MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages

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

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

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

There's a proposal on the noticeboard for a watchlist notice (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the DIV tags are placed on the same line as the message, then the [dismiss] button will also appear on the same line rather than in its own paragraph. It makes more sense to have it on the same line as the message that it is used to dismiss. To do this, find:

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_79" id="CCI_'bot">
• An [[wp:bots|automated process]] is about to commence a [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation|mass blanking task]] affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Implementing bot?|here]]'''.
</div>

Replace with:

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_79" id="CCI_'bot">• An [[wp:bots|automated process]] is about to commence a [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation|mass blanking task]] affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Implementing bot?|here]]'''.</div>

And you're done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. –xeno^talk 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising 2010 notice

Would people have a problem if we posted a short notice on watchlists looking for help with the fundraising campaign this year. Most specifically a comment directing them to the Messages page for comments and new proposals.

Thoughts:

Help shape the 2010 Wikimedia Fundraiser! Propose new messages and comment on existing options on [[m:Fundraising_2010/Messages|Meta]].

Jalexander (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added NW (Talk) 18:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please reword, ~~remove~~, or credit this; copyvio of here. Credit in an edit summary to the page works for me. Aaargh 23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever people want to do is fine to me. I'll be honest however, I don't consider it a copyvio at all. I came up with it on my own accord and your text wasn't even on that page when I did so (looking at the history it was changed on the 13th) so I have no idea how I would have been expected to credit you (I could not even have done a google search and seen you came up with it). To be totally honest I think a credit is a bit disingenuous, this version of the text wasn't yours. :/ Jalexander (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some text is minimalist enough, then it's not a copy vio. Not sure it applies here, though. After that, if you didn't know about it, I think only a US judge could decide if it's a copy vio or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It's not the same text and "Help shape x" is hardly novel wording. –xeno^talk 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative

{{editprotected}} Amy Roth and I would like to run a notice for a short time to recruit people for Amy's article quality assessment experiments. We'd like to run this:

A team is forming to test Wikipedia's article assessments, as part of the Public Policy Initiative.  Interested article reviewers can [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment#Assessment_testing_team|sign up now]].

I realize the watchlist notice is a little crowded right now; however, I anticipate that we would get all volunteers we need in a fairly short time period.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? Amy is anxious to get her assessment team filled up soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. I just removed the CCI notice and we can probably remove the pending changes notice as well, so we should have the space now. Any objections to adding Sage's notice? NW (Talk) 17:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on it and remove the notice when it's served its purpose.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The above watchlist notice is severely misleading and is probably wasting the time of editors outside the US and editors in the US who are not interested in assessing public policy articles. At ANI, User:Sonia has come up with the following much improved text:

The [[outreach:Public Policy Initiative|Public Policy Initiative]] is testing a new [[WP:USPP/ASSESS|article assessment system]] on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment#Assessment_testing_team|sign up now]]'''.

Could an admin replace the notice, please. Hans Adler 09:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with a slight tweak ("under" -> "within") — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we giving watchlist notice space to one specific project? Is there any anticipated encyclopedia wide benefit from this? If not, I don't see the need.--Crossmr (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are testing tools that are under consideration for wider deployment in the Wikimedia websites. See also coverage in the signpost. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is pushing this test? Is it the policy institute project, or the community? If its the policy institute let them carry on on their own. if its something the community has come up with and they volunteered to run first, then keep it. the story itself hasn't generated a lot of encouraging feedback, so it doesn't seem to be something the community as a whole is really interested in.--Crossmr (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to agree with Crossmr here. Is there some reason one the pumps and {{CENT}} couldn't be used to advertise this? Every time a watchlist notice of very limited interest is implemented increases the chances that folks will simply hide watchlist notices (I know I have), reducing the value of this interface note for information that legitimately need to be communicated to all editors. –xeno^talk 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Policy Initiative is a Wikimedia Foundation project; the main thrust of it is to get experts and students involved with Wikipedia through classroom assignments. The assessment testing is part of this (and also part of the broader Wikimedia strategy to develop better ways of measuring the quality of our articles), so that we can measure whether or not the program is measurably improving articles. That Signpost story has generated a little bit of constructive criticism, and there's much more at the assessment discussion page where people have been discussing the assessment testing after starting to try it out. I would actually say the feedback has been fairly encouraging, given that quality assessment is not one of the topics that really riles us up (unlike, say, pending changes). Part of the reason we wanted to use a watchlist notice is because less high-profile methods hadn't attracted enough people to make the tests works.

In any case, it looks like we've attracted close to the number of assessors that the project's research analyst Amy Roth is looking for. We'd only like the notice to remain up through Friday. Of course, if it's widely considered not useful and not worth using a watchlist notice for, go ahead and remove it now. But I hope people will see the value in the project even if they aren't interested in participating themselves.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. –xeno^talk 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xeno. Editors' attention is one of the most valuable resources of Wikipedia, and it's not a good idea to waste it. This project is probably worth a watchlist notice such as the one we have now, but it's still a borderline case and is certainly not worth a project notice that makes hundreds or thousands of editors from Europe and elsewhere waste their time finding out that they are supposed to assess articles on US interior politics for completeness, sourcing and neutrality. This simply doesn't make any sense. Hans Adler 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem leaving it up even longer than that, if warranted. Perhaps it could be reworded (again) to reflect its US-centric interest. Or maybe just a very wide geonotice would allay those concerns? bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do editors from europe not see watchlist notices?--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Of course they do, that's the problem. We are all shown a watchlist notice that obviously doesn't apply to us. That's OK, but it wasn't OK when the watchlist notice pretended that it was of global interest and so wasted the time of editors who thought they might help. Hans Adler 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you separated the terms watchlist notice and project wide notice I thought you might be referencing two different things.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sage's request to leave the notice only through Friday, I've removed it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Elections 2010

It's that time of year again - our annual dose of politics and shenanigans comes to us in the form of the 2010 Arbcom elections. We typically post a watchlist notice for the election, and so (as per precedent) I'd like to confirm consensus for the following notices:

14 November - 23 November: "Candidates for the December 2010 Arbitration Committee elections are invited to nominate themselves."
24 November - 25 November: Nothing
26 November - 6 December: "[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/80|Voting]] is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee"

These notices match the notices posted for the elections of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Note that the securepoll link will be updated to whatever we use for this election; the nowiki'd link in the above example is last year's.

Comments are appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems appropriate to me. Community-wide issue, needs attention. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note also that the entirely incorrect dates I inserted above would, of course, be corrected to the proper ones per WP:ACE2010 - as I've just done. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've loaded up the messages so they should automatically appear at the correct times. The syntax should be clear enough in case the times need tweaking, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please replace [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/??|Voting]] with [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/130|Voting]] to make it a functioning link. Thanks, Skomorokh 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Done Skier Dude (talk 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent (somewhat): RFC on ArbCom Elections Method

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The elections need to be mentioned here for sure. But I'm not sure whether a discussion about the elections warrants this level of notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be sensible if the same users who are being invited to participate in the elections are invited to participate on how they would like the election run this year. I don't think there is a shortage in the times we hear the question 'who decides how the elections are run' and then the subsequent 'really? i didn't know that this discussion was even happening...i guess i'm too late'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to help reference BLPs

It is requested that an edit be made to the interface page at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. (edit · history · last · links)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Proposed:

Help is needed to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people.

Gigs (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, direct, to the point, looks good to me. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, well done. Have you thought of creating a banner that editors can display on their user and user talk pages to advertise the project? --JN466 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have propose that is a recurring banner, maybe for a week each month. Try it simple, as above first, then add a target value for a future run (ie under 15,000 by Jan 31 or similar), until we get the backlog under 1000 (it's just above 20,000 now). If anyone not heavily involved in the task to date thinks that the target link page isn't clear enough, then please give us feedback at WT:URBLP (or edit/improve it yourself).The-Pope (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agree with this proposal. —J04n(talk page) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the original notice, but I don't think that a recurring notice is a good idea. People tend to disregard things like that once they become routine. That, and it's a bit of a slippery slope: there are lots of other projects and backlogs that would love to "advertise" like this, but we can't let them all have a week. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This case is a little exceptional considering how much strife and controversy this backlog causes. Since everyone seems positive on the idea, and no one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and mark this with an editprotected request. Gigs (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]