MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages

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

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship - major development poll now, and will poll to all at RfC

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

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

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

This might be a good idea

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

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

BLP RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

Another notice?

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

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

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

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

Babaco changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

Please post the following for thirty five–seven days:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the search box location poll deserve a notice?

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