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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

 Request withdrawn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]

@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.CP 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]

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]