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

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

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

Adding WP:ACPERM to the watchlist

Request withdrawn

– Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the discussion at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation (shortcut: WP:ACPERM) be added to the watchlist notices, as it's a fairly significant policy change that will have effects on a lot of users.

Sample implementation:

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether mainspace article creation should continue to be restricted to autoconfirmed users.

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= April 20, 2018
 |cookie=337
 |text=A '''[[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation|request for comment]]''' is in progress to determine whether mainspace article creation should [[WP:ACTRIAL|continue to be]] restricted to [[WP:AUTOCONFIRM|autoconfirmed]] users.
}}

Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung and I discussed whether or not to request this and generally thought it wouldn't be needed: we've already advertised it very broadly on-wiki, it's been discussed for years, and the watchlist notice is more likely to cause confusion with users who have no idea on the background than it is to alert users who are familiar but unaware (the number of times I have had to explain the history of this in the last week alone to people, including those who have been involved with the discussions, is pretty exhausting, tbh). I'm not strongly opposed to it, but I think we've advertised it pretty widely already to the point where this might not be needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7, Watchlist notices were only introduced recently for broader use and are not an obligation. Experience has demonstrated, especially with RfA, for example, that this has not been necessarily productive and even attracts a certain amount of trolling. A serious policy needs serious participants in the disussion. As far as the claims that have been made by some participants in the RfC that they were unaware of ACTRIAL, the onus on them is to watch Wikipedia regularly, which they admit to not doing anyway. CENT has always been the principle form of notification, along with any canvassing that is permitted at WP:CANVASS. That said, we are contemplating a mention in Signpost if we can meet the deadline before the next issue - which is already several weeks overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kudpung and TonyBallioni: Sounds good - consider this proposal withdrawn. I can respect the concern that the quality of participation can sometimes decrease with too much notification, so I’m happy to defer to your more experienced judgment. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fools

@Cyberpower678: and @BU Rob13: there are real Rfx's that can start and run continue to run on this day, and there are many editors that don't care about AF. I'm 100% good with hiding FAKE RfA's from this page --- perhaps just subing out he bot generated message with a static one for AF will be better? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: The short-term fix was needed to prevent editors from wasting their time looking at bad jokes en masse. I was certainly annoyed by having a watchlist notice unexpectedly direct me toward bad jokes. If you want to do a static message instead, go for it. I don't think hiding the watchlist notice for 24 hours is worse than directing people toward almost exclusively jokes for 24 hours. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rob. While I don't mind joke nominations on April fools, it's one thing for select users using my bot generated table, where they can easily see it's a joke, but another for the entire community to see it by force. I insist the auto-hide logic remain in place. The notice will unhide on April 2, 00:00 UTC.C P 15:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not showing joke noms, and with not using cookies increments for joke noms, just object to hiding legitimate noms. Since the only real nom closes in 30 mins at this point its not worth talking about much more now, but having a static message seems preferable if there are real ones next year. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it more prudent to put the real ones on hold for the day. People will undoubtedly mistaken the real one for one of the joke ones. Not everyone will, but some will.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Closing, the general consensus is that a WL notice to advertise the current issue of The Signpost is supported in general, with the opposition raising concerns that it will not be useful. As the Signpost is normally issued monthly, I suggest that these notices be limited to a week at a time, and no more than about once a month (that is if The Signpost starts cranking out weekly issues for example this should be revisited.— xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've gotten a request to try a WL notice for WP:SIGNPOST with the goal of raising awareness and letting people know the new issue is out. Any concerns? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me. I think it's a good idea. Some users were not aware of it until it was mentioned in a project newsletter. The watch list notice would only need to be up for a few days following the publication of each issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added with a week expiry; can judge feedback and usefulness then have a larger discussion if this should be recurring. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, a suggestion; nothing critical, but if we can, we could change the Signpost redirect page linked in the message to the actual page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks, Lourdes 01:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Lourdes: thanks for the note. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's flogging a dead horse. Signpost gets very few page hits, even with a watchlist notice. If folks want to write and publish it, that's fine, but I'm not sure it's an appropriate use of watchlist to advertise each publication. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very opposed to using watchlist notices to publicize a WikiProject, which is essentially what the Signpost is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I thought it was OK as a one-time run without a lot of discussion, but will need wider input if this will be recurring. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These objections strike me as strange indeed. Signpost issues still average over 6K views, and used to be much higher. In the UK my WL normally has at least one notice up, for events which in many cases will have attendance one can count with fingers - not that I object. Signpost is now intended to be published only monthly, and to have a notice for 3-7 days afterwards seems unobjectionable to me. If we must have an RFC let's do so. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this motion. The Signpost contains a plethora of useful information and facilitates (a common over all of Wikipedia!) discussion about the topics it report on; and still, it's incredibly hard to find. Zarasophos (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Although I am now working on The Signpost,) I think a watchlist notice is a good idea. To use a politics-analogy, making sure you tell everyone to vote but showing no concern if the citizenry ever follow the news is probably a bad idea. We have watchlist notices for open RfAs but The Signpost is how Wikipedians become informed about the larger community. Further, WikiProjects develop articles probably for their own enjoyment and perhaps providing a service to the reader. The Signpost, more than a mere WikiProject, isn't (primarily) an outlet for cranks to selfishly spew opinions. Rather, it harbors an essential interior conversation about the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The watchlist notice that was placed last time proved two things: People watch their watchlists, and some even long-time users were not aware of The Signpost until they saw the notice. The two 'push back' comments above are simply 'I don't like it' votes . Neither of them read the newspaper and they haven't consulted the readership stats. The publication is a vital organ in en.Wiki communication. If it weren't I wouldn't have bothered to spend more hours on it this week than most people spend editing Wikipedia in a month. Its contributors, editors, and readers do not do not consider it's 'flogging a dead horse'. Nor is it a WikiProject in anything like the sense of the others. It is a news publication that is simply created in Wikipedia space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support the watchlist notice for The Signpost and find the objections mystifying. It is the general circulation publication for the benefit of all active editors. I have read every issue since I first saw it mentioned on another editor's talk page about eight years ago, and I am delighted that a new editorial team has revived it. I consider The Signpost to be our de facto newspaper of record. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a Signpost notice would be far more meaningful to most editors than RfA notices. At once a month, it'll be less common than an RfA (or we're really screwed) and would do a lot more to encourage community and understanding of enWiki practices. I wasn't sure it was worth it at first, but after seeing an editor practically angry that they'd been unaware of it for years, I think it will only help. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amory, I rather like your comparison with RfA. All the RfA watchlist notices achieved were to double or triple the number of drive-by votes and nothing else. It certainly didn't increase the number of candidates, if that was the original intention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you score points for consistency! I absolutely agree — we get dozens of supports before any questions are answered, and days 4-7 are just folks popping in to support something that will pass anyway — but it's not the end of the world to remind folks of the community. To borrow a metaphor from the current candidate, there's a community garden here that needs tending from time to time, and The Signpost is a great way to accomplish that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux - on the risk of cutting the discussion short, it seems pretty clearly in favour of making the watchlist notice a reccuring feature... Zarasophos (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this informal discussion in this obscure venue is sufficient for that. A formal request at Village Pump is surely, the appropriate way. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: I'm not sure how "formal" this needs to be, as it is not impacting to most readers - but I just invited comments here from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Add_a_notification_for_the_the_Signpost_to_the_watchlist_notice to help establish consensus. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux:. Yes, I know it is not impacting to most readers, but it is to the editors (who watch watchlist). But that's not even the main point here. Whether it has impact or not, it is clear some people object to it. It is also perplexing how legitimate opposese of BU Rob13 and SilkTork are caustically impugned. I made the above comment because the person calling for speedy close of this just got their similar proposal to link Signpost in mainpage, shot down in the Village Pump, so they must be eager for this to be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost is a great way of supporting the community that Wikipedia relies on to develop the encyclopedia. It's easy to ignore a watchlist notice so highlighting the Signpost for a week is not a hardship. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems worth a try. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see a reason not to do this. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes more editors aware then why not ? I feel that a bit of humour and small talk once a month will not destroy the encyclopaedia — F R ⁺ 10:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support in the strongest of terms - I am very new to reading signpost, and the watchlisted one was only the second "live" version I'd read (I went a bit nuts on reading some back issues). Whether this needs to be seen in Village Pump to make it recurring, I wouldn't say I'm in a position to judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The The Signpost merits whatever support that can improve its quality and reach. Its proven value is already great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think people would find the stuff there useful. I didn't read it for my first 2 years on WP mostly because I didn't know about it. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above, and to make more editors aware of this wonderful newspaper. Tony Tan · talk 22:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: would be quite useful and a good way to notify new and veteran editors about this resource. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to see such a notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.