MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

See Wikipedia:Watchlist notices for documentation of how to add, maintain or hide watchlist notices.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Propose how you want it worded and I could put it up. Jujutacular ^talk 20:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Click here" should be avoided: WP:ACCESS#Links. How about "Join a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection." Jujutacular ^talk 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Y Done. Amalthea 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moved to appropriate thread. — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

IMNSHO dropping people into
• Join the second phase of a '''[[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011|community discussion]]''' to decide the future of [[WP:PC|pending changes]] protection.
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 which has several explanatory sections at the top including "Explanation of format", "Purpose" and "General information". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done for nine days, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{sudo}} Please change the format of this message to use <ul><li>...</li></ul> (an unordered HTML list) rather than &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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see, yea I didn't throw out the divs. Jujutacular ^talk 07:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to go with Max's suggestion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Max? Amalthea 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the first M in MZMcBride. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, as said above, the dismiss-script needs to be adapted first to work with both div and li, 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)[reply]

I've modified the js earlier today, we can switch the HTML around April 29. Amalthea 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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/ Happy‑melon 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a rumour that the resource loader was broken. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Happy‑melon 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I believe the importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js") 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 mw.loader.load, but I haven't looked at the documentation thus far. Amalthea 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as far as I can tell mw.loader.load only accepts ResourceLoader modules defined in Resources.php and $wgResourceModules, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably pipe Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover into the words "now available", like so:

The '''[[WP:File mover|file mover]]''' userright is [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover|now available]] for users experienced in working with files.

bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Added for two weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Department and I are currently working on Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Bumping this, it would be really helpful (say for 1 or 2 weeks)? Jalexander--WMF 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing "sign up" -> "apply" as to not imply there is a guarantee. Jujutacular ^talk 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following wording? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are invited to apply for one of 400 free Credo Reference accounts.

Y Added 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)[reply]

Thanks for adding it, Amalthea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose readding the message: • You are invited to <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 reference a random biography]'''</span> and help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons|ongoing drive]] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be rather soon after the previous notice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's been 2½ months. I'll stick it up for a fortnight? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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., :

• You are invited to <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 reference a random biography]'''</span> and help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons|ongoing drive]] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. With 50,000 articles done, and fewer than 10,000 left, we're closing in on the kill.

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 decker^{talk to me} 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 decker^{talk to me} 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Added for three weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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^words_deeds 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Right now the Jayron32 supporting view has 47 supports, the DGG opposing view 14. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Jujutacular ^talk 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, fine with me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^words_deeds 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]