MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Request for a new watchlist notice

An RFC designed to try to resolve issues of notability is in the final stages of being prepared for wide-scale presentation to Wikipedia. As this is a rather significant issue, with hopes that the results will help lead to development of consensus-agreed guideline language, hopefully putting an end to the endless arguments over notability on WP, we'd like to see about getting a watchlist noticy for this (in addition to the RFC being posted at all the usual places). I don't know what the next steps for this would be, and given the recent watchlist-details explosion, I'd rather make sure to get this on correctly than have any problems with it. --MASEM 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo what Masem has said. There's been an explosion (here, here, here, and here, and also here) of discussion about the notability guideline, particularly after the heated discussion that took place over the Notability guideline for fiction. This isn't going to be resolved by any old RFC. We need as much feedback as possible from the widest possible audience. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to help out and clarify. Randomran (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the Request for Comment up? I agree that it would be helpful to have this in the watchlist-details - WP:N is a core guideline - however, it would be more helpful to users if the request was up. The links above go to archives, which might be useful as a reference at RfC, but not before it goes live. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not up yet, we're just making sure the ducks are in a row that once the RFC is up, we know we have this as an announcement resource in addition to the usual outlets, otherwise, without it, we'd likely need to spam several Wikiprojects to get attention. The actual RFC (not yet at its final home) is at User:Randomran/test, with my guess being that when RFC'd, it will be living at WP:Notability/RFC. Once that is done, we'll come back here and post that so that if the watchlist notice is warranted, it can then be added. --MASEM 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I support making an exception for this RfC. Notability and its subguidelines effect almost all editors, so as many as possible should be notified. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I also support making an exception here. As someone who creates new articles on a semi-frequent basis, changes to WP:NOTE are of particular importance to me. S. Dean Jameson 16:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having worked on this RFC with Masem, I'm all for starting the RFC whenever we both sign off on it and give it a real home (instead of a user page called "test"). Masem? Randomran (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Once it's ready I definitely feel this is a valid time when a watchlist notice is a good idea as notability is so central to much that we do on wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sure. Can you present the text with the relevant links? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion: Move it to WP:Notability/RFC Aug 2008 (lets date the RFC), and then add the correct RFC format, then repost back here to start the watchlist process. Also make sure to post to WP:VPP, possibly to centralized discussions, and to at least WT:N. --MASEM 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
What kind of formatting from RFC do we need? Randomran (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the next step in getting the RfC up and on the watchlist? Hobit (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Technically it's all ready to go - however, Randomran is off for a few days but asked me to hold off if possible until he gets back to start it since he's taken the lead on prepping this. --MASEM 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Randomran is back... Hobit (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep. And there's still some discussion about adding proposals, so it doesn't make sense to start the RFC quite yet. Randomran (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can now point to Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise as the RFC that we are looking to get input on, and that would like to have a global watchlist notice to assist. I don't know if we need to work out language or what, but this is now started. --MASEM 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy what Masem said. We're looking to get the RFC going now, and the watchlist notice would be key. Randomran (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for a Main Page redesign watchlist notice

Discussion on the 2008 main page redesign proposal has suggested we poll users for input on a new design for the main page. After some collaboration, a survey has been created, with sections for readers to vote and give comments on a variety of proposed ideas. Using a watchlist notice would let both casual editors and regular editors give input what they want in a new design. Other notifications of this survey would also be added in the relevant places (the Village Pump, Talk:Main Page, etc). --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I support this proposal, lol. Seriously though, I feel the anarchic discussion format at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal and in the archives hasn't been successful, and a survey will generate more focussed discussion. The watchlist notice would be ideal to reinvigorate notice and comments on the idea of redesigning the main page. Deamon138 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The main page design proposal has been spinning wheels for a while, this is a great way to get the community to move along. Scottydude review 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost a week with no objections. And no discussion either. Did the admin pool that takes care of this procedure dry up all of a sudden? --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I've been watching the discussion. I don't see a real need for a notice. Post to the village pumps / noticeboards. But I think the real issue is the survey itself. It's a bit of a mess. I don't really think it would be best to have hordes of people suddenly flooding it.... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The previous watchlist notice had such an effect, and the outcome wasn't good. And of course, the 2006 redesign proposal (which ultimately succeeded) received plenty of enthusiastic (and far more constructive) feedback without being advertised via the watchlist until the final vote was held. —David Levy 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So, what's wrong with the survey then? Feel free to make suggestions on the talk page or in the comments section or whatever, or even be bold and make some changes yourself. The main page is very important, so if a survey is used, it is vital we hear all objections and/or problems over the survey. Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is good to understand history! Initially I was going to support this, but David Levy has a point. I was unaware of the 2006 redesign. The handful of editors discussing it now can whittle the proposals down to about 10–20, and then a preferential vote (a pure vote, with no comments) can be held. We would then select the winner based on a Condorcet method such as the Schulze method (which was used to elect Ting Chen to Wikimedia's Board of Trustees in June 2008). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. It doesn't really matter either way about the notice. People will find this page, and word will spread. I guess we can get a watchlist notice when it goes in for vote. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to mention that when the vote begins, we would post the watchlist notice. Are there restrictions on who can vote—only registered users? only auto-confirmed? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's the kind of thing that could be abused (unlike, say, adminship), so I don't see any reason to restrict it.
It would definitely be good to whittle the choices down before taking it to a final vote: I looked through the current entrants, and there's just too much to sift through for a casual evaluator.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
How would we be able to know if two votes from the same IP address are different voters or the same person? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless the number of votes from a single IP are going to sway a decision, I wouldn't worry about it. If it actually effectts something, then we can weight it appropriately. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I highly doubt there's going to be massive vote rigging in a page redesign, but you never know. I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it tho. We will need help designing a more mature vote page when this is getting a little closer to being done, so much help will be appreciated when the time comes. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice re: Wikinews / Main Page proposal

A proposal to include links to 3 main page lead articles from Wikinews onto the Main Page on Wikipedia. They would be incorporated from User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles into {{In the news}}. Please weigh in at Template talk:In the news.

Could a notice incorporating this please be added to the watchlist? I think it is something that the community will be interested in. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the various noticeboards and village pumps are sufficient. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for considering it. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR access

Regarding Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR and the discussions at Wikipedia:UCfD#Category:Wikipedians_who_have_access_to_JSTOR and Category:Wikipedians by access to research sites, I think it might be of benefit to the project to add a watchlist notice asking Wikipedians to consider categorising themselves in these categories if they apply and they are willing to provide access or verify information within such libraries. Hiding T 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

watchlist request (second request, now that it's ready)

User:PeterSymonds agreed that an RFC on WP:Notability would be an excellent idea. But it appears as though he has left Wikipedia to focus on school. (A wise choice!) I hope that someone else can make this watchlist notice happen, because this is a hugely important issue that needs feedback from a wide breadth of Wikipedians. For some history of why this is important, see MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Request_for_a_new_watchlist_notice.

The RFC is here: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Can someone be of any assistance? Randomran (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I've added a consensed version of the notice. Please revert me if I screwed up the formatting in some way. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The page was since moved to the WP: space out of the WP Talk: space, so I've updated the link, but looks fine otherwise. --MASEM 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think should avoid watchlist-cruft. In lieu of the notice, could we announce the RfC at the relevant fora, including WP:PUMP, WP:CENT, WP:AN, and WT:N. Jehochman Talk 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
We had requested this well before to make sure this could be a proper venue (given the effect of notability on all of WP), and given that this has been announced at all those pages back at the start of September (but only now just got on the watchlist), it is finally helping to get the input needed for this. --MASEM 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah there's strong support for soliciting wider feedback. There's also a solid justification, since prior RFCs on related notability issues ended in no consensus. And WP:N is just that important. Randomran (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
There was a past discussion where it was decided not to let everyone advertise their pet projects on the watchlist details. We have WP:PUMP and WP:CENT as places to announce community discussions. Force feeding noticed to people via the watchlist is not the right way to treat website users. If people want to know about announcements, they can go to those venues and look. I see that there is another request for watchlist-cruft below. Please, all of these need to be stopped. As soon as one person announces their favorite discussion, everybody else wants to add theirs too. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you took time to acquaint yourself with the history of this dispute, you'll realize this is not anyone's "pet project". I have no comment on other watchlist notices. But you might be well-advised to be more discriminating with watchlist notice requests. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As another point of data, this RFC went up with announcements across all VP and many project boards, and we got, say, maybe 20-30 active editors to comment; this was the start of Sept. Since the watchlist went up, we're now above 100 and input is still growing. I completely agree to avoid spamming the watchlist notice (I remember back when it did get spammy there with like 4 active proposals), but it obviously gets much more attention than you can get with all the other usual places, and with something that has WP-wide influence like notability, this is the type of aspect you want to get input on. --MASEM 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Some more data: the Rfa Review received 209 responses to its first questionnaire, over the course of 4 weeks. Since posting the notice here, we've received 206 in just two weeks. There's interest in using the function because it's simply that effective - and, on point, we're getting questionnaires from people who would never see a notice on WT:RFA or WP:AN - which is more valuable than it might seem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for "view-deleted activation" now open

{{editprotected}} This proposal has been being discussed for months, so I've brought it to a straw poll. I've link to it from a few noticeboards, but not all editors watch noticeboards. Please add this line -

A poll is now open to determine if non-administrators should be able to view deleted pages. All editors are asked to voice their opinions here.

Thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the poll will be oped until 23:59 UTC, 17 October 2008, please leave it up until that time. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we do not need more watchlist cruft. Please announce this at WP:CENT and WP:PUMP. Jehochman Talk 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Closing request. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for posting to the watchlist

I think we need to establish a criteria for posting to the watchlist, to avoid cruft, and to be fair to the many different causes that would like to gain exposure there. To begin the discussion, I see a few obvious possibilities:

  1. Discuss on this talk page. A drawback is that this page does not get much attention.
  2. Discuss at a central location, such as WP:PUMP, and get a consensus that a notice needs to be posted here.
  3. Allow administrators to post ad hoc and get disagreements.

Please comment, and let's try to get this resolved quickly. I prefer the second option. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion here is appropriate; it would almost make sense to have a process akin to WP:TFAR, where an editors posts to here a topic they want on the watchlist-details and other editors support or refuse their request, processing the request after 5 days either onto the list or not. We're talking about a process to announce discussion of processes, so it is sorta meta to the whole WP, and thus shouldn't be at PUMP directly. A TFA-style review is rather easy to maintain and check for "pet project" input to avoid extraneous use of the function. --MASEM 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I also think discussion is appropriate. That said: a.) this talk page isn't likely to be a high-traffic page, and b.) It seems that there appear to be strong opinions to stop anything (except perhaps a notice from the board) from being listed on the watchlists (which I think is waay too restrictive). Perhaps the link to this talk page should be "somewhere" on the watchlist page? - jc37 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding a proposal for bureaucrats to remove admin flags

There is a straw poll regarding a proposal for bureaucrats to remove admin flags here. Would it be ok to add this to the watchlist header? PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections, and agree that the straw poll needs wider attention from the community. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It should be up for no longer than a week, and should be removed before the next notice is posted. Jehochman Talk 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not important enough. This only directly affects admins. —Ashley Y 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This proposal would give every editor the power to request and vote for the removal of problem admins. It is relevant to every editor. Jehochman Talk 00:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Few editors are interested in that. Not that this is not a potentially important question, it's just not that important. It's not like, for instance, the WP:ATT question, which affected everyone contributing to the encyclopedia. —Ashley Y 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree with Jehochman. Even editors that stay completely away from any admin areas may be affected by an inappropriate admin action. It is certainly relevant to the whole community, and I doubt anyone could measure whether "few editors are interested in that" until it gets a wider audience. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"may be affected" is something that can be said about every proposal. But this is something that's entirely related to the admin side of things, not the actual day-to-day business of creating content. —Ashley Y 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 main page redesign proposal RFC

The main page redesign proposal would like ot request a watch-list notification on Friday, October 24. The message is 

The [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18|Main Page Redesign proposal]] is currently conducting a vote to select five proposals to put forward for a new Main Page. Your input would be hugely appreciated.

See Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Request for Comment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the available options. I am assuming it will be possible to vote for the current main page design once this poll opens? Gary King (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope so. It wouldn't really be a fair vote otherwise; many editors feel the present design is fine. Can we get confirmation on that? PeterSymonds (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the current design will be in the vote, that's popped up in the discussion a few times. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The Main page is not included here, because this proposed notice points to the prelimary draft choice. They want to call this straw poll to reduce the number from 20 designs, down to 5. Then they intend on somehow merging those 5 into 2 (maybe 3) new drafts. Those new drafts will then be put in another site-wide straw poll, which will include the current design. Hypothetically speaking. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
And this, as you know, is the wrong way to go about accomplishing the goal. I don't know why they insist on voting away most of the designs in their entirety (while still leaving multiple, competing designs) instead of collaborating to compile the best elements now. —David Levy 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
What are the best elements? لennavecia 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's subjective and should be discussed. "Voting" out an arbitrary number of designs creates the possibility of losing good elements along with them. —David Levy 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
So, no input at all is a better alternative? لennavecia 03:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I said nothing of the sort. I plainly stated my opinion that further discussion should occur (but not in the form of a majority vote, and not by inviting random editors — the vast majority of whom only edit articles — via the watchlist). —David Levy 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose such a watchlist notice. This proposal has been disastrously carried out from day one (beginning with a watchlist notice that fueled the chaos), and the planned "vote" continues the trend. Several of us tried to provide helpful advice (based on lessons learned during the most recent main page redesign, some stemming from similar mistakes), and we were ignored. Please replace this "competition" with collaboration (you know, like a wiki?), and you might have something viable. —David Levy 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ditto, what David said. Completely unorganized snafu.
A few of the designs have some interesting elements, but the "competition" mindset means the designs are all stagnating in isolation, with noone willing to cede control over "their" proposal. Most of the editors that originally started the proposal have disappeared, too. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; let's save it for major policy changes. —Ashley Y 02:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it may not be policy, but the main page is the face of wikipedia, it's important. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is. That's why it's distressing to see this proposal mishandled. —David Levy 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Post RFC The idea behind the straw poll is to shorten the number of proposals before we cede control and develop it collectively based on a specific criteria of elements. I can agree that the planning was poor, and that it has caused tremendous "unorganized snafu", however this is perhaps the only current available option for getting it back on track. We simply can't develop twenty proposals: that's why we're shortening to five. After that I've proposed a method (link above) to how we're to progress from there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a wiki. You should be getting the proposal back on track by doing the right thing — formulating a single draft based on simple discussion. Casting ballots with the intention of eliminating fifteen designs in their entirety and "[ceding] control" of the remaining five is yet another misstep, not a solution to the problem. —David Levy 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We need greater community input. It's that simple. We need to inform the community of what's going on, get their opinions. Take their support and comments from the top five proposals and work to create one or two proposals that drop what the majority of editors do not want while incorporating all of the things they do into one design that will please the majority. Then we can take that final draft (or two options) to the community to decide if we make a change or not. This process stalls without further input. There's no good reason a watchlist notification can't be used for this. لennavecia 15:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that this entire proposal has been mishandled from the beginning, continues to be mishandled, and should not be legitimized. I urge you to end this "competition" and begin working collaboratively (like a wiki). Until then, another watchlist notice will accomplish nothing more than drawing a crowd to the mess.
I'll also point out that we created the current main page design without ever advertising the process on the watchlist (which we reserved for the actual replacement discussion). —David Levy 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, this proposal is in no way a "competition." It may posses some competitive spirit, but its only intent is that to provide some motivation for the otherwise tedious process. Within my view, the tremendous number of proposals and the lengthy development only provides us with more options and ideas which would otherwise be excluded in a consensus based proposal. However, you are correct. Following the RFC, the proposals will be disowned from its proposer and developed by the community rather than individually. From there if you wish to "properly handle" the proposal processes, please step in. There has been two archives of discussion with 157 threads of discussion as a proposal at a whole (there is more discussion from within proposals). I apologize if you disagree with the processes involved or with the criteria for a watchlist notification, however as Jennavecia stated, "There is no good reason a watchlist notification can't be used for this." ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1. If "this proposal is in no way a competition," why was it located at Wikipedia:Main Page design competition until I moved it to its current title?
2. Indeed, having "more options and ideas" is a good thing. So why do you want to risk losing some good ones by eliminating an arbitrary number of designs (in their entirety) from consideration before attempting to compile the best elements?
3. As noted above, I (and others) attempted to steer the proposal in a saner direction, and we were ignored.
4. What makes you think that average editors are going to take the time to analyze twenty designs? The proposed invitation stands to turn people off to the whole idea. To me, that seems like a "good reason" not to post it. —David Levy 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The gate keeper mentality here is awesome, but what it comes down to is this: Hundreds of hours of work have gone into these proposals. We could narrow it down ourselves, but that's fairly stupid considering we want a design that will please the majority of the community. Not to be rude, but the community is a lot larger now than it was when the current main page went up, so I think it makes sense to get wider input before finalizing the collaborative proposal(s). We want to know what the community likes best. If one or two designs clearly rank as favorites, then we know what overall look to go for. Then take various aspects from others that drew support from the community. Again, it's really quite simple. لennavecia 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument works against you; it's true that the community was much smaller back then, and we managed to solicit a HUGE amount of feedback without a watchlist notice (simply by advertising the proposal elsewhere). With the community being so much larger now, it would be even easier to attract interested parties (and many more of them) in that manner. A watchlist notice, conversely, would generate more noise than anything else (just as it did the first time around). —David Levy 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that's why it was easier to get a huge amount of feedback; there was a smaller number of deeply involved editors and they had a better all around wikisense, and knew what was happening around, and how to get involved. Or perhaps all the editors that would give feedback now are simply busy on other projects, and don't know about it. It could also be because that was the first(?) redesign. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I suspect that we obtained more feedback because the project wasn't so disorganized. And no, it wasn't the first main page redesign. —David Levy 02:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
We've posted in the several wikiprojects, one prominent one was the Philippines which contained a number of developers [1], however as it turned out there isn't a tremendous interest from any particular group. (1) The name space was moved before there were any proposals, you can CSD that redirect if you wish. (2) See above, we've already discussed 157 threads; I'm sorry that your try for sanity failed, however a lot have boiled down, and perhaps you should rejoin the proposal (3) I tired myself to turn the "competition" into "sanity", and we can do so following the straw poll: please clarify how a watch-list notification is inappropriate (4) at a glance screens shots are provided, however the rationale is that: how can we shorten the number of proposals anyway though consensus when its cited that we need more input? (We know, it's like the third or fourth MP redesign, get one every two years) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
1. I'm not bothered by the redirect's existence. My point is that this proposal was explicitly conceived as a "competition," and despite efforts to change this, it has remained one.
2. My free time is very limited, but I'll be happy to participate in the proposal when it begins complying with Wikipedia's basic principles and does so in an organized manner.
3. You say that you intend to restore sanity after the straw poll. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't sensible to invite the entire community to a discussion that you agree lacks sanity.
In addition to the disorganization, a watchlist notice is inappropriate because the intended methodology (a majority vote) is poor and because this is a matter best handled by soliciting feedback from the segment of the community that chooses to avail itself of such proposals.
4. You shouldn't be trying to "shorten the number of proposals"; you should be discussing various elements and working to combine the best ones into a single consensus-based design. If you're unable to draw sufficient input via conventional means, that should tell you that something is wrong (and the problem cannot be solved via the brute-force approach of tossing up a watchlist notice). —David Levy 03:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we have an agreement over development and methods used, but different view over how to achieve our goals. The competition as you stated was created before the proposal got off the ground, my view is that following a RFC we can place a legitimate end to competition and from which we would concentrate on the elements. From my understanding your view is that the RFC is flawed from the start, and this is not a remedy. Very well, the watchlist notification is struck down, unless someone else wants to advocate it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple rule

I propose we have a simple rule: nothing ever goes on the watchlist. Easy to state, easy to understand.

The only times something should, in fact, end up on the watchlist is when something is so important that we actually ignore the rule. An edict from Jimbo or the board or just overwhelming community consensus that everyone must read something because it affects all use of or contribution to the encyclopedia. The only example I know of was the flap over WP:ATT, which proposed revising the core content policies. —Ashley Y 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really hate it, blank it. This is still a useful place to put messages for all active editors, such as elections. — xaosflux Talk 03:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe nothing other than what goes on MediaWiki:Sitenotice. —Ashley Y 04:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, yes, it's been overused in the past. But to restrict watchlist notices to the Board or Jimbo is ridiculous. There are several notable items, affecting all editors, that can be placed here. It's extremely easy to hide, and doesn't really cause much hassle, so as long as the item has consensus for addition, there shouldn't be a problem. I strongly oppose this proposal. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
All that is really needs is to schedule notices so that there is no more than one ever going on, and at most lasts one week - the whole issue against watchlist notices is when suddenly there were like 3 of them running co-currently. That never needs to be the case.
(My ideal solution is that the watchlist-details is something that incorporates a user's sub-page, allowing them to "subscribe" to various notices as they will via template transclusion, the default for all users being this page specifically but with the ability to edit it away (with the fair understand consequence that with it removed, they cannot complain if they don't catch an announcement in there). The only overriding case is the Sitenotice reserved specifically for the Foundation which can never be turned off - I don't know what technical hurdles there would need to be but this would be the way to still allow this feature to be used - you'd just still want to avoiding spamming it for the default case). --MASEM 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Requirements

I think that it is obvious that the bar to posting a watchlist notice should be high, but still low enough that the important things get on there. There just seems to be some disagreement on what the prerequisites should be. Here's a few suggestions:

  1. Pre-existing: The discussion should already have been posted at WP:CENT, the appropriate Village Pump, the Admin Noticeboard, and at least one other venue for a week. If, after that week, the discussion is still not attracting enough attention, then it can be placed as a watchlist notice.
  2. Importance: The discussion must involve Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, or otherwise be something which would impact all of Wikipedia's editors.
  3. Forum/Quorum: A proposed notice should be requested at (* appropriate forum *) and receive support from at least (* number *) admins before being posted. This does not mean that just a few admins can override consensus, it just means that you would need at least that much support, in th absence of any objections. I would suggest that the forum be WP:AN and the number be three.

Thoughts?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In several cases, it may be useful to plan ahead to use the watchlist-notice (see the ArbCom stuff below) tied in with start of the discussion. Having the requirement that discussion be in CENT for a week may be too slow, but it should be confirmed that the CENT/VP/anywhere else notice has been placed appropriate before the watchlist notice is added. --MASEM 18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
So maybe it should be something of a sliding scale based on importance? Not a formal scale, but something to keep in mind when discussing these. ArbCom elections (like below), or other, are pretty much going to be easy approves. However, something like the Notability RFC should probably be posted at other places first. Maybe not a week, but at least a couple of days, just to make sure that this is something which needs to attract more notice. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sitenotice Watchlist Proposal for Arbcom Election 2008

The Arbcom Elections for 2008 are coming up soon, and are typically featured in a watchlist notice. Since there is concern about the overuse of this feature, I think it best if we specify exactly what is or is not an acceptable level of notice for this election. I would propose the following:

These notices match the notices posted for last year's elections, and I believe that the election of the Arbitration Committee is of sufficient importance as to justify a notice of this type. Thanks in advance for your consideration. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think this will be non-controversial, as it is the established practice. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Support schedule for notice. --MASEM 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is precisely the sort of announcement that should be included here. —David Levy 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The section header says sitenotice which is not the same as a watchlist notice... But I have no issue with a watchlist notice for these events. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this also sitenotice? If I dismiss the sitenotice, will it dismiss the watchlist notice as well? —Ashley Y 03:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Software notices has a bit more information. The dismiss buttons are independent. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So is there any point having this notice on both? It just means everyone has to dismiss it twice. —Ashley Y 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This particular message should not appear in the sitenotice, as it's of interest only to editors (and not to the vast majority of readers). And no, nothing should ever be listed in both locations. —David Levy 07:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I approve. —Ashley Y 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely belongs in here. — xaosflux Talk 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Per the above consensus, I've posted the notice for nominations. Please feel free to remove it on or after 00:00 UTC on 24 November. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Bold the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements|nominate themselves]] link since it's the primary link in the line; it's a good way of leading the reader to the page instead of having them guess "which link should I click on to do the nomination?" It's like DYKs, where a link is bolded to lead the reader to that page on purpose. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Good call. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundraiser

Cross posted from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Fundraiser

I was looking at the designs of m:Fundraising 2008 and noticed that they weren't as good as the ones from last year. Remembering how those were redesigned a few times after they where put up site wide, is it possible to alert interested people about this using the watchlist notice feature? — Dispenser 05:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the design is as negotiable as it has been in years past. Do you? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Last year started as an abomination (remember the scrolling marquee!), and worked its way up to passable. Even then the "redesigns" consisted of asking for community input and then ignoring it if favor of paying someone. Don't expect that we have any ability to influence these things besides minor wording tweaks. Dragons flight (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well a bit pointless now. — Dispenser 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been assured that those in charge of running the fundraiser are paying attention to the discussion happening at Meta. If you have comments / concerns / etc. about the fundraiser, please bring them up at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2008/design drafts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeking broad participation in a discussion

Additional input is sought. Please see this discussion:

Can something about this be posted on the watchlist? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the consensus among people who watch this page is that we prefer not to use the watchlist to advertise discussions. For more visibility discussions may be announced at WP:PUMP on the appropriate sub-page. Regards, Jehochman Talk 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I had already posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and we could still use some more input. Some people feel that it is a major change. I disagree, but hey, that's just me. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider this a major enough change to merit a watchlist notice.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add a watchlist notice re: Date autoformatting and linking

I really hate to ask this with two watchlist notices up already and the fundraising banner, but we're close to launching an RFC on the issue of date autoformatting and linking, which pretty much affects all articles and editors on WP, and thus are seeking wide consensus for it. It will be announced at the Pumps, CENT, and other appropriate places, but part of the problem with this issue is that while those places were used before to try to get input, it maybe only grabbed a dozen or so editors and the consensus that was reached by that has come back to cause rather heated discussions at WP:MOSNUM, and has already resulted in a few edit wars and blocks at WP:AN/I.

The RFC (still being drafted but nearly there) is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. Ideally it would be started this weekend so the notice should run at least through Dec 5th, but I again, I'm aware that we have two existing notices - I just wonder if the one about the preferences about the fundraiser is still necessary. Mind you, if either of these are due to end in the next week or before December, I can see waiting to post this one until that is cleared out just to avoid any issues. --MASEM 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Having been involved in the original discussion that resulted in deprecating the autoformatting, I support having a watchlist notice for this. We really do need to have a community-wide consensus on this issue, otherwise it just keeps coming up. A watchlist notice seems the best way to me to get the necessary attention.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable use of the watchlist. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As someone involved, agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes, except that many users have pointed out the shambolic wording of that RfC, and its drafting has appeared to go nowhere and to have occupied a huge amount of space at MOSNUM talk for some time. I was unaware of this section when I posted an RfC only today at the same location, to bring to the discussion a clearly worded, succinct set of proposals for changing MOSNUM. I believe that they are rather too closely related to the one MASEM is still working on for a watchlist notice to be a workable arrangement now. A quick visit to his RFC drafting page shows that there are still many problems, and that the design is large, complex and cumbersome. I do believe that it will not solve a thing. Tony (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not your place to unilaterally decide that it's beyond hope when it seemed we were only waiting for the right time to open it up. Your behavior, Tony, has been deplorable throughout this ordeal and I am strongly considering requesting arbitration over your conduct. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not express my opinions because I do or do not have some kind of permission or status. I express them because they are what I believe in the context, and because this is a free wiki. Tony (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's a free wiki doesn't mean you have a right to be disruptive or attempt to engage in anarchy. This "free wiki" works through discussion and consensus, something which was forming (and I would posit, had already formed) at the RFC you abandoned in favor of striking off on your own. There is no deadline. This is not a race. Your patience was far more necessary in this than your brashness and this entire process has suffered because of your actions. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thoughts regarding this? It's a rather uncontroversial change, but I'll revert if needed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFC

{{editprotected}} The RFC is live, could a notification be added per the discussion above? Here is the appropriate code (please be sure to increment the next available ID in the HTML comment): 

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_45" id="RFCDatelinkNov08">&bull; ''A [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] is currently underway regarding date linking and date auto formatting. Editors are encouraged to participate in discussion '''[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC|here]]'''.'' &nbsp; </div>

Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 08:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this should not be added to the watchlist after the bad faith shown by those who are promoting it against an existing RfC on the same page. Tony (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
An existing RFC which you crafted when it became clear this RFC was about to go live? Stop being disruptive Tony, if you want a community consensus on this issue then this watchlist notice is pretty much required. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The regulars at MOS clearly need more eyes to help with this dispute. Would be nice to get greater community exposure to this issue. I'd suggest adding it, given that there were no objections (except one) in the discussion above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and here's a disengaged commentator. Watchlisting will be seen as partial, and will end up plunging the watchlist system into disrepute. It does have to be seen as impartial. You're on my own watchlist in relation to the "conflict of interest" policy for admin behaviour, by the way. Tony (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Tony how is the language above in any way "partial"? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps both RfC's should be noted. Locke, even though Tony's RfC is disruptive in fact, it might not have been in bad faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_45" id="RFCDatelinkNov08">&bull; ''Two [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]] are currently underway regarding date linking and date auto formatting. Editors are encouraged to participate in the discussions '''[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC|here]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#RfC:_Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM|here]]'''.'' &nbsp; </div>

The code above presents both RFCs. Again remember to update the next available ID (by incrementing it) in the HTML comment at the top of the interface message. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done: At first I was in favor of posting this, but it now seems to be a recipe for disaster. We're going to have two competing RFC's designed by two competing groups. This sounds absolutely anti-productive to me. Why are we going to have the same discussion in two separate places? Merge the RFC's, then we can post the watchlist notice.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for your advice, but we won't be taking that up. The pre-existing RfC has produced overwhelmingly decisive results and contains differently framed questions. People have already expressed an opinion on the text and structure they saw. It is not legitimate to tamper with this. Tony (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, could I remind you of the policy rule concerning "conflict of interest" that governs the behaviour and actions of admins? Please be sure to act within this. I think an action that led to the promotion of one RfC over an existing one would place you in a position of breaching the policy, given your stated angle on the issues at WP:CONTEXT over the past few months. Tony (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Err...Tony, I think your memory is a little faulty here. I support (and always have) the deprecation of date autoformatting. While you and I have had our disagreements about CONTEXT and MOSNUM, we are actually in agreement about this. My objection to the double-RFC is that I think it is a waste of everyone's time and effort, and for me the act of placing two RFC's de-legitimates both of them. By having two competing RFC's, we make it less likely (not more) that the issue will remain unsettled. I want this issue to be settled more than I care about "winning".--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • There are difficulties in interpreting the responses within the second RfC per se, and between the two, but not within the first RfC. They are mostly asking for comment on different things. Tony (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree here that the RFC drafted by me is leading to difficult interpretation. Both RFCs (as of now) tell us that the current method of date delinking should be deprecated, and that linking dates (Month-day and year) links should not be done. Tony's RFC question on the use of bots (which was not asked on the other RFC) seems clearly that it's not an issue a MOS page needs to worry about. The questions exclusive to the RFC I drafted clearly show that any type of DA system is not desirable, and that "Year in Field" links should be used but presented as "See Also".
    • As to the purposes of trying to get more eyes on it, can they be merged? Q1 of both are the same, but it would be disingenuous to simply copy the existing "Opposes" of Tony's RFC to "Supports" on my RFC. Tony's Q2 really is a broader scope of Q3-4 on mine, so they really can't be combined, but it can be asked directly. Tony's Q3 is exclusive to his so could be added directly. I really do want to get more eyes on this, even though we are getting a reasonable amount of feedback from (as best I can tell) non-regulars of MOSNUM. --MASEM 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I would support adding the second proposed notice to the watchlist details (unless of course there's a consensus to follow Carnildo's suggestion at WP:AN, which I think is preferable). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • There's something basic about surveys, experiments, questionnaires, referenda and such processes as RfCs that you guys are not understanding. You cannot change the wording, formatting or structure after it starts, because people have already responded to these (as "stimuli" in the scientific sense, if you like, or in the lay sense, as the framework in which they understood they were responding. Tony (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed and this wouldn't be a problem Tony had you not set off on your own. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I do lots of setting off on my own: you should try it. And please try to be less negative about me personally. Tony (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't support using the Watchlist for promoting an RfC (or even 2 RfCs) of this nature. We should reserve the Watchlist notice for only the most important announcements and warnings. And past usage should be no guide to future, before anyone throws an OTHERCRAP argument at me. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of disruption this dispute has caused, the number of reports at AN, AN/I, 3RR (and now EW) it would be silly not to try and settle this via as much input as possible. The responses to both RFCs so far seem to be from people who were either a) already involved in MOS in some fashion or b) people who just happened to be familiar with the subject (people running date delinking scripts/bots, etc). We would really benefit from having the kind of random sampling a watchlist notice would provide. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I sympathise that the RfCs need a wide audience. I just don't agree with using this mechanism. Bad metaphor time: want to put out your bonfire? - use a bucket of water. House on fire? - call the fire brigade. Calling the fire brigade too often is (mixed metaphor time) Crying wolf. Arooo! --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I normally completely agree, watchlist-details should be bare most of the time. However, date linking affects nearly (technically all through proper referencing) articles and influences every reader's (including anons) view of the work, and while the encyclopedia is not going to falter if we do or don't have date linking, this is a point of critical decision as the next step (presuming DA is deprecated) is wiping the work clean of them. It is significant enough that more editors than just policy page watchers need to be aware of it. (I do disagree with Locke's reasoning that the amount of trouble it's brewed is reason -- that's just a means to implore as much dispute resolution as possible). Back when we had the RFC on WP:N, the watchlist notice brought 100-some editors to comment, more than the 20 or so that had come by from VP and other posted areas for discussion for the two weeks prior; obviously watchlist-notice gets tons more eyes than any of the usual discussion announcement places (unfortunately).
Now, on the other hand, I would argue that the # of responses both RFCs are getting are getting sufficient input; as suggested if Tony's RFC goes as it continues in the next week, it could be speedily closed, and possibly the same with mine. I am confident that the #s of input for both are more than significant as there are few MOSNUM regulars and other editors I don't normally see giving replies. So at this point a watchlist-notice may not really be necessary. --MASEM 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the responses are pleasing in number for both. I don't know what the fuss is about. The line being run above that only MOS nerds and those involved in the subject area have responded is ... faintly ridiculous. Tony (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break

It looks like my fears of a dual-RFC disaster are somewhat unfounded, so I'm dropping my objection to the watchlist notice (although I notice Dweller still objects). If anyone wants to add it, go ahead.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Masem also disagrees and I think Tony does too. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm easy, except that if Masem disagrees, I wouldn't want to go against his wish. In any case, only if both RfCs are the subject of the exposure in a NPOV way. There's a dual purpose: to garner more opinions and to let more WPians know that practice has changed in this area. But again, it's no big deal. Tony (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of making sure this has as much input as possible I think it's necessary to open this up to the wider community through this notice. My benchmark for a successful RFC was going to be at least 100 participants (the same number that approved the straw poll for semi-protection back in 1996, and so so far I think we're running at about half that). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely would want to see, if we are still getting a watchlist-detail, both RFCs mentioned, with possibly only a brief and neutrally worded statement to explain why there are two similarly-sounding RFCs going on both RFC sections. --MASEM 13:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like standing in the way of peace breaking out. If Masem agrees to it, I'll grudgingly switch to neutral and go grumble in a corner somewhere. <grins> --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done using Locke Cole's code in previous section to represent both requests for comment. Hiding T 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#RfC:_Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM|here]] to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM|here]] (the discussion has been moved to a separate page).--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatzchatspy 11:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The watchlist details file is the not the place to announce RFC's. This has been discussed many times before and it is not something people want. Please remove them. Jehochman Talk 04:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of genuine curiosity, where should they be listed to help garner a large community consensus if not here? I honestly can't think of anywhere else. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:PUMP and WP:CENT are possibilities. The problem is that everyone thinks their RFC or proposal is important. They are important, but there are a lot of them and we are not in a good position on this thinly trafficked talk page to decide which RFC's run and which don't. I've wanted to run an RFC announcement here and it got shot down (and I had to accept that). We generally have only run exceptional things, such as announcement of the ArbCom elections, Steward elections, and things of that magnitude. Jehochman Talk 05:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable to me. Tony (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Except in this instance these RFCs are important enough to be included here. The issue of date linking and formatting has resulted in numerous blocks, disruptive edit wars and months of arguing. The larger communities input is absolutely necessary for there to be some closure to this. Yes I agree that not every RFC need be advertised here, but similarly not every RFC shouldn't be advertised here either. I think this is the exception to the rule. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That argument can be applied to any RFC. Many people think their RFC is exceptionally important, but this page is not really the place to decide which RFCs if any rise to that level of importance. I believe that the consensus originally established that the watchlist notice is not for advertising RFCs is still valid, and that this notice was placed without proper consensus. Therefore, I am going to remove it in about 24 hours (barring a consensus to keep). Jehochman Talk 10:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The watchlist has been historically used to advertise high-profile RfCs. I think the Main page redesign and the merge of WP:V and WP:RS into WP:ATT are examples. For some issues, people want watchlist announcements (some issues are more important to mainspace editors than the Arbitration Committe elections are, which are on the watchlist). This talk page is the perfect place to decide which RfCs should be advertised in the watchlist notice, and so far the week the RfC has been shown seems to indicate that there is no strong admin consensus against the current notice. Kusma (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see your point. I'm sorry you think having more input on these kinds of things is bad, but if the watchlist notice is bothering you that much you should just hide it using your userspace CSS file. FWIW, I oppose removing the notice. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I've restored the notice. There does not seem to be a strong consensus to remove it, there has not been a widespread objection to it, the RfC is almost complete, and the notice has had a positive effect in bringing a much wider range of opinions to the debate. --Ckatzchatspy 19:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing notices

Could we please agree that RFCs may be announced at WP:PUMP and WP:CENT. Before announcing anything on the watchlists, there should be a consensus to do so at one of those venues or another centralized place such as WP:AN. Watchlist announcements are intrusive and damage usability. They should not be used except for the most important announcements, such as arbitrator elections and similarly unique and important events that have broad appeal. I recognize that these RFCs are important to the people involved, but they are not important to many other Wikipedians. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not discuss here (as we did prior to the date formatting RFC) to get consensus to post? Those other places, such discussion gets lost in the noise quickly. Yes, this is not an easy page to get to, but if an editor is concerned about seeing too many notices, they'll be able to search their way to here, and there's no reason this page can't use more eyes.
As for RFCs, there are ones that affect pretty much every editor, every page, or every viewer, and thus only RFCs with wide-ranging impacts should even be considered. I could argue the ArbCom elections affect a much smaller circle of people compared to some RFC announcements, but I recognize the importance of that body, and thus the need for that; I'd expect the same that an RFC that is going to drastically affect the work should be considered in the same fashion as well. But until we can force editors to keep watching CENT and the various RFC announcement pages, this is the only place that consistently will catch registered editors eyes.
But before they are posted they should be requested here and discussed (just as was done with date autoformatting ones) before they are added, in a manner that the Today's Featured Article requests are processed. I disagree about breaking usability, as only registered editors that use their watchlists see them, and certainly not to the point of overwhelming the page. Of course, we also should avoid having more than 2 or 3 on there at any time (and three is even too much).--MASEM 14:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Support removing these two RfCs, but oppose having to reach consensus at a different place. This page seems the appropriate place to discuss watchlist proposals. Martin 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c x2) Anything's fine with me, as long as it's standardized and objective. I've already proposed one idea of the sort above, at #Requirements, and I see Jehochman's also proposed something along the same lines at #Criteria for posting to the watchlist, even earlier than I did. It would be nice if we could all come to a consensus guideline on what sort of prerequisites something should have before it can be announced on the watchlist. If we're going to have the discussion here, then at least a notice at WP:AN or WP:CENT should be required to let other admins and editors know about the discussion and link them here so they can find it easily. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This sounds very good to me. If there is a proposal here to list something, that should be announced and linked from one or more of our high traffic locations so that we can get a good consensus, not just two or three comments. We should probably create a process page that explains to people how to get a notice placed on the watchlist. See Wikipedia:Watchlist notices. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose standardized procedure, sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. Kusma (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems much more efficient to agree on a procedure rather than having lengthy debates each and every time somebody wants to add something. If the goal is to get more people to look at an RFC, announcing the notice is only going to help. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (e/c)Have you read WP:Watchlist notices? It's not bureaucratic, just sort of formalizes existing practice. All we're asking is that you publish notices at the Village Pump and WP:AN to let people know that there's a discussion going on here so there's a proper review.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, m:Instruction creep. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions RFC

This RFC was started yesterday. I think implementation of Flagged revisions in any form is a very important event for en.wiki, and any such proposal should be discussed by wider community. So I propose to add a watchlist notice with the following content: 

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_45" id="RFCFlaggedRevDec14">&bull; ''A [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] is currently underway regarding implementation of Flagged Revisions on en.wiki. Editors are encouraged to participate in discussion '''[[Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#RfC_on_implementation||here]]'''.'' &nbsp; </div>

Ruslik (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose all uses of watchlist spam to advertise RFCs. Please use WP:PUMP and WP:CENT instead. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I find "watchlist spam" necessary to advertise important RFCs. This one, however, seems to concentrate just on how to do limited trial runs. That can be probably done without prior advertisement at the watchlist. Any RfC on whether Flagged Revisions should be turned on globally should definitely go through the watchlist, one of the few places every editor sees. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
To be helpful, I added this RFC to WP:CENT. The initiators should post a longer explanation to WP:PUMP in the appropriate section if they have not done so already. There is a template for WP:CENT which is on my user page, and many others. This is a very good place to advertise things, and we should encourage more people to publish the template. Jehochman Talk 16:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom results

The watchlist notice says results on the 16th (Tomorrow, i.e. Tuesday). Mr Wales says Saturday. [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the notice to say 20 December. Kusma (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam

With somebody please prune the notices. There are too many of them. This page is not to be used for advertising. Please. It is very rude to stuff your pet projects in front of people who do not want to read them. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can hide it by putting #watchlist-message { display: none; } in your userspace CSS. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No I can't because I am sometimes using a mobile device. For efficiency and formatting reasons, I don't load that CSS file. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Or by clicking where it says "dismiss". DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Also no, because for security reasons I either block or delete cookies regularly. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You need to show more restraint with your admin tools. You already asked above if you could remove the notice and you received little support. Acting unilaterally after the fact is unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You folks ran roughshod over a consensus that was established a couple months ago. We really don't want the watchlist cluttered. There are now three or four announcements, and soon there will be more as others jump on the bandwagon. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Who are "we"? I'll agree that not everything should be listed here, but extraordinary issues should be. I'm sorry that we disagree about the importance of the matter in this instance, but clearly you are in the minority. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is to be used for advertising of important stuff, and you saying otherwise doesn't change that. Kusma (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Check the history of conversations on this page, please. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the RfC bullet again. Jehochman is right here. We (a lot of people on this talk page) decided long ago to not have these notices up for too long. About a week was decided. The RfC has been up for about two weeks (if I'm reading the page history correctly), which is more than enough time. As important as whether we do 2008 or 2008 is, two weeks in front of all watchlist users is absolutely sufficient and is more attention than nearly any other RfC has ever gotten. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That I agree about - I actually originally requested for two weeks, and I completely believe this is the right time frame for, if an RFC needs to be here, to be given to get larger input. That is, if done right, in a standard 4 week (30 day) RFC you get:
  • Week 1 - RFC created, and should be announced at CENT/VP and other project pages. Issues with format and approach of RFC can be addressed with low volumes of input
  • Week 2-3 - Watchlist notice added - RFC ready for high volumes of input
  • Week 4 - Watchlist notice removed - Start getting summaries and the like going
I do disagree with Jehochman's assessment that RFCs should not be posted here, though (as I did with the date ones) they need to be suggested and gained consensus to be included, and the question should have a very significant impact on WP as to need to "disrupt" the usual editing experience to be added. There are RFCs that can be considered "pet projects", but at least the two I have requested, notability and date issues, were trying to find the eye of these respective editing storms and thus needed more than just the regulars for assessment. --MASEM 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the longer period of notice was needed due to it being the holidays (not as many people are editing I assume). I would have preferred the notice remained until the RFC closed for this reason, and especially given the controversial nature of the subject of the past two years. Contrary to what Jehochman would like to believe, this issue is far more important than your typical RFC simply due to all the problems the matter has caused (editors blocked, pages protected, revert wars, etc). Again, I'd like to see the notice remain until the RFCs are finished (especially considering we were still getting additional input even today). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected Request

{{editprotected}}

  • Currently: "New arbitrators will be appointed on 20 December, 2008."
  • Request: "New arbitrators will be appointed on 20 December 2008."

- NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A change has been suggested to our MediaWiki watchlist page

(moved from AN, since this is the right place to ask)

It was suggested by Economicsguy II that Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey be advertised on the Watchlist, as it is on Template:Cent, for more visibility--not everyone sees Cent or it's grab bag of pages that use it, and I think this is a good idea. It's a major site-wide shift which affects everyone, not just the nice folks that loiter/stay often on Wikipedia-space (if it happens) that even Jimmy Wales has now endorsed.

Would someone mind updating MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ping? rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think this isn't something that should go on the watchlist page. It should be used sparingly for things like ArbCom elections. John Reaves 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
We've had all sorts of large community discussion on it this year: [3],. appeals for manpower: [4], and deciding whether a bot should make articles: [5]. Something that could lead to a test run of this magnitude is more important than most of those, because it's getting into a change that affects everyone. :) rootology (C)(T) 08:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and support adding a notification to the watchlist details. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think ArbCom elections belong in the sitenotice, not here. But that's just me. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think for most editors this is far more important than the arbcom elections. Most editors will never get involved with arbcom instead just editing in the area(s) they want to. The result of this survey however could affect many tens of thousands of articles and will affect most editors, as such I would say it is the clearest case for where a watchlist notice should be made. The notice about the new arbitrators could also now be removed as no longer needed imo, so avoiding having too cluttered a watchlist. Davewild (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Support listing. This is way more important than Arbcom elections, per Davewild. –Moondyne 10:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposed Text please? — xaosflux Talk 12:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Prefer this language. No offense to Moondyne, but the fewer links in the notice the better. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thats cool. –Moondyne 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I like this wording. rootology (C)(T) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Prefer first version. Fewer links means less chance that someone who's never heard of any of this will click on the wrong one -- they can then follow links or read explanations for page protection and flagged revisions to figure out what those are.--chaser - t 17:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with using as few links as possible, and especially bolding the most relevant link. This is basic web usability. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

How about changing:

A survey on options for protecting biographies of living persons' articles is under way. Editors may participate by commenting here.

To something like:

A survey on options for protecting biographies of living persons' articles is under way, and is open for comments.

So that there isn't two links to the same page? Gary King (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive_3&oldid=1179486416"