MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. As such, I'd like so suggest that we add a line to the watchlist notice, possibly something along the lines of:

A straw poll on a 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions is now open.

Good to go? Happy‑melon 18:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unilateral Support - Unquestionably. This proposal represents the largest change since anonymous users were denied the right to create non-talk pages, and if fully implemented, would have a larger effect than the introduction of autoconfirmation. People need to know about this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Why the scare quotes, though? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely worth the time of watchlist support since it has a strong likelihood to affect all registered editors (and I've seen its been posted in other common pumps/cents so this will help it). --MASEM 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Goes hand in hand with the BLP feeler survey; that one is still ongoing for a general read on the community; this is a parallel extension. Since this is heading (seems like) as the Big Thing of 2009, please add it in 'above' the feeler survey. rootology (C)(T) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now added this. Thanks, Happy‑melon 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

...which is located here. Please make it available on watchlists. Thank you, Jonathan321 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not every discussion needs to be listed here. Isn't Wikipedia:Centralized discussion sufficient for this? Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I would really like maximum participation in this poll, so could you please put it on peoples' watchlists? Pretty please with a cherry on top? =) Jonathan321 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Give it a chance at WP:CENT first. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion that needs to be linked on watchlists. It is a small change that will barely affect editing and the vast majority of editors will not recognize it even if there is a change. WP:CENT is sufficient. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to advertise this proposal in the watchlist notice. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead, but I'm biased: I've always liked the idea of FlaggedRevs without the flagged-revision-viewed-by-default bite, and I wish we'd put more in the watchlist notice anyway. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I too like the idea, but I think the watchlist may be premature. If there's one thing I've learnt from the other FlaggedRevs poll it's that 'just' an RfC/CENT-advertised 'discussion period' is not enough to convince some people that there was enough opportunity to give constructive input to the proposal before it was finalised. I don't even see those links already in place for this proposal. The watchlist-notice should really only be used when you already have something very concrete to talk about, and a well-organised method for talking about it. Otherwise you will invite hundreds of people to come to a page, where they will bumble around a bit before saying "er, so what do you want me to do?" and leaving. And once they click the 'dismiss' button on the notice, they're not coming back. So I'd recommend that you do the CENT/VP/RfC thing (that stage on the other FlaggedRevs proposal lasted for several weeks after the proposal had been finalised) and not make it so prominent as the watchlist until you have something clearly laid out for editors to do once they get to the linked page. Happy‑melon 09:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Melon here. Gary King (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say something, but Happy-melon already said it quite well. This isn't really ripe yet. Let it mature for a bit before bringing in the hordes. :)--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened to examine the arbitration enforcement process: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. I believe this is suitable for a watchlist notice. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as premature: this only opened an hour ago. It hasn't hasn't been placed at WP:CENT yet, and was only just posted at WP:VPP. Give it time to gather steam before judging that it hasn't received enough attention.--Aervanath (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this would be appropriate to list say, ten days in? I'd rather not hold off for too long, as the RfC is only set to run one month. I'd like to allow enough time for the rush of comments to taper off, be sure there's enough time for the participants to review and respond to those comments; and generally have the RfC reach a "settled" form by its end. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (P.S. It's already at CENT.[1])

10 days is probably more than enough. If, after a week or so, it doesn't have enough input to gauge consensus, then sure, put it on the watchlist. I just don't like to put stuff on the watchlist until it's clear it actually needs more participation.--Aervanath (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That makes perfect sense. Vassyana (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's now a straw poll / vote / survey / whatever on the talk page. Can this be added now? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll has been closed, so not really any point now.--Aervanath (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a request for comments on outside input to adopt WP:FICT as a guideline. This is an issue which has spawned two arbitration cases and has been a battleground for years. It is a big, big, bone of contention in the world of inclusion/deletion. I won't add it unilaterally, but if I get a little support I will add a short notice like:

• There is a request for comments asking editors to adopt the notability guideline for fictional elements.

Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally support an RFC for such a specific topic. But the previous RFC on WP:FICT resulted in no consensus. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution tells us that if we can't get consensus, we should try new forms of dispute resolution with more people. If someone thinks that a watchlisted RFC is inappropriate, I would like them to suggest another form of dispute resolution that we haven't already tried. Because we've tried literally everything else. Randomran (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Given how long it's been on WP:CENT in one form or another, and how long this has been going on, I'd say we should give it 24 hours to see if anyone objects here, and then post it.--Aervanath (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Does anyone have some less tongue tied language for the notice than I do? Protonk (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would shorten "fictional elements" to just "fiction". Otherwise it's just fine.--Aervanath (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a request for comments asking editors to adopt the notability guideline for fiction.

Better. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to add a few words to justify it, so people aren't like "huh, what the heck is that doing here?" Something like "There is a request for comment asking for wider community comment on a notability guideline for fiction, to resolve an outstanding area of dispute among several editors." I think the wider community needs to understand that we tried to do it with a smaller discussion, but we need them. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's common for these notices, though I'm just speaking anecdotally. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more important for the notice itself to be as concise and non-intrusive as possible. We don't need to justify the watchlist notice in the watchlist notice itself; that's what this talk page is for.--Aervanath (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Randomran (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—concise and non-intrusive. If people want to really know more, they will click through, otherwise they will dismiss it. Gary King (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. I think that this is not a wide enough issue to make this level of input-gathering worthwhile or appropriate. This seems to me both a poor development for the guideline (it is a relatively local issue, and there are limits to how much input should be sought from outside of the pool of editors working in the area) and the watchlist notice (which should not be used for issues that do not affect the vast majority of the encyclopedia.) I will quickly become very annoyed if watchlist notices are used to advertise guideline proposals, and I doubt I am alone in this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For any other general guideline, yes, this is a concern and we don't want every little guideline change announced here. Given, however, that 1/4 of WP's articles are fiction related, and its obvious that WP is suffering from internal conflict between authors involved with fiction, that this would be an exceptional case. We should still discourage the general use of watchlist notices for these types of RFCs. --MASEM 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should do this yet. Last time, we tried CENT and some other ads, and it wasn't enough. We seem to be getting a good amount of outside input this time. We already did the other one, and I think the info from that has in large part informed the current compromise. Let's let the current ads run for a while, and if we still think we haven't gotten enough input, we can push for a watchlist notice. Maybe that can be judged by an outside party as well, if we can find one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, this is an exceptional case, and I suspect many of the contributors to these fictional articles have no idea this RfC is going on.

I agree with User:Randomran, as it stands it would be a little confusing, how about:

There is a request for comments asking editors to adopt the notability guideline for fiction, which would effect: (list of 3 or 4 things, such as television episodes, television characters).

20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, everybody thinks their issue is an exceptional case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think this issue is one that requires the widest possible consensus. A watchlist message is easily dismissed, and would give a much better perspective of wiki-wide consensus than a so-called group of editors 'across the inclusion spectrum'. Thus, I think a watchlist message is totally appropriate (keep in mind that I support the guideline as it stands, which is also your position). Ale_Jrb^talk 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes this an issue of such wide concern that an RfC and a notification of specifically relevant pages is not sufficient? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it affects a quarter of the articles on the wiki, and all other attempts at resolution have failed? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still just a notability guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will note, more firmly - I am strongly opposed to this watchlist notice, and I think that if it goes it will completely fuck the guideline's claim to any sort of consensus. Already with the RfC the guideline is getting a ton of comments that demonstrate severe misunderstandings about the proposal - careless drive-bys, in essence. We're crossing a bad signal to noise threshold, and further attention from people uninvolved in the issue is not productive. More eyes do not always improve proposals. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well. It's now or never Phil. If we close the RfC saying "no one else can participate", then there isn't enough consensus to accept this as a guideline. I'm not Jimbo, so I won't approve a guideline I support on a 60/40 split. Barring that option, we have to allow for more input. Some of the input we have received has been helpful. We really do have to clarify what the first prong means. We do have to straighten out some of the language (wish some of the people who were so critical could give some pointers, but w/e). And we do honestly have to accept that there are people like Jayron, who don't want a relaxation of WP:N and people like Col. Warden, who don't want any established guideline related to WP:N. Those are relevant "opposes". They may not carry the day (as WP:N isn't going anywhere). But they present reasonable points. We also may just have to accept that the community doesn't want a FICT guideline....or at least, they want a magical guideline that doesn't let crufty articles in, isn't arbitrary, isn't subjective, allows independent sources but lets us have fan articles like we did before WP:N and instantly solves all deletion discussions. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to misrepresent my views. I have no objection to WP:MUSIC, for example, which seems to be a sensible and objective notability guideline which seems to work reasonably well in practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a request for comments asking editors to adopt the notability guideline for fiction (WP:FICT).

That's my draft. Check for spelling and wording, please? Protonk (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not explain briefly what this guideline will effect?

• There is a request for comments asking editors to adopt the notability guideline for fiction (WP:FICT) which will effect television episodes and characters and other fiction.

I think we would get much more participation this way. Ikip (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's redundant. If we could weave in the "episodes and characters" I could be convinced, but that wording just tacks it on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE' In the spirit of "we have to allow for more input." I notified several of the television episodes pages with a neutral message I have been working on for weeks. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "close the RfC" or "send out a watchlist notice" is a false dichotomy. Plenty of RFCs go on without watchlist notices. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "just a guideline" is a good reason to oppose the watchlist notice. However, as was stated above, this issue has spawned TWO arbitration cases: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2, and has been going on for years. I haven't been involved with this before in any way, shape or form that I'm aware of, but something this contentious should have wider input. However, looking at the RfC currently in progress, I hadn't realized it only started a day ago. Let's let it run for a while before posting it. If it's running out of steam, and there's no clear consensus one way or the other, then post the watchlist notice.--Aervanath (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Added. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It should be copyedited. I suggest "There is a request for comment asking editors whether or not to adopt the notability guideline for fiction." Also, italicize the message and add a space with a non-breaking space ( ) at the end of the message. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would rather have waited a week to post this up, since it didn't look like it was lacking input quite yet, but since it's already done, I'm not going to revert it.--Aervanath (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think we may have done this too soon. We were still getting the kind of input that indicated the guideline should be modified. A lot of opposition was coming from the stance that it was just too long and confusing, and a lot was coming from complete misconceptions -- more than opposition based on the actual substance of the guideline. I think we should have modified the guideline a little bit more before we solicited this level of feedback. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why I wanted to wait a week. Should we remove this now, then, and repost it once the guideline is rewritten and another RfC on that version is opened?--Aervanath (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is this doing on the watchlist notice? Two days ago, I left the discussion because we seemed to all agree that the RfC was chugging along nicely and didn't need further eyes. I leave, and the watchlist notice goes up. WTF. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we now have 3 editors here expressing reservations, I've removed this notice. A watchlist notice is not a good idea when you have a situation such as Randomran is describing.--Aervanath (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's put a hold on it. There are some concerns raised by comments that can help this guideline improve, without costing us much support. So we should give it some time. Let me be the first to reserve the right to put the watchlist notice back up, though, once we've pinned things down a bit more. (Just when we thought things were already pinned down.) Randomran (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the right, but we'll sort that out on the proposal talk page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also respectfully disagree with your "reserving the right" to re-post it, Randomran. Protonk posted the notice 6 hours after I requested a one-week delay, and and after Phil had expressed vociferous disagreement. Once there's a concrete guideline that could actually survive an RfC, and the new RfC/straw poll has been going for a week bring it back here as a new request.--Aervanath (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a figure of speech. I'm not even an admin. What I meant to say is -- we'll discuss it again when WP:FICT has stabilized. Hopefully for the last time. Randomran (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As the notice about Wikipedia Loves Art was not discussed, I have reverted it. I don't like reverting other admins' actions, so normally I would have waited for User:Pharos, who posted the message, to respond to comments, but he appears to have gone offline right before User:Seresin posted a message in protest on his talk page. I will gladly put it back myself if consensus is reached on the matter.--Aervanath (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably should leave it off. It's not of sitewide (or close) significance. Pretty cool though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I wasn't familiar with the protocol on this page, and I'd like to bring the discussion here.--Pharos (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

These photo events are being held at 14 museums in 10 cities across the US and UK. And our 15th institution in sponsoring an online competition that will cover the whole of the US. So, I think this will apply to a very significant percentage of our editors in the English-speaking world. By letting regular editors know about this, we're exposing very many of them to the possibility of attending a live Wikimedia event (beyond a simple meetup) in their local areas for the first time.--Pharos (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for my skepticism, but it doesn't actually seem like a WikiMedia sponsored event, seems more like something organized through Flickr, and aimed more at collecting things which would go on commons:. Also, I notice that this hasn't been advertised at WP:CENT, either. Have you tried advertising on the Village Pump, as well?--Aervanath (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Wikimedia event. It is supported by two Wikimedia chapters, meta:Wikimedia UK and meta:Wikimedia New York City. We got permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to use the names, and the WMF is flying in two of its staff members from San Francisco to join in museum events in New York City. Jimmy Wales is going to be recording a promotional video for this event next week. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It just isn't wiki wide. The closest one to me is LA, and that's 1,000 miles away (I'm in Portland). The US is about 55% of wiki, so except for London the rest of the world isn't included. It's East Coast (mostly), and that's not enough in my opinion to bother the whole wiki. I don't mind the stuff goes on commons, since that's where free images from the english wikipedia end up, but we can't advert stuff that is only applicable to 10% (if that) of the populace. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, our 15th institution in sponsoring an online competition that will cover the whole of the US, including of course the historic movie house architecture of Portland. It is true there aren't participating museums in your particular area of the US Northwest, but we need a broader perspective. And even just for people near the museums we have 70 million people around the English-speaking world, substantially larger than the whole population of the UK, which is only 61 million. Taking these numbers into account, we get approximately 22.6% of our contributors in the English-speaking world, or 18% of our total contributorship. This certainly isn't something local to a small group on the US East Coast. Let's go over the numbers: 19 million (New York metro) + 14 million (London metro) + 13 million (LA metro) + 6 million (Tennessee) + 5.5 million (Houston metro) + 5 million (DC metro) + 2.5 million (Pittsburgh metro) + 2 million (Cincinnati metro) + 2 million (Indianapolis metro) + 1 million (Honolulu metro) = 70 million.--Pharos (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically there are only 160,635 active users on Wikipedia, so assuming 52% of them are in the United States, that makes 83,530 Americans. Gary King (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest to try to notify only editors who live close to one of the participating museums (find them via categories or advertise on WikiProject pages and appropriate talk pages). That's more work than putting up a watchlist notice, but could also be more effective. Kusma (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kusma. I don't know if he's still doing it, but User:Gmaxwell used to run WP:Geonotice, which would be a watchlist notice for only those editors in range of the event. He's not too active anymore, but I left messages on his talk pages on en.wiki and commons asking him to contribute to this discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We are indeed notifying editors through those methods also, but that only reaches a very small percentage of the total number of active editors who actually live in those areas. As to Geontice, it has been dead for many months, and Gmaxwell is not fulfilling any more requests (I have been in extensive correspondence with him on this).--Pharos (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Art has also been notified of this proposal. I thought I should let you folks know.--Pharos (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in Wikipedia Loves Art, coordinating the London end. I think having this notice on would be a big boost to this project, but I understand the concerns of people who contribute from outside US&UK or are too far from the participating museums to contribute. Generally there seems to be little guidance on what would or would not be appropriate for notices and it may be useful to have more guidance. The project is organised by the museums with the support of the UK and NYC Wikimedia chapters. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just spammed this across WP:CENT and all four Village Pumps. Pharos has been convincing in his arguments that this has a wide applicability on en.wiki, but I'd like to make sure that there has really been a lack of notification before posting the watchlist notice. Is it acceptable to the Wikipedia Loves Art sponsors here to wait at least 48 hours to see who responds to the notices I have posted?--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly the first time that I've seen a notice on here that wasn't actually related to the Wikipedia website; this is a fairly rare thing. Gary King (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the proposed notice, but in terms both of giving notice and of the event's utility to Wikipedia, it is extremely unfortunate that none (or neither) of the organizers thought to inform the en or any Visual arts project, nor to attempt to formulate the "goals" of the event in terms of what images Commons is actually lacking. Commons has tens of thousands of images of objects in museums and galleries; far more than can ever be used in many areas, and amazingly few in some other important areas - see for example Commons Category:Japanese_ceramics], with only 24 images and a map, 9 of them of one set of 19th century figures. As it is the goals have been decided by the museums, apparently without any consideration of this. The en VA project only found out about the planned event by chance a couple of days ago, though it has been in planning since November. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, so it's not ideally organized, I think we've all agreed on that. Could the participants in Wikipedia Loves Art please spam the relevant WikiProjects and talk pages about this, as I have done with CENT and VP? I am perfectly willing to consent to this watchlist notice after 48 hours if this is done and y'all're still lacking participants who've signed up.--Aervanath (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see that this has now been mentioned in the Signpost. I don't think this needs to be advertised here.--Aervanath (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • • I would like to point out here that both of the current Watchlist notice items were featured in the Signpost on January 24. So, I don't see why this should exclude Wikipedia Loves Art.--Pharos (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think mention in one should be exclude mention in the other—surely many other items are covered in both. The Signpost is read by "hardcore" Wikipedians, who tend to already be involved in meta issues. What we want to be able to reach is the occasional editor who would still be interested in these events if they only knew one was being held in their hometown; imagine the Wikipedian in Cincinnati or Indianapolis who edits only once a week or so, what you might call The Long Tail of Wikipedians.--Pharos (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This looks like an absolutely massive event, and I had no idea it was happening. Things like this are what the watchlist notice is for. Please, please, please promote this on the watchlist notice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have much to do with writing an encyclopedia, so I fail to see how Wikipedia's watchlist (as opposed to, say Commons') is an appropriate place for it. Kusma (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment doesn't make much sense to me. Images are an integral part of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia.--Pharos (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be an event where free pictures are going to be taken. That is nice, but (a) do we post about every event that encourages free images and (b) I can't see a direct encyclopedic goal (it appears to be structured like a game, not like an attempt to get images in areas where our coverage is lacking). "More free images" sounds like the mission of the Commons, something that benefits us only indirectly. I don't think we should use the watchlist to advertise off-site activities, even if they are good things or have "Wikipedia" in their name. Kusma (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This certainly is an attempt to get images in areas where our coverage is lacking. OK, you can have the personal opinion that this is somehow unrelated to Wikipedia just because you're not sitting in front of a computer the whole time, but this is not the forum for that discussion. The involvement of two Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation supporting "Wikipedia Loves Art" should be sufficient to show this is real activity to benefit Wikipedia.--Pharos (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We would have, I think, no qualms about a massive image-finding drive going in the watchlist notice. That is what this amounts to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a massive worlwide image-finding drive. This one isn't world-wide, not by any standard. Kusma (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia. And please explain better what is going on, it looks a bit like a museum-centered game, not like a Wikipedia-centered image drive. As you see above, the WikiProjects most interested in such images had no idea that this was going to be done, and so I guess (I don't know, the pages don't say anything about that) that none of their image wishlists was used. Kusma (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the coordinators for this project. Let me answer a few questions. First of all WikiProjects were notified. Because the Wikipedia Loves Art events require visiting museums in person, WikiProjects of areas in which museums were participating were notified so that people in those areas could participate. Secondly, this is most definitely a project organized by and benefiting the Wikipedia community. The idea is to take photographs of public domain artwork and upload it to Commons where it can be used to illustrate appropriate Wikipedia articles on artists, styles, and subjects. The reason it goes through Flickr first is two-fold: first, the general public is less intimidated by uploading things to Flickr than Commons; secondly, it gives us a chance to properly name and organize all the images before they go to Commons (and leave out redundant or inappropriate images). This will be an improvement on the Wikipedia Loves The City process, which both Pharos and I have worked with previously.

With all that said, I would like to ask that this project not be added to the Watchlist notifications. Personally, I don't think we need any more spam on the watchlists. Kaldari (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

A minor point, but please format the date like other timestamps. So, it should be 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC). Gary King (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of individaul items, why don't we just put a link to CENT there? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If it'd be there all the time, no one would ever bother to visit the page regularly. "Click on WP:CENT, there might be something up." doesn't sound that helpful. --Conti|✉ 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't be very helpful. Gary King (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if it was on the watchlist, it would start hopping. I thought of this becuase I made some edits to it and wasn't reverted or commented on. I think it's because so few people look at it. If it actually had wide attention, people would be fighting over which things were more important and whatnot, like we do here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to test drive by linking to WP:CENT for a week in the watchlist to see how things go. Gary King (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please no, per Conti that would be really pointless. Garion96 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The BLP survey has been on the watchlist since December 23 now, which is quite a long time. Considering that the Checkuser and Oversight elections were just started (and subsequently announced here), maybe it's time to remove it? It's never good to have too many announcements on the watchlist (the more we have, the less people will pay attention to them). --Conti|✉ 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it. When you click on the link, there are so many survey options now that it boggles the mind. Gary King (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it already. Kaldari (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I would prefer that my watchlist be used for watching articles, not as a community bulletin board. Why do we even have WP:CENT and the Community portal if people are just going to post everything to the watchlist (and then not even bother to post them to the proper places)? Watchlist notices should only be made for extremely important announcements that everyone must be informed of. It is not a place to post advertisements for polls, discussions, or events. I would like to propose that watchlist notices be limited to a single notice at a time. In other words, there should never be more than one notice on the watchlists at any given moment. In fact, it would be nice if every once in a while there were actually no notices, and watchlists were just watchlists again without all the spam. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not nearly as bad now as it used to be. Right now we've only got two, and they both had to go through a discussion here first before being added. Gary King (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - it wasn't actually that long ago that admins were more-or-less free to add notices as they saw fit, and at one point there were as many as four (and possibly even more) notices at once. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember. And it seems we are starting to creep back towards that level. There were 3 notices up this morning (until I removed the BLP discussion that had been sitting there since December). We should definitely not have notices for discussions sitting on people's watchlists for months. Let's try to be more considerate of people's time and attention. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could something like the following be added?

A [[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation|request for comment]] regarding possible changes to Wikipedia's [[WP:N|notability guidelines]] is open for input.

-Drilnoth (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Please use WP:CENT and WP:VP first. I think a similar request was rejected earlier, but I'm not sure on that. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a notability RFC a few months ago?--Aervanath (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was on Notability (fiction). Today I looked at the hit count for WP:CENT, and it's about 20-40 views a day!!! I know it's transcluded a number of places, but no wonder people are desperate for another way to advertise big events. A watchlist notice is probably 100-1000 times more effective than CENT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, which I guess was on a separate topic.--Aervanath (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reopen this, it is now on CENT and reffered on VP. The RFC is getting a bit stale and some fresh ideas would be nice.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for a watchlist notice before requesting one, please. Peregrine Fisher: Your logic is wrong. Template:CENT is transcluded to a number of pages, all of which receive quite a bit of traffic. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right that it receives more traffic than I theorized. I have a feeling that my logic is right, though, in that it isn't nearly enough. ;-) I bet our methods of notifying people, outside of the watchlist notice, are pretty inadequate. It keeps a constant pressure on this page to advertise; whatever, when there are no alternatives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. The date linking and formatting poll starts tomorrow (Monday) at 0:00 (UTC). Could we please have a watchlist notice for it when it opens? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan's request is an important one. I hope that those in charge here may be able to respond promptly. Cheers. Tony (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: something as stupid-ass as date linking should never go on a village pump, much less be broadcast to every user. Simply because people make a lot of drama about something does not make it important. And there's sure as hell no reason to drag the rest of the project into this crap. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No one's in charge here, or just any admin reaching this talk page. Not sure it's particularly important for Wikipedia and warrants so much attention from the community. I understand it's aimed to resolve a long, particularly disruptive site-wide dispute, so I may not object, but.. I'll take this to AN to have more opinions. Cenarium (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think it's ridiculous that this is still being argued, but hopefully a watchlist notice will be what this issue needs to finally be resolved. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that two previous RfCs (1, 2) were previously allowed to have corresponding editnotices, so why the opposition? If you all want the drama to end once and for all, we need as much community input as possible. Your opinion on the issue is not relevant here. If you are not already aware, the issue has been extensively discussed in an arbitration case. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians WP:DGAF about date linking. Enough said. Geometry guy 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No comment on whether to get rid of it, but I'm able to dismiss it... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is dismissable like any other. I'm not sure what the issue could be. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If java was disabled at the user end, would it still work? Hiding T 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't dismissible on my watchlist and I have Java enabled as far as I know. Wikipedia isn't a democracy: editors contribute according to their interests. Placing endless polls on watchlists is a counterproductive distraction. Geometry guy 09:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't clear at this point, it is a dismissible notice, just as any other. You are having browser issues, or something. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only up for another five days, and given the edit wars it has already inspired, it'd be nice if we could avoid one here, or even causing one. I find it relatively easy to ignore. Hiding T 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to bear in mind for the future then. The notice now only appears when I click on "all" to go from watchlisting the last 7 days to all changes on my watchlist. This would seem more like a mediawiki "feature" than a browser issue. Does anyone else get the same? Geometry guy 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It stays gone on my Google chrome. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stays gone on firefox. Hiding T 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if some sort of Gadget were written ("BannersBeGone.js" or something) that hides the CentralNotice, the site notice, and the watchlist notice all in one. But, have the banners appear on pages where they're edited. For example, I have a script that hides the sitenotice on every page except MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Just a thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The final round of votings for the commons: 2008 Picture of the Year has begun, with voting open to memebrs of all projects. Any objections about advertising? Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2008/Voting — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Seems like it should be a notice on Commons, not here.
2. Your link is a nonexistent page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Link fixed (it'll need to be piped). No, objections, but an alternative is going through the project-wide site notice. That may require Communications Committee approval, however.--chaser - t 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. An advertisement for something taking place on Commons should be on Commons, not Wikipedia. There are already complaints about overuse for Wikipedia stuff, and we are expanding to other projects? I have removed it pending further discussion here. KnightLago (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be on Commons, not here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The POTY is usually mentioned here. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any indication that POTY has been advertised in either this or the various other site-notices linked at the top of this talk page. That said, this is not some parochial thing for which overuse arguments would be applicable; instead it's a popular and high-profile image contest on our most significant sister project. And it lasts for only ten days.--chaser - t 03:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe something will be done through a CentralNotice on Meta as it was in Jan-Feb. No need for anything local. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I intend to launch an RFC to determine community support for moving towards a tighter organisational model for ArbCom hearings. This would represent a clear break from the loose, expansionary model that has dominated ArbCom hearings. Thus, the feedback sought by the RFC will be of considerable importance.

The RFC will be fine-tuned over the next day or two. In particular, Coordinating Arbitrator Kirill has pointed out that one or two of the proposals may already be the subject of proposed changes on ArbCom's list for the next draft of its updated policy page, due mid-May. I will need to liaise with him about the final version.

I wonder whether I may put in a request that wide community input be encouraged by a watchlist notice of this RFC, probably starting late this week? Tony (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd much prefer that other venues like Template:CENT or the various village pumps be utilized first. Watchlist notices should be reserved for matters that affect most of the community. The inner workings of the Committee affect relatively very, very few editors. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and I was already intending to notify in those places. However, since many ArbCom hearings have major ramifications for the whole community (not least the influence on key policies in which decisions are cited), I do believe that during the two weeks of the RFC a watchlist-notice of four or five days would be appropriate. As well, the RFC concerns a very public process and is not restricted to the "inner workings of the Committee". Can we consider a notice of restricted duration? Tony (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a compromise of running one between Weds and Sun? I'm not sure of editing patterns, do we have any stats on that? I am wary of diluting the watchlist utility though. Have we addressed concerns that it wasn't dismissable across all browsers? Hiding T 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at [2] suggests that Thurs to Sun has similar reach to Weds to Sun, but has the advantadge of being shorter. I'd suggest Fri-Mon as another option, but Monday is a bank holiday some places, so that'd mean Fri-Tues, which is a longer period than maybe some would like. Perhaps Sat-Tues is another possibility? Hiding T 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has already begun here. Tony (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now already posted to {{cent}}, but I feel that this is exactly a matter which "affects most of the community" because how WP's ultimate "star chamber" works ultimately trickles down and affects everyone. What is more, what is ultimately decided could affect the standing of WP in the eyes of the outside world. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Click here to see my requested edit. -- IRP ☎ 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this discussion be watchlisted please. It is an issue which, if implemented, will affect every single Wikipedia editor whether IP or User. It therefore needs thorough discussion and debate to enable a broad consensus to be reached. I'm not too sure about a timescale, but would suggest at least to the end of June if not July. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Far too trivial to warrant a watchlist notice, IMO. Happy‑melon 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have launched an RFC that touches upon the intrinsic nature of our free culture, and that has garnered media attention in various forms -- MyWikiBiz, COI editing, and all related things:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing

I'm inclined to think this would be appropriate for the Watchlist for duration. What do you think? rootology (C)(T) 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it requires massive participation or that the conclusions would have widespread effect on Wikipedia and the community, cent and noticeboard announces should be enough to provide feedback on this matter. Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Well said. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--Aervanath (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. This has been a long-standing dispute (an arbitration case about it just closed) and will affect many articles. A watchlist notice would help draw enough outside attention to make a conclusion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. I'm not a big fan of watchlist notices for RFCs. WP:CENT should do for now.

The code still needs to be written, and BAG approval to be sought.

I think a watchlist notice will be more productive when there is a working bot that has had a trail run, inviting people to review the way it is running, and visualise how it will affect the articles that they monitor.

Also, the proposal indicates that there will be opt-out methods, for pages and for individual links - a watchlist notice should be used when those methods are finalised and formalised, so that as many people as possible are aware of how to go about doing that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An RFC is now open to determine community support for a proposal to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales. The five co-proposers request that this be given high priority for appearance in the banner as a critical issue of wide concern in the community.

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia. Tony (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The RFC does not seem to be well thought. It has a very long way to go before it can appear on the Watchlist. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Ruslik0. I understand the general level of frustration and the desire for change, but having hundreds of people swoop in and comment doesn't seem to be what's needed right now. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose addition per Ruslik. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ruslik0 and MZMcBride. —David Levy 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rejoinder: Apparently nearly 44% of participants, as of a few minutes ago, don't agree with you. (This discounts the 11 Neutrals, but they include partial supporters, such as an arbitrator who says: "I support reducing Jimmy Wales' role in a respectful way,...".) Therefore, I must ask whether this a subjective opinion, that the RFC "does not seem to be well thought through"? I'd like to be sure that the opposes here are uninvolved, purely NPOV considerations. And if there's to be on-the-hop judgement, I'd like to see some depth of reasoning. I see that at three of the users who have opposed—Ruslink0, MZMcBride and JulianCoulton—had already leapt in to vote within hours of the launching, all opposing the RFC, and then came over here to oppose its banner watchisting. Is that uninvolved? Tony (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Special:Watchlist was viewed 112,000 times yesterday alone; if we want to advertise a discussion to hundreds of thousands of editors, it needs to be extremely well-planned and executed. I don't feel this particular RfC is ready for community-wide attention at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I apologise for raising an "uninvolved" issue on this: I was under the distinct impression that only admins supported or opposed these applications. I screwed up. However, it doesn't resolve the matter of simply saying "I don't feel this particular RFC is ready", without reason. On an editorial level, there's something strange about opposing on the basis of a blanket, one-phrase reason. Tony (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also oppose adding this RFC to the watchlist notice. Template:Cent, where it is already included, is sufficient. If additional notice is required, a post to the Village Pump could be made but I don't see a need for adding it to the watchlist. --auburnpilot talk 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in part for the reasons above. If the RfC resulted in a more honed opinion that needed broader solicitation, then I could see using the watchlist notice, but for now CENT is good. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a valuable issue that should have more attention drawn to it instead of trying to bury it as some are doing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. To recap, watchlists notices are for exceptional events that would have a massive and widespread impact on Wikipedia, which may happen once or twice a year, probably much less. I don't think it's the case for this RFC, which is extremely focused. And there's been concerns on the structure of the RFC itself, which should be resolved before considering adding it. (And I also participated in the RFC, fwiw; but my opinion on watchlist notices is well known and it's a classic case.) Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As with Cenarium, I'm mostly opposed to watchlist notices for anything except things which will directly affect most editors. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, it won't really affect most people; relatively few editors actually have anything to do with ArbCom, (Disclaimer, I've already opposed the RFC).--Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think reducing Jimbo's power certainly does affect not just most editors, but all editors. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this particularly RfC, though, is focused on Jimbo's role within ArbCom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think this really effects the average pedian that much. I just went and voted on it, but only because of this discussion. Otherwise, Jimbo's role in regard to arbcom is only of interest to a select few. A few who check out CENT anyways. If this was about replacing Jimbo with a new body or something, that would be another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WRT to the actions of three users in the section above, who have gone from opposing in an RFC to opposing the application for watchlisting here—what is to prevent a cabal of voters from coming here to reinforce their opinion one way or the other? Has this never been an issue here before? Is there not a need for those who formally Oppose or Support here to be uninvolved as participants in the subject (whether they're admins or non-admins)? In a sort of way, it's akin to the policy against canvassing, which partly aims to stop "swamping". Tony (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that, with a few exceptions that are totally extraneous to this issue (e.g. banned users), anyone can comment on anything anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't see any need to go against this. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be for either the commentators themselves, or someone else, to note that they've also voted in the subject RFC. –xeno^talk

I know that for me, I only became aware of the RFC because I've watchlisted this page. The topic sounded, initially, like something that might actually be watchlist-worthy, but after seeing it, I registered my opinion there, and then came back here and expressed my opinion here. If I thought this was an issue that would actually affect a large number of editors, then I would support it. I.e., if a much more radical change in ArbCom was being proposed, and the RFC was not getting enough traffic, then I would support a watchlist notice, even if I opposed the proposal. However, in this case, the changes won't really affect the majority of users.--Aervanath (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue for me is, as not whether the proposal itself is a good idea, but whether innundating that proposal with potentially thousands of completely uninformed visitors is a good idea. What a watchlist notice will do is bring in more editors, who may or may not have a useful opinion on the subject, than most discussions can cope with. Issues should come to the watchlist after being extensively discussed and having moved into the 'final rubber stamp' stage: essentially the only thing you can constructively do with the huge numbers of incoming editors is get them to vote on something, which totally solidifies whatever it is you're voting on. Adding a watchlist notice marks the end of the discussion period, not the start of it: it's when you've finished discussing and want to reach a conclusion. At the stage when the watchlist request above was first made, the discussion had been between exactly five people; like many other proposals it has moved to a vote far too early, solidifying horrible technical issues (some of which I have raised, some of which have been noted by others) that mean it is never going to 'pass'. Which is a shame because the underlying issue is worthy of discussion. I think most of the comments on the request above correctly cite these issues, which make it inappropriate for the issue to be watchlisted, rather than any suggestion that the discussion itself is inappropriate. Happy‑melon 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be a notice that candidacy submissions to Wikimedia's Board of Trustees elections are now possible. Markus Schulze 14:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we added one last year (just by a quick skim through the history from May 2008). Also, I assume that there will be a global notice from meta which will be on all projects so that would make adding it here unnecessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I assume there will be a CentralNotice. If one is not already planned, it will be soon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a watchlist notice for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009. A watchlist notice was added for the previous election, and removed once it was over. There was also a notice added once the results where published, and removed three days later. When we announced this upcoming election, Cenarium (talk · contribs) requested that we initiate a discussion on the talk page if we thought it was desirable to have a watchlist. (see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections)

I think it would be good to have a watchlist notice appear when the election starts on July 28, or perhaps slightly before so that people can read up on it before the election begins. The ArbCom election is always advertised on the watchlist per Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#Standing notices, and I think that checkusers and oversight election should be widely known as well in order that the community is aware of who is seeking additional roles that depend on trust from the community, and either informs Arbcom if there are significant concerns which we have overlooked, and/or participates in the election. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to have a notice during the election. They're dismissible using JavaScript and hideable using CSS. If people don't want to see them, they have a number of options available to them. I'm not usually a huge fan of multi-week notices, but I do think inviting people to ask questions would be nice (those start July 26). It doesn't have to be an all-or-none affair, too. You could advertise the questions for two days, let the election run for a few days, then advertise for a final push.... --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support this. Put it up on July 26, when the candidates have already posted their statements, and the pages become open for questions. That message should contain the details of when and where questions can be posted, and also when the voting starts and ends (and where to do that). That message should run through August 10 (the end of voting). Then, when the results come through, we can put up a message linking to the results for three or four days.--Aervanath (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support as long as all is properly presented and explained. Most of those who will come and look won't be versed in wikipolitics and won't have a clue on what is a CU or OS. I don't know if it's finalized or not, but as of now, the presentation is extremely unsatisfactory, not even links ! And it's protected... Don't add it in this poor state. Cenarium (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I added three links, to WP:OVERSIGHT, WP:CHECKUSER and wmf:Privacy policy. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a link to ArbCom. Cenarium (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the watchlist notice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia UK watchlist notice is problematic to editors using the "green on black" gadget - only the wikilinks are visible, other text appears in black on a black background. DuncanHill (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a notice added via this page. Maybe Geonotice? Happy‑melon 12:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a notice that shows up on my watchlist (or did till I dismissed it). It had no indication of where editors should go to comment on problems with it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't saying this is the 'wrong' place to go; I'm just as confused as you are. We should probably have a centralised place to discuss all these notices... Happy‑melon 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You can comment at WP:Geonotice, where there is a section for the UK notice.--Pharos (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, is that a fifth kind of notice along with the four mentioned at the top of this page? DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I'm not a technical person so I wouldn't necessarily know the proper classification of it.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal here to create a talknotice, a dismissible notice displayed on all talk pages, for community announcements. Your input is requested there. Cenarium (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we publicize this via the watchlist. –xeno^talk 19:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The process to appoint three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are interested, please see the election page for the qualifications and application process. Applications will be accepted until October 22, with voting beginning October 30.

• Seems like a good idea to me. Poor publicity was a not minor issue in the last ArbCom-operated election on this project, so a watchlist notice would be particularly welcome. AGK 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed extraneous info, copy edited. I would post this for 5-7 days, and do it now. Waiting too much longer will not give applicants time to contact arbcom. Thatcher 17:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and added this, there was no objections and as Thatcher points out, it is a time sensitive matter. –xeno^talk 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#SiteWideMessages to use Extension:SiteWideMessages or a variant to send user talk page messages, input would be appreciated. Cenarium (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (to be posted when voting open on 30 October):

Wikipedia is electing users to monitor the use of the CheckUser and Oversight permissions as members of the Audit Subcommittee. You may review the candidates, ask questions, and cast your vote at the election page. Voting is open until 23:59 8 November (UTC).

--Thatcher 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-tweaked to include questions. Thatcher 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, although you could probably just say "until 8 November". Details of the exact finishing time will be on the election page if anyone wants to know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "electing users" could probably be linked to Wikipedia:Elections, once a section is written there for the AUSC elections. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to be posted now. This is very important because the reason (as far as I can tell) that we are revisiting some of these issues is that the RfC we had a few months ago was not widely advertised.

A RfC is currently in progress to decide on the term lengths, election method, and number of seats for the Arbitration Committee here.

— Jake Wartenberg 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is something that matters to the average 'pedian. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about a notice for the Arbcom RFC, though it might be a little late in the game for one. The discussion is at CENT, in the signpost, and posted all over the place, so a watchlist notice may not be that helpful - but I do not object to one, if there's consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom Elections for 2009 are coming up soon, and are typically featured in a watchlist notice. As per previous discussions, I'd like to discuss the proposed messages. I would propose the following:

• 10 November - 24 November: "Candidates for the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections are invited to nominate themselves."
• 24 November - 1 December: Nothing
• 1 December - 15 December: "Voting for the December 2009 Arbitration Committee election is now open."

These notices match the notices posted for the elections of 2007 and 2008, and I believe that the election of the Arbitration Committee is of sufficient importance as to justify a notice of this type. The Arbcom Elections RFC is ongoing, and may result in a switch over to secret ballotting, in which I'd propose the alternative voting notice, with the appropriate securepoll (or whatever) link at Here.

• 1 December - 15 December: "Voting for the December 2009 Arbitration Committee election is now open. Cast your vote Here."

Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then I'll go ahead and add a notice for nominations in a few hours, citing past precedent and practice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If I don't happen to be around in 2 hours, could someone add the following notice and increment the number? Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_60">''Candidates for the '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009|December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements|nominate themselves]].'''''</div>

Belated support for the whole campaign and a note that I've implemented Phase 2: the nothing period. –xeno^talk 01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All the voting on CDA's development (see esp WP:CDADR) has been very admin-heavy (as have all branches of 'admin-recall' development), which obviously poses huge problems in such a major proposal as this one, where admins are so central to it.

Finally, there is now consensus for the basis of a single proposal to 'go to' the public. It is easy to get admin's broad attention, but almost impossible to achieve the same with editors. Had I (and no-doubt others) realised this 'suggestions' page existed (I found out today), I would have proposed CDA here as soon as I felt the Watchlist was the only place we could make this fair - and it seems to me that it is.

This could be advertised as a proposal in its finalising stages. I think the RfC of the finished CDA needs to be watch-advertised at very least, but surely the community also have a right to engage in what kind of CDA will be proposed there, and this should be watchlisted now. I actually believe this could genuinely lead to a different 'form' of CDA too, but that's just my opinion. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good idea

1. when the RfC is underway
2. if it is not attracting enough response from editors (through Template:Cent, etc.)

Putting it up now is probably premature. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like 60,000 articles may get deleted, depending on the outcome of this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. I'd say that's a big enough deal to use the watchlist notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Done.©Geni 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

{{sudo}} Should use italics, a &bull;, and needs an &nbsp; at the end. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the right place?  Skomorokh  02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks for the speedy response. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kool and the Gang.  Skomorokh  04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is long enough now? The RfC has certainly received a massive response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still getting a lot of traffic, and is due to "pause" by Feb 1st, so perhaps the banner ought to run until then?  Skomorokh  20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

yes I would say let it sit til the 1st. –xeno^talk 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the notice is still there but the discussion is closed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Realized I could remove it, so I did. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is moving toward closure. Can this notice be updated to change from "You are invited to comment on the second phase .." to "You are invited to help close ..."

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this most recent notice regarding the meaning of "contentious" in the BLP policy really necessary? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst I think the main BLP RFC should go up when the tinkering is done, I see no need for this - Stick with WP:CENT. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Some admin should take it down. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the three objections, I've taken down the notice. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit box & monospace style changes, I suggest

• Users with experimental features enabled (accessible at Preferences → Editing tab → Experimental features section) are experiencing a significantly altered editing environment. Rich text and other enhancements have been made as part of Usability Team efforts.

I imagine that there are more users who haven't made it to VP(T) who are still wondering why editing has suddenly begun to suck so much. - BanyanTree 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking silence as enthusiastic support, and in light of the Usability team manager noting that the issue is real and that the preferred workaround is for users to change their preferences, I have added a message. - BanyanTree 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the message a bit confusing, as I don't think I have a babaco, nor do I think it would need an enhanced extension if I had one. On a more serious note, I am surprised to see that so many people seem to use the editing toolbar; my editing experience has been much better since I turned it off and no longer accidentally click on its buttons, causing formatting to appear that I don't want and that I can't remove with an undo button. Typing is so much faster than clicking... —Кузьма^討論 09:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It relates to the 'Beta' features by the Usability Initiative. I have changed the wording to make it a bit clearer. mattbr 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Wonderful. Now can you put it inside the cookie div instead of outside it—that is, change

<div id="watchlist-message">
<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_67"></div> &bull; Several bugs [...] Experimental features.
</div>

to

<div id="watchlist-message">
<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_67"> &bull; Several bugs [...] Experimental features.</div>
</div>

—so that the dismiss-message javascript works? —Korath (Talk) 10:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This was done by Closedmouth. mattbr 13:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. You spend your time making sure you aren't misspelling anything and... Thanks to Mattbr and Closedmouth for their assistance. - BanyanTree 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please post the following for thirty five–seven days:

A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy. You are invited to join the discussion.

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As this poll has been set to run a full month (which seems a little excessive to me, but that's not relevant), I don't think it will be beneficial to run this notice now. It certainly can't be expected to run a full month. If opinions are needed in, say, the last week of the poll, I suggest rewording it and adding it then. But until then, I think we should hold off posting this. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about having the notice on watch pages for so long. Could we, perhaps, list it now, for a shorter amount of time (perhaps five days), in order to start the process, as opposed to listing it at the end? In my opinion, this issue is of major interest to the community, and it would be appropriate to bring it to the attention of as many editors as possible, not just those who watch administration-related pages. (As for your secondary point about running the RfC for a month, I think that's typical of RfCs, but I do understand your major point that a watchlist notice could become annoying over such a long time.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with that. In case anyone else wants to chime in, I'll leave this open for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support running it for a week. I agree that it's sufficiently important for a watchlist notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support running it for at least a week. This is one of those things that affects the whole community and needs very broad input.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it now. It's been on for a week and the discussion has had a lot of input now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No complaints.--Father Goose (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's currently a poll going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Search box poll 2010 about the location of the search box. I'm not sure if it deserves a notice but as it affects every user I thought I'd mention it here. Will it be put on the watchlist noticeboard?--Patton123 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can someone change

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_73" id="CU/OSelection">• ''The voting phase of the '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election|May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight elections]]''' has begun. If you wish to vote, please review the candidate statements and then visit [[Special:SecurePoll]]. Voting ends one minute past 23:59 UTC on May 27, 2010. </div>

to

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_73" id="CU/OSelection">• ''The voting phase of the '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election|May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight elections]]''' has begun. If you wish to vote, please review the candidate statements and then visit [[Special:SecurePoll]]. Voting ends one minute past 23:59 UTC on May 27, 2010.''</div>

Notice that the first is missing the end of the italics. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Prodego ^talk 04:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback, so we can get some good feedback about PCP overall from the enwiki community to improve the PC feature. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've copy-edited it. I'm happy with this message, but please discuss it first, next time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do next time, I thought I was being bold so I just went ahead and added it. 山本一郎 (会話) 08:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose changing the link entry in the text "your watchlist" to link to the edit watchlist page rather than the page about watchlists, since the way the sentence is worded will draw the average user to using that link to editing their watchlist.

You have '''$1''' {{PLURAL:$1|page|pages}} on your [[Help:Watching pages|watchlist]] (excluding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]]).

becomes

You have '''$1''' {{PLURAL:$1|page|pages}} on [[Special:Watchlist/edit|your watchlist]] (excluding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]]).

Since this might be controversial, I have decided not to put the editprotected on it immediately. Any opinions? —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that linking both may make more sense:

You have '''$1''' {{PLURAL:$1|page|pages}} on [[Special:Watchlist/edit|your]] [[Help:Watching pages|watchlist]] (excluding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]]).

Best of both worlds. bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep the link to the help page, how about this?

on [[Special:Watchlist/edit|your watchlist]] ([[Help:Watchlist|about]]), excluding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]].

—Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do we need another link to edit the watchlist when there already is one directly above ("View and edit watchlist")? TDL (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it took me bloody ages to work that out, so I suppose it's reasonable to expect that newer editors might have trouble finding it. I'd suggest publicising this discussion a bit. I fear that if I implemented the change now, people wouldn't have chance to oppose until they saw the changes on their watchlist and might not know where to go to express their dislike of the change. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The pending changes poll is over. Please remove the watchlist notice. – Smyth\^talk 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Prodego ^talk 14:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)