MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 9

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=15 November 2016
 |cookie=274
 |text='''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|Nominations]]''' for the [[WP:ACE2016|2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections]] are open until Tuesday, 23:59, 15 November (UTC).
}}

I've just copied and modified the announcement from last year. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Though the next cookie number was 273. :) Mike V • Talk 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah shoot. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

It is showing now. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=18 November 2016
 |cookie=275
 |text=Due to recent [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_accounts_still_getting_compromised|account compromises]], administrators are advised to [[Help:Reset_password|change their passwords]].
}}

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 14:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone add "A discussion is in progress to establish whether or not an editor without the "new page reviewer" user right should be prohibited from patrolling new pages." or something similar? The RfC has already been placed at {{centralized discussion}}, and the two previous discussions were widely publicized as well. The results of this RfC could have fairly wide-ranging impacts, so I think it would be best to get as much participation in it as possible. Withdrawn it was decided at the RfC page that this wasn't needed. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC).

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/RfC_on_patrolling_without_user_right before deciding if this is needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To post at 0:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC):

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= December 5, 2016
 |cookie=276
 |text='''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|Voting]]''' in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]] is open to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016#Timeline|eligible]] editors until Sunday, 23:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
}}

Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Activating edit request. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• The 2017 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2017. Signups are open until February 5th. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition. This year's prize pool is $425.

@Cwmhiraeth: (ping) — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I should think your version would be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to request a watch list message be placed regarding the current RFC at WT:Harassment over changes to the outing policy. This policy change has wide ranging implications that could result in the outing of several editors' off wiki identities.

I'd like a generic "You are invited to participate in an RFC regarding a proposed change to the Harassment policy" or however the RFC notices are usually displayed if possible.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@

T:CENT to see how much "advertisement" support there is. — xaosflux ^Talk

05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WT:COI and already listed on CENT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk

05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thats it I got turned around. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So this is actually a RfC on the COI guideline? We don't normally watchlist notice guideline RfC's. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that Xaosflux however I'd argue this is a fairly important one to consider making an exception for. This will pretty much give outing a gold star allowing editors to reveal someone's identity over some perceived COI. This is something that doesn't just effect a small group of editors. This is something that could allow someone to link to anthers actual identity on wiki, regardless of how anyone feels about this particular issue it should be made known as much as possible to the community. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cameron11598 Is any part of the discussion going to suggest promoting this guideline to a policy? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: from my reading it could potentially change the Outing Policy too not just the COI guidelines --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so "in general" policy changes belong here - can you rewrite the blurb, mentioning the policy change - and update CENT, and make sure the other policy page directed to the RfC that may change policy to make sure it is well advertised first? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Xaosflux. The location of this RfC is quite odd/obscure, given that if some of the proposals which currently have a good deal of support pass, we'll actually be substantially changing Wikipedia:Harassment to allow some limited outing on-wiki. The page on harassment and outing is a policy. Hope that clears things up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree if this is policy impacting it warrants a watchlist notice - the actual policy talk being possibly being changed should tagged to the RfC that will impact it, and just verifying we have a accurate notice text to go here - the notice should mention the policy and likley guideline being reviewed and the bold link should be to the actual RfC. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting a Watchlist notice for the following election:

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

• Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February. Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:CENT? I'm not sure if it would belong there but it seems like it would? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs}

16:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar: I've thought about it but I'm not sure if elections are allowed to be posted there. I've asked for a watchlist notice though, we'll see if that gets allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think a watchlist notice for every editor is overkill for selecting coordinators for wikiprojects.
  T:CENT may be more appropriate as it is more of an opt-in; though mass message to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list (perhaps as part of such a newsletter) is probably the best approach. — xaosflux ^Talk
  18:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD - at the very least would an uninvovled administrator please review this. — xaosflux ^Talk
    00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Uninvolved admin note - I have to agree with xaosflux on this one. Even though NPR has clear site-wide importance, it seems that only editors that have been involved in page patrolling are likely to find this notification useful. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Mr Coffee, at the last count, as Xaosflux knows, there are at least 1,400 new page patrollers... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Aye Kudpung, but that's out of 135,640 currently active editors. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have already explained to Xaosflux elsewhere that this is not a Wiki project. Unlike AfC, MilHist, WP:WPSCH, etc, NPP is a core function and one governed by policy under the aegis of the Foundation. Obviously the lack of interest in the way Wikipedia quality is controlled is more extensive than I thought. Dissapointing really, especially as Xaosflux has been involved with this NPP project from the moment I went live with it in October and knows only too well how much time and energy I've put into it. I will remind that every autoconfirmed user is a de facto page patroller. Or does someone have another idea how we are supposed to reach them? And if they do, kindly use their time to do it. These are some of the reasons why I'm stepping back from an active role on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• While I am supportive of the new page reviewing project in general - I don't personally think this project's election warrants this type of notice, and suggested some alternatives above. As far as potential policy matters, every edit is "governed by policy" - that's what policies do. I'm not seeing any community or foundation policy that requires formal coordination, much less named coordinators. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Taking a step back, I am not seeing where this election idea has been discussed on-wiki. Has Kudpung acted unilaterally in setting this up? Where is the consensus that such elected positions are needed? If this process has broad community consensus then I could easily support the watchlist notice, but there is no evidence of this yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have marked the request declined. There is no evidence of consensus for such elected positions (though seemingly not completely elected since Kudpung added himself as coordinator emeritus). There is no basis for providing any kind of authority to such "coordinators" (which the stated need to use admin tools would suggest). Per longstanding consensus, no editor can have any kind of special status compared to others, except if there is sitewide consensus for it (such as the Arbitration Committee or the Bot Approval Group). I appreciate the need of recognition expressed by Kudpung, but this isn't the way to get it, your efforts are already much appreciated, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think a lot of you are misunderstanding the role of a coordinator here. The coordinators are volunteer positions with no extra power over any other editor. They're merely points of contact to help new page reviewers, perform some measure of quality control (awarding trivial "awards" to those doing a good job, bringing those doing a bad job to community attention if necessary), and generally coordinate efforts to continue improving the new page reviewing process. This has nothing to do with recognition, Cenarium, although no-one could doubt the high quality of the job Kudpung has been performing for years. This is about having a go-to person with regard to new page reviewing. It also gives a go-to person to act as a liason between the new page reviewing community and the WMF, something which is badly needed to develop and maintain smooth relations and technical support for new page patrolling. I shared many of the concerns expressed here when I initially saw the nominations being made, but after a review of the actual tasks to be performed by the coordinator listed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination, it's very clear that there's no "power" conferred by the position. Allowing the community to designate someone as a point of contact for a task is well within the bounds of what's acceptable. As for ensuring the consensus is widespread, well, that's what this watchlist notice is about! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If no authority were granted to coordinators, then surely there would be no need for any of them to be sysops for the stated purpose to use the tools. You mention liaising with the WMF, it's something anyone can do and I for example, as a developer, have done on several occasions and not being a coordinator shouldn't prevent me from doing so. I sincerely hope this won't devolve into a bureaucratic mess. And sorry but an emeritus position has everything to do with recognition. Cenarium (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Of course they are misunderstanding it, BU Rob13. They are just flexing their muscles as self-appinted 'coordinators' of the watchlist notice project. Note also (to use a hackneyed RfC vote rationale) that WP:WLNI ...is a how-to guide, detailing processes or procedures of some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I think we should have an RfC and then an election for coordinators here. Lighten up Cenarium, or do you, like so many others - apparently - really want Wikipedia to bcomee history in a couple of years - a dinosaur of the Internet full of junk that no one wants or can trust? If you're such a good developer, most notably, the pioneer of a concept of some MediaWiki extension designed to keep the encyclpedia cleaner , why don't you help the Page Curaton extension instead of taking swipes at those who also do some of the real work around here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You're being unhelpful, and I'm not the one who brought this thread back from the grave. You seem to think that only new page patrolling matters, and as long as new pages are OK everything is OK, you forget that pages can be edited when they're no longer new. All the work at NPP would go to waste if pages were subsequently allowed to turn into, as you say, junk. And I'm a volunteer, I do what I want, you don't dictate me where I should contribute. And no, it's not flexing one's muscle, it's what sysops are selected for: determining if and when protected pages should be edited. Cenarium (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot I's RfX Reporter bot can be expanded to cycle the cookie when a new RfX shows up. Now that I'm an admin, it would be trivial to add. Thoughts?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In prior discussions this was purposefully left manual to avoid flagging people for nominations that are likely to be SNOW/NOTNOW'd. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh. That would be easy to detect though, but ok.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you get it to include Xaosflux's fun edit summaries? That's really the only reason I keep this on my watch list. For what it's worth, I think a proof of concept might be interesting to see if you think you can weed out the potential snow closes. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally easy to detect. The bot can simply ignore the RfA if it has a support rating of less than 30%. Those generally get SNOW closed or withdrawn fast.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 02:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Need sources? The

Feel free to copy-edit as necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Added it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting a new notice, displayed until=1 April 2017

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

Thanks. (I'm also leaving pointers at some of the larger WikiProjects, and group noticeboards.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support notice but 3 weeks is probably longer than needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say 1 week is more appropriate, but 3 is too long.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that works. This is a deliberately long and slow multi-stage process, so 1 week seems fine (I've updated the date above, from 14 April to 1 April). I (or whoever else volunteers to help facilitate the Enwiki local discussion) will probably request one or two more in the months ahead, but they'll be more detailed, less general. Thanks all. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done --

to explain

) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think you may want to run an announcement similar to this one from last year.

It could say something like this:

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

There is also more information at

Done —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= May 15, 2017
 |cookie= 303
 |text=New '''[[WP:The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library]]''' free research access: '''[[Wikipedia:Bloomsbury|Bloomsbury]]''' (''Who's Who'', Drama Online, Berg Fashion Library, and ''Whitaker's''), '''[[Wikipedia:American Psychiatric Association|American Psychiatric Association]]''' (psychiatry books and journals), '''[[w:fi:Wikipedia:Wikipedian Lähdekirjasto/Gaudeamus|Gaudeamus]]''' (Finnish humanities and social sciences), '''[[w:fi:Wikipedia:Wikipedian Lähdekirjasto/Ympäristö-lehti|Ympäristö-lehti]]''' (Finnish Environment Institute magazine), and expansion of available '''[[WP:Gale|Gale]]''' and '''[[WP:Adam Matthew|Adam Matthew]] resources.  Many other resources are [[m:The Wikipedia Library/Databases|still available]]. Sign up!
}}

Displays as

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

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

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

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

@Quiddity (WMF). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

One month? Isn't that a bit long?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Following the links says to go to a survey, but it is "coming soon" - when is that going live? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: the Cycle 2 will last a month, between tomorrow and June, 9. There are local pages for that (meaning, the discussions don't take place exclusively on Meta - they deserve to be announced here). It'd be nice if there was info throughout entire period. @Xaosflux: as for the survey - after Saturday. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As the "call to action" of the message will be to drive people to the page, waiting for the survey to be live is probably a good idea, or they may not come back. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but we receive much more feedback on wiki than from surveys. On-wiki feedback is basic, and surveys are only additional. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty, but as Xaosflux said, I'm not going to add it until the survey is up. What time tomorrow will that be?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The survey bullet point can be hidden with <!-- --> in the meantime. The Cycle 2 starts just "tomorrow", so I expect 00:00 UTC is fine. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So far,  Undone. #1, today is yesterday's tomorrow and it's still commented, and #2, the Cycle 2 ends on June 12, not 9. (Sorry, I'm just a messenger, I have no influence on the dates and changes). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have activated the message for a week which is the standard timeframe. If there is consensus for longer then we can extend it. Also removed the italic formatting because we don't usually use that style on these messages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I used italics only because it was a quotation. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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

 Done I have extended it to June 12.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does "Join the Cycle 2" sound weird to anyone else? Shouldn't it either be "Join Cycle 2" (best choice, IMHO) or "Join the Second/second/2nd Cycle? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  It sounds a bit odd - what bugged me more is it seems this is already on global notice (?) - requiring multiple dismissals. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cycle 3

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

There will be fresh content once a week throughout July, so ideally it would remain open that long, or be renewed once or twice over the month, but I understand if that is objected to. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I'm already seeing this via a force banner campaign - see notes above. Only weakly opposing - if another admin wants to add it they should feel free. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: If it is already a global notice we shouldn't be duplicating it here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@

@TonyBallioni: I only provided copy editing on this - assuming it should be in place, standard bolding, etc is appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a disputed notice with no prior discussion to putting it up, I have taken it down for now. Feel free to put it back up when this is resolved.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No objection to reversion (I just got a "you were reverted" alert); if it comes back, please bold the call to action. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm not sure this RfC rises to the level of needing a talk page notice. Most of the current discussion is either "Why is this RfC happening?" or "I oppose all the ideas". I currently have no opinion on any of the proposals currently, but I was wondering how it got to the watchlist without a consensus that the RfC was necessary and that it should be there. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was added to the watchlist more than an hour before it was added to the RfC lists. We typically only put an RfC on watchlist some time after it has been publicised through normal RfC channels. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Plan to add this active RFC:

• A request for comment is currently open regarding allowing account creators the ability to mark new accounts as confirmed.

Any comments or objections? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. –xeno^talk 18:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

An RfC has commenced at

• A request for comment is currently open regarding restricting use of media commentary in articles on current events.

-- Coretheapple (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• No need at this time: hasn't been advertised through the usual channels yet: no CENT notice. I'm not sure it would be neccesary even after that: we're talking about one paragraph to NOT, not anything that would change userrights, affect WMF policy, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I dd see ot added to Centralized discussions, if that's what you're referring to. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, don't know why I missed that; I'll blame it on being on mobile. The other point still stands: this is not actually a major change and falls well short of what normally gets a watchlist notice. There is no need to add it at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think adding a paragraph to a fundamental Wikipedia policy is by definition major, and would have a major impact on how articles on current events are created (for better or worse, depending upon one's position). I've seen less consequential proposals advertised on watchlists. Coretheapple (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we add something like:

• The
  ACTRIAL
  experiement is currently running which retricts non-autoconfirmed users from creating articles in the main namespace.

Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done with an expiry of 1 week, should be long enough for interested editors to see the notice --

to explain

) 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:There'sNoTime User:Kaldari Please take that banner off immediately. This is a very bad idea with no support from ACTRIAL participants [1] It will actually harm the trial. Ping User:Kudpung Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a watchlist notice is superfluous to requirements. It could even inspire people to exploit various workarounds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@

to explain

) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

thank-you. I'm not sure how it got listed there, someone's idea I guess Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Echo. However, my edit will notify Kaldari. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

At the moment, this is sentence the your wiki: "You have $1 pages on your

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

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

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

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): I think the change of wording is fine, but removing the help links is not. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, why should those be removed? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine that the links would still be present, and Trizek simply forgot to include them. Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care for unbolding the number either. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): We plan to make this change - We, the English Wikipedia community put a lot of effort in to customizing this message and do not expect it to be changed here without consensus here. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note, this is not to say that new verbiage may not be welcome, just that we don't expect it to be implemented out of process. Feel free to place a ready-to-go edit request for your proposal. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion in the post by Trizek (WMF) or the interpretation of it. As far as I can tell, the only change is that the MediaWiki default for MediaWiki:Watchlist-details has been reformulated. The English Wikipedia has customized the message and our version is shown both before and after the change so nothing changes for us. It only affects wikis without a customized message, and users with other languages at Special:Preferences than our default "en - English". We have also customized MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/en-gb so British English is unaffected here, but Canadian English (en-ca) is affected, and those foreign languages which have made a similar change to the MediaWiki default. MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/en-ca displays the new default so it's seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?uselang=en-ca. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

If we can't add the alert for that long, could it be added for whatever length is more appropriate but immediately before the start of November? Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: have funds actually been secured for this, as well as how they will be dispersed? The project page referenced above suggests they are still pending. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: - I'm going to have to call in Dr. B to answer that as he's been the central organising force behind this. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Echo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't realised that. Miyagawa (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

 Done posted for 2 weeks. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=October 14, 2017
 |cookie=325
 |text=Editors are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission|nominate themselves]]''' to serve on the 2017 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59, 13 October 2017.
}}

Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I supposed not, it is only for a day - may need to extend this date a bit... — xaosflux ^Talk 03:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No objections here. And yes, the date should probably be extended a bit. Alex Shih^Talk 03:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've added the notice and made adjustments to the deadlines somewhat unilaterally. I apologize for going a bit out of process with those deadline shifts, but I agree that it's necessary in order to move the process forward – see also talk page discussion. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Is it possible to make the watchlist notice expire earlier, now that there are many nominations? I've noticed there may be a setback to this notice, that it may confuse some (even experienced) editors that this is the nomination for the actual committee, since in the past it is only the actual election that receives a watchlist notice, if I am not mistaken. Alex Shih^Talk 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Sure thing. I've just adjusted the watchlist notice to expire October 14 instead. Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Does anyone object to this move? In particular, are there reasons why the help links are in -details and not in -summary that I don't know about? For example, did someone try to move it in the past and break things? --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@

MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details/Archive_9#malformed_HTML. Feel free to write up a sandbox version of proposed changes. — xaosflux ^Talk

23:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If we do this, should we consider creating something like

MediaWiki:watchlist-notices and transcluding that into MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary instead ? If we are moving it anyway, might as well make it a more strict separation of functionality ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs

) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Or watchlist-messages, since that's what the classname is as well ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheDJ: I support your suggestion, that way we can have it live in a place that doesn't depend on the technical detail of which message it's embedded in. And if it does need to be in a message together with other content, your solution still allows it to be maintained separately. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I think what you proposed there last year is exactly what I want to do. Andy W. thought it through a lot better than I did and listed all the other things we'd have to update. I'll work on a sandbox version of it today or tomorrow. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: — xaosflux ^Talk 21:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Basic part of the move done. If this is stable for a few hours, I suggest we update all the documentation etc.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

more details: MediaWiki:watchlist-details partly moved to MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary and split the actual messages into MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. I updated {{Display/watchlist}} and moved the editnotice to Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. P.S. We'll need talk page banners for the respective talk pages. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Initial move looks good, messages are displaying. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we also move the discussion pages now btw ? It seems that this location is a bit out of place.. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices would be a better centralised discussion page ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've checked, and almost the entire archives are about watchlist messages, so we could easily move and merge them with Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that we lose watchers. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can be avoided if we do a proper move right ? Then we can hist merge and everything should be fine. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In my understanding, if you move A to B, everyone watching A now automatically watches B. So if you move this to Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices or MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages, I think watchlists should be a non-issue. Maybe an issue could arrive with hard-coded page titles in scripts or bots, but that's corner case? — Andy W. (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm ok with a move, but note, MOST requests are for adding a message - so perhaps
  MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details should get the MOVE to it? — xaosflux ^Talk
  18:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @TheDJ: The processes for various notices are inconsistent (Geonotices use the project page itself, not the talk page for requests). While moving this to the WT page you mentioned makes sense, I think moving this to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages would be less of jarring drastic change for requesters and admins. Also, if this were just simply moved to the MediaWiki talk page, there's no need for histmerge. (There's probably no need for a histmerge for the WT page anyway, right, as that existing page could just be considered Archive 6 or Archive 10, no?) Furthermore, the {{navbar}} transclusion at MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary makes it convenient to navigate directly to the discussion. Let me know if I have some of this incorrect.

  Xaosflux The to-do list as I personally see it:

  1. Move this and its talk subpages → MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages.
  2. Update the outdated links to the MW and MW talk pages at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Global rights policy, Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia post-move.

  — Andy W. (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  TheDJ (courtesy ping) ... think we're in agreement about a move. Unless someone jumps on this before I do, or if there are any objections from anyone, I'd like to volunteer to perform the above 2 steps in about a week's time. — Andy W. (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Andy M. Wang: ok with me ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  OK. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Seems done. updates — Andy W. (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#The_Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017. Probably a good idea to have a watchlist notice for this I guess. My suggestion:

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

CC. Johan, Samwalton9. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There'll be a CentralNotice banner coming up soon, FYI. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer this to not be BOTH a watchlist notice and a central notice, but getting the word out is important. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update link target from [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]] to [[Help:Talk pages|talk pages]]. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

{{

notdone}} @FlightTime: MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages does not contain this text, did you mean another page? — xaosflux ^Talk

19:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly MediaWiki:Watchlist-details ? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If so,  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

• The 2018 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2018. Signups are open until the end of January. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition.

The contest currently has 23 signups, but there are probably many editors who are unaware of its existence and would enjoy taking part, and further competitors are always welcome. Last year, more than 100 editors joined after the banner invitation went out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than placing an enigmatic, padlocked, template message at the top of this request, perhaps you could explain what I am required to do to publicise the start of the 2018 WikiCup by using a banner message on editors' watchlist pages. My request above was based on a similar request I made on 28 December 2016. Last year my request was actioned without problem and the present request does not seem to me to be controversial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: that just placed it in the admin review queue to attract more attention - you don't have to do anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought I had done something wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• The 2018 WikiCup began on January 1, 2018. Signups are open until the end of the month. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition.

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 22:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 22:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn

 – Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the discussion at

Sample implementation:

• A
  autoconfirmed
  users.

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= April 20, 2018
 |cookie=337
 |text=A '''[[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation|request for comment]]''' is in progress to determine whether mainspace article creation should [[WP:ACTRIAL|continue to be]] restricted to [[WP:AUTOCONFIRM|autoconfirmed]] users.
}}