MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Signpost

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• (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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  @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)

  @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)

• 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)
• Seems worth a try. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I really can't see a reason not to do this. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• 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 — FR⁺ 10:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - Per above, and to make more editors aware of this wonderful newspaper. Tony Tan · talk 22:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Happy to see such a notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

SP posting

(Copied from user talk)

Thanks, xaosflux. Could you do it for us please? I can't remember how and the instruction page is not clear. The message is:

Stay up to date with what's happening on and around Wikipedia. The new issue of The Signpost is out now.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 19:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Monthly Signpost watchlist notice

The May 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done , reused the verbiage from the last posting. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts

Hi everyone! New research access available. Can someone please post this:

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=June 15, 2018
 |cookie=344
 |text=New '''[[WP:The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library]]''' research access: '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/69/ Rock's Backpages]''' (music articles and interviews), '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/68/ Invaluable]''' (auctions and artists database), and '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/70/ Termsoup]''' (translation tool). New content from [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/60/ Alexander Street Press], [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/43/ Fold3], and more. Many other resources are freely available on the '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ Wikipedia Library Card Platform]'''. Sign up!
}}

Displays as:

New Wikipedia Library research access: Rock's Backpages (music articles and interviews), Invaluable (auctions and artists database), and Termsoup (translation tool). New content from Alexander Street Press, Fold3, and more. Many other resources are freely available on the Wikipedia Library Card platform. Sign up!

--

Thanks! --Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Monobook skin

Monobook skin has been changed, to make Wikipedia display differently on mobile devices than it does on desktops. The first attempt at this caused problems with screen-readers and other accessibility tools, as well as upsetting other editors who could no longer work out how to edit on mobiles, tablets, and indeed some desktops. An "improved" version is now live. It is possible to over-ride this, but nobody will know how unless they are told about it. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Update,_and_opt-out_details for the latest details and how to opt-out. I believe that this should get much wider publicity than a thread on VP:T, so request a Watchlist message to let people know. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: this is the watchlist message format. The action call (what you want people to click) is normally bolded:

Text goes here.

produced by: {{Display/watchlist |until= Month d, yyyy |text= Text goes '''here'''. }}

What exactly would you like it to say? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Something like "Following changes to the Monobook skin, editors wishing to maintain Monobook functionality and appearance should go to Special:Preferences Appearance tab, and uncheck "use responsive MonoBook design"". DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: maybe:

An update to the monobook skin may change your screen appearance at certain window sizes or zoom levels. Editors wishing to retain the original layout may opt-out in Special:Preferences by unchecking "Enable responsive MonoBook design".

I know there are some strong feelings about this (I was an early opposer) change with some editors, but we try to keep these messages very matter-of-fact. What do you think? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You should have seen my first draft! Yes, that looks fine, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

dismissed messages keep appearing again

Hi, any ideas as to why this may be happening? Messages go away when I click on dismiss, but a few hours later start showing up again. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dr. Vogel: the messages are always "there", but are hidden with a script and with a client-side cookie. If you don't allow scripts or cookies, it will always display. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! As far as I'm aware both scripts and cookies are allowed. I don't have any other script-related or cookie-related problems with any other websites. It must be something specific to this one. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Any other ideas? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrVogel: specifically, you should have the cookie hidewatchlistmessage-nnn: "yes", do you have this cookie? What browser are you using? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Note, I've seen this recently in Firefox as well, when I inspected my cookie storage I've seen some of the cookies are missing, I'm not sure where they are going yet but hte issue is certainly that the -nnn hidewatchlist cookie isn't there. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, no, I don't have that one. Browser is Firefox 60.0.1 Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I spent some time yesterday, to create versions of geonotice and watchlist notices that use local storage (supported by all browsers now that we support) instead of cookies. Not sure if that would solve this problem, but it's probably good to get rid of the usage of cookies here. It's live on test2.wikipedia.org now and I need to do some further testing, but possibly next week or so, we could have that live (with backwards compatibility for notices already hidden by cookie). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Extra whitesapce

L293D, it's a good thing they issued me a screwdriver I guess. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux: you probably screwed up something. There's a big space under the RfA notice. Could you fix that? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux: re-ping. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I started seeing this well after the last message was added. It's a <p><br /></p> appearing between #346 and #348 (not after the last message, which is usually what causes this). Maybe try moving or removing the comment after the RFA notice?

As a stopgap, putting this in my user css fixed it for me, though it's obviously unfit for sitewide deployment. —Cryptic 02:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cryptic: @L293D: better now? I removed 2 back-to-back expired messages, may be with the way they are being hidden? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it, yes, thanks. —Cryptic 02:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

looks like yes. But I'm on mobile, so I'm not sure. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

New filters on Watchlist release

Hello,

Filters on Watchlist will be released as default, after a 8 month long trial and something like 50K users of the beta. It is important that people know about that change and the options users have to opt-out if they want:

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=June 25, 2018
 |text=[[mw:Collaboration|Collaboration]] announced plans to graduate the '''[[mw:Edit_Review_Improvements/New_filters_for_edit_review#Project_updates|New Filters for Edit Review tools and interface out of beta on Watchlist]]''', starting June 25. An opt-out option will be available in your Preferences.}}

Will be displayed as:

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a local page regarding this topic? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a notice on Village Pump, but the one on the project page has (a little) more information. And if users want to respond with questions or comments, the project talk page is the best place. But if you prefer Village Pump as a link that's fine too. —:::::: (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine, @JMatazzoni (WMF): but I think we should hold off on it until say the 20th and then run it for 2 weeks if this is meant to be informative about something "happening now". If you goal is to solicit information prior to this going live, the action call should be adjusted to let people know that is what we want them to do. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux. Since the purpose of the notice is to let people know beforehand, and since this will happen for many wikis starting the 18th and for English the 25th, the 20th seems a little late. And we will want to pull this down when the release happens on English (the 25th, most likely—right Trizek (WMF)?). The "action call" is in the post we link to, which asks that people to "In particular, tell us if you know of a special incompatibility or other issue that makes the New Filters problematic on your wiki." If you prefer we can add that in abbreviated form, with wording something like this:

Collaboration announced plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review tools and interface out of beta on Watchlist in late June. An opt-out option will be available. Please tell us if you know of any special incompatibilities the New Filters cause on your wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done with slight tweaks. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. The release will start on June 25th. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New Filters for Edit Review tools and interface out of beta on Watchlist That's a mouth full! And I don't quite understanding the "out of beta on Watchlist" part. May I suggest more simplified wording such as New Filters for Edit Review and Watchlist out of beta? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I made some trims, better now? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is much easier to process :) Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal and Xaosflux. Thanks for putting the notice up. I’m sorry my original language wasn’t clear, but the wording as it exists now on the site now doesn’t quite make sense for me. To explain what is actually happening: the New Filters for Edit Review is a suite of tools and a new UI. The New Filters have been standard on Recent Changes for a while. They have been in beta on Watchlist for 8 months. We are now “graduating” the New Filters out of beta “on Watchlist,” so they will become "standard" there as well.

What the note on the wiki says now is that Collab team “plans to enable New Filters for Edit Review and Watchlists.” "Enabling" Watchlist doesn’t really mean anything to me—and enabling the New Filters is something people have been able to do for months by selecting it on the Beta page. I think the key ideas not expressed are that these will no longer be in “beta” and that they will become “standard.”  If it’s not too late to change the note on the wiki, how about something like this:

The Collaboration team plans to make the New Filters for Edit Review standard on Watchlist in June, taking the new tools and user interface out of beta. An opt-out option will be available....

—JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@JMatazzoni (WMF): "New Filters for Edit Review" is frankly a pretty crappy confusing option name..... and what is the impact our average editor will see -- that something that wasn't there is now enabled? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, indeed my suggesting wording was incorrect! I have the beta preference on, and I thought we were talking about both Watchlist and Recent Changes. Anyway, your new proposed wording makes perfect sense to me. To answer Xaosflux, yes, there will be something new that wasn't there (except for people who had the beta preference turned on). We are linking to the mediawiki.org page for the suite of tools, so hopefully that will suffice if anyone is confused what it means. Thanks for clarifying! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked, how is that? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Defer to Joe on the nomenclature, but with the revised prose I think "New Filters for Edit Review" is fine, too — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Monthly Signpost watchlist notice

The June 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2018

@28bytes: and @Xaosflux: please removed the RfA thing. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It should go away automatically once User:Amalthea (bot) updates User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count. (@Xaosflux: please correct me if I'm mistaken.) 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It looks like its gone now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2018

For a slightly better wording, please change:

You may opt out of improvements in preferences to revert.

to

To disable, you may opt out of improvements in your preferences.

--Pipetricker (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Monthly Signpost watchlist notice

The July 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Xaosflux ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education taking applications for Wikipedian position

Wiki Education just opened a search for a part-time position for an experienced Wikipedian (US-only). I'm proposing a US-specific watchlist notice for about a week:

Wiki Education Foundation is taking applications for a paid position to help newcomers learn to edit Wikipedia.

-- Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If it is to be US only then a watchlist Wikipedia:Geonotice would be more appropriate Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

monthly Signpost notice

Our August 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interface Administrators

If no one objects, I'd like to put a notice regarding the RfC on Interface Administrators up there. This is a brand new policy and group, and they entire community should have say in it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I would put it up ... but I can't ... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: seems fine. @Redrose64: you should be able to edit this page if you want to, if you can't for some reason let me know so we can figure out whats going on. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I have geonotices on my mind. Why they take away my right to maintain one but not the other, I do not think that they thought it through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: the change had nothing to do with "geonotices" specifically, it is an odd casualty due to the way geonotices were implemented. I'm guessing you care much more about the "content" of geonotices than the "mechanics", but the extension creators didn't build it to be segmented - splitting that out is a goal, but there is at least one technical blocking code change needed first. When it is done the "content" of notices would be editable by all admins again at a new page such as MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.json. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As the proposal has been withdrawn, should this be removed? Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: opinion on this - we could just change the target to invite to the workshop without incrementing the cookie maybe? We really do need people to work on this overall. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we should leave it and I urge Mz7 to re-open the original proposal as a consensus is building between all three proposals, based on my close observations.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and Xaosflux: Okay, I've just done something that will either be an improvement or will mess things up - hopefully it's not the latter. I've re-opened the RfC, but I've restructured the discussion so that the RfC is explicitly encompassing all of the proposals that have been presented, not just the original one. The hope is that one of the alternative proposals will achieve consensus (looks like SoWhy's alternative proposal with the 48-hour hold is the most likely candidate) and we won't have to start completely over. Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OMG, your restructuring just gave me a virus. There are monkey jumping out of my computer now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether Malwarebytes has anti-monkey coverage. Mz7 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

My monkeys are now typing up Hamlet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode

12 September, and Wednesday 10 October, there will be a period of time where you can read but not edit the wikis because of a server test. Something like this as a watchlist message, maybe?

Wikimedia Technical Operations is planning a major infrastructure migration on Wednesday, 12 September and Wednesday, 10 October 2018 at 14:00 UTC. This process is expected to take up to an hour each time. During these times, you will be able to read, but not edit any page. We apologize for the disruption. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johan (WMF): is there a page or phab ticket for anyone that wants to learn more? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps meta:Tech/Server_switch_2018 ? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think m:Tech/Server switch 2018 is the best link. There is a number of Phab tickets, but that Meta page gives the best overview. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mock up

Mock up above: — xaosflux ^Talk 12:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

September Signpost notice

Our September 2018 issue of The Signpost (published on 1 October) is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

xaosflux might be interested in adding the Signpost? wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on a source review process

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.

---

This RfC, if it passes, would have a significant impact on WP:FAC, which produces the main page featured articles. It would also establish a site-wide process for evaluating the quality of sources in an article, independently of FAC. Would a watchlist notice be appropriate? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Just realized I need to add an edit request to make this suggestion visible, so: how about a notice for this RfC? A new sitewide quality process strikes me as something that should get as many eyes on it as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I'm not sure how niche this is - is this RfC attempting to change or create a policy or guideline  ? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It would affect the process by which featured articles are selected, which means it indirectly affects the main page. It's not a policy or guideline, but I think it should be of fairly wide interest; FAC is a long-standing and important process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Can you create a sample message and duration below for example of anyone reviewing this? Use this format:

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= October 22, 2018
 |text=Your message here, should include only one bold item, the thing you want people to click on.
}}

— xaosflux ^Talk 12:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= October 22, 2018
 |text= A '''[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC|request for comment]]''' is open that proposes changing the featured article candidate process by setting up a separate source review page.
}}

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure a watchlist notice is warranted for this. You will have dozens of people arriving at that page not having any idea what the proposal is about. I studied it for some time before I could grasp what was being proposed. You need the quality of argument not quantity of voters on that page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Mike Christie: this seems overly specific for a general editor watchlist notice. I see it is already on Template:Centralized discussion and the WP:FRS should be working on it as well. You may want to leave a notice at Talk:Main Page - however this doesn't really change the main page process (which just selects 'from featured pages - it doesn't select what qualifies those features). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Perhaps WT:TFA would be a good location too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

edit request for Signpost

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.

---

Our October 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Suggested notice

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 propose that a watchlist notice pertaining to the m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019 be posted. I feel it is a little-known process that is worthy of site-wide dissemination. I only learned of it myself by happenstance. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Addendum I should note, in case a "Sitenotice" is preferred, that the survey is open to "active Wikimedia contributors" which precludes the need to notify anonymous users.--John Cline (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal (WMF): got any specific verbiage, I see you have been coordinating this heavily. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd also endorse this, including one now (for proposals) and one after 16 Nov (for voting). Results too, perhaps? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A CentralNotice banner should go out soon, but if you wanted to advertise here too that seems more than fine. I suggest something like The Community Wishlist Survey proposals phase is open until November 11. Submit proposals for features and changes that you want to see in 2019!. The second link is in hopes they'll notice there are limitations on scope amongst other picky rules. No need to get too wordy, though. The CN banner is much less verbose because it has to be translated. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, if this is going out on CN I don't think we need a WLN as well. @John Cline and Amorymeltzer: OK? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Thank you for your diligence in this regard. Best--John Cline (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as this will be on CN soon, but THANK YOU for bringing this up @John Cline:. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

RfC pertinent for editors across Wikipedia – propose inclusion in Watchlist-messages

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.

---

The request for comment on whether the term "fuck off" is sanctionable or not is pertinent to the whole community, and requires wideness of input and not just of those who frequent various desks or have the centralized discussion template on their board. Therefore, I propose the inclusion of the following watchlist message.

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= November 10, 2018
 |text=A '''[[Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck_off" – sanctionable or not!|request for comment]]''' is open for the community to discuss whether the term "fuck off" is sanctionable or not.
}}

Thanks, Lourdes 11:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I have a feeling your RfC is going to go off the rails, but should it stay the course lets revisit this in a week. Additionally, from the RfC itself, and your blurb above, it isn't clear to me what you want to "do" - are you wanting to modify the civility policy (by inserting a line - (where?)) or just trying to judge current sentiment? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• This notice is typically not for posting routine RFCs. This rfc is no different from all the ones listed here. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• In addition to the above, the RfC looks headed for a snow close, so this likely won't be needed. Also, I wouldn't think we'd want to put the phrase itself in everyone's watchlist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• This attempt at advertising a discussion in which your behavior and handling of a situation was greatly denounced is odd. This is not appropriate for a watchlist notice. Nihlus 00:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hello Nihlus, my attempt is to widen the participation in the RfC beyond the usual suspects to understand how the wide editor base considers the usage of such terms. My personal view remains that the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" is blockable, of course, theren's no gain saying that the context is important. I'm alright if you don't subscribe to that view. Also, to others, it's perfectly okay if this is not placed on the watchlist notice. No harm trying, as they say. Thanks, Lourdes 00:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting the request to notify this RfC through the watchlist notice

• As we're in the fifth day, there are a few pointers that have come out with reference to comments by the above editors. One, this RfC has turned out to be unlike the routine RfCs pointed out above, with quite wide participation; two, it's not been snow closed; three, saying that we should not have the word "f*** off" in watchlist notices seems incongruous with the objective of a notice targeted to editors in an encyclopedia. If we can't publicise it, then we shouldn't be using it anywhere in our discussions. And if are using it across Wikipedia, then an RfC intending to garner community opinion needs to be informed to the community likewise. Wanting to be politically correct perhaps can't be a reason to deny notification to interested editors. Also, the comment by the final editor above is simply an opinion and has no reasoning to not allow this to be publicised site-wide.

In this light, I revisit the request to notify this RfC to editors sitewide through the watchlist notice. Any editor can "dismiss" the notice if they want, but we need to reach out to the community because, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion, this affects all of them. Thanks, Lourdes 09:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that it's not ideal to insert swearing into everyone's watchlist, but I was clearly wrong about the snowball — it certainly blew up! My intent with the former was a comment on the proposed text of the message, not whether there should be one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems too minor as I don't think this RfC would create a significant change to the policy it is attached to; leaving this open for other admins to review. Added request template above to attract reviewers. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks xaoflux. It may create a significant change in the way the community perceives action related to this oft-used term. I can realize that the general perception (that this term is not sanctionable) has already changed given the consolidated views till now of this RfC. This may significantly percolate to other negative editorial interactions too.

Thanks Amory. I understand, of course the proposed text of the message could be modified (although I would generally disagree with such censorship; something like this happened at CENT too). Lourdes 14:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You want more editors to participate there? It's so obviously heading towards no consensus, any further participation seems like a waste. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Everything that can be invented has been invented... Hi msgj, hope you're well.... Imo, if few editors had participated, the argument would have been this is not worth this noticeboard. If more editors have participated, the argument is that enough have participated already. MSGJ, I understand your view; but your reading of no consensus is not what I read in the discussions right now. And saying that something is 'heading for no consensus and therefore further participation seems a waste', doesn't seem logical. We relist AfDs, publicise them in relevant noticeboards to gain evidence of consensus. Similarly, further participation here would probably make consensus clearer. Thanks, Lourdes 16:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: as far as notifications go, I'm still a bit lost on the goal of this RfC - are you looking at having this specific verbiage added to Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility as a brightline rule or something else? It is awfully narrow in scope, for example if this is going to include other phrases (e.g. 'jog on', 'bugger off', 'shut the f*** up', etc) a more general may be useful. For what its worth I just !voted on the RfC so am involved now, but I could be supportive of larger advertisement if it was a wider scope. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This should be closed as not done and Lourdes should surely learn how to move on at this point. The crusade to have this RfC posted everywhere is weird. This is not a broad topic that needs to be advertised on every available channel. Nihlus 05:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I support the posting of a watchlist message. While Wikipedia policies may contradict each other (WP:NOTCENSORED vs. WP:Civility vs. WP:IAR), the question is whether stating the specific question is necessary to let casual editors know what the discussion is about in a manner that will attract their attention. There is also the question of how posting the question is perceived from a public-relations standpoint. I suggest a more conservative approach is sufficient, i.e. one that favors civility over NOTCENSORED. Hoping that not too many will be overly shocked or surprised after clicking through; I don't think a "parental guidance" warning is necessary, but wouldn't be opposed to some sort of warning if others wanted it.

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= November 10, 2018
 |text=You are invited to participate in a '''[[Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck_off" – sanctionable or not!|request for comment]]''' on a question about enforcement of the [[WP:Civility|civility]] policy.
}}

Regarding Xaosflux's concern that this is not an actionable item, I kind of felt the same way about the Wikimedia Foundation's first round questions about their "2030" initiative. Perhaps if the consensus is, yes, the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors is considered "sanctionable" then it will be appropriate to follow up with a second round of discussion about the specific enforcement process, in similar fashion to how the WMF has followed their first round with the creation of subgroups to address more specific goals for 2030. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, is there any opposition to Wbm's wordings? Lourdes 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Because there wasn't enough discussion over a pretty trivial RFC already. Please remove. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, I have removed the watchlist note. I would like to know what do you mean by "because there wasn't enough discussion over a pretty trivial RfC already". Are you referring to the discussion on this page or somewhere else? Thanks, Lourdes 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was being a bit snarky, sorry. I just mean that there was already a pretty ridiculous amount of back and forth by a very large number of editors already. Even wider advertisement isn't going to help, especially for such an overly specific WP:CREEPy kind of proposed change. It's just way too narrow a scope for such a mass alert. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

ACE Notice

@Cyberpower678: I'd BRD but since there are admin actions including new protection's I'm going to discuss first. I object to this new 'ACEWatchlistNotice' beeing needed here. Your new cascade protection is causing excess protection in places never needed before (because of their use in that ACE template. Additionally, this is a rarely used simple message and it will till require the page to be updated when wanting to use it to adjust the cookies. Putting in and removing 2 messages a year is trivial and we don't need this templating for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you've broken the RFx bot that uses User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count etc with template editor access. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Oh oops. I will fix that then. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, It's in part due to this date issue from the mass message kerfuffle. What I'm trying to do is make it so all of the dates can be changed in one location, and it updates everywhere else accordingly. I'm not done with my BRD changes yet. Can I ask you to hold off and let me finish the setup? :-) —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Did someone say TWO cookies?

@Cyberpower678: since you've removed the cascade this is less pressing so continue to discuss is fine. I see no reason at all to leave this here all year though, but it could be useful to put in during election cycles. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I have no objection to it being removed and added back. The checks on the template don't make the messages appear until it's time, and won't remove them until they expire. It will serve it's purpose as long as it receives two cookies. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I have to leave to RL matters now. I will back later to continue working on my setup. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

monthly Signpost request

Our November 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

monthly Signpost notification

The December 2018 issue of The Signpost is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

monthly Signpost request

Our first issue of The Signpost for 2019 is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 07:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation

Would it be appropriate to add Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019 to the watchlist notices? I've advertised it around the usual fora, but a lot of users who would be affected by the results of said consultation might never interact with the village pumps and the like. Jc86035 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: this is currently being shown on a CentralNotice, the target of which eventually leads back to the discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

monthly Signpost notice

The February issue is out now. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 12:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library Research Access

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=March 23, 2019
 |cookie=379
 |text=New '''[[WP:The Wikipedia Library|Wikipedia Library]]''' research access: '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/72/ Kinige]''' (Primarily Indian language ebooks), new collection from '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/55/ Gale]''' (Times Digital Archive), and accounts now available for '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/54/ JSTOR]'''. Many other resources (80,000 journals) are freely available from over 50 databases on the improved '''[https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ Wikipedia Library Card Platform]'''. Sign up!
}}

Displays as:

New Wikipedia Library research access: Kinige (Primarily Indian language ebooks), new collection from Gale (Times Digital Archive), and accounts now available for JSTOR. Many other resources (80,000 journals) are freely available from over 50 databases on the improved Wikipedia Library Card Platform. Sign up!

Can someone please add this? Thank you! Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ocaasi (WMF): how long do you suggest running this? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I updated the template suggesting until March 23, 2019. Thanks! Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Did you mean to post this to the Sitenotice? Sam Walton (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from the site notice since that isn't the right place (the various types of notices are explained at Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Sitenotice). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done at the right place. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks Galobtter. Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

March Signpost notice

The March edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and Evad37: looks like my function worked! --DannyS712 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ordering

@Xaosflux: - Thanks for make this edit, but can I also ask that you move the bypassed link to the RfB to be above the signpost link, as it was previously and has been traditionally? (If there is a reason why you didn't, feel free to ignore this). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I pushed it "up" - generally "newest" goes on the bottom, but people have prob gotten used to the order so no need to change if for today! Will restore normally after WP:FOOLS. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ratification of ArbPol amendment

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=April 30, 2019
 |cookie=384
 |text=You are invited to participate in a '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)|community referendum]]''' on a proposed amendment to the [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]].
}}

I'd like to request this message be added as a watchlist notice to encourage community participation in the ratification process for this amendment to ARBPOL. This seems similar to the treatment we give to the annual RfC on ArbCom elections, which always gets a watchlist notice (see [1]). I would consider this of the same level of importance to the arbitration process, given it will potentially alter the arbitration policy itself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Please remove

{{Display/watchlist
 |until=April 30, 2019
 |cookie=384
 |text=You are invited to participate in a '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)|community referendum]]''' on a proposed amendment to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]].
}}

since the referendum was just closed (diff) by DeltaQuad. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4 has been opened, can the cookie counter please be bumped?

Specifically, please change:

• {{RfA watchlist notice|format=watchlist|cookie=383}} to {{RfA watchlist notice|format=watchlist|cookie=384}}

AND

<!--{{Display/watchlist
 |until= Month d, yyyy
 |cookie=384
 |text=
}}-->

to

<!--{{Display/watchlist
 |until= Month d, yyyy
 |cookie=385
 |text=
}}-->

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Amorymeltzer. Please note, there is normally a small delay between a new RfA and WL updates, on purpose. This is to allow for early corrections and for dealing with SNOW closures without bothering everyone. If it's been 6+ hours and it isn't headed to SNOW that's a good time to bug the WL updaters. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Okay. Sorry, I first saw the RfA 20 minutes after it was created (this edit was on my watchlist) and when it was finally transcluded I thought the notice was supposed to go up then. I'll remember that for the future. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April Signpost notice

The April edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

May Signpost notice

The May edition is now out. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fram ban

There is a proposal on WP:BN to advertise the discussion on the community's response to Fram's ban by WMF. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is premature since it is still somewhat in organization. A more structured RfC format should be prepared first, and get it on T:CENT sooner. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: see Wikipedia_talk:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Secondary discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as the discussion has not determined this was a specific action to take at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July Signpost notice

The July edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sister project proposal

The sister project proposal RfC at meta:WikiJournal has gained sufficient comments that I think it could be worth mentioning here. It's not strictly a Wikipedia item, but I think is relevant enough to the wikipedia editor community that it might be worth a notice briefly. The most similar previous item was probably this. Opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: as this is not about the direct working of the English Wikipedia, please propose and discuss this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) first. For your proposal, please include the exact text you would want displayed (at least something to start the discussion) and the duration you are proposing it be advertised for. In general watchlist notices should be fairly short, neutrally worded, and contain a bolded clickable call to action link. Additionally, please make note of such a discussion at meta:Talk:WikiJournal so there isn't a surprise that there may be an influx of editors from enwiki coming to the meta-wiki discussion. Once there is local consensus (at VPR) for this to go up, drop an edit notice here and someone will take care of it. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks. I'll put a note there (link) and post back with the consensus. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:PermaLink/911772119#Watchlist-message_on_a_sister_project_proposal closed without objection. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Message to use:

A proposal for a new Wikimedia Sister Project, WikiJournal, to coordinate the collection and external peer review of new content is open for discussion.

@Evolution and evolvability: are you ready for this to go up? Is a week long enough? Did you ever post a note at meta:Talk:WikiJournal to warn them of enwiki inbound traffic? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I think this is ready to go. I suspect a week should be long enough, but I'll keep an eye on the pageviews and if it stays high then perhaps it might be worth extending (what's a normal time length?). I've added a note on v:Talk:WikiJournal_User_Group and meta:Talk:WikiJournal. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Evolution and evolvability: posted. If need be we could extend to 10 days, but that's about as long as a metawiki discussion that doesn't have a direct impact on enwiki operations would generally warrant. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

RFA user names in WL?

FYI for anyone watching this page or researching this again in the future, there is currently an new discussion about using the names of RfA applicants in the watch list notices. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Usernames_in_watchlist_notices if you would like to follow or participate in the discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_254#Usernames_in_watchlist_notices was archived from disuse - no change being made at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August Signpost notice

The August edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

I looked in the history of this template last year, and I don't think we included it. The pre-election RfC for WP:ACE2019 is happening now. If we want to add it to the watchlist, it would look something like this:

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= September 3, 2019
 |cookie=403
 |text=A '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019|request for comment]]''' is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019|2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election]] and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
}}

Is this something we want to bug everyone about? Mz7 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: hmmm - maybe? (Let's have an RfC about it!). If so, 3 days is a bit short of a duration - should be a week as not every editor edits every day. T:CENT may be sufficient? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it at the other noticeboards already? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've posted it at WP:AN, WP:VPP, WT:ACN, and I included it at T:CENT. You may be right that this is one of the more esoteric parts of Wikipedia that may not need watchlist notifications. The 3-day duration I suggested above was actually a mistake—I think I meant to put September 30, 2019, which I realize now would probably be way too long. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added it, as this an issue of importance from my viewpoint.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You might want to adjust the wording because the notice currently doesn't specify which election the RfC is about. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I had the same issue when reading, so I added WP:ARB to it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This notice is pretty wordy. Any objection to slimming it down to "A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend discuss the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules."? All those caveats are included at the beginning of the RFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all Floquenbeam. Go for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September Signpost notice

The September edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Read only maintenance window planned for ENWP at 14th Nov 05:00 AM UTC

This might be good to post approximately 1 to 2 weeks in advance of the maintenance window. ↠Pine (✉) 22:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: see also MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Banner_for_read-only_-_Thu_14th_November_from_05:00_to_05:30_AM_UTC where we declined a "banner" - as far as a WLN, short read only periods happen periodically and we don't normally post them. In this case, phab:T234801 also says that while it could be 30 mins, they are only expecting "1-2 minutes" of interruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I think that a watchlist message is less prominent than a banner and is proportionate to the length of the likely interruption. ↠Pine (✉) 06:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October Signpost notice

The October edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2019

Please add ToBeFree’s making it ToBeFree’s request for adminship is open for comment.

It helps to know if the announcement of RfA is a new one on my announcement list of items. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done prior consensus has been against adding the names of candidates to this message. If you want to start a new discussion on that I'd suggest bringing it up at WT:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you "dismiss" RfA's that you have already done, it should only appear if there are new ones. Even if you don't dismiss them, we remove old closed ones so if you are seeing the message there is at the very least an RfA you have not dismissed to see. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps because I’m on mobile editing I don’t have a dismiss capability. I see all the messages every time. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: are you using the mobile web, or the mobile app? We can look in to improving that experience. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No app, just the mobile site. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November Signpost notice

The November edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

December Signpost notice

The December edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

RfA

There is another one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: ? that wasn't "done" - but it is now. For reference, we normally have a process-built delay before bumping RfA WL cookies to make sure that the RfA is in order and not going to be snow closed or immediately withdrawn. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A third one

Please bump for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

4th Rfa

There is one more at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, we do watch these - you don't need to leave requests here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, ah I see. Just making sure. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 00:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If it has been 12+ hours and noone has done it, then leave an edit request to get attention. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January Signpost notice

The January edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)