@
Cenarium: Since this is shown on every watchlist of everyone with an account, it can be said to have 27,424,499 transclusions, is that enough to qualify for template protection? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (
T)14:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I've updated to Full Protection, as are done for most templates in mediawiki space. There should be enough people watching for edit request if really needed.—
xaosfluxTalk05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)reply
MediaWiki:Watchlist-details
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
view talk edit
There is currently 1+1+1+2/1 request for adminship open for discussion. (Expires tomorrow)
You have $1 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).
I see. As long as the evaluation is between 1 and 19 it will display currently. If I wrap the contents with {{#expr:}} it might display the actual value? But as that page is now TE protected I don't think there is anything to worry about ;) — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)reply
A bit of a hack. As the notice will disappear when there are no RfAs, I couldn't see much purpose for an expiry date. The "tomorrow" will always be in the future and so will never expire. I'm sure we could tidy it up. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Adding an addition operation would trigger the count to change:
as *{{#expr:({{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}+{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count}})}} yeilds: 0
Additional language would be needed if we want this to include text for what kind of request is open - but the good news is that the source data is being maintained. —
xaosfluxTalk17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
It is still one message backed by one cookie (class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_{{{cookie}}}), so there wouldn't be any behavior difference. If a user dismisses it, changes to the message wouldn't make it re-pop in my understanding. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb)19:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I think the cookie would need to continue to be incremented manually when there are changes to RfA/RfB counts. Though in this case, folks who've seen the RfAs probably saw the RfBs too. But then again it seems like it's always safe to increment the cookie. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb)19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Please amend the text to "A request for adminship is in progress.", or in the case of multiple RfAs "n requests for adminship are in progress.", per mini-discussion
here.
@
Noyster:When there are, say 3 RfAs and 2 RfBs, the text is currently: There is currently three requests for adminship and two requests for bureaucratship open for discussion. Are you proposing 3 requests for adminship and 2 requests for bureaucratship are in progress. or Three requests for adminship and two requests for bureaucratship are in progress.? If the latter, unfortunately it looks like {{Cardinal to word/0 to 19}} does not support capitalization of the first character at the moment. The functionality for that can be built in though —
Andy W. (
talk)
12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not to sure how to formulated it, but "There's an new request for adminship and your vote counts. [dismiss]" is what I came up with on that other page.
I'm in favour of this text but for a different reason; it would encourage more participation. The discussion at
WT:RFA indicates that making a change with that specific intent may need a consensus.
Mkdwtalk17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Max.nordlund, your proposed text does not clarify the issue you bring up [Edit: nor does the alternate proposed text]. Grammatically it makes the same announcement without any possessive nouns and only adds an
independent clause at the end that also does not clarify that the RFA does not belong to the reader. Voting does not eliminate candidacy in most types of voting processes and anyone familiar with the RFA process would likely also understand how many checks and balances take place before an RFA goes live (including requiring the candidate to endorse a nomination). I don't mean to single you out, but objectively, this announcement has gone out to tens of thousands of editors dozens of times within the past year and further. This appears to be the first time someone has expressed they found the message unclear, but even if it were reported in a handful of cases, the notice from a public announcement standard would be deemed highly successful. I think we run the risk of complicating a
simple sentence which could actually make the message even more confusion to the wider public. Also, I should point out that RFA is not a vote either. Please see the "discussion, decision, and closing procedures" section. I'm not opposed to change the message, but we should have a clear reason and outcome for doing so. [Edit: Struck out issues addressed above; I started writing it before there were other comments]
Mkdwtalk02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
To be fair, I'm not the only one who are confused, see the thread I linked above. Yes, this goes out to all users on this site, albeit only a few of them sees it since you need to check your watchlist. As I said, I'm not sure about the formulation, but I do think it's important to communicate clearly to the user what the target of the link is. Even after I followed it @
Leaky caldron: it took a few minutes until I saw the little info box with the current candidates and their votes. It is also not just about the numbers, or why else would Wikipedia even exists over
WAP? It's about clarity and while I understand that you power users get it, as a newer users I don't. The notice is above the search box visually separated from the rest of my feed, and reads "A request for adminship is in progress. [dismiss]". That doesn't make it clear to whom it is addressed to, why it's even there in the first place or what the link is supposed to take me. If you want more engagement for the RFA then having a proper call to action in the notice would definitely help. The only reason I followed that link is because I was think there may have been a glitch/wrong name situation.
To summarize, I personally found the message unclear (at least when there is only one candidate), there's no call to action to guide the user, short isn't necessarily the best. Sounds better? @
Mkdw:Max Nordlund (
talk)
14:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
"...albeit only a few of them sees it"... I'm sorry, but that's very inaccurate. There are 31 million editors on the English Wikipedia and 123,930 active editors. Watchlists are arguably the most utilized function page on the site. Making things more clear is always better -- that principal is not being debated here. I was pointing out, grammatically speaking, your proposed revision text does address the issue you initially raised about ownership of the RFA.
Now you're raising a different issue about to whom the notice is addressed and why. That can certainly be improved but it also sounds like for you the biggest issue was visual which would potentially require a technical layout change? Or is the issue trying to craft a more effective message so more people participate? That might need to be addressed at
WT:RFA as the current discussion there suggests that is a debated topic. It feels a bit like this discussion is jumping around on what the actual problem is here.
Mkdwtalk17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
The note about who reads it come from reading the RFA talk page, but I'm obviously misstaken. The point about the position of the notice was an attempt to explain why, in part, I got so confused. However since that seems to require a technical change, and changing the wording does not, I think the latter is the best course of action right now, and while we're at it why not try to make it more enticing per the concerns raised at
WT:RFA?
Max Nordlund (
talk)
16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I am also in favour of changing the text. Currently it is ambiguous. I came to this page precisely for the reason that seeing the message on my Watchlist was confusing. Like others here, I understood it to refer to a request on my behalf. I don't agree with user
User:Leaky caldron that the situation becomes any clearer after clicking the link.
Veritycheck (
talk)
20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Currently the text of this watchlist notice is identical to the entry at the
centralized discussion box ("CENT").
Pigsonthewing and I recently
got it changed from "There is currently a
request for adminship open for discussion". He and I are hot on keeping links in CENT short enough to fit in one line of the box wherever possible. There is more space to play with in the watchlist notice section, so the text used there could be expanded; but I'm not sure either reverting to the previous wording or devising any new wording would solve the problem raised here. (If you read in the news "A trial is in progress" do you think it's you on trial? How about "A funeral will take place tomorrow"?)
: Noyster (talk),00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
It certainly can be longer, some of the contentious points we came up with last time were: It should link to
WP:RFA, not to individual RFA's; It should not include candidate names. Outside of that there is room to expand. —
xaosfluxTalk01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
"In progress" is too vague, as it doesn't clearly communicate what is expected of the editor who is reading the notice. Before this
7 February 2016 edit, the message said "open for discussion", which more clearly implies that the editor may join the discussion. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Template:Centralized discussion implies that all included items are requests to join discussions, therefore "in progress" is fine there. However, watchlists are mostly for notifications of edits to pages that the user is "watching", not for requests to join discussions, which is why the nature of the notice there needs to be more explicit. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
(1) The rationale for the change stated above was to "keep links in CENT short enough to fit in one line of the box wherever possible". Currently there are six lines in {{Centralized discussion}}, and this message is the shortest of the six. "in progress" is 11 bytes; "open for discussion" is 19 bytes, thus this change just adds 8 bytes to the length of the message.
(2) There is also the issue, "Even after I followed it (the link to
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship) it took a few minutes until I saw the little info box with the current candidates and their votes."
What's expected is still unclear because the page also discusses nomination standards and procedures, leaving the notified editor wondering, Did someone nominate me? Or am I supposed to nominate someone?
To attempt to solve this, I suggest adding a second, more specific section link, and emphasize that link:
in progress. → '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions|open for discussion]]'''. e.g.:
(
edit conflict) I have no objection to this proposal, which goes about as far as could be in the direction of spelling out what is happening within the framework of a brief message with links. There may still be some who won't get the picture, and run away thinking the open discussion is all about them... New editors are subject to all sorts of misconceptions - I know I was - and for most the fog clears before long
: Noyster (talk),00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Protected edit request on 27 May 2017
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change |cent to |cent=* {{RfA watchlist notice/text|bold=no}} (and simultaneously remove the bullet to the left of where the template is used at {{Centralized discussion}}). This is to prevent the display of an empty list item when
HTML Tidy is removed. Thanks,
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me06:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Currently, the text "request for bureaucratship" and "request of adminship" link to the "about" sections, rather than the "current requests" sections. Thus, please replace it with the
current sandbox version, which links to the specific sections. (
diff) Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Xaosflux: Reading through that discussion, it seems to me that the concern was linking to specific nominations. This change would just link to the current requests section of the main page, which is what is implied by the link of "request(s)" - linking to the requests. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
21:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
DannyS712: that part was pretty clear, not to link to specific noms, the other part is if people following the link should land on an explanation of what they just landed on or not. Keep in mind, for some editors they may be brand new to the Rfx process since they were summoned from their watchlist - and may have no idea what it is about. —
xaosfluxTalk21:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Restorethis revision before April Fools' Day caused it to be disabled. Now it's time to turn it back on for some legit stuff. {{SUBST:replyto|
Can I Log In}}PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 00:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC) {{SUBST:replyto|
Can I Log In}}PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply(Talk)00:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I was thinking of something a bit more descriptive, like watchlist-message-RfX (based on the common class currently added, watchlist-message). I don't have a strong opinion about it, though.
isaacl (
talk)
16:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply