MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 13

Proposal to create new commission to choose administrators

We are currently discussing whether to establish the Wikipedia:Administrative Standards Commission, and the discussion for this is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: alternative to RfA: appointment of administrators. Would this be appropriate for the watchlist? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, if it starts getting a bunch of traction maybe — xaosflux Talk 04:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
After a day, there are 16 supporters and 14 opposers for the proposal. This seems like enough support to warrant a notice for wider discussion. How about the following:
  • A proposal for a new administrator appointment system is now being discussed.
I won't post the notice myself, as I am one of the 16 supporters. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This has had a week so should now be removed. I would remove it, but I took part in the discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
     Done –xenotalk 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Why pull it now? The RfC doesn't end until 00:48, 26 December 2014, and the watchlist notice was set up on that basis - hence the parameter |until=00:48, 26 December 2014 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    If you want to put it back, I won't object. I removed it based on the suggestion by SilkTork and the fact that the opposition is outpacing the support quite rapidly - the RFC will continue but I don't see much need to advertise it on the watchlist anymore. –xenotalk 23:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for watchlist notification

Hi there, I was wondering if it'd be possible to add a Watchlist notice to advertise signups for the Wikipedia:WikiCup? Suggested text:

  • The 2015 WikiCup has started! It is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. Signups are here. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 23:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Link change to the xTools edit counter

Since the link has been changed, and this is a widely used tool on this site I would like to request the following be added for about 7 days.

"The link to X!'s edit counter and articleinfo have changed. All links must be changed from "tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/" to "tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/ and "tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/" to "tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/"

Naturally redirects have been setup, but they end up timing out most of the time to the current unstable state of xtools. These links point to, hopefully, more stable locations of the tools.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 19:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Bump
  • +1 as a maintainer and pinging Jackmcbarn, Xaosflux, and MusikAnimal (another maintainer) to get eyes on this. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm actually getting pretty sick of these constant updates--what's going on over at wmflabs that a stable version can't be maintained on these tools? — xaosflux Talk 05:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • And I'm getting sick of a tool constantly running out of memory and not knowing what's causing it, so welcome to the club. We're still suffering from these issues, but the move to it's own web service has made the tools considerably more stable. Once we figure out what's causing it, the stability issues should be addressed entirely, hopefully.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The tools, at least the edit counter and article history, have become extremely popular, and it got to the point where having all of them on one labs instance just wasn't cutting it for resources. They've been permanently moved out as separate tools and are now running quite smoothly. I'm all for getting the word out, but I'm not sure what the protocol is. Given we're certain this is a permanent move, is a watchlist notice appropriate? Is it possible to semi-automatically change all links across the wiki using AWB? — MusikAnimal talk 05:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
For most watchlist users, there will be no action--so if this is going to be a notice it should be much briefer, directing to a page for follow up if desired (something akin to Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters - but more relevant perhaps?) — xaosflux Talk 18:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does the counter say "Artikel" [1] instead of article? NE Ent 18:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a good question. It's the german word of Article. Hedonil worked mostle on dewiki, so I'm guessing an accidental doing of his. I'm fixing OAuth first.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition of new RFC regarding Rollback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback 2015 was recently created and added to the WP:CENT list. Because, IMO, turning Rollback from a user right into an edited gadget is a significant change to the interface, I felt it is very important to add a notice to it here also. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

With Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback 2015 being closed, this has been removed early. — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steward Elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Before I post this, was there already a campaign to notify of the meta:Stewards/Elections_2015? I don't ever recall seeing a notice here on enwiki (did on commons). — xaosflux Talk 03:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw a notice. It's central notice I think. Turn your JavaScript on if you can't see. Jim Carter 04:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I too saw it; I dismissed it. It's a central notice. If you normally use a browser where individual cookies can be examined (such as Firefox), look for any whose cookie name is "centralnotice_hide_Stewvote" - delete those, and the central notice should reappear for you. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter:, @Redrose64: I don't have any hide cookies for that campaign (I do have one of the scholar campaign) and have tried with multiple browsers, and test users with no .cs/.js customization and on vector as opposed to monobook. Any other suggestions to determine if this is a 'just me' issue? — xaosflux Talk 13:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Cross posted to VPT (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Missing_Central_Notice.3F) — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Remove the scholar campaign cookie and try again. Jim Carter 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, no change, removed all my central notice cookies too (also tried a fresh browser with no cookie, no change). — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you able to see it, Xaosflux? I can still see it. Jim Carter 10:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you able to see other CN banners? There's no reason you shouldn't be shown the steward notice. Works in exactly the same way as the Wikimania banner (both in terms of CentalNotice in general, and the code for the banner itself). Once upon a time, my account did have an unexplainable bug where no CN banners were being shown. The only way that fixed it in the end was a complete reset of user preferences. -- KTC (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Found it... it's the "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" option under Gadgets. I'm not sure if it's possible to tweak MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.js to only hide fundraising banners? — MusikAnimal talk 01:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That was it! Ok, we have to rename or fix that....and that being said outside of an objection I'm adding this notice to watchlist-think many people may have that on. — xaosflux Talk 01:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No objection here. I'd guess many of the long-time contributors have banners disabled. Is there somewhere I can see what the normal fundraising ads look like? I'm hoping there's a CSS class name on those, and if not, maybe we can use JS to check for keywords to determine if it's a fundraising ad. — MusikAnimal talk 01:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: From meta:Special:CentralNotice I see examples feeding in to pages like this one. — xaosflux Talk 02:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! It looks like fundraising banners have the ID #frbanner. If this is true, we can get rid of that whole MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.js file and make a minor change to MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.css. I don't know if I can force one of these banners to show, but evidently a fundraising campaign is still active in some countries. I know of some editors there that I can ask to test out the CSS. — MusikAnimal talk 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You can force display any CN banner by clicking on the "Preview on-wiki" link in the top-left on any banner's edit page like this one. Any banner's own javascript will still execute as coded, but CN's filtering will be ignored so you can see banners even if they're set to only show in a different country but not if it internally check for say edit count that your account don't meet. -- KTC (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I have gone through a great number of them and hiding #frbanner and #frbanner2 seems to do the trick. I've updated the Gadget definition/description and deleted the now unnecessary MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.js. — MusikAnimal talk 16:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you I just tested with and without the gadgets enabled for all, both, just FR-things worked correctly after a logon/log off as far as the stewards notice working goes. Still will leave this here, it's minimally intrusive and easily dismissed. Just have to make sure the foundation doesnt try to get sneaky with the next FR notice to sneak past your new filter! :D — xaosflux Talk 16:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done added. — xaosflux Talk 02:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Announcement colour

A discussion at the Village Pump is ongoing regarding changing the notification colour from red. This is a change that will affect nearly every user, and should probably be advertised on watchlists as such. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for watchlist notice addition

There is an ongoing discussion that watchers of this page may be interested in on Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help. This is a discussion to add (poorly formed and non-compliant with WMF guidelines) global JavaScript to every user and offer no option for opting out. I'm requesting that an appropriately worded and neutral notice about this discussion be added to the watchlist notice. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think that issue warrants a watchlist notice. (And take care or you'll be open to accusations of forum shopping.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
MSGJ, you don't think everyone should get a chance to comment on the addition of code to Common.js that compromises their personal security and privacy warrants a notice on the watchlist? I must say that this shocks me a little. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Other than yourself, who has stated that it will compromise personal security and privacy? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It will directly associate user names with IP addresses which is privileged information that requires identification to WMF as opposed to the current system that only associates drafts to IPs and permalink Special:Diff/ isn't privileged information. It would violate WMF policy. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I asked who has stated that it will compromise personal security and privacy. If I wanted to know how it will be compromised, I would have asked at the discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to add a watch list notice

Please add 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=27 June 2015
 |cookie=201
 |text=[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_edit_restrictor_to_MW_software|A proposal]] to add the ability to restrict users from editing certain pages rather than blocking entirely is ongoing.
}}

You may modify the text as necessary.  :-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup

@Callanecc: WikiProject Good Articles is holding a second GA Cup after the success of the first. A watchlist notice was added last year so I was wondering if it could be done again. Something like: "WikiProject Good articles is holding a second GA Cup! The competition starts on July 1 and sign-ups close on July 15!"

Ideally, the notice would expire on July 2 or after.--Dom497 (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's a bit early for a notice given that we have a whole month until the contest starts. If you reactivate this request a few days (a week?) before the contest starts I'll put the notice up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks. I'll ping you again on Monday. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
On Monday? Isn't that a bit soon? How about June 24th, one week before the contest starts? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. Will request again on the 24th.--Dom497 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Can you please please please please add the notice at the earliest time you can. I'm quite concerned with the numbers we have now for this years GA Cup and I think putting up the notice now will help get the info to more eyes (users). If you still rather wait till the 24th, I totally get it.--Dom497 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: Ok, it's up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Recruitement

We desperately need more maintainers for xTools. A site notice on Wikipedia seems appropriate to recruit new members, given the popularity of the tools.

For three days I'd like a message to say, "xTools is dire need for more maintainers. If you have strong PHP experience and/or experience setting up Linux servers, as well as being currently active, please email User:Cyberpower678."

This request is not trivial so I am aware that this may get declined.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this is of relevance to enough of the editing community to warrant a watchlist notice. There are other forums to attempt to recruit such help (one example is on Meta). I won't decline as I'm fine with another admin opinion ... but I'd say no. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: It's quite borderline, so I'm declining it myself. I just thought I'd ask. —cyberpowerChat:Online 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Cyberpower678 and Rjd0060, I'd like to see that notice go up. The situation is getting quite desperate, with tools that editors rely on not available and cyberpower having to do a lot of the work himself. Sarah (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still of the same thought that the scope is too narrow. I left the request for another admin to process but since it was closed, one hasn't seen it.. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting rather desperate for xTools. If the notice does go up, instead of emailing me could they email mail:xtools instead?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
A bit esoteric, but a few days shouldn't hurt anyone.  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested removal of cookie 204

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015 is over; the banner was implemented and the proposed amendment seems to have fallen through anyway. I think cookie 204 can be removed now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Have been meaning to remove that. Sam Walton (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania

We're looking for editors, and particularly admins, to sign up for an Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania to help close the gender gap. Could the following be added as a watchlist notice?

Editors, and particularly admins, who are attending Wikimania and want to help support women editors, please sign up here for the Ada Initiative's Ally Skills Workshop.

Sarah (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the watchlist notices, but this seems like too specific a topic (a particular workshop at Wikimania) to show to all editors to me. Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 Not done. Unlikely to be of interest to the majority of editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

New RfC

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a watchlist notice for 30 days in regards to a new proposal I started.

"Editors are encouraged to participate in an RfC on implementing a method to more easily regain control of hijacked accounts."

Thanks.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely RfCs are usually publicised through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I did, but I feel this RfC usually requires a wider community input, and that template hasn't even drawn in one !voter yet.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the EP request for now as there is no consensus to add the topic to the watchlist. The EP request should only be placed once there is consensus to make a change, when applicable. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Not done This RfC is WP:SNOWing. It seems I proposed a fowl one this time.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Could the following be posted as a watchlist notice?

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC for guideline on edit filter management

I feel this guideline is a big step toward documenting and laying some ground rules for what is arguably the most powerful tool on the wiki. In one way or another edit filters affect everyone, so we are asking for widespread input to help establish the guideline. A brief message will do:

Editors are invited to invited to participate in a proposal to introduce a guideline on edit filter management.

Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 18:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done I've put it up for a week. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure how the extra "invited to" got there! I've removed it. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 00:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
D'oh, not sure how I missed that either... I'm glad someone spotted it, anyway! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC about RfA's admin production

Could someone please add this RfC about Wikipedia needing more admins? I think it has gained enough, well...attention to merit an addition to this page. Thanks. --Biblioworm 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is dragging more editors to that perennial discussion likely to be productive I wonder? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is exactly an RfC which will have direct wide ranging consequences either. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the various opinions on whether or not we should add this, I would like to ask that everyone disregard the request. I'm currently preparing an RfC that will be launched in the near future as part of a larger project. --Biblioworm 13:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

5 million articles

Could Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo be added here? The discussion over which logo to use will affect every page on the site and there's not much time before we hit 5 million articles. I suggest the notice should say:

Which logo should Wikipedia use to celebrate reaching 5 million articles? Discuss.

... or something similar. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Done I've set the notice to expire when we reach the 5,000,000 article mark, rather than on a specific date. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Global Virtual Open Access Editathon this week

Hi, can someone please put this up? 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= 25 October 2014
 |cookie= 
 |text= Join [[SPARC]] and [[WP:TWL|Wikipedia Library]] in a '''[[meta:The_Wikipedia_Library/OA_week|Global Virtual Open Access Editathon]]''' celebrating [[Open Access Week]] from now until Sunday. Help us reach the goal of 1000 improvements to OA content on Wikimedia projects!
}}
Displays as

Join SPARC and Wikipedia Library in a Global Virtual Open Access Editathon celebrating Open Access Week from now until Sunday. Help us reach the goal of 1000 improvements to OA content on Wikimedia projects!

Thank you! Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fix the wrong SPARC link

Please change the SPARC link so it links to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (see meta:The Wikipedia Library/OA week). @Ocaasi (WMF). --Pipetricker 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Silly oversight. Sorry. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 October 2015

Could someone add a notice for Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC? It is part of a large-scale reform project and has already had a decent amount of participation after four days, so I think it would be good to get more opinions from those who perhaps did not see the notices I posted on some other pages. The result will have a direct influence on what is discussed in the next phase, so it think it is sufficiently important to merit a notice here. --Biblioworm 00:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Could you propose a wording for it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done by Mr. Stradivarius. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It actually wasn't done. @Mr. Stradivarius: Apologies for replying so late; I didn't receive the ping, for some reason. Here is my proposed wording: "What is the problem with our RfA process? Voice your opinion here." Feel free to change it a bit, if you want. --Biblioworm 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Done, for real this time. I've put it up for a week. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing a word in the "5 million articles" banner

Per this discussion on the 5M talk page, could the present banner with

Which logo should Wikipedia use to celebrate reaching 5 million articles? Discuss.

be changed to

Which logo should Wikipedia use to celebrate reaching 5 million articles? Vote.

There is not much time left before a decision has to be made about the logo, and I think the word "Vote" could get more attention than "Discuss" now that an actual voting is going on. And maybe set the expiration at the 4,999,500 article mark or something to give the editors who are handling the whole thing some time to fix everything. w.carter-Talk 16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Per W.carter's request, I'm copying a comment I made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo here: "The new article creation rate averages something around 800 per day, and it varies a fair bit over the week. Do you really want to provide less than a day to get things finished? I have no objection in principal that the deadline should be based on the article count, although it makes certain types of planning a bit harder, but that limit needs to be more like 4,996,000." Rwessel (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Added {{edit protected}} to call up an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Done at 08:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC) by MSGJ (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Thank you for changing the word. The counter is still at 5000000 though, do you think you cold reduce it somewhat, as per above posts, to give the editors working with the whole thing a day or so to fix everything in time for the big event? w.carter-Talk 23:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@W.carter: I hope nobody minds that I've {{done]} it. It's now set to 4,999,000. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad someone finally did something about it. w.carter-Talk 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist announcement when we reach the 5,000,000 article milestone

Please post an announcement like this when we reach the 5M milestone: "Announcement: English Wikipedia now has over 5,000,000 articles" --Pine✉ 05:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be fine. Is this being discussed anywhere? I assumed there would be a more prominent notice to all users, via the site notice or a central notice. Template:Main page banner has also used for this purpose in the past. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Main page banner}} is being used, but I think a watchlist notice would be good as well. The main page notice isn't particularly noticeable. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue for something more like "The English Wikipedia now has over 5,000,000 articles!" — foxj 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Access Donations

Hi, I'd love for an admin to add this announcement. WMF staff policies wisely prevent using a personal admin account to do 'official business', otherwise I'd do it myself. TWL coordinators (RHM22,TLSuda) however are welcome to, or any other helpful hand.

Thanks! 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=18 December 2015
 |cookie=192
 |text=New [[w:en:The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library]] free research access: '''[[w:en:WP:Gale|Gale]]''' (multidisciplinary periodicals, newspapers, and reference sources), '''[[w:en:Wikipedia:Brill|Brill]]''' (academic e-books and journals), and sources in '''[[w:fi:Wikipedia:Wikipedian_Lähdekirjasto/Suomalaisen_Kirjallisuuden_Seura|Finnish]]''' and '''[[w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:کتابخانه_ویکی‌پدیا/پایگاه‌های_داده|Farsi]]'''.  Many other resources are [[w:en:WP:TWL/Journals|still available]]. Sign up!
}}
Displays as

New Wikipedia Library free research access: Gale (multidisciplinary periodicals, newspapers, and reference sources), Brill (academic e-books and journals), and sources in Finnish and Farsi. Many other resources are still available. Sign up!

Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ocaasi (WMF): Why do you want to use the w:en: interwiki prefix? In fact, language prefix aside, why use w on any of them? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
plus Added without the unnecessary prefixes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks MSGJ! It's just a habit of working more globally now that we tend to interwiki link a lot so we don't forget to do it when it matters! Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Navbar

I've added a navbar so provide direct links to this template from the watchlist. They are only viewable by admins. Do you think this is useful? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan, but seeing as no one else has complained I guess I'll just learn to live with it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
What's not to like? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The watchlist 'header' (not sure if that's the right term) is already cluttered with links and other things that I never use and this just adds to that – I've don't think I've ever edited this page before. But I can sometimes be a bit of a whinger about change and I assume some other people must find it useful, so as I say, I'll learn to live with it. Jenks24 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerking RfC

Well, I added this myself earlier, but I was reverted because I guess I wasn't following some sort of unwritten rule. Could someone add Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC to the list? It could potentially have a very major impact upon the RfA process, so I think it's deserving of such widespread attention. (Also, I would prefer that someone other than the admin who reverted me answer this request.) Biblioworm 16:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

information Administrator note if this gets re-added, please use cookie=224 to not re-alert people who already dismissed it. — xaosflux Talk 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm just bumping this and adding an edit request template, to draw attention to it. To whoever reviews this, I reiterate that this RfC could potentially result in very substantial changes to the RfA process, and the participation has slowed to a trickle since the watchlist notice was removed. If there is not sufficient participation, people will surely say that the results are invalid because there were not enough participants. (Posting notices on various pages does not seem to work, for some reason.) It was much more simple for me to just add it, and I still haven't found any guideline which says that you shouldn't add a notice just because you started the discussion (which, to me, could also theoretically be applied to other venues such as CENT), but I won't re-add it myself, since I would probably be accused of wheel-warring. As for the text, I suggest the wording that I used here. Biblioworm 03:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is such a far reaching RfC that it warrants a watchlist notice; this is the kind of RfC that CENT is for. Sam Walton (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been almost no new participants over the past many hours, which is typically what happens when the watchlist notice is pulled (it didn't even get a full day on the notice). In my experience, even if you advertise on CENT and all the other venues, you'll only get two or three dozen self-selected participants at best, and people who will try anything to stop it will attempt to discount the results by saying that the RfC didn't have enough participants. The whole point of this reform project was to be different from others in that (1) its RfCs would be firmly set toward the goal of actually implementing changes; (2) the RfCs would be widely advertised. No one complained when I added the advertisements for the Phase I and Phase II RfCs, but this time I have the addition reverted under some apparently non-existent rule. I'm told that I was reverted, I reply, and there is no response (that also happened in one previous instance). So, we're having all these delays and bureaucracy. (As you can tell, I do not like inefficiency.) I thought non-admins left edit requests only because they were technically unable to add the notice, not because there is a rule that all notices must be proposed. This RfC is arguably as important as the Phase I and Phase II RfC, since this one would also result in direct changes to the process. Biblioworm 16:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this was already reverted by another admin - most others are likely trying to avoid getting run over by the big wheel. So at this point you need to show that there is reasonable support to advertise this here. — xaosflux Talk 19:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain how I would do that. Perhaps have a new RfC to decide if we should advertise the other RfC? ;) Biblioworm 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think this warrants a watch list notice, so support.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 23:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We've got one support and one oppose. Perhaps if Xaosflux would express an opinion, we could form a rough consensus. If there is support I'll add it back. But I do think these notices should be used sparingly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this one - I asked at Wikipedia talk:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC for anyone to chime in. NOTE: I suspect the WikiCup people will be asking for a notice soon too. — xaosflux Talk 18:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Here's my input. I support such a notice because RfA is a big process on wikipedia. It has a lot of participation, and as such if there should be clerks, it should have wide participation from the community to determine if they are needed or not.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do add this, just like the earlier related pages were added. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @MSGJ: - think this has set long enough to re-add -- this batch of RfC's were a bit unusual, don't want to see a trend of all RfC's being on here either. — xaosflux Talk 23:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Added --— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup

The 2016 WikiCup began this week, so we'd like a notice to go out on watchlists:

The 2016 WikiCup began on January 1. You have until February 1 to sign-up to participate in this fun and worthwhile competition are here.

Thanks, appreciate your attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably like MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details/Archive 8#Request for watchlist notification. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Reworded a bit from the above. I've set the expiry date to 1 Feb since that's when signups end, though other admins may feel free to reduce that if they think it's too long. Sam Walton (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, really appreciate it. Feb. 1 works great. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholars

Tomorrow Wiki Ed is announcing three new Visiting Scholars positions. It would be great to mention this via a watchlist notice. Something along the lines of:

Three Wikipedia Visiting Scholars positions are available at Rollins College and the University of San Francisco. Experienced Wikipedians can apply to get remote access to university library resources, increasing the impact of the library's collections by using them to improve articles in an area of mutual interest. To apply, or for more information, see Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars.

Copyedit as appropriate. Glad to provide additional information if needed. Thanks very much! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): I'm not an admin but I'd advise you to make a few changes. First, make this an edit-protected request. Your request would get faster administrative attention that way. Second, write a through date for this, as in when should this watchlist notif disappear. Third, make it more concise and unobtrusive. Something along the one-liners we have now. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 07:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
They're not always short, here are two examples from 2015 and 2014. But I do think that linking both Wikipedia Visiting Scholars (at the start) and Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars (at the end) is redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
How about:
  • Three Wikipedia Visiting Scholars positions are available at Rollins College and the University of San Francisco. Experienced Wikipedians may apply to gain remote access to library resources for improving articles in areas of mutual interest.
@Ryan (Wiki Ed): does that loose any important parts of your message? — xaosflux Talk 12:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@QEDK, Redrose64, and Xaosflux: Thanks for the feedback and advice to keep in mind next time. The version immediately above looks good to me, although to minimize redundancy the second link could point to Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars/Apply perhaps. Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

meta discussion on Arnnon Geshuri

Could this be added:

A request for comment/vote is taking place on Meta on whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

One can change the wording to make it better and would be appreciated. Bgwhite (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a global campaign type notice? — xaosflux Talk 20:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how and if it can be done. Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: I think that means m:CentralNotice, which would probably stand almost no chance of getting approved as I think the WMF would have to rubber stamp it. May be worth asking there if you have the energy, though leaving a formulaic message on popular village pumps/noticeboards might be a better use of volunteer time. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is on WP:CENT already, I don't really think this is good enwiki watchlist matter though. — xaosflux Talk 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been around forever, but never knew of WP:CENT. Probably because I don't look at the pumps. I only found out about this because my bot was dead due to WMF changing things. I'm on mailing lists for changes, but no notice was sent. Geshuri request was in the top 10 listings of my Google search. I guess I'm just another idiot who doesn't need to know anything. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{Centralized discussion}} is transcluded to over 3,000 pages. Most of those are the daily WP:AFD pages; there are a lot of user pages too, but discounting those it's still transcluded to over 100 other pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Position of {{navbar}}

The watchlist notice displays a sysop-only "view-talk-edit" navbar template. However, it does not appear next to the text of the Watchlist notice, but next to the Geonotice. (I just noticed because I wanted to edit the Geonotice, found a convenient "edit" link and was sent to this page instead, which confused me for about three seconds). Is there an obvious way to fix this or would it be better to just remove the navbar template? —Kusma (t·c) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay on my browser but I've disabled geonotices, so wouldn't notice the problem anyway. Is the link too high or too low? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears exactly inline with the first watchlist bullet for me, but it is right justified so at very wide resolutions it is way over --->there. — xaosflux Talk 18:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If any geonotices are visible (by their very nature, not all users see geonotices), the view-talk-edit links are level with the first geonotice; if none are visible, they're level with the first watchlist notice bullet. In both cases, they're right-floated. The geonotice gadget is set up to inject the geonotices inside the bulleted list that is defined by the <ul id="watchlist-message"> tag in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, but before the first bullet that is defined by a {{Display/watchlist}} template. However, the view-talk-edit links are outside (and immediately before) that bulleted list. Perhaps we could amend the line 
<div class="sysop-show" style="float:right;">{{navbar|MediaWiki:Watchlist-details|plain=1}}</div>
to be something like 
<div class="sysop-show" style="float:right;">Geonotices: {{navbar|MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js|plain=1}}; remainder:{{navbar|MediaWiki:Watchlist-details|plain=1}}</div>
if this is too long, change |plain=1 to |mini=1 in both. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RfA discussions

Per Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC, apparently we are now advertising RfAs on this watchlist notice. I've added a note for the current one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we link directly to the RfA, or just to WP:RFA? I edit conflicted with you adding the notice, and was just going to link to the general RfA page myself. I can see the benefits to both; linking directly is likely to draw more votes and discussion, but linking generally seems a better idea to me considering we might have more than one request running at a time, but I'm interested to hear other's opinions. Sam Walton (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that if we have more than one, we would not want more than one notice, so a link to WP:RFA would suffice. If there is just one however, then it does save a mouse click. Not too bothered though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Martin, if there's one request link directly to it, if there's more than one link to WP:RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just changed the linked name to the main RFA page, and came here to discuss further - guess I should have checked here first. The last RFC says not to use names, but more importantly the goal was to encourage new and increased participation in the RFA process - which is not explained on the individual pages. Seeing as the main page tells the editor what they are there for and also includes the transcluded rfa, they should still get all the information. If anyone feels very strongly about my change - you can revert without wheel accusations while we discuss further. — xaosflux Talk 19:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No interest in reverting, but I don't see why a link to the main RFA page would be good in any situation that we regularly encounter. When there's just one request, we can link directly to it and save effort. When we have two or three, link to them, e.g. "Some requests for adminship are currently open for discussion: 1 and 2". When we have more, yes, "[number] requests for adminship are currently open for discussion", but it's not that hard to give two or three links, and having 4+ simultaneous requests is very rare. The whole point of adding this link to the watchlist is to raise the profile of these discussions, so why shouldn't we link them? Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Put your self in the shoes of someone who hasn't participated in RFA before - being dumped in to a nomination bypasses the information about what you are there to do. — xaosflux Talk 01:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia_talk:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#A2_verbiage. — xaosflux Talk 02:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC passed, indicating general community support for watchlist notices to be used for ongoing RFA's. The RfC had evolved during this discussion, including:

  1. Having a reasonable delay (a few hours up to 1 day) between a new RfA and watchlist adding to avoid WP:NOTNOW / WP:SNOW issues
  2. Using an unobtrusive, short message
  3. Not including nominee's names

— xaosflux Talk 16:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we standardize on a format for these going forward, perhaps along the lines of:

For a single RfA: 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=DD Month YYYY
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=A [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|request for adminship]] is currently open for discussion.
}}

I'd love to see better wording that doesn't require this to be changed back and forth depending on if there are multiple RfA's open. — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

One or more requests for adminship are currently open for discussion. Call it a hack, if you will. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 14:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Really don't think we need to update this with the precise number of RfAs every time an RfA closes. We should do something like QEDK suggested above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

New template

I have created Template:RfA watchlist notice which will use a value maintained by User:Amalthea (bot) to automatically update the watchlist notice with the number of open RfAs. We still have to update the cookie number however, whenever a new RfA is opened (with a few hours delay in case it gets snow closed). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2016

First, here's the requested addition:

  • Four Wikipedia Visiting Scholars positions are available at Hunter College, Rollins College, and the University of San Francisco. Experienced Wikipedians may apply to gain remote access to library resources for improving articles in areas of mutual interest.

Two questions for responding admin or other page regulars:

  1. So far, the Visiting Scholars program has announced positions infrequently enough that it seems appropriate to include here. How often is too often, though?
  2. As they remain open until the institutions decide on a Scholar, my honest response to "how long should it appear for" would be "as long as possible while they're open." My sense of the way it works, however, is that a week is fairly standard unless there's a compelling reason to include it for longer. If that's the case, there is no compelling reason to include it for longer :)

Thanks

Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding this for a week — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
To answer your questions, a week seems reasonable; as far as frequency - if it is more than every other month or so we will probably start to get some community complaints here. — xaosflux Talk 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup

This year's GA Cup starts on March 1, so we'd like a watchlist notice go out about it:

The 2016 GA Cup, a competition encouraging the reviews of potential Good Articles, begins March 1. You can sign-up here until Feb. 20.

Thanks, appreciate your attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, is there any movement on this? We need to promote the GA Cup, and we were hoping that the watchlist notice would help. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. -- John Reaves 16:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
We're changing the sign-ups deadline to March 15. Could someone please revise the notice to state:
The 2016 GA Cup, a competition encouraging the reviews of potential Good Articles, begins March 1. You can sign-up here until March 15.
Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 16:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
With the extension, this will have been up over a month. Seems a tad excessive for watchlist notifications in general... Kharkiv07 (T) 18:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed and removed. Usually we allow a week for these kind of things. It's had a lot more than that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Donations

Hi,

Looking for an admin to update the watchlist with an announcement of new Wikipedia Library access partnerships... 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=30 March 2015
 |cookie=193
 |text=New [[w:en:The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library]] free research access: [[w:en:WP:Cambridge|Cambridge University Press]] (scholarly journals and ebooks), [[w:en:Wikipedia:Alexander Street|Alexander Street]] (educational and news videos and documentaries), [[w:en:WP:Baylor|Baylor University Press]] (religion and humanities ebooks), [[w:en:WP:Future Science Group|Future Science Group]] (science and medicine journals), [[w:en:WP:Annual Reviews|Annual Reviews]] (biomedical review articles), and [[w:en:WP:Miramar|Miramar]] (ships database). Also expansions of [[w:en:Wikipedia:Gale|Gale]] and [[w:en:Wikipedia:Elsevier|ScienceDirect]], and new sources in [[:ar:ويكيبيديا:مكتبة_ويكيبيديا/كتبنا|Arabic]] and [[:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نورمگز|Farsi]].  Many other resources have [[w:en:WP:TWL/Journals|available accounts]]. Sign up!
}}
Displays as

New Wikipedia Library free research access: Cambridge University Press (scholarly journals and ebooks), Alexander Street (educational and news videos and documentaries), Baylor University Press (religion and humanities ebooks), Future Science Group (science and medicine journals), Annual Reviews (biomedical review articles), and Miramar (ships database). Also expansions of Gale and ScienceDirect, and new sources in Arabic and Farsi. Many other resources have available accounts. Sign up!

pinging User:Samwalton9, User:Gamaliel, User:Pharos, User:Harej, User:Mr. Stradivarius for assistance.

Thanks! Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)

Could the message be trimmed at all? It's very long — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming outage due to planned maintenance

Hi everyone,

Just a reminder about the server switch and our plans to get a watchlist notice up. Here's the current draft:

Wikimedia Technical Operations is planning a major infrastructure migration on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC. This process is expected to take 15 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.

NB that 14:00 UTC is daytime for most editors here (mid-afternoon for the UK and morning for Canadian and American editors), so this is going to be noticeable for a lot of editors. (Feel free to edit, of course.) While this could be posted now, it might make more sense to post it on Monday, 11 April (a week and a day before the first one). It should be removed when the wikis come back after the Thursday event.

{{ping}} me if you have any questions or need more links (there should be a WMF blog post about it before the event, too). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Tuesdays and Thursdays are the two days in the week that I don't work - and on the other five, I'm on duty for several hours beginning, ending or spanning 14:00 - can we switch to Mon/Wed/Fri? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Monday was considered and ultimately rejected, because it meant that Ops would lose even more of their weekend to last-minute checks. Since Echo's introduction here and the Orange Bar of Doom dispute, they don't do anything even slightly complicated on Fridays unless it's a true emergency. Given that they defined a 48-hour minimum, that pretty much leaves Tuesday and Thursday.
In theory, this should only stop editing for 30 minutes (probably slightly shorter on Thursday), so perhaps it's time for a large edit to a single page.
(Of course, my own preference was for them to do this much earlier in the day, so that the whole thing would happen while I was asleep. But it turns out that they had actual reasons for the time they picked, involving which team members were on which continents, so it's going to be daytime for me, too.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for the heads up. I'll add it to the watchlist notice once we hit Monday in UTC. (~6 hours) Mike V • Talk 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Message for: RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Follow Up) Suggestion

Hi, a couple of months ago I had an RFC (Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML) that has now ended. I was offline for a while, so I did not see that some people wanted me to advertise it in more places as this affects a wider community than I thought. One of the places that were recommended was here. I don't know for sure what to write so maybe something like this:

There is currently a request for comments going on for the possibility of changing the default math appearance setting to MathML. This RFC effects math, physics and other pages that involve non-standard characters. Please comment at preferences talk RFC.

It is my first time trying to make a message so I would love if someone could help me make this message better. Hungryce (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hungryce: if there is a site wide choice to be made, what will be the primary impact on readers and editors? — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: the effect on non-logged in readers is that the default math apperence would be changed from "PNG" to "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback". There would be no effect on logged in readers/editers if you were to sign up for a new account then your default preference would be set to MathML rather than PNG but you can always change it. There would also be no effect on editing as this is visual only. Hungryce (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I added a question at the RFC - would like to be able to point anyone coming from this notice to examples. — xaosflux Talk 15:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I have disabled the request for now, because that page is not ready for heavy traffic. The question itself is not clear, and it is quite confusing to have two different surveys. If you can tidy it and simplify, we can reopen this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

watchlist--message

Is anyone else seeing a problem with this class related to the cookie management, etc? It seems we have had to adjust the ul very recently to make anything display. — xaosflux Talk 02:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Who made recent edits to Module:Message box. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Well the watchlist notice doesn't use Module:Message box at all, so that's not it. And the latest watchlist message is showing up for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

watchlist-message

@Mr. Stradivarius: thanks, must not be that module - but I'm pretty sure something is still wrong - can you see the l3 header title for this section? — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
That's odd, I don't think I have ever seen a section head disappear like that. Is this a bug? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Edokter: possibly related to changes at MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js ? The styling on this seems to have broken multiple things things. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Inlcuding the list type on watchlist, what originally brought my attention was that it was appears as a bulleted list, but way too far to the left. — xaosflux Talk 03:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thank you for fixing part of this - but I think there is still a hide/hide override issue going on, for example the current message is not displaying if you go to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, even if you haven't dismissed it. — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Xaosflux: You have two separate issues here, which are completely unrelated.
The first issue is because in this edit, Coffee (talk · contribs) put the {{Display/watchlist}} outside the <ul>...</ul> element, instead of directly below the {{RfA watchlist notice}}. One of your subsequent edits would have gone some way to fixing it, but you undid it after just three minutes - it can take a lot longer than that for the Watchlist javascript to settle down after a change. I would have left at least an hour between edits.
As for the second issue, the HTML for that subheading (omitting the "[edit]" link) is 
<h3><span class="mw-headline" id="watchlist-message">watchlist-message</span></h3>
and the normal CSS has the rule 
.client-js #watchlist-message { display: none; }
so all you need to do is add, change or remove one character from the heading, which will alter the id= and so it will no longer match the simple selector #watchlist-message, so the declaration display: none; will not be applied. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thank you for the updates, though unless I'm completely being forgetful until very recently navigating to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details would display all of the messages, regardless of prior dismiss actions - now it shows no messages any of the time. — xaosflux Talk 11:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The important thing is that they show on Special:Watchlist when undismissed. The reason for non-display on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details is that CSS rule that I mentioned earlier, its selectors may be read as "any element which has the id watchlist-message and which is enclosed (at any depth) by an element which belongs to the class client-js". It so happens that at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, the all-enclosing <html>...</html> element has the attribute class="client-nojs" and that page also has a <script>...</script> element containing 
document.documentElement.className = document.documentElement.className.replace( /(^|\s)client-nojs(\s|$)/, "$1client-js$2" );
which, if I read that correctly, alters <html class="client-nojs"> to <html class="client-js"> - Edokter please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if I'm right, that means that we have the following structure: 
<html lang="en" dir="ltr" class="client-js">
  <body class="mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr ns-8 ns-subject page-MediaWiki_Watchlist-details rootpage-MediaWiki_Watchlist-details skin-monobook action-view">
    <div id="globalWrapper">
      <div id="column-content">
        <div id="content" class="mw-body" role="main">
          <div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content">
            <div id="mw-content-text" lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
              <ul id="watchlist-message">
                <li class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_241">There is currently a proposal
and of this, the second line up from the bottom (in conjunction with the first line) is matched by the selector of the CSS rule that I mentioned earlier, so that <ul>...</ul> element, and everything that it encloses, is hidden by default and only unhidden when some JavaScript modifies either that rule, or the elements that it matches. I suspect that the problem lies in the "dismiss" script, which is not un-dismissing it when it should. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
So far you're right. Not really sure what the problem is though. It was TheDJ@ that made the modifications; I just made the edits. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@TheDJ: ... ? — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If you really want to see them on this page, you can probably change:
<ul id="watchlist-message">
to 
<ul id="watchlist-message" <noinclude>style="display:block;"</noinclude>>
—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Or, we can make the CSS style page specific in Common.css.
.client-js .mw-special-Watchlist  #watchlist-message
—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I did the latter. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, also resolved the ghost section headers. — xaosflux Talk 19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2016

Please add this RFB to the page. There's no reason why the two current RFAs should be advertised here but the RFB should not. Omni Flames (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Omni Flames (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's possible. This would require a logic update to the fully-protected Template:RfA watchlist notice, and use User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count (today we saw proof that the bot actually updates this!) in addition to User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count. But is there consensus at RfBs are meant to be as visible? non-admin comment — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
If this were not my own, I probably would have added the bullet - RfB's are quite rare and extending a neutral notice for RfB ala RfA's doesn't seem like a slippery slope change. Just as with the RfA's, I don't think we should link directly to the candidate name, just to the RfB section. — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Xaosflux Can you provide the necessary code so someone else can add it? –xenotalk 18:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The "quick" fix would be to just add it as a seperate line like any other notice-I'm adding some notes to the single line template that could be used over at Template_talk:RfA watchlist notice. — xaosflux Talk 18:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
{{Display/watchlist
 |until=July 9, 2016
 |cookie=n+1
 |text=There is currently a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfB|request_for_bureaucratship]] open for discussion.
}}
I also support adding a notification about this. I'd implement it myself if I had the technical know how. Jenks24 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Xeno: Please sync Template:RfA watchlist notice from Template:RfA watchlist notice/sandbox and remove the extra Bureaucratship note. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Xeno: Sorry about the conflict; didn't realize you acted at this MediaWiki page already. The logic is updated in the sandbox and is ready to sync. The bureaucratship addition is conditional depending on User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count. Tested at Template:X8. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Toggle, look like it's done :) Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

ECP notice

Please correct the link to the RFC from "Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy" to "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy". Pretty sure the standard prefix is "Requests for comment". — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Redirect bybassed. — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request ~ Add Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to

I'd like to request that the following RFC Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to be added to the watch list messages. This policy change would have a far reaching effect to all editors of Wikipedia and I think they deserved to be notified this discussion is taking place. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it was added to WP:CENT a few days ago. I imagine that would be sufficient for a discussion like this, and I'm not sure I agree that it would be far-reaching. Will leave open to see what others think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 Not done Does not appear to be wide-reaching enough; agree that WP:CENT is a good place. — xaosflux Talk 11:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on new user-right package

text=There is currently a request for comment open to add a new user-right package with a set of content-related admin tools (NOT block or protect), requested through RfA-like process.
text=There is currently a request for comment open to add a new user-right package option.

Last time I proposed this, it was requested to be added here, so I'm asking again (4 years later : )

While I could technically add this myself, I'd prefer someone else look it over first. - jc37 00:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I'd prefer something shorter like: "There is currently a request for comment open to add a new user-right package". As it stands, it seems to give too much information and could bias people before they even show up to the RfC. I'd also suggest maybe waiting a day or two before putting on the watchlist so it can gain some traction (like with RfAs), but I don't feel strongly enough that I would be upset if you completely ignored this. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    Listed a a shorter version above, per your comments. As I said above, this affects all wikipedians, so last time it was suggested to be listed here. Are there any oter concerns before adding it? - jc37 23:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    How long to you plan to run this? (and how long do you plan to run the current rfc if different?) — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    30 days is up august 8. so roughly til then on both counts, I suppose.
    That said, even though I don't think there is a rule for it, I think we should probably keep watchlist notices to 10 days or less. 14 days isn't much longer than that, but still. - jc37 11:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 12:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 August 2016

Please increment the RfA watchlist notice cookie number to 257. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive_8&oldid=1086699250"