MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

1

From Village Pump discussion:

I think somewhere between original & fab's: (You have x pages on your watchlist (not counting talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list. In the time period selected below, users have made y edits to articles in the English version of Wikipedia. Checking watched pages for recent edits... Elf 17:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Follow-up question--are periods verbotten in msgs? I'm wondering why the original is all semicolons. Elf 17:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I changed to your version because I think it reads better. Periods are allowed but semi-colons were used because they've always been used.. no deep meaning. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:53, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Cool. BTW, the "Checking" message needs to be capitalized. :-) Elf 18:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Nice one. Thanks for doing this so quickly.  :) fabiform | talk 18:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I missed the capital C because it was hidden inside a variable ($3) for some reason... I've stopped using that variable as a work-around. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The $3 points to another MediaWiki message - or one of two, by the looks of the big list; the difference is subtle, and I don't know under what situations each is used, but MediaWiki:Watchmethod-recent and MediaWiki:Watchmethod-list are what you should change, I think. - IMSoP 23:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Gave those two a C. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Scarily enough, I just decided to check your contributions list to see if you were still on and likely to change it; and the top change when I got there was you doing the first one. Spooky!
Just one problem, though - you forgot to put the $3 back in here so that they'd actually be used! - IMSoP 00:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I popped in very briefly to do something else and just snuck those in. All should be fixed now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the "In the time period..." sentence because $2 currently returns the word "all" instead of a number, which makes no sense. silsor 21:23, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Software upgrade

I just fixed some display problems that occurred after the software upgrade, without destroying anything. Yay! Ingoolemo talk 2005 June 28 03:33 (UTC)

grammar

Will somebody please edit the notice about the new image CSD to fix its grammar? It currently reads "in accordance with a recently instituted criteria for speedy deletion," which is incorrect, as "criteria" is plural (the singular is "criterion"). The correct wording for this would be "in accordance with a recently instituted criterion for speedy deletion." Thanks for fixing this; it's a lot easier to insist on good English in articles when the site communicates in good English with its users. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Upload Log limitation

Just got done chatting with folks on #wikimedia-tech about a problem with the Upload Log. The Upload Log only has information going back to the last MediaWiki software upgrade, which was to 1.5 done on 6/28/2005. However, the Watchlist NOTICE doesn't mention that. I went back and edited an older image (from 2004) only because I remember that I did it, but it doesn't show up in the Upload Log. I think that it would be helpful if the NOTICE mentioned this limitation. Thanks in advance. --NightMonkey 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. [[Sam Korn]] 22:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. An image I uploaded on 23 April 2005 is still on the upload log. The only other time it was edited was 18 May to change the copyright tag. Hermione1980 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to refer to "My contributions" rather than the upload log. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
That's odd. Well, that's what they told me on #wikimedia-tech. Perhaps theres a bug that only affected me? Ah well. --NightMonkey 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

removed image notice

I removed the image notice since users have been given plenty of fair notice on their watchlists since the decision as well as the fact that the same information is listed on most of the other official wikipedia pages. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"partnership"

"Partnership" is ambiguous, somebody please change this to reveal something about

  • Us having a link in the sidebar to Wikipedia:Tools
  • Us linking "promenently" to answers.com

something like "..has announced a partnership with answers.com which would involve a sponsored prominent link at Wikipedia:Tools. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

More simply, the message has simply been removed, as it's obnoxious. The partnership and resulting debate have already been widely advertised in many places. Let's keep watchlists functional, please. --Michael Snow 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


evidence?Geni 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop

Stop adding notices to MediaWiki pages. You're turning a very minor thing into something major, plus providing advertising of Answers.com on everybody's watchlist. You don't get a free ticket to borderline vandalism just because you disagree with the deal. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 11:39

Err there hasn't been a change for something like 10 hours. I demanding people stop in a decidedly unfriendly tone is unhelful at this point.Geni 12:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It's meant to prevent future attempts. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 13:56
You think people were reading the talk page before editing?Geni 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election notice

Should the notice about the ArbCom election be relocated to MediaWiki:Sitenotice? I can't do it myself, but since the fundraiser bit has now vanished, perhaps it's time for the ArbCom notice to come up there? Or should we leave it here until the elections have officially begun? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the watchlist is intended to target the editors, while the site notice is meant to target the readers. As it is only editors who will be voting, I think having it on the watchlist is entirely appropriate. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this is the perfect place for the arbcom elections notice. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, especially since the sitenotice has went back to what it was... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
At 00:01 if nobody else does it I'll add a link to the vote listings page for the arbcom elections. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
See below. I'm takeing the opertunity to reduce message size.Geni 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

testing

Arbitration Committee elections have started and will continue until 22 January 2006, 23:59 UTC
What about mentioning on the sitenotice the limitation that you have had to have had an account since before a certain time to qualify to vote. That would mean a lot less work for people moving unenfranchised votes. 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee elections start at 00:01 9 January 2006 UTC.
The election will be conducted RFA-style via open votes with brief comments from voters.
Candidate statements -- Vote

You have $1 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list.

No; less is more. Cryptic's bot can take care of that painlessly. There's no need to add more details than we need to on the notice. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like dealing with any more complaints about the notice being too long. People will find out about the rules when they go to the page.Geni 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Date link

I recognize the minor benefit of having the date display in the user's preferred format (which didn't occur to me before), but the actual link seems inappropriate to me (given the fact that it leads to a page with no connection to the ArbCom elections).

Realistically, is there anyone who wouldn't understand what "January 22" means? I'm in the US, and "22 January" seems perfectly unambiguous to me. —David Levy 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RfRollback...

...is just another proposal. Expansions to CSD (e.g. A7 and A8) and the creation of WP:SEMI (a hugely successful poll) all did excellently without it. Please don't use this message for proposal spam. It is the top of a slippery slope, and is entirely unnecessary with all the usual notification channels. Thanks. -Splashtalk 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)