Wikipedia talk:Publicising discussions

Origins of proposal

Had the idea sometime in mid-2008 and discussed it in various places but didn't get around to writing and proposing it until April 2009. One discussion point worth noting is here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertising for input and approval

Places this proposal has been advertised (see also what links here):

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policies)
• Wikipedia talk:Canvassing
• Wikipedia talk:Consensus
• Wiki-en-l mailing list
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
• Mentioned (by me) at WP:AN
• Got mentioned (in passing) in a Signpost article

That's the full list for now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC) updated 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC), then further updated 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

advertising on wikipedia?

I'm frankly outraged that we're even discussing having ads on this project.... Privatemusings (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)oh wait.... ah... well.... carry on then.

Out of interest, where did you hear about this proposal? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Advertisements, as you well know! :-)

the village pump (proposals) - this seems very sensible, btw - and I wish you / all well in its development :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Places to link this proposal from

If this proposal works out, I propose to link from WP:CANVASS, WP:CONSENSUS and various other places. Including any discussion that doesn't seem to have been advertised widely enough. Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

{{how-to}}

Marking this as a how-to guide would circumvent the inevitable WP:CREEP accusations that will crop up if this is proposed as a guideline. A good idea to bring these ideas together on one page, but I don't think there's much of a 'guideline' here. Happy‑melon 11:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Never quite sure where the line is crossed between a how-to page and a guideline. I notice that {{proposed}} does refer to "process". Are there other guideline pages that should, in your opinion, be relabelled as how-to pages? A list of the pages transcluding "how-to" is here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I was coming here to make one of those WP:CREEP accusations, {{how-to}} is perfect. Anomie⚔ 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

<prod> Go on then! Please edit the page! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of where to advertise

There should probably be some form of hierarchy of where advertising is (in general) appropriate. The watchlist-notice and site-notice come at the top (rarely used), but not quite sure how to arrange the others. Anyone want to try? Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sitenotice should be removed, we don't use it for discussions since ages. And not even for wmf notifications, as we have the centralnotice now. Cenarium (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed things - maybe you could check? I was going by Template:MW notices - maybe that could be made clearer as well? Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the list needs a little more organization, as it is everything seems to jumble together. Perhaps something like this:

Suggestion

General

• Village pumps (including proposals and policy village pumps)
• The Community portal and the Community bulletin board (I'm not familiar with this one, personally)
• Wikipedia:Request for comments (including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies)

Topical

• Various noticeboards; for example
  • WP:AN for discussions that may affect or require administrator action
  • WP:RSN for discussion related to reliable sources
  • WP:BON for discussion related to bots
• The talk page of the relevant policies and guidelines
• The talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
• Talk pages of affected processes, e.g. WT:AFD or WT:RFAR

Discussions affecting the whole community

• Template:CENT (used for Wikipedia:Centralized discussion)
• Watchlist notice (propose additions at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details - this is only for the biggest discussions - see also Template:MW notices)

Wikimedia operations or Foundation issues

• Various mailing lists, such as Wiki-en-l and foundation-l

Unsure

• Community news media (such as Wikipedia:Signpost, Wikipedia:Wikivoices, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:Wikizine)

Anomie⚔ 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion above (ni the collapsed suggestion). It helps people focus on what's not needed, so we don't flood all venues with all ideas, as important as not under advertizing is not over-advertizing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely (I believe I made the point about over-advertising in the version that I saved recently). I'm patiently waiting for someone to incorporate the above suggestions... :-) Well, maybe having a section called "unsure" is not quite right. "Other"? And Wiki-en-l is really meta-discussion of Wikipedia, not Wikimedia or Foundation. Might also be worth noting the technical discussion venues (WP:VPT and wikitech-l). Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better to give editors some guidance rather than just "Here are a large number of possible venues. Pick some." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "Unsure" was "I don't know where to put this, someone move it to the right place if this suggestion gets consensus" ;) Anomie⚔ 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about the WP:AAlerts news ticker. Although that should be used for WikiProject-centric things mostly.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Change the name of the proposal to "Publicizing discussions"

When I read about this, my first thought was "This is for articles that seem to be advertising a product or service". "Advertising" is one form of publicity; "Publicizing" is much more neutral. Please, please change the name. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not attached to the name, but please leave the redirect in place, and maybe go and fix the links (there aren't that many of them). I've just mentioned this at WP:AN (the page, not the proposed name change), so a flood of comments may or may not appear. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, change the name, I thought this was a proposal to have advertisements on wikipedia. 140.247.243.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Good idea, but more definitive please

I think this is a good idea, but I wish the list to be more definitive and less motherhood. Issues include (hypothetically):

• I don't want to use the mailing lists; I don't think off-wiki discussions are desirable, I don't want to reavel my email address, I think mailing list users ought to keep themselves abreast of wikipedia issues.
• Keeping abreast of wikiprojects has been too much for me, and I have no idea where the current activitiy is. Does this mean that I can't instigate a proposal?

Of course, one can always attempt to implement the proposal and see if anyone screams. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why I wanted to call it a guideline, not a how-to. Not knowing where "the curent activity is" is a problem that faces everyone trying to draw a poll or discussion to the attention of the right people. Best to ask around and get ideas from those already at the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Only one thing works MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

People don't like it, probably because it targets people who aren't looking for discussions. But, I've been involved in a lot of "big" discussions, and a watchlist notice brings in way more than if you were to advertise on everything else on the list. We've got a problem that cannot be solved with the current places for community discussion. I've been on-wiki for four years, and I hadn't even heard of all the things on the list. One problem we have is that the lists places bring in the same old editors every time. When you're doing something big, you need uninvolved editors, who by defintion have no idea the discussion is taking place. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sitenotice would bring in even more people, but you have a fair point here. A comment made by iridescent (diff is way up top in the first section on this page) pointed out that even the best planned neutral targeting of discussion still only mostly brings in those who follow such pages and take part in discussions regularly. In some cases, that is a feature, not a bug, but for the very largest, or unresolved discussions, you do need fresh, new and uninvolved input to break a deadlock. Now, how can that be put on the page without turning it from a how-to page into a guideline page? :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there doesn't exist a mechanism for it, aside from the controversial site and watchlist notices. The watchlist notice actually needs a guideline itself, although it might better as its own seperate guideline. Most people don't know which page controls it, otherwise it would have even more pressure on it. The only thing I've ever gotten on it was this amusing notice. There isn't any page that has enough traffic. Traffic stats: Village pump, 500 people. VPP, 300 people. Cent, about 20 views a day (although its transcluded quite a bit). So, using WP:VPP as an example, 300 people looking at it a day only brings in a few comments. Maybe 20% (10%?) read your post, and 1 or 2 comments.

Enough bitching. If you want to make it a guideline, I would do more prose, and less listing. "Major changes should be announced here, here, and here. Minor ones here. If you have a major change that seems to have consensus, further notification should be made here and here." That's my first idea. One way to do it would be to look at some proposals, and describe them. With WP:FICT, we discussed it on its talk page for maybe 9 months, with periodic notifications of the VPs and certain wikiprojects. We then made an RfC, which was as big as we could make it, notifying everyone again. We didn't get enough traffic, and finally went with (were granted) the watchlist notice. The end result was no change, but it put to bed the arguments that only involved editors were involved ( ;-) ), which was actually a big step we needed.

One other thing that's not mentioned is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Discussion report (the date changes of course). It gets 1000 readers total, maybe.

Finally, a bit of traffic analysis could be useful on this page, so people can get an idea of how many people might see their notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Traffic analysis is a great idea. I think CENT pulls in more people than you might think - as you say, due to the large number of transclusions. It is put on some widely used templates, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC) PS. Where did you find out about this page?

Yeah. There's no way to judge as far as I know. My guess is that you definitely cannot add up the traffic of the pages its transcluded on. It's not what people go to those pages for.

My gut feeling on it is that it doesn't work well, for two reasons. I've put stuff on it, and visited stuff on it, that doesn't get many comments. The other thing about it is that you don't have to fight to include items on it. If it worked, people would be like "don't dilute my important message with your minor notice." Instead, you can put whatever you want on it, and no one complains. And you can leave it there for a month. Looking at the history, the only obvious reverts are people reverting their own edits. I just added this page to CENT, let's see what happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed your addition of MediaWiki:Watchlist-details to the "General" section, as it is already present in the "Discussions affecting the whole community" section, which IMO is more appropriate: The watchlist notice isn't for general advertising, it's for things that everyone should see. Anomie⚔ 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider would be to have the possibility to have a list of links to community discussions in the watchlist, but hidden by default, and a discrete button would allow to show them. Only crucial ones would be shown by default. Cenarium (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not just where, but how

The discussion on advertising discussions has focused on where to publicize them, but another important topic is how to publicize them. I'd like to suggest using English instead of cryptic abbreviations to get people involved in discussions. It's alienating for someone who is not an insider to see a list of discussions on BLPs, NFCC, the WP:FLP/PR trial, and similar incomprehensible topics. To involve more members of the community, not just the regulars in these discussions, takes the effort to type a title people can understand. And, going beyond the topic of advertising (publicizing) discussions, it would be best if the discussions themselves were similarly comprehensible — not because of a glossary of terms or a link, but because writers take the extra moment to communicate their arguments to someone other than the specialists who frequent these debates.

Specifically, I propose that announcements of community-wide discussions use full English titles describing the topic of discussion. Fg2 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I added CENT

I've added WP:CENT to the general section. If someone feels it doesn't belong there, that's fine too - I just thought it seemed a logical candidate for that section. — Ched :  ?  15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already under "Discussions affecting the whole community". Anomie⚔ 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it doesn't belong, I won't be offended in the least if you remove it. It was just a thought on my part. — Ched :  ?  13:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, CENT is missing from some VERY high traffic pages

1. Every page under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Remember when I did up the editing numbers for these over a period of time during the Sarah Palin RFAR? These pages all get a *ton* of views. CENTing them up would add considerable visibility to many discussions.
2. Wikipedia:Help desk. More newbies, but lots of regulars as well. Would definitely bring in eyes.
3. Wikipedia:Village pump, on the main page, and the four sub-pages. For new postings, redundant, but then quickly not as they get lost in the volume. High volume views.
4. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You know it gets the views.
5. The various sub pages of Wikipedia:Reference desk.

Thoughts? rootology (C)(T) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See no reason not to on any of them. If it fits with the layout that already exists on those pages, why not? SoWhy 09:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to mention the "sofixit" thing, but I didn't want any more trout this week. The bottom line is, Root is right - it should be there. More and more I'm running across long tenured editors who have never heard of CENT. It should be more visible. — Ched :  ?  13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They're all loaded up now except for RFA, which felt off when I looked at it in preview (but the RFA botted table should probably be on AN/ANI as well, in hindsight...). It looks fine, so let's see what happens. Only pushback so far is here, if you want to review it. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call root for all of these places, except I'm not too sure about having it on RfA because I don't see how it would fit there. Though the place is frequented by many active wikipedians it just doesn't make sense to be there. All of the other places make sense as they are places to weigh in on policy. Valley2city^‽ 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please find a more subtle way to integrate your templates into the pages if they must be there. They really look like crap at the moment when they are just plunked in there with large margins on each side. They disrupt the page in a noticeable way, which is very irritating given that they have nothing to do with the pages in question (you are basically just advertising for your discussions, which is not really totally appropriate, but anyway). You have already irritating the ref desk regulars by adding it to the (protected) ref desk header without discussing it first, I suspect you will do similar on these other pages. Consider more subtle ways of integrating such things into the pages if need be. --140.247.251.231 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's removed from the RD now per the consensus there. As for advertising and appropriateness, that is the appropriate way. There's a historical failure on Wikipedia that self-appointed people hover over or develop certain aspects of the site's operation out of sight of most people, and then everyone says, "Who approved this??" Disseminating Cent--where any significant policy change is supposed to go--will bring light to all that. rootology (C)(T) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support its addition to WP:AN and WP:VP, but I don't think it belongs on the other places. I have it on my userpage. Perhaps more editors would be interested in that idea. hmwithτ 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to "Publicising discussions"

This move was suggested when the page was created (see section earlier on this talk page), and the page should have been moved back then. I've now moved it. Hopefully better late than never. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Small expansion

I made a small expansion with this edit, to cover notices to noticeboards that archive rapidly. For example, a notice to AN will be archived in 48 hours (I think). So a discussion running for a month will either need a more permanent notice, or several notices posted throughout the month-long discussion. Please edit and change as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quiet talk pages

I've added a note to the page regarding the best first step for attracting more (or any) input to discussions on quiet talk pages. I'm not certain I've put it in the right place, and the phrasing could probably be improved, but as this talk page is itself very quiet(!) I've been bold rather than wait for discussion first. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)