This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not done@InvalidOS: with this already going to a SNOW solution, doesn't really seem like something we need to summon editors to even more (besides is already linked from Signpost that is both here and on user talks, an T:CENT). Additionally, even the lead in to that RfC makes this appear to be a global problem, not something only for us to deal with on the English Wikipedia - moving this to a meta-wiki RfC may be even more appropriate. — xaosfluxTalk19:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The nameless "foundation officials" in the RfC sounds a bit dubious, WMF legal doesn't usually require a community buy in to enforce their own terms of use - especially if something is actually a global problem (has somone said they want every single community to have a discussion first??) — xaosfluxTalk19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to list this request for information from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy pertaining to open access to federally sponsored research. This issue is absolutely central to the movement. Volunteers, the Foundation, chapters and affiliates have been trying to achieve it for decades. It's not technically a discussion, and was removed from WP:CENT for that reason, and while I reverted that, it's probably more appropriate here as a watchlist notice than a WP:CENT item, or a sitenotice, as we should prefer that more experienced editors respond instead of soliciting readers. Please note the solicitation has a deadline of March 16. EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
That maybe, I'm also a bit confused what do you want editors to do? If it is to leave Wikipedia and go to an external site that really isn't watchlist type stuff. — xaosfluxTalk01:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issue. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
I'm sorry, but presenting like this is still a really bad idea. A notice specifically advertising something under the banner of a political movement which is very controversial even in its country of origin is just not a good idea. Imagine, for a moment, what the expected reaction would be to posting a notice using the name of a political movement that one particularly opposed in whatever country one comes from; it makes Wikipedia less neutral, and less welcoming. --Yair rand (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really advocating for this, was just a mock-up from that other discussion - would need to have a strong consensus to move forward. — xaosfluxTalk21:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia the new advertising platform? So, how do Wikipedians get paid?, is like YouTube, whenever you click on an article a video pops up? In this case watchlist. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This editing drive doesn't merit a watchlist notice, and I'm opposed to using Wikipedia for politically-charged campaigns like this. Chris Troutman (talk)14:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
So was SOPA/PIPA and that was basically *politics*, BLM/racism is a social issue, which has political impact by transitivity. This is really not using Wikipedia, it's telling people to improve articles on BLM in time that's needed, don't misconstrue Xaos' intention to make a WP:POINT. --qedk (t愛c)15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Key, at least to me when I was suggesting this elsewhere, was NOT to mention the specific current events (eg the killing of George Floyd or the protests). An intelligent editor will recognize this message and those events are tied, but it is not being a blatant political message, but as QEDK says, a call to help improve these articles at a time while there is a heightened awareness of these issues. --Masem (t) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Re SOPA/PIPA: I have seen, in the past, "slippery slope" arguments that we should not do X, because it may lead to doing Y. I have seen slippery slope fallacy arguments, pointing out that X does not necessarily lead to Y, and we can make decisions based on multiple facts at once, so it's not dangerous to do X. But rarely do I see an argument that goes, "We did X, therefore because slippery slope we should do Y."
SOPA/PIPA was understood to be an existential threat to Wikipedia, and still there were many who opposed it because it might lead to people thinking that unrelated activism/advocacy would be acceptable. Wikipedia remains neutral. --Yair rand (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
...unrelated activism/advocacy I'm glad you live in a place that does not treat their people of colour like trash. Perhaps it's time for you to understand that most people in the world live in places where their skin of colour determines how they get treated. If social issues affect Wikipedians, it affects Wikipedia. SOPA/PIPA does not come close to the stigma that people of colour face. --qedk (t愛c)17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, our editing here is not meant to be a vehicle for social justice. I am all for encouraging improvement of articles, whether about black people, women, places in Africa, forgotten indigenous people, etc. BLM is a political movement unrelated to black people as a whole. We should not have a WikiProject about it, let alone encourage participation in their activities. Of course, tribalism is too powerful for mere Wikipedians to ignore, Women in Red as a case in point. It used to be editors on this website cared about writing articles in a general sense and we didn't always glom onto the loud voices seeking to control history as a method of getting editors to volunteer the labor that they can't manage to sell. I was opposed to the SOPA blackout for the same reasons. Chris Troutman (talk)17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Then we should immediately close up any project that purposes a "social" goal like this or the Women in Red project -- which, no. There is absolutely nothing wrong with like-minded editors, as a group, working within WP policies, to expand articles on topics of their interest, which could be released to a social or political goal, as long as they aren't forcing that social or political goal on the rest of Wikipedia, but instead working within it. Working to expand articles on minorities and racism, and calling for interested editors to help, is within that context, particularly in light of editors that might be wondering what they can do to help the larger situation. If one has no interest in helping, the suggested message is not a political one, it's not WP taking a stance on the matter, and one can move on. And, given whre discussion on Jimbo's talk page has recently gone, it actually is in the overall interest of WP to get more editors interested in working to add and improve articles on underrepresented groups, as long as they're edited to WP policies w/ sourcing and notability. That is a net improvement to the project, regardless the motive driving it. --Masem (t) 17:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:BLM is a political movement unrelated to black people as a whole. Firstly, it's a movement, it's a movement for black people, it was an old movement that started back in 2013 after the shooting of Trevon Martin. By your definition of a political movement (which you consider BLM to be), all movements should be considered political and guess what, you're right, but that's the very definition of a movement. If your point is that the BLM movement is being subverted to serve other political agendas, sure, but that's the case with every movement, feminism, the LGBT movement, literally anything in this political climate. Don't make blanket assumptions when you are not in the position of the affected. --qedk (t愛c)18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with like-minded editors, just like we have WikiProjects for those interested in military history or railroads, among many others. The difference is that those groups write articles about objective fact. We have socially-aligned WikiProjects about conservatism and Christianity, for example, and they could hold their own editing events. Would you oppose using a sitewide notice for those? You can imagine how some editors would balk at the seeming en-wiki endorsement of values they themselves don't hold. Chris Troutman (talk)19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The day I see white Christian Americans getting oppressed for their beliefs and/or skin colour, and they wish to conduct an article drive to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I will support them, yes. Also, this is not a sitenotice, this is a watchlist message, which means only logged-in users who use their watchlists will see it (and like most other notices, they can dismiss it). We already serve tons of notices to editors from specific regions (geonotices) relating to article drives, edit-a-thons based on political themes like POC, LGBT and feminism, so this is basically the same thing. --qedk (t愛c)19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This right here. Yes, Mainspace is not here to right great wrongs, but we can be fully cognizant of where we are lacking good article coverage, and even if these projects have more subjective goals, as long as they are building out within the policies and neutrality demanded by WP in mainspace, its fair to at least give them a bit of air time when it is appropriate. Most of the time it is not. I believe the past Women in Red drives have correlated to Wikithon events, that's appropriate. This is a reasonable timing given that one can see view counts are up across many WP edits, and while not an organized even, it seems highly apropos. --Masem (t) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that wider discussion might be good. And agreed with Masem that if we add a notice, it should not be explicitly tied to recent events, so as to minimize any appearance of activism. Also, we might want to make this a geonotice applying only to the U.S. {{u|Sdkb}}talk03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Didn't we come from VPP or VPR for this? This came out of two reject proposals to black out the site in support... --Masem (t) 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
June Signpost notice
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This RfC would affect WP:CITEVAR, which is an issue that provokes very strong feelings on both sides of the issue among many editors. I think it deserves a watchlist notice to ensure that any decision has a chance to be seen as legitimate. I suggested as much to the RfC's proposer, CaptainEek, but they felt it was unnecessary. I asked Iridescent's opinion here; some editors (but not all) who responded agreed that a watchlist notice was necessary, and I suggest reading that discussion. I'll post a link to this request at the RfC and also at Iridescent's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I don't think this is impactful enough to bother with a WLN, T:CENT should be enough. However, I did comment in that discussion so will leave this open for another admin to close. — xaosfluxTalk19:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support watchlist notice. The number of articles this affects is small, but it's a big deal insofar as it touches on the range of allowed styles and the value of inter-article consistency versus within-article reasons to use one style or another. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone recall the last time we advertised a policy RfC as a watchlist notice? I think this wholly unnecessary. It's already on the central discussion template, and has dozens of votes. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The general viewpoint is that these are not appreciated on the watchlist. Unless it's something truly wiki-breaking, there's no cause for inclusion (and if you want to get consensus, please do it at VPP, not here). --qedk (t愛c)20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support watchlist notice. This may seem very inside-baseball, but banning a given citation style is a fundamental change to the way Wikipedia operates. Anyone who's not interested can dismiss the notice with a single click. What minimal nuisance a watchlist notice will cause is more than offset by reducing the scope for "why wasn't I told about this?" complaints, and for the inevitable appeals should the proposal be accepted. ‑ Iridescent16:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It should be included. Those who find a dismiss click too much bother regarding how content creators format references should be using another website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Support watchlist notice. (Note: I'm tempted to vote in this matter, although I doubt it will make a difference.) Passing a rule that tells Wikipedians will always engender anger & backlash. "You did this & didn't tell anyone!" numerous Wikipedians will protest -- & sometimes with a valid point. (You want a reliable source for this statement? have a look at WP:LAME.) Let's make an effort to publicize it as much as possible, so when someone does make that claim, the response will be, "We did everything to let people know. If you don't speak up in time, how are we supposed to know you were opposed?" -- llywrch (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add:
{{Display/watchlist
|until= September 14, 2020
|cookie=nnn
|text=A '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020|request for comment]]''' is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the arbitration committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
}}
Looks like the "arbitration committee" part was left out, leaving just "the election" (not self-evident -- there are lots of elections). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the arbitration committee election is over, please remove
{{ACEWatchlistNotice|rfccookie=458|eccookie=453|ececookie=464|nomcookie=454|votecookie=455}}. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Going by this edit it seems like the notice is supposed to be on the page year-round, with the template automatically hiding the display when there is no election. So it isn't actually necessary to remove the template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
While waiting, do you have specific verbiage to recommend? These should be fairly short and include only one bolded link - the link you most want people to follow as a call to action. — xaosfluxTalk20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No strong opinions. Watchlist notices can turn things messy, but they also have a purpose; so I’m fine either way. For wording A request for comment is open to discuss changes to the policy on removing administrative permissions. Feel free to wordsmith if we do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps something more direct? Will get attention better.
That’s somewhat jarginy (desysoping), which I was trying to avoid on a watchlist notice, but I think it’s neutral, and if others think it’s better, I have no objections. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. Possibly "A request for comments is open proposing a new community process to remove administrative permissions." (give or take wordsmithing) - just think it should be explicit what the change is (a desysopping proposal). Otherwise it could easily read like it's a change on the inactivity requirements or something, and get less clickthroughs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and TonyBallioni: (see mockup below) - I'm not loving this verbiage - it's not clear to someone uninvolved that this is about a process to review and remove individuals as administrators - could be interpeted as a process to remove some access for all admins. — xaosfluxTalk12:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
All except "desysopping" (jargon) fine to me. The suffix "for cause" is not needed in my opinion; brevity helps to bring the general message across. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Is "new" necessary in this language? Can that be assumed as part of "proposed"? How about ...is open proposing a community process for...MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "new" is redundant. How about: "A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from a user." isaacl (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: we all know what this is about, so to answer you : the collective group of admins (i.e. a process for forced devolving of permissions to other groups) vs removing a person from being an administrator. — xaosfluxTalk17:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm putting up 7 now, haven't seen anyone say we shouldn't have a notice at all - and it seems to be succinct and neutral enough; can always be adjusted. Thank you for the feedback! — xaosfluxTalk19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I would have proposed version 7 initially; I was just trying to address the issue you raised. Thanks to everyone for your collaborative efforts. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: "administrative privileges" has many connotations (look at Privilege and go on from there), please can you rephrase the notice? 'access' or 'tools' are much more neutral, and in line with them being mop-like. Or if you want to start awarding gold-plated mops...? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Done@Mike Peel: I tweaked the grammar; I'm not really sure what the "best" other part is - despite the mop-history, most editors seem to agree that "being an admin" is more than "having access to the permissions bundled in to the sysop group" - how about "status" instead of "privileges"? — xaosfluxTalk21:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a typo in the fix. Guess I should have put that comma after "open" that I was considering (I ended up eliding it, as was done in the other proposals). Personally, I prefer privileges (unsurprisingly, since I deliberately chose the word). In addition to the technical reasons, to my mind it accurately describes that some editors have been given the additional privilege of performing certain administrative actions, and that the community can withdraw this grant. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open proposing a new community process to remove administrative permissions
A request for comment is open proposing a new process for the community to review inappropriate administrator actions, which may lead to access revocation for cause.
A request for comment is open proposing a new process for the community to review administrator behavior, which may lead to access revocation for cause.
A request for comment proposes a new community process that could remove an administrator's advanced access.
A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from a user.
A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from an editor.
A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges.
A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to demote administrators.
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.
February Signpost notice
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@ProcrastinatingReader: probably - any comment from WTT would be welcome - I'm assuming the RfC will run for about a month, and we normally WLN for about 2 weeks - suggest waiting until day 5 or 7 to make sure it doesn't get SNOWed first, also sometimes the very early discussion results in material changes that require re-notifying all the prior participants (another reason to delay the masses). I see it's up on CENT, so that's a good start. While considering timing, feel free to mock up the vebiage suggested below. — xaosfluxTalk14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The last blurb was:
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions.
@Lourdes: is there any reason why Please discuss before adding. wasn't followed? I don't really think this should be advertised on watchlists. This isn't a ratification vote, and there isn't even a properly formulated change to ARBPOL proposed. The RfC itself is imo premature. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi PR. This is a proposal that requires site-wide inputs, and there's no iron-clad policy measure to discuss clear-cut cases. Xao has now bolded the addition with this edit, and I thank them for that. Your opinions are appreciated. That said, that's about it. (And to be candid, giving it a wide notice will ensure we have both opposing and supporting views with their true weight). Lourdes 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I really don't feel like that should've been done. Is this really so important that everyone must see it? Couldn't this have been just announced at AN? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Should not a proposal involving ArbCom invite site-wide participation? AN would be only viewed by AN regulars imo. Lourdes 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with PR and Moneytrees, the notice should not have been added without consensus. It's especially bad form for the RfC's initiator to make the decision unilaterally – it gives the impression an agenda is being pushed. Xaosflux could you please remove the notice until a consensus emerges that it's appropriate? – Teratix₵14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Teratix: note my edit was purely procedural and was not an "endorsement" of this - but following discussion above this has been removed already. I agree this seems to be at the the least 'too soon' for this to be on WLN and that T:CENT is a good start. — xaosfluxTalk14:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Starting on July 1, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Ideally it would run on June 30 and/or July 1, and say something like
Thanks, Xaosflux. If possible to start running this today to get it out before the drive starts, that would be great. But I understand if you would rather wait a bit longer. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae Xaosflux updated the Signpost cookie instead of the RfA cookie yesterday making the signpost reappear if you had it dismissed but still hiding the RfA notice if you dismissed it the last time around. This should now be fixed. --Trialpears (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, a bit of dis-organisation here but the AfC backlog drive is go, so it would be good to get the message out even if it's 7 days late - suggested message:
I'm not a fan of having this as a watchlist notice given that not everyone has AfC rights and can help out. AfC could really use some more reviewers though.
@Trialpears: oops, yes they were just so similar. But yes I agree, the AfC process is not really "open" to every editor, what with them wanting to use special scripts and all. A project talk, or project newsletter would be better here. — xaosfluxTalk20:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough and I really want sure myself and would not even have considered until I saw the GA one that also seamed specialised. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
July Signpost notice
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Voting has begun in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections! Voting ends at 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC). [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Voting|Verify your eligibility and vote now]].
@Xeno (WMF): generally the CN is considered higher visibility, making this redundant; but this is important enough to perhaps also run. Leaving open for comments below. — xaosfluxTalk10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
{{Display/watchlist
|until= October 24, 2021
|cookie=nnn
|text=Voting has begun for the [[Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election|Wikimedia Movement Charter Drafting Committee]] election! Voting ends at 23:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC). [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections|'''View the candidates and vote now.''']]
}}
@Xaosflux and Mz7: Apologies for not noticing this earlier. The election ends 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (imo, no need to update the cookie since it extends, rather than contracts, the time allowed.) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Following up from this discussion - which I proposed and had wide support (though not formally closed as an RfC) - I've added some discouragement to en-ca and en-gb on to the watchlist. This will only be seen if your language is set to those values. See an example here. There may be some other places this could be useful, trying to not be overly intrusive though. — xaosfluxTalk11:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 notice
I am proposing, beginning on 7 Nov 2021 (after the deadline for new proposals has happened), a watchlist notice that would read:
This follows WL notices earlier this year around desysop and term limits and seems equivalent in scope. I am not picky about this verbiage and if there is consensus to do this I am happy to do the legwork myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a big enough deal to warrant advertisement, perhaps for 1 week. I don't love the verbiage, perhaps:
@Barkeep49: thoughts? This is more aligned with prior WLN's, and I think it maintains neutrality and still has the right call to action (i.e. Hey you, go to this RfC and participate if you care about this stuff!) — xaosfluxTalk17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey @MusikAnimal: - once we can verify that all these preference things are fixed, we should probably post a note to somewhere like WP:VPT and maybe even go so far as to link to it from here - I think the impact is much more widespread than was reported, with small things just mysteriously breaking for people (e.g. even my own enwiki wikimail got turned off and I didn't notice for a while). — xaosfluxTalk16:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux I doubt they're all fixed, yet, see QA notes at phab:T286271#7503827. But yes, once we verify the bigger problem (phab:T294675) is fixed, we can advertise it along with notes that you need to re-save your GlobalPreferences and/or overrides accordingly. We will send something out on TechNews, too. — MusikAnimaltalk17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
November Signpost notice
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
January 2022 good article nomination backlog drive
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Starting on January 1, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Perhaps from December 31 to January 7, saying something like:
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The talk page reply tool has been enabled for all desktop editors. Should you have any issues or feedback for the Talk Pages project team, please join the discussion at the project talk page.
@Xaosflux: The wording of the current "it's coming soon" message is unclear, I think, to dumb less technically competent people like me. Not everyone (including me, until I looked it up) knows what a gamma test is; that jargon needs to be changed. Also, if I understand correctly, the gamma testing is the current opt-in phase, right? And it's going to become opt-out on March 7th? Is "enabled" more software terminology that means something different to techies and to laymen? I'd have said it's already "enabled" now as an opt-in, and will be changed to opt-out on the 7th. Also, shouldn't we explain how to opt-in? If I understand correctly, should it be reworded to something like:
The talk page reply tool is planned to be enabled as an opt-out gadget(task) for all editors using the desktop interface on 7 March 2022. All registered editors are welcome to opt-in ahead of time to the Gamma Test (available in Preferences - Beta features - Discussion tools) and provide any feedback, ask questions, or report issues to the Talk Pages project team in the discussion at the project talk page.
@Floquenbeam: thanks for the feedback, lets massage this a bit! One important note is that all editors include ip editors, who will not be able to "opt out". How's this:
The talk page reply tool is planned to be turned on(task) for all editors using the desktop interface on 7 March 2022. Registered editors are welcome to opt-in to the final testing period and provide any feedback, ask questions, or report issues to the Talk Pages project team in the discussion at the project talk page.
After the actual launch, we'll update the message that this feature is now on by default, how to opt out (registered users only), and where to leave any other feedback. The current call to action is "let us know if something is broken that we need to abort the launch about" really. — xaosfluxTalk22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the link from [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion|preferences]]. Matma Rextalk21:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, let me know if any questions. There may also be a CentralNotice, however I think that double-booking is reasonable. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF) WLN's should have a call to action, specifically what do you want people to click on (a bold link) and is there something that needs defining (like "UCOC" or "enforcement guidelines") that should be linked to for reference? — xaosfluxTalk22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF) thanks for the note, seems appropriate. I'm assuming this shouldn't be launched until the vote is live. Please set the edit request to active when ready if missed. — xaosfluxTalk15:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Display/watchlist
|until= March 21, 2022
|cookie=nnn
|text= [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting|'''Voting''']] on the ratification of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct]] (UCoC) [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines|enforcement guidelines]] is open until 21 March 2022.
}}
Or the link, but really the call to action page will need to be ready to go (e.g. need to have a big button to actually get to the vote perhaps). — xaosfluxTalk15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
xaosflux: Since the poll is still running throughout the UTC day (there was a brief hiccup where it was dark for an hour), should it still be running? Sorry I didn't realize it wasn't an inclusive field. (I think we might have updated the end date, after you looked at this request also.)Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
xaosflux: Right, there was a change as it was announced as "7 to 21", yet wasn't clear if it was inclusive of the 21. It guess it should have read 'until 23:59 UTC 21 March 2022'. (This is perhaps why there was that "AoE" experiment the last time!) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma I put the exact time 2022-03-22T00:00 (UTC) from the voting server in there (many people have scripts that may display that in 'local time'); the English Wikipedia is international and our "local" timezone is UTC. — xaosfluxTalk14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Minor nitpick: I'd suggest including "for administrators" in the linked text to better clarify what the linked policy is about. It's fine without that though. — Wug·a·po·des17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Proposed:
{{Display/watchlist|until=Monthd,yyyy(7daysafterlaunch)|cookie=nnn|text=A[[Wikipedia:Villagepump(policy)/Requestforcommentonadministratoractivityrequirements|'''request for comment''']]isopenproposingachangetotheminimum[[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators|activityrequirements]]foradministrators.}}
Going to put this On hold for at least 24 hours while the ever growing noticeboard discussions about signpost are in progress. — xaosfluxTalk01:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on announcing the call for candidates here? The deadline was just extended.
Proposed:
{{Display/watchlist|until=May17,2022|cookie=nnn|text=Youcan[[m:Special:MyLanguage/WikimediaFoundationelections/2022/ApplytobeaCandidate|'''apply to be a candidate''']]inthe[[m:Special:MyLanguage/WikimediaFoundationelections/2022|2022WikimediaFoundationBoardofTrusteeselection]]until23:59UTCon'''16 May 2022'''.}}
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Starting on 1 June, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Ideally it would run on 30 May and/or 1 June, and say something like
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add The Guild of Copyeditors' August Blitz runs from the 14th August to the 20th August. Sign up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2022|here]]. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add The [[WP:Vital articles|Vital article]]'s 30 kB drive runs from the 26th July to the 31st August. Sign up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/30 kB drive|here]].CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Noting that I've copyedited the message slightly (removing the apostrophe from "Vital article's"). If the intent was to make it possessive (e.g. "WikiProject Vital Articles' 30kB drive...") rather than declarative then say and I can fix. firefly ( t · c ) 15:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
