MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:50, 22 February 2017

Wikipedia has five kinds of top-of-page messages that can be used to convey information or announcements to readers and editors.

The "Sitenotice", found at MediaWiki:Sitenotice, is displayed at the top of all pages for all logged-in users, and for anonymous users if the following message is empty.
MediaWiki:Anonnotice can be used to display information only to anonymous/IP users, not logged-in users. Alternatively, by 'blanking' the anonnotice and replacing it with nothing (not even a space or empty paragraph!), then the sitenotice can be used as a "logged-in users only" notice to display information only to editors. When "Anonnotice" contains nothing, no notice is shown to anonymous users. When it contains "-" it disables the message in favour of Sitenotice. If it contains anything else, it will be rendered to anonymous users instead of the Sitenotice (including a "hide" button).
MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages is displayed at the top of Special:Watchlist for all users who use this feature.
The CentralNotice, found at meta:Special:CentralNotice, is an extension which can display banners at the top of a select group of Wikimedia sites simultaneously.
Geonotice, at Wikipedia:Geonotice, allows location-specific notices – and is a candidate for integration into MediaWiki.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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

Expand Cyberbot I onto this page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Watch list Notice Request

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)[reply]

@Cameron11598: I don't see a formalized RfC running on that page, if we did have this link it would need to be directly to the RfC. Once ready, you should start over at T:CENT to see how much "advertisement" support there is. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: It's at WT:COI and already listed on CENT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators

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

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

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)[reply]

@Kudpung: looks good - thought of adding it to 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- WP:BRD - at the very least would an uninvovled administrator please review this. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Resource Exchange notice

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 Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request!

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

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 **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. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 *Of course they are misunderstanding it, {{U|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 {{green|'' ...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 {{U|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? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|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. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 == Resource Exchange notice ==