MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Archive 1- Covers Feb.-Mar. 2005 and Sept. 2005 fundraising notices; debate on Katrina charity links. Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Removing the site notice 2 Wikimedia Foundation election notice 3 The election notice again 4 Archive? 5 Archive box 6 Remove form 7 remove version with the paypal box 8 Note PDF format, or non-PDF financial statements? 9 Background 10 Gentle reminder 11 Dead Links 12 +$286,000? 13 April Fools 14 Show/Hide function 15 WP:ATT reversion. 16 April 1 '07

[edit] Removing the site notice

The Site notice is used for important announcements and messages and it is highly recommended that you do not remove the entire SiteNotice as you will miss this information.

However, it is possible to individually ignore this and other related banners, by adding one or both of the following CSS snippets to your monobook.css file:

/*removes current message */
#NAMEOFMESSAGE { display: none; }

/* Removes all site notices */
#siteNotice { display: none; }

After saving that page, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file.

Note that adding the latter block of code will hide the entire SiteNotice, no matter the content, while the former block of code (click "view source" or "edit" to see the name of the div class and replace NAMEOFMESSAGE with that name) will only remove the notice used at that time. To repeat though, it is highly recommended that you do not remove the entire SiteNotice, as it will be used for important announcement and messages.

The default of this template is that found at foundation:MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Content added here will override the Wikimedia Foundation master.

[edit] Wikimedia Foundation election notice

Hat down to Brion VIBBER who is surely the man who makes wonderous things happen on Wikipedia, but I would still like to discuss if his post of the Wikimedia Board elections is appropriate to be seen by each and every person visiting Wikipedia.

We all know that the Wikimedia board governs Wikipedia and its offshots, but I would argue that the note is much more approrpiate on the watchlists, where any editor can see it, and it is distracting and inappropriate in the article namespace. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I just removed this from the watchlist, as it was redundant with this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked Brion about this, but his response was not very illuminating. I agree that that watchlist is generally a good place for this. Dragons flight 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been more than 12 hours with no comments to the contrary, and so I removed the election notice and will put it on the watchlists.

A request for people who may want to put it back: please make your case as to why a Wikipedia-wide site notice is better than a watchlists only notice. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why Brion re-inserted it, and I have no problem with it being on the watchlist rather than sitenotice, nor do I know of any objection from Datrio or Aphaia to it being placed there. However, I'd check with one of the three of us before removing election-related notices, as they should all be coming from us and any notices we place up are Board-sanctioned and removing them is a direct challenge to the authority of the Board to operate this site. This case seems to have gone fine, but I encourage strong caution from here out in changing election-related notices as it is 100% guaranteed that any case of Board vs. Admin will end with Board wins, Amin -sysop. Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For someone who bemoans "grandstanding," you’ve certainly done a fair amount of it here. Once again, you’ve posted a message that amounts to little more than "I’m an election official! You lowly peons shall bow down and kiss my feet, or you’ll pay the price!"

Brion Vibber, who is not an election official, inexplicably reinserted the message as part of the site notice without even bothering to remove it from the watchlist message. When asked why he’d done this, he responded in his usual (terse, cryptic) manner, but he provided permission to revert his edit. After waiting more than half a day to be sure, this was carried out.

Nonetheless, you simply couldn’t pass up the opportunity to throw your weight around by needlessly threatening to desysop any admin who dares challenge your wisdom (even peripherally).

In an earlier post, you noted that the board (and by extension, you) can essentially do anything without answering to anyone. You’ve confused the fact that you can get away with something for a reason why you should.

I agree that the board's authority must be upheld, but no one—not even Jimbo himself—is above Wikipedia’s civility standards. Your status might enable you to behave in this manner with virtual impunity, but it certainly doesn’t require you to. 4.238.34.162 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering your strong comments here, 4.238.34.162, it is not a surprise to me that you did not even log-in into Wikipedia. However, I agree with you that not even Wales is above Wikipedia's civility standards. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is the first and only edit by the above-mentioned IP user so far. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While the anon comment was strong-worded, I do agree with the essense of it. It is true that Jimbo, WP:OFFICE and the Wikimedia board are undisputably above community decisions/consensus, etc. But that power is something to be used very carefully and wisely (the soft power thing). Wikipedia is the work of a community of volunteers, and if the governing bodies start being too rigid about "who is in charge" and what will happen "if you cross us" that may damage the community trust. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just a thought. What would happen to this project if Jimbo suddenly lost interest in it? Or if he is not around anymore? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The board would probably apoint someone since there appears to be a policy of makeing sure the elected indivduals are in the minority. The elected board members would probably end up takeing over the spokesman part of the role.Geni 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The election notice again

OK, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but at least out of respect for the community, is it possible to do a better job at explaining the "will of Gods" to us, mortals?

Adding the election notice back, knowing fully well that it will show up on a million Wikipedia pages and be seen by millions of people, only with the explanation "restoring per Aphaia on IRC"[1] and without any explanation on this talk page strikes me as a very poor thing to do.

Would anybody care explain why that notice can't be on watchlists only? (And don't tell me see the IRC channel.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Note, this is nly the site notice for logged in editors, anons see MediaWiki:Anonnotice AFAIK. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled this off of the watchlists, but only because it is here. Personally, I don't care where it is, but DON'T PUT IT ON BOTH AT THE SAME TIME! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

appears to be a ruleing of the Communications committee so not Essjay's fault.Geni 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said it was Essjay's fault. But it would be nice if anybody who actually knows what is going on explain on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aparently the communications committee had a meeting and decided to put the message in sitenotice. Removeing it = de-admining and all that stuff. I've sent them an email in the hope they will clariffy some stuff.Geni 22:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aphaia asked me to revert the change on IRC and I did so. If you have any more questions, I'd advise you to contact her. Naconkantari 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked Aphaia to comment here.

So, just to clarify, the question is, why can't the election notice be on watchlists only? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And here we have the problem of wiki-related decisions being made off-wiki. Ahh well, it's now hidden for me, so I guess I'll miss it when something actually interesting/important comes up next. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Decisions regarding the election to Wikimedia Foundation, and how it should be announced, will of course never be taken on English Wikipedia. The election should probably be announced in the same way on all projects in all languages - English Wikipedia included. // Habj 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

slightly more info from Aphaia on foundation-I "- found some wikis lacking sitenotice; contact to the local peoplethrough irc and other media and ask them to restore (by me; needed three days in a sum; I hope local community realises the global sitenotce is the notice on the global issues from the Foundation, based on many discussions between several involved parties [this case, Election officers, Communication committees and some developers], and even if they don't want, it is unthoughtful to remove it without reporting to the global community in a proper channel like foundation-l)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) 08:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I don't know the specifics of the re-addition, but the sitenotice was probably placed on again because the deadline for the registration of candidates is approaching, and the SiteNotice has been proven to be more effective than the Watchlist for notices. In addition, most other languages don't use the header of the watchlist for notices; it wasn't intended for such a use, and the use of it for such notices hasn't caught on in other projects and languages. I will, however, relay your concerns to the ComCom and the elections officials. Violetriga: you can simply remove this particular message, not the entire sitenotice, by using the div class/id ("BoardCandidateNotice"), instead of "siteNotice". The siteNotice will continue to be used for important announcement and messages, and we don't want anyone to miss out on them. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems that I keep having to do that for each and every notice that appears on here. violet/riga (t) 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do recognize that this can be a hassle, but I'm just pointing out that you don't have to remove the entire SiteNotice, and you can just remove that message. Of course, it's your choice, but I'm trying to convince you otherwise. :-) (Way to go with bluntness, Flcelloguy... *grins*) Seriously, though, I will let the elections officials and the rest of the ComCom know your concerns, and advise them to try and keep the use of the SiteNotice to what is essential. However, I do highly recommend that you don't turn off the entire sitenotice; there may very well be important messages there in the future, and situations where the SiteNotice is the only way to convey urgent information. In addition, while there may seem like a lot of different SiteNotices, there have only been a few this year; it is only this time of year that makes it seem so busy, with Wikimania and the Board elections. Rest assured that the use of the SiteNotice will indubitably decrease after the Board elections. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, SPAM wonderful SPAM, glorious SPAM, beautiful SPAM. SPAM me please, SPAM me free SPAM me, SPAM me, SPAM me! Vote over there, stand over here, pay it in through there! Whatever you do, cretin, don't take it down because if in your ignominous ignorance you do We'll cut your head off because it's fashionable to do so! No, please don't expect an explanation other than God commanded it on IRC! Please understand that it is better if cretins just don't question things! Makes Our lives easier! If you do question Us, cretin, expect a response that points out your ignominious ignorance and Our greater appreciation of things you can't be trusted with! SPAM is wonderful, SPAM is great, SPAM makes a difference to things like this! Wonderful SPAM! -Splash - tk 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But if we de-spam the spam then the spam will not be able to spam the spammy spam-eaters and then they won't be able to spam the spam-vote spam with their spam; on top of all that spam, we have to consider the spam aspects of all this spam. Those on the Board made of spam can really affect the spammy taste of all the spam we produce for spam-searchers like Spamoogle or Spamhoo!, not to mention our spam-slicers, so it is as important as spam that it get spammed and seen. --maru (talk) contribs 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A good point well made: I had overlooked the spam-slicers in my consideration. Perhaps then the SpamCom (and its deSpamCops) could have us a Mediawiki:Spamslicernotice? Then we can include it in our .css file only if we want the spam. -Splash - tk 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I have baked beans with my spam? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I hear a proposal for Mediawiki:Spamandbakedbeansnotice? Just think! We could have a whole menu of different spam accompaniments for our editors to choose from. -Splash - tk 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so long as all of them are made of spam. --maru (talk) contribs 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While I recognize that the latter part of the conversation is (at least partially) meant in a humourous manner, I do want to point out the SiteNotice is not used for spam; on the contrary, it is used for important notices that affect either the entire site or all Wikipedians. Though I understand you all have questioned the wisdom of some of the recent SiteNotices, rest assured that the SiteNotice will never be used for spam or anything not important to Wikipedia. As I said above, though, I will convey your feelings to the ComCom and the elections officials. In the meantime, please rest assured that no spam, no matter how tasty, will ever appear on the SiteNotice. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think registration for Wikimania 2006 affected the entire site or all wikipedians.Geni 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The site notice is overused. There is absolutely no reason to have a notice (as we do now) that essentially says nominations have closed, and voting hasn't yet begun. It's pointless and an eyesore. Considering how long voting will go for, I can't see any importance in telling everyone the exact moment voting will open. - Mark 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but how will other users find out in a clear manner that the nominations have been closed? But I have to agree that not all users of Wikipedia would find this information relevent to them. In fact, most Wikipedians would not be too bothered about this. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By going to the relevant page of their own accord, out of interest, and discovering that it is closed? Before long, the ComCom will be announcing that voting will shortly be about to open, then that it will be open very soon, then that it is open. Following this, that it continues to be open, that the close of polls is approaching, that the close of polls is upon us, and that the polls have closed. Naturally, that has to be rounded off by the announcement that the results are now available. (Someone keep this diff somewhere, and see how many I get right.) -Splash - tk 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your concerns. As promised, I did relay your feelings to the ComCom, and we will take into account your opinions - the number of Sitenotice messages should be reduced drastically after the end of the elections. Though I cannot promise that it will not be used again for any specific time period, I can say that Board elections are extremely rare, limiting the potential uses of the SiteNotice. In addition, I can also assure you that we will never place a SiteNotice which we don't think is necessary and extremely important at that time. The Board elections are important, however, and thus the current notice reminding users that voting will end in less than 48 hours. After the conclusion of voting, though, the SiteNotice will be immediately removed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

Just to be on the safe side, I feel that it is about time to archive parts of this page. It is getting too large. Any comments about this would be welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive box

I added an archive box above. I left this notice because I know that this is a sensitive name space. --Meno25 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove form

Please remove that donation box at the top. It looks awful to have this big thing at the top of every page. (I don't know if logged in users see it, so if you don't see the ugly box at the top log out and then view wikipedia). 72.139.119.165 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have sympathy for your opinion, but the box has been placed there by the Foundation and it is not allowed to be removed. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we make it less awful? Just a line of text with a link where people can find further information? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No it is part of the fundraising drive people are meant to notice it.Geni 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, the notice is here to stay. and ugly at that, per this mailing list reply. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] remove version with the paypal box

The current version here and for MediaWiki:Anonnotice, with the paypal option is not the version that is approved. Please remove the paypal option. See also meta:Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4#The_current_default_sitenotice --Walter (Communications committee) 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put in the default notice, per this note. I'm sure that if the other version has been approved somewhere, someone will fix it soon enough. - BanyanTree 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence is on the Board, so there may be a good, approved reason. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment from Brad Patrick, our general counsel and interim executive direction, on the above page may be pertinent: "Comment from Executive Director: We spent a lot of time to work to get the Fundraising page to be the right way, meaning to offer alternatives. We are trying to get people to land there; the idea of the Paypal form "shortcut" undermines that for lots of potential donors. We never discussed or agreed that such a thing would be placed in the En:WP site notice." Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note PDF format, or non-PDF financial statements?

Would it be acceptable to note that the "Financial statements" link leads to a PDF, i.e. "Financial statements (PDF)"? (I think this is a pretty standard thing due to some computers' issues with Adobe. For me, for example, the IE plugin takes ages to load, and I would rather download PDFs to disk first rather than open them with the plugin.) Perhaps another alternative would be linking to a non-PDF version, if one could be made (although would that need some sort of "the PDF is official, not responsible for typos, etc. etc." notice?). —AySz88\^-^ 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --mav 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The background of this template should be transparent, not white. BigBlueFish 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle reminder

(This is a little pre-emptive note given what will happen to this in 4 hours' time.)

Please do not over-ride the meta template once the changes go live to replace the content; especially, please do not edit-war over it. Last time people did that, we had to have several accounts' sysop privs removed. That is not what we want.

Please also consider that, just possibly, your concerns have already been considered; raise them here first.

James F. (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ may also contain some relevant information about this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page#Virgin Unite Logo. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-28t14:26z

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advertisement. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Links

Not sure where this should be brought up at, but the sitenotice now has DEAD LINKS on it to all of the virgin places. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed in #wikimedia on IRC. Naconkantari 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The site seemed to crash when we linked to them, and I guess they just blanked the page we link to to ease the load and keep their servers up. Shanes 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the foreign site is back up. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] +$286,000?

Am I reading this correctly? Wow! El_C 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That was our "anonymous donation matching" being accounted for, I believe. Shimgray | talk | 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools

Could this go here on April Fools Day:

It wouldn't really bother anybody...maybe make it so it could be hidden after they figure out what it is? Anon 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.112.241 (talk • contribs).

No, it would bother people; I know it would bother me for one. Little jokes are OK, but something major like this is not acceptable. —Mets501 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agee with Mets501. I would be fooled, for one, by this bar, and would not find it so funny to start with. There are better venues of showing humor I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are talking about! This is a great idea! But why stop there? We should also make all of the article links lead to random pages. It wouldn't really bother anybody. Oh, and we could set up the "edit this page" link to download a virus that deletes all of the files on the user's hard disk drive. This is going to be hilarious! —David Levy 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could add body {display: none;} to Common.css. That would be even better. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show/Hide function

I'm trying to add a show/hide (similar to the one that was here during the fundraiser) function on another wiki for the site notice and I was wondering if anybody would be willing to give me something I could copy and paste to enable this. John Reaves (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATT reversion.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#How_do_we_get_rid_of_the_banner? --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not in the sitenotice, it is in MediaWiki:Watchdetails. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 1 '07

Cute. And by that, I mean it scared the crap outta me. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)