MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This interface message is documented on its manual page.
The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators. To request a change to the page, add {{editprotected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request.
Notice

Wikipedia has three kinds of top of page messages that admins can edit:

  • MediaWiki:Anonnotice – Visible on top of all pages for not logged in users. If this message is empty then the system instead shows the sitenotice to those users. A trick is to set the anonnotice to for instance <p></p> so it doesn't display anything but still prevents the not logged in users from seeing the sitenotice.
  • MediaWiki:Sitenotice – Visible on top of all pages for all users. Anonymous users see this one too if the anonnotice is empty.
  • {{Watchlist-notice}} – Visible on top of the user watchlists.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[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. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: This is the first and only edit by the above-mentioned IP user so far. --Siva1979Talk 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? --Siva1979Talk 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. --Siva1979Talk 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. --Siva1979Talk 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:

You have new messages (last change)

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? --wL<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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] br

Is there some reason this message is on two lines and not one? — Dan | talk 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess to make it more prominent. I don't know for sure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly overlap issue

Hi. For several months, I've noticed that at pages like India that carry one or more of the non-coord title templates have top icons (the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} speaker, the {{featured article}} star, etc.) overlap with the "[hide]" handle attached to Sitenotice's template. This makes it a tricky business to either hide the site message or click on the SW or other metadata icon links. If it helps, I happen to use the Firefox browser and can provide screenshots. Thanks. Saravask 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It might also help to create Category:MediaWiki notice templates (or a similarly named cat) and include this template in it. This might help less-experienced editors find their way here. Saravask 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing

I have a wiki of my own and I was thinking of doing something similar to these on my wiki, how do you get it so that it is at the top of all the pages? 82.27.19.152 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania notice

Is there a reason why the notice for Wikimania 2007 was taken down? It had been there, along with the notice about accepting candidates for the board election. I think the Wikimania notice needs to still be there, alongside the election notice. --Aude (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think two notices is too much. The wikimania notice has been up for more than a month now. Maybe it is just the time it should be taken down.
Ideally Wikipedia should minimize the amount of times banners are displayed, even if they are for a benign purpose and even if they can be turned off. Announcements better go to the top of the watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon election notice

A well intentioned admin added a notice about the WMF election to Mediawiki:Anonnotice, the site wide notice shown to not logged in Wikipedia visitors. Since non-editors cannot participate in the election, I feel this is a pointless distraction to the vast majority of Wikipedia visitors, and he disagrees. Since nearly no one watches Mediawiki talk pages, I am posting in a couple common places to hopefully draw further attention to this.

Please comment at Mediawiki talk:Anonnotice#Election notice is bad. Dragons flight 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two logos?

Do we need two commons logs in the sitenotice? I believe it is overkill and looks distracting. Also, on my screen the sitenotice is now on too lines, and adding one more logo doesn't help (I know it can be dismissed, but that is not the point). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. The last logo comes on a line of its own on my screen. It certainly doesn't make the note look more symmetric, which was Cyde's (well intended) reason for adding it. This depends, of course, on the reader's resolution and window size. In general we often forget that some of our readers don't read Wikipedia with a very good screen resolution. All those top tags stacked on top of each other in various articles is another example (they often use up over half of my screen), but I digress. Shanes 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted to one logo. —David Levy 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's excessive and makes it look worse, to me anyway. Grandmasterka 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimeetups on the sitenotice?

Is the plan to do this for all English-language wikimeetups? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you hear about this? I think that's a bad idea. -- John Reaves (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he was referring to the notice about the upcoming D.C. meetup shown at the top of the watchlists of all those who lived near the D.C. area (by IP address). This was created by altering the mediaWiki:Common.js, not the sitenotice. Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Things on the watchlist may be tolerated. About the sitenotice itself, it should of course stay blank except for very few exceptions for really important announcements. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I figured out that it wasn't actually sitenotice shortly after asking the question. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results notice

I believe the current

The results of the 2007 board elections have been announced.

notice not to be so essential as to be seen by all editors on all pages (unlike say the actual election notice). Is it possible to remove it say 24 hours after it was first posted, that is, in 13 hours from now? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem

{{editprotected}} I suggest some mention be made of the commons thumbnail image problem as it seems to be getting worse. Something like

  • Some image thumbnails are not rendering correctly. The problem is being worked on...

See WP:VP/T#Image absence (and other discussions there) and also Commons:Commons:Village pump#Image Problems (also other sections discussing the issue). Commons already has a mention of that in their site notice, see Commons:MediaWiki:Sitenotice Nil Einne 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to make the change, but I'd prefer to see a greater consensus before I do so. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that sitenotice should be updated, but the text should mention Commons. FunPika 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree fully, including commons mention, GDonato (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty annoying, and I imagine any number of people are trying (unsuccessfully) to fix the problem on their own, believing to be an issue on their end. (I tried that first, before reading WP:AN). Perhaps something like this: "Wikipedia Commons is currently experiencing a technical problem; some thumbnail images will not render properly. Attempts to fix this issue are being made at this time." RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth mentioning Wikimedia commons - there is no reason a reader would differentiate between technical problems with commons and technical problems with enwiki (and since the developers are the same, it doesn't make much sense to distinguish them here, either). Just saying "Wikipedia is currently experiencing technical problems. Some thumbnail images will not render correctly, or may not appear at all." should be clear enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the sitenotice to explain that Commons hosts some media files for Wikipedia, but would not be opposed to just saying that Wikipedia is having technical problems. WODUP 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the problem really been fixed? See my comment on WP:VP/T#Articles with one or more images not showing Nil Einne 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you still have issues, and action=purge doesn't help, please join #wikimedia-tech on the Freenode IRC network and show the devs your problem. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As MZMcBride and I discussed on IRC, the problem is still more visible than we would like. It is not growing, it is just that we have many cache servers which have bad thumbnails. Please feel free to clarify the message with regards to explaining purge. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling banner in header

See here. • Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's uber distracting. I could deal with the giant bar at the top, but that scroll bar makes Wikipedia almost unusable. --JayHenry 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I also find it ultra annoying (needs to be slower or have an off button) user:Bawolff 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.11.65 (talk)
It's gone; now it shows a random quote on page load. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:31:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture on the right

We must have a fundraiser, no question about it. The quote under the progress bar is neat too. But, do we need the image with the Jimbo video on the right? Jimbo is our God allright, but the image is very distracting though. Can we remove it please and link to it from the fundraiser page indeed (that is linked from the banner)?

(Yes, I know the whole thing can be turned off.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add SUL notice

I would like to request for this being added, as in Commons, and I as an admin in the Malay Wikipedia have just added this over there:

<center>[[Special:MergeAccount|SUL]] is now open for sysops. ([[m:Help:Unified login|info]])</center>

Thank you! --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to spam every user for something that only 1,000 can use. Just a note on the admin noticeboard should be enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. In fact, if an announcement is eventually made, I'd favor putting it in the watchlist notice. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think an announcement does need to be made in advance. It's a pretty disruptive change, and there's stuff people can do to make it easier. So it'd be good to both to warn people and to give them a chance to put their house in order. --Gwern (contribs) 00:53 27 March 2008 (GMT)
Once there is a timeline and plan for a broader rollout, then it would make sense to put an announcement somewhere. Right now, this is just a beta test, and we have no idea when the average person might be able to use the SUL system. That's why I think an announcement is premature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And if we want to notify all of the sysops now, that could easily be accomplished by having a bot leave messages on their talk pages. —David Levy 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarship notice

I wonder, is it appropriate that the Wikimedia scholarship notice show up at the top of every Wikipedia page? I would argue that it belongs on watchlists only. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It only shows to logged in users, so it really doesn't make a difference. Plus, it's got a convenient dismiss button. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hide function doesn't work

(Cross posted from WP:VPT) I can't get the message to stay hidden in Firefox (Classic skin). I have all cookies enabled, but though the message disappears when I click hide, it returns when I go to a different page. IE6 seems to be ok. Any suggestions? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] advertising Wikimania to anons, is it useful?

Guys, I suggest you all log out for 5 seconds and look at the 3 marvelous banners anons see on our website. This is getting ridiculous. Wikimania is not that important. Put it on the logged in notice if you wish, but we really are cluttering our pages and don't look professional at all. -- lucasbfr talk 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% AmiDaniel (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically this is the wrong page to be complaining about anons seeing the Wikimania notice. : - P But, I agree that it is a bit much at the moment. I propose that we keep the Wikimania notice visible to anons for another three or four days. And, in a month or so, we merge the anon tips with the donation banner, with a bias in favor of the donation messages. The merged code is written and is waiting at Common.js' talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] alternate the anontip with the sitenotice

please! theyre annoying together. either/or 24.68.135.43 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boardvote

Just noticed mention of the ongoing board elections is currently not in the sitenotice; it was added and then removed. As noted by Oleg, the election is currently mentioned in Template:Watchlist-notice. I somewhat lean toward adding it, here -- not all users check their watchlist regularly, and this is potentially quite important -- but thought more discussion couldn't hurt. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support adding it, if only because some people don't use watchlists (myself included). Daniel (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that those entitled to vote received an e-mail, as I did. We should not be telling other users that they should vote when they are not eligible. That would just be confusing. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A fair few didn't have emailed enabled. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about it, but I believe the sitenotice is overused for all kinds of announcements.
It is quite likely that a large majority of people who care enough about Wikipedia processes either check their watchlist or have email enabled.
Perhaps a compromise would be to have the note in the sitenotice in the last week of the vote, between 14 and 21 of June. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, having it only up for the final week seems reasonable to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good point. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, the wording should be changed from "The Board election of the Wikimedia Foundation has started. Please vote!" to something like "There is less than a week left to vote in the Board election of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you meet the eligibility requirements, please vote!". JRSpriggs (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I translated the phrase from zh:MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Until the election is over, I consider that this should be announced in certain ways, but if you know a better phrase to announce it, please just go ahead.--Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is used, please make sure the anonnotice is kept blank. There are only ~9000 eligible voters on enwiki, and we don't need to show this to the millions of anonymous visitors as well. Dragons flight (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: If anonnotice is completely blank (0 bytes), the sitenotice shows to all users. Currently, the anonnotice uses a hack (<p></p>) to make the page blank while still preventing the sitenotice from showing to all users. So... if you want the sitenotice to show to only logged in users, leave the current anonnotice alone. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)