines somewhat unilaterally. I apologize for going a bit out of process with those deadline shifts, but I agree that it's necessary in order to move the process forward – see also talk page discussion. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make the watchlist notice expire earlier, now that there are many nominations? I've noticed there may be a setback to this notice, that it may confuse some (even experienced) editors that this is the nomination for the actual committee, since in the past it is only the actual election that receives a watchlist notice, if I am not mistaken. Alex ShihTalk 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've just adjusted the watchlist notice to expire October 14 instead. Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Move help links from MediaWiki:Watchlist-details to MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary
The MediaWiki message that is intended for use for help links and other such things is MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary, but that page is currently empty. Having the help links be here in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details does work, but causes issues from time to time. Most recently, it has contributed to the jumpiness of the new filters beta feature when it loads. The new filters code assumed that MediaWiki:Watchlist-details was part of the interface and would only be one line tall, and that all community-maintained links would be in MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. I'm changing the software to work around this particular issue, but going forward it'd be cleaner to have the community-maintained help links live in MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary which is intended to host such things. Also, User:Trizek (WMF)'s message above about the wording change and the ensuing discussion would have been a lot less confusing if the help links were separate from the "You have N items on your watchlist" message.

Does anyone object to this move? In particular, are there reasons why the help links are in -details and not in -summary that I don't know about? For example, did someone try to move it in the past and break things? --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see everything in MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details/Archive_9. Feel free to write up a sandbox version of proposed changes. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If we do this, should we consider creating something like MediaWiki:watchlist-notices and transcluding that into MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary instead ? If we are moving it anyway, might as well make it a more strict separation of functionality ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Or watchlist-messages, since that's what the classname is as well ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support your suggestion, that way we can have it live in a place that doesn't depend on the technical detail of which message it's embedded in. And if it does need to be in a message together with other content, your solution still allows it to be maintained separately. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what you proposed there last year is exactly what I want to do. thought it through a lot better than I did and listed all the other things we'd have to update. I'll work on a sandbox version of it today or tomorrow. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * — xaosflux  Talk 21:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Basic part of the move done. If this is stable for a few hours, I suggest we update all the documentation etc.. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * more details: MediaWiki:watchlist-details partly moved to MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary and split the actual messages into MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. I updated Display/watchlist and moved the editnotice to Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. P.S. We'll need talk page banners for the respective talk pages. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Initial move looks good, messages are displaying. — xaosflux  Talk 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we also move the discussion pages now btw ? It seems that this location is a bit out of place.. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices would be a better centralised discussion page ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked, and almost the entire archives are about watchlist messages, so we could easily move and merge them with Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried that we lose watchers. — xaosflux  Talk 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can be avoided if we do a proper move right ? Then we can hist merge and everything should be fine. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my understanding, if you move A to B, everyone watching A now automatically watches B. So if you move this to Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices or MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages, I think watchlists should be a non-issue. Maybe an issue could arrive with hard-coded page titles in scripts or bots, but that's corner case? — Andy W. ( talk ) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with a move, but note, MOST requests are for adding a message - so perhaps MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details should get the MOVE to it? — xaosflux  Talk 18:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The processes for various notices are inconsistent (Geonotices use the project page itself, not the talk page for requests). While moving this to the WT page you mentioned makes sense, I think moving this to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages would be less of jarring drastic change for requesters and admins. Also, if this were just simply moved to the MediaWiki talk page, there's no need for histmerge. (There's probably no need for a histmerge for the WT page anyway, right, as that existing page could just be considered Archive 6 or Archive 10, no?) Furthermore, the navbar transclusion at MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary makes it convenient to navigate directly to the discussion. Let me know if I have some of this incorrect.
 * The to-do list as I personally see it:
 * Move this and its talk subpages → MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages.
 * Update the outdated links to the MW and MW talk pages at Editor's index to Wikipedia, Global rights policy, Publicising discussions, Centralized discussion, Non-admin closure, and WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia post-move.
 * — Andy W. ( talk ) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (courtesy ping) ... think we're in agreement about a move. Unless someone jumps on this before I do, or if there are any objections from anyone, I'd like to volunteer to perform the above 2 steps in about a week's time. — Andy W. ( talk ) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Andy M. Wang: ok with me ! —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. — xaosflux  Talk 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems Green check.svg done. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Andy_M._Wang&offset=20171024123900&limit=28 updates] — Andy W. ( talk ) 12:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist message for Community Wishlist 2017
Village_pump_(technical). Probably a good idea to have a watchlist notice for this I guess. My suggestion:

"The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey invites you to add your ideas for technical improvements before November 20th. Voting will start November 28th."

CC. Johan, Samwalton9. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There'll be a CentralNotice banner coming up soon, FYI. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer this to not be BOTH a watchlist notice and a central notice, but getting the word out is important. — xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist message for the end of the Women in Red World Contest
Hi,

We'd like to post a watchlist notice until end of the month to promote an additional end of contest prize


 * Compete in the Five Day Feast at the Women in Red World Contest and win $200 worth of books for the editor who creates the most female biographies during the final five days of the month.

Normally we wouldn't request a further notice for the closing of a contest, but it's a brand new prize just for the final couple of days. Only needs to be run until the end of the 30th. Miyagawa (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Please update link target from  to. Thank you, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages does not contain this text, did you mean another page? — xaosflux  Talk 19:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly MediaWiki:Watchlist-details ? — xaosflux  Talk 19:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If so, ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 19:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry I copied the wrong page title to my clipboard :P Thank you very much :) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup
I'd like to request the following message be placed as a Watchlist Message for the next fortnight or three weeks: The contest currently has 23 signups, but there are probably many editors who are unaware of its existence and would enjoy taking part, and further competitors are always welcome. Last year, more than 100 editors joined after the banner invitation went out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2018 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2018. Signups are open until the end of January. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition.
 * Rather than placing an enigmatic, padlocked, template message at the top of this request, perhaps you could explain what I am required to do to publicise the start of the 2018 WikiCup by using a banner message on editors' watchlist pages. My request above was based on a similar request I made on 28 December 2016. Last year my request was actioned without problem and the present request does not seem to me to be controversial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * that just placed it in the admin review queue to attract more attention - you don't have to do anything. — xaosflux  Talk 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I thought I had done something wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As time has moved on and the WikiCup has now started, perhaps the message should be reworded to read: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The 2018 WikiCup began on January 1, 2018. Signups are open until the end of the month. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition.
 * — xaosflux  Talk 22:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 22:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding WP:ACPERM to the watchlist
I propose that the discussion at Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation (shortcut: WP:ACPERM) be added to the watchlist notices, as it's a fairly significant policy change that will have effects on a lot of users.

Sample implementation:

Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and I discussed whether or not to request this and generally thought it wouldn't be needed: we've already advertised it very broadly on-wiki, it's been discussed for years, and the watchlist notice is more likely to cause confusion with users who have no idea on the background than it is to alert users who are familiar but unaware (the number of times I have had to explain the history of this in the last week alone to people, including those who have been involved with the discussions, is pretty exhausting, tbh). I'm not strongly opposed to it, but I think we've advertised it pretty widely already to the point where this might not be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Watchlist notices were only  introduced recently for  broader  use and are not  an obligation. Experience has demonstrated, especially  with  RfA, for  example, that  this has not been necessarily productive and even attracts a certain  amount  of trolling. A serious  policy  needs serious  participants in  the disussion. As  far  as the claims that  have been made by  some participants in  the RfC that  they  were unaware of ACTRIAL, the onus on  them is to  watch  Wikipedia regularly, which  they  admit  to  not  doing anyway. CENT  has always been the principle form of notification, along  with  any  canvassing that  is permitted at  WP:CANVASS. That  said, we are contemplating  a mention  in  Signpost  if we can meet  the deadline before the next  issue -  which  is already  several  weeks overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - consider this proposal withdrawn. I can respect the concern that the quality of participation can sometimes decrease with too much notification, so I’m happy to defer to your more experienced judgment. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Fools
and there are real Rfx's that can start and run continue to run on this day, and there are many editors that don't care about AF. I'm 100% good with hiding FAKE RfA's from this page --- perhaps just subing out he bot generated message with a static one for AF will be better? — xaosflux  Talk 15:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The short-term fix was needed to prevent editors from wasting their time looking at bad jokes en masse. I was certainly annoyed by having a watchlist notice unexpectedly direct me toward bad jokes. If you want to do a static message instead, go for it. I don't think hiding the watchlist notice for 24 hours is worse than directing people toward almost exclusively jokes for 24 hours. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rob. While I don't mind joke nominations on April fools, it's one thing for select users using my bot generated table, where they can easily see it's a joke, but another for the entire community to see it by force.  I insist the auto-hide logic remain in place.  The notice will unhide on April 2, 00:00 UTC.  C  P  15:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with not showing joke noms, and with not using cookies increments for joke noms, just object to hiding legitimate noms. Since the only real nom closes in 30 mins at this point its not worth talking about much more now, but having a static message seems preferable if there are real ones next year. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it more prudent to put the real ones on hold for the day. People will undoubtedly mistaken the real one for one of the joke ones.  Not everyone will, but some will.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 00:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)