Template talk:RfA watchlist notice: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:40, 26 December 2016

Template protection?

@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]

Did it before I even saw your suggestion! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't overly concerned because it's not reader facing, but I've no objection to it being raised to TE. Cenarium (talk) 15:15, 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.— xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

Template display values for other value of the other page , e.g. 1+1+sometext causes that whole string to appear. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example please? I don't think there is an error, and I did some testing before deploying — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 7 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).

— xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a BIG deal, and it does fail out if putting TEXT in there. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Until

Am I misreading this, or is the until parameter being hard set for 1 day only? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:56, 6 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]

OK, seems like a decent compromise. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats

This should also detect RfBs. There is, as of this writing, an open RfB and the template doesn't know about it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0|1|0}} yields: 1
{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count}}>0|1|0}} yields: 0

Adding an addition operation would trigger the count to change:

as *{{#expr:({{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}+{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count}})}} yeilds: 1

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I've made an update in Template:RfA watchlist notice/sandbox. I've requested that it be synced at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang and Xaosflux: Okay, Done - please ensure it's proper now. –xeno^talk 19:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are probably good ways to simplify the logic at Template:RfA watchlist notice/text if it's split into subtemplates for RfA and RfB perhaps, but for now, it's sensitive to when the counts are 0 and otherwise. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Does it re-pop for those who have dismissed it when it changes? –xeno^talk 19:30, 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]

Okay, so that means I should increment the cookie so that those who have dismissed it can see the RfB? –xeno^talk 19:37, 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]

Alright, I've done it. Seems to be standard practice. –xeno^talk 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

This edit request to Template:RfA watchlist notice/text has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 (talk), 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sandbox it please? The logic needs some careful thought. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Done with Special:Diff/744818666 — Andy W. (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make the messages clearer

I was redirected here from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#2_requests_for_adminship_in_progress_on_my_watchlist by xaosflux. Like I said there, I found the message confusing because I didn't know if I was nominated (seemed very weird/like a glitch) or what was happening. But of course I soon found out it was about voting on someone else's adminship.

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.

Max Nordlund (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Max.nordlund: how about: "... your input is welcome." (in general we avoid calling RfA inputs "votes"). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: that sounds like the ticket. How can this be implemented? This is protected, if I understand correctly. Max Nordlund (talk) 02:28, 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] Mkdw ^talk 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blue link. You follow it, everything is then made clear. The confusion of 1:10000 doesn't merit a change. Leaky Caldron 08:40, 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]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 :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. <s>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).</s> 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. <S>Also, I should point out that RFA is not a vote either. Please see the "discussion, decision, and closing procedures" section.</s> 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] [[User:Mkdw|<span style="font-size: 13px arial; color: #3366FF;">Mkdw</span>]][[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''talk''</sup>]] 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 :It's a blue link. You follow it, everything is then made clear. The confusion of 1:10000 doesn't merit a change. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
+: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 {{ping|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 [[Wireless Application Protocol|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? {{ping|Mkdw}} [[User:Max.nordlund|Max Nordlund]] ([[User talk:Max.nordlund|talk]]) 14:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)