Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 16 February 2011

This interface message or skin may be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net. The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors. To request a change to the page, add {{edit fully-protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion.

Misplaced Pages has five kinds of top-of-page messages that can be used to convey information or announcements to readers and editors. The "Sitenotice", found at MediaWiki:Sitenotice, is displayed at the top of all pages for all logged-in users, and for anonymous users if the following message is empty. MediaWiki:Anonnotice can be used to display information only to anonymous/IP users, not logged-in users. Alternatively, by 'blanking' the anonnotice and replacing it with nothing (not even a space or empty paragraph!), then the sitenotice can be used as a "logged-in users only" notice to display information only to editors. When "Anonnotice" contains nothing, no notice is shown to anonymous users. When it contains "-" it disables the message in favour of Sitenotice. If it contains anything else, it will be rendered to anonymous users instead of the Sitenotice (including a "hide" button). MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages is displayed at the top of Special:Watchlist for all users who use this feature. The CentralNotice, found at meta:Special:CentralNotice, is an extension which can display banners at the top of a select group of Wikimedia sites simultaneously. Geonotice, at Misplaced Pages:Geonotice, allows location-specific notices – and is a candidate for integration into MediaWiki.

Archives

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice/MediaWiki talk:Fundraising notice - Jul-Dec 2004 Archive 1- Covers Feb.-Mar. 2005 and Sept. 2005 fundraising notices; debate on Katrina charity links. Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Wikimedia Foundation election notice

Hat down to Brion VIBBER who is surely the man who makes wonderous things happen on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.

We all know that the Wikimedia board governs Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages’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 Misplaced Pages. However, I agree with you that not even Wales is above Misplaced Pages's civility standards. --Siva1979 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is the first and only edit by the above-mentioned IP user so far. --Siva1979 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). Misplaced Pages 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 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)

The election notice again

OK, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages pages and be seen by millions of people, only with the explanation "restoring per Aphaia on IRC" 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. The election should probably be announced in the same way on all projects in all languages - English Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages would find this information relevent to them. In fact, most Wikipedians would not be too bothered about this. --Siva1979 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)

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 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Background

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

Gentle reminder

You can give the gift of knowledge by donating to the Wikimedia Foundation!
<fundraising/> <fundraisinglogo/>
All donations received today will be matched by Virgin Unite <fundraisingdonor2/>
Tax-deductibility of donations | FAQ | Financial statements

(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

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

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 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 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

+$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)

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)

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)

WP:ATT reversion.

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#How_do_we_get_rid_of_the_banner? --w 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

April 1 '07

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

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 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages}} speaker, the {{featured article}} star, etc.) overlap with the "" 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages visitors. Since non-editors cannot participate in the election, I feel this is a pointless distraction to the vast majority of Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Wikimeetups on the sitenotice?

Is the plan to do this for all English-language wikimeetups? --SB_Johnny||_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||_books 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: "Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, but would not be opposed to just saying that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Please add SUL notice

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

<center>] is now open for sysops. (])</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)

Scholarship notice

I wonder, is it appropriate that the Wikimedia scholarship notice show up at the top of every Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 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)

alternate the anontip with the sitenotice

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Election results

Maybe it's just me, but if we are going to announce this in the site notice, doesn't it make more sense to actually say who won? It simplifies things for people who are interested in the outcome, but don't necessarily want to know all the details.

Something like:

Ting Chen has been announced as the winner of the 2008 Board of Trustees election.

Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, and would be distracting. Also, I plan to remove the note from the site notice in a day or so, there's only that long this has got to be there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I did have something along the lines of that when I first wrote it, but then I changed it to the 2007 format, which I thought would reduce the need to keep re-writing it. Rudget (logs) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't particularly matter what the message says, as I imagine most people had already dismissed it, and as no one thought to bump the Sitenotice id, those who had already dismissed it wouldn't see the new message at all. : - ) Perhaps we should add a note about that somewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As OA mentions above, its probably best removed now since its outdated, a little at least. Rudget (logs) 11:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to move the site notice?

On my wiki I am trying to move the site notice to the top left (where the top left of the logo would be is where I want it to start). What would I put in Mediawiki:Monobook.css to do that? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.234.160 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably possible, but I don't know, and this isn't the place to ask. You might try the computing reference desk or http://mediawiki.org. Good luck. WODUP 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sitenotice CSS

We are currently discussing some improvements to the CSS code for the sitenotice message over at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css#Sitenotice background.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - I have updated the CSS code for the sitenotice in MediaWiki:Monobook.css. And it looks fine in all three of my browsers, both when logged in and not logged in. To see the change you might need to bypass your browser cache. The visible change is that the sitenotice now have transparent background when it is shown on non-article pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey of Readers and Contributors

I was in the middle of filling out the survey when it timed out and I got the following error:

ネットワークがタイムアウトしました

　survey45.wikipediastudy.org のサーバからの応答が一定時間以内に返ってきませんでした。

　接続リクエストに対してリクエスト先サーバが応答を返さなかったため、接続を中止しました。 　 * サーバに負荷が集中したり、一時的に停止している可能性があります。しばらく後で再度試してください。 　 * 他のサイトも表示できない場合、コンピュータのネットワーク接続を確認してください。 　 * ファイアーウォールやプロキシでネットワークが保護されている場合、その設定に問題があると正常に表示できなくなることがあります。 　 * 問題が繰り返される場合、ネットワーク管理者またはインターネットプロバイダに問い合わせてください。

--Zaurus (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Change the italian version

I would suggest a correction in the italian version: the word "Obiettivi" should be "'Obiettivo'" with "o" instead of "i". --Lucas (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: I can't do that editing the MediaWiki:Sitenotice because of globalization. Should I ask here? --Lucas (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Contact: meta:User talk:Cbrown1023. Dragons flight (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Lucas (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hide

I hid the sitenotce. How to make it reappear??--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the campaign banner, you will need to go to the gadget tab within Special:Preferences and uncheck the box next to "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". If you are instead talking about the messages displayed on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, I believe you have to clear your cookies (though I'm not completely sure on that one). - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

{{edit protected}} After a longish gap. there's a move to restart Featured sounds. Can a sitenotice be set up, perhaps:

Featured sounds, part of the featured content series, has recently relaunched. Reviewers, nominators, and people with a passion for music and sound are needed to help make it a success.

It would also be necessary to increment MediaWiki:Sitenotice id. Featured sounds is a fairly new process that has had major problems attracting attention, a sitenotice may be just the thing to revitalise it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The sitenotice is for 'vitally' important notices like Board elections or steward elections or whatever. Just post to some village pumps and noticeboards. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. We use it so much more frivilously at Commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A watch list notice might be better suited for this. Peachey88 09:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC reevaluation of WP:N

{{editprotected}} I would like to have a sitenotice created that reffers to WP:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. This was already proposed on its talk page. Notability is an important document that determines what is kept here.--Ipatrol (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please propose the exact wording on the notice and obtain consensus on this page before putting an editprotected request. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be looking for mediawiki:watchlist-details (already been discussed on the talk page). The sitenotice is always blank, there are (almost) no exceptions nowadays. - Cenarium (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to revive this. We want something very noticeable before we close. All we want is something discreeet, like:

We are undergoing a review of our article inclusion guidelines.

--Ipatrol (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus (and I doubt you'll get one). This proposal is better meant for a watchlist notice as you were told above, not the sitenotice. Please do not restore the {{editprotected}} template until you reach consensus. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to talk?

The blank MediaWiki:Sitenotice is pretty useless, can we redirect it to this talk page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, not advisable... I tested on testwiki and it would have the effect to put 1. REDIRECT MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice as sitenotice, so at the top of every page. No problem with a blank editnotice... Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It's blank because there are currently no sitenotices.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

how do you toggle the Site Notice on and off? I can turn it off, but i can't seem to turn it back on

It seems that once you hide the notice, you can't display it again. Is there some way to turn the notice back on? --stmrlbs|talk 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can go to your browsers options and remove the cookie that is set when you hit the "hide" button. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks. I kind of already figured out this way (and used firefox webdeveloper which makes it easier to do).. but I would think there would be a more user friendly way to toggle this. I could see where a user might want to keep a notice around so they could get back to it, but not want it displayed all the time once they read it. I thought maybe I just couldn't find it, but I guess it isn't there.

--stmrlbs|talk 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talknotice

There is a proposal here to create a talknotice, a dismissible notice displayed on all talk pages, for community announcements. Your input is welcome there. Cenarium (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal discussion is archived here, and led to Template:Bug being filed. Rd232 12:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Britain Loves Misplaced Pages

{{editprotected}} Hi all. Would it be possible to have a sitenotice for Britain Loves Misplaced Pages? See http://www.britainloveswikipedia.org/ for details. Perhaps something like:

Britain Loves Misplaced Pages - a free photography competition - is running in 20 museums across the UK throughout February. Join in, take photos, win prizes!

One concern, I guess, would be that this would only directly apply to 10% of the people that see it. I've also requested a Misplaced Pages:Geonotice, but that appeals to a different audience than this (regular users cf. occasional visitors), and this is an event that would appeal to both really. I know that this is a bit unusual, but figure it's worth discussing at least. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth discussing, certainly. But as this is likely to be controversial, the edit cannot be made without consensus. I suggest starting a thread on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) as I doubt this page is watched by many, and {{editprotected}} is not supposed to be used to attract attention to a discussion. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Sitenotice_for_Britain_Loves_Wikipedia.3F. Only one person has commented (positively); no opposition. Presume that counts as consensus? Mike Peel (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

no. Might have a better chance at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or .©Geni 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, thanks, but I don't accept that answer. Care to elaborate on "no" a bit? My reading at the moment is that the community that watches doesn't particularly care, so I see no reason why it can't go ahead (at the very least it might cause some critical constructive comments to come back, perhaps?) Mike Peel (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Site notice is for site critical issues only. Stuff that it would be nice if a lot of people knew about is better dealt with through MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or Misplaced Pages:Geonotice.©Geni 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Site critical issues like surveys and board elections? I don't understand. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When I've asked I'v been informed that they are site critical. Watchlist details will get you on every watchlist and Geonotice will appear for everyone in the uk.©Geni 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added your suggested wording to Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (appears at the top of the Misplaced Pages:Community portal). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for participation: Survey on Wikipedian Motivations

Hi I'm Kay Kiljae Lee, a Ph.D candidate in University of Kansas. I am currently conducting a research on the motivators of online collaboration. Hereis a survey page through which I am collecting the initial data (17 Mar ~ 15 May 2010) The survey is conducted with complete anonymity and the first set of data will be analyzed for part of my research aiming for AIS (Association for Information Systems) conference 2010. You can contact me by clicking here. Your participation will be greatly appreciated.Kay Kiljae Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

No.

I do not wish to read any appeal from Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales. OMG I CAN HAS MEDIAWIKI NAMESPAEC? But seriously, Jimbo Wales is a profiteer; Misplaced Pages is not some grand vision of openness and knowledge. Anyone who has ever edited the damn thing knows THAT. --72.160.80.151 (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons poll

{{editprotected}} The following sitenotice is currently active on Commons:

There is a poll open to adopt Commons:Sexual content as a Wikimedia Commons policy.

No doubt, EnWiki users will want to be made aware of this poll too, since we use Commons images in our articles. Could someone add it to EnWiki's sitenotice? --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Information for editors (rather than for readers) is generally placed at the top of the watchlist via MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Dragons flight (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request. Please propose this at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. This is most definitely a message for editors, not a notice to all readers. Thx for the correction. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Per Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Main_page_disclaimer and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-12-06/WikiLeaks:

"Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation are not associated with the whistleblowing site Wikileaks, despite a similarity in names"

Rd232 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think such a move is completely out of proportion. I was happy to have a hatnote at the Wikileaks article that would clear up any possible misunderstandings. Such a notice would be aimed at people that had the intention to become informed about the subject, because it would be viewed solely by people that had actually gone to the Wikileaks article. A sitenotice on the other hand is not only taking for granted that all the readers of Misplaced Pages are ignorant, it would also seem like taking a stand in a controversial issue and would damage the neutrality of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

From my observation a significant proportion of visitors to the wiki have this confusion, even if they do not express it. Dispelling that does no harm. A straw poll of my friends & associates puts this at about 30% (allow a vast margin of error there, most of my friends are "tech enabled"). --Errant 13:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Even the President of France has got WP and WikiLeaks confused: . Given the extraordinary level of vitriol directed at WikiLeaks, widespread confusion between WP and WikiLeaks and that Misplaced Pages is a community-edited and largely community-funded encyclopedia, some kind of prominent notice isn't an over-reaction. Rd232 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To me this goes a step too far. The site notice is ordinarily intended for site-wide notice of something relevant to all Misplaced Pages contributors, or at least potential donors (the fundraiser banners). This is more an attempt to educate the general public. I think the note at the top of the WikiLeaks article has been a good means of doing that. But that article is where curious people go to find out more about WikiLeaks. Misplaced Pages's other articles are not a place to find out more about WikiLeaks. What's more, in the context of the broad public discourse about Wikileaks, confusion by two people (Sarkozy and Glenn Beck) is not that significant. All of the news publications I've seen have gotten this right. Implicitly, all the other public figures have gotten it right since they haven't substituted Misplaced Pages for WikiLeaks or mixed the two. The WikiLeaks article is a good and useful tool to educate the public. A sitenotice is not usually for that purpose and it does not seem warranted in this case.--Chaser (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this notice is specifically for readers rather than editors/contributors. (just FYI) --Errant 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you wanted MediaWiki:Anonnotice (see note at the top of this talk page). If so, I'd suggest moving this discussion there.--Chaser (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the proper venue for this. I do think the warning would be a good idea to put out there, but not for registered editors for whom the distinction is almost certainly clear; it's the anons and readers who might not know. I've made a note at MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice#Wikileaks. bahamut0013_deeds 17:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be to inform people about WikiLeaks, it would be to inform them about Misplaced Pages. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this should be put in the Sitenotice (or more appropriately, as you point out, Anonnotice). But I think you seriously underestimate how frequent this misconception is; Sarkozy and Beck just sit on the tip of an iceberg. I wrote a kind of an overview, including an example of real damage, at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-12-06/WikiLeaks (other examples not mentioned there yet: , , , ). And yesterday, the Wikimedia Foundation found the problem to be serious enough to post a clarification on their official blog: .

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see why we have a (hopefully temporary) hatnote on Wikileaks, and there might even be justification for a similar caveat on Wikimedia or Misplaced Pages. But I really don't think a full-blown sitenotice is a good idea - it gives two very misleading impressions. First, that we think a sizable fraction of our readers are not smart enough to notice the difference - whilst it is useful to some, many of the people who aren't confused will resent it being there, because it seems to be us patronisingly stating the obvious.

Second (again, to those people who aren't confused), even if it is simply to reduce confusion, it's a hostage to fortune. It is easily read as implying that we have a desire to explicitly disassociate ourselves from WL; we don't have a position on what we think of WL, but broadcasting a high-profile announcement suggests we do (and that it's negative). As a major part of the "Wikileaks story" is various Internet sites disowning them, cutting ties, etc, many people are inevitably going to parse a sitenotice that way; it may well have the entirely undesirable effect of making us part of the backlash rather than a neutral observer with a coincidental name. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think those concerns are warranted. Because the notice would not be restricted to any individual (and be dismissable), only a really brittle person would be insulted by a public notice (do careful drivers get offended by speed limit signs?). To your second point: I don't think that a bit of distance is a bad thing, nor is the notice worded in such a way to give an implicit or subtle POV. Simply stating that there is no formal connection is neutral, and doesn't make any effort to change the relationship at all except to dispel a common misunderstanding. bahamut0013_deeds 17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On the second point, it depends a bit on wording; we could add "; Misplaced Pages does however have an article about WikiLeaks." Rd232 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "offended" is perhaps stronger than I meant, but certainly I can see people finding it patronising - imagine you go into a library and the first thing someone says to you is "You understand, we have books, but we're not a bookshop, right?" I can tell you first-hand that some people do make the mistake, and it would perhaps be easier in those cases to tell them upfront than correct them later when they've got money in their hands - but it's going to be a bit irritating for everyone else, who thinks it's an obvious error they don't need warned about. We shouldn't assume this sort of notice only has an upside.

As to the issue of a neutral statement - Erik's statement on the blog is a pretty good one; it carefully doesn't say we like them or we don't like them, and it uses the right tone to avoid being interpreted that way. But in a sitenotice, which has to be short and clear, we can't convey nuance nearly as well - we'll end up presenting people with a single very public statement disassociating ourselves from them, and people will, rightly or wrongly, draw inferences from that. We've done well to stay out of this - some people's confused remarks to the press aside - and I really don't want to see us drawn into the current mess. It's not fair to them and it's not fair to us. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a hatnote only in Wikileaks is not enough, since some users enter Misplaced Pages site via main page. User:JzG said "We get maybe a few tens of emails about this per day" in WP:AN and if we follow the 80/20 rule, there're an additional of 80% are misinformed and didn't bother to contact us for clarification. And thanks to User:bahamut0013's analogy of "do careful drivers get offended by speed limit signs?" I don't think any Wikipedian will get offended by seeing this message so sitenotice is a better choice comparing to anonnotice because in this case, you want the message to be delivered to everyone and nobody should miss it. We can follow meta's message and say "Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia are not associated with WikiLeaks." Simple, short, and clear message goes a long way to clear up the mistaken identity. OhanaUnited 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But here's the thing: there's a hatnote on Wikileaks because people reading that are looking for information about Wikileaks; we feel it's important to make it clear to the people who are thinking about Wikileaks what the situation is, which is fair enough. We could, likewise, put such notes on Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia - people may be looking at those pages and wondering. But do we really need to make a point of explaining the distinction to someone reading about dolphins or cubism? The odds are they have given the matter no thought whatsoever... Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If they haven't thought about it, then they probably won't care or notice. If someone comes to Misplaced Pages to read about dolphins or cubism, they can do so blissfully unaware of the controversy. But considering the high volume of misdirected hate-mail and other disparigment we've been getting, we need to do something. I'd be happy if one of the bigwigs made a high-profile statement, but in the absence of that, the community has to make its own visible statement of fact to avert misconception. bahamut0013_deeds 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shimgray, does it hurt by including this notice? Nope. From ErrantX's figures, 30% is a hell lot of misinformed visitors and I'm sure some of those 30% aren't looking for the Wikileaks article on Misplaced Pages. Even French's president was mistaken when he got plenty of advisors, clerks, and secretaries to fact-check his speech. OhanaUnited 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That very much depends on how you define "hurt". I think, with the arguments already stated by me and others, that it does indeed "hurt" more than it would do good. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue it benefits the readers who are confused - and I am quite aware there are plenty of them! There are small penalties on other readers - for whom it's just an irritation - but that tradeoff isn't the key issue that worries me. It's my second point I really think we need to consider - the broader repercussions of our putting a notice up, and the fact that this could (and, I fear, will) be picked up, misunderstood, and reported as us Taking A Stand On Wikileaks when we have no desire to do such a thing. We really don't need that. Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Please be advised that despite a similarity in names, the WikiLeaks media organisation is completely unrelated to Misplaced Pages and its parent, the Wikimedia Foundation.

Or something to that effect. Try and keep it as neutral as possible, while avoiding jargon. I'm absolutely convinced that if this does go ahead, it should be for anonnotice only. --Dorsal Axe 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I expressed my concerns mainly on account of the readers, and they would be the main audience for an anonnotice. Personally my quarrel is not with the wording, but with the message and its intent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the wording at the top of the WikiLeaks article: Please be advised that despite a similarity in names, WikiLeaks is not associated with Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation. That's better because: (1) It avoids characterizing WikiLeaks as a "media organisation" or anything else; (2) It states that WikiLeaks is "not associated" rather than completely unrelated. I think that is less POV and better reflects WP:NOTLEAKS; and (3) The Wikimedia Foundation is not Misplaced Pages's parent. Misplaced Pages predates it and (except libel, copyright and BLP issues) Misplaced Pages manages its own content.--Chaser (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the order at the top of this thread: Misplaced Pages and WMF are not associated with WikiLeaks. That's more to the point than the reverse, although the difference is slight.--Chaser (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While it is true Wikimedia came after Misplaced Pages, the former does operate the latter, and is higher up the hierarchy (so to speak). Think of how companies work; if an older company gets bought out by a new company who control the older one, the newer one is the "parent". While I'm entirely willing to just forgo that, and in fact I think I prefer your more succinct version, I just wanted to say that it is a perfectly acceptable usage of the word "parent".

Although personally I think "not associated" sounds less neutral than "unrelated", but I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on any such wording.

Saddhiyama, could you explain exactly what your quarrel is with the message? Please forgive me here, but I'm uncertain as to what exactly it is about this that you are most concerned about. --Dorsal Axe 22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then let's just say "unrelated". My point was more that the defensive registration of domain names means "completely unrelated" may appear misleading. Although the connection of Wales and Davis transferring domain names that they were effectively cybersquatting anyway is ever so slight. I'm trying to avoid even the appearance of misleading people. FWIW, I'm still opposed to this, but if we're going to do it, we need to do it right.--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what it will look like with both the MediaWiki:Anonnotice and the meta:Special:CentralNotice (fundraiser banner) going at once? On my screen the fundraising banner takes up more than half of the space for article text. There won't be much left above the fold if we add another banner to every page. We're already getting feedback from people annoyed with the fundraising banner.--Chaser (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This has crossed my mind, although it's only one extra single line of text really. I'm more concerned about how utterly weird it would look on top, or underneath that massive banner... --Dorsal Axe 22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not put up a sitenotice. The media coverage is already dying down and let's not mention WikiLeaks and basically spam them all over the site. Actually, I think the Foundation may want to say something regarding this; I know they didn't want WikiLeaks mentioned on the WP Twitter feeds and stuff. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fetchcomms. This will just bring unnecessary attention of Misplaced Pages readers and editors to Wikileaks and will seem as an advertisement. A hatnote in the Wikileaks article is enough for anyone interested. If it would be so necessary to inform the public, the WMF themselves would put up the notice or at least express their recommendation to have the notice. --Eleassar 11:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising is a non-issue. WikiLeaks is big news every day all over the world. A notice prominently displayed while the hue and cry is on is worth considering. Tony (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The media also publish articles titled 'Sarkozy makes no difference between WikiLeaks and Misplaced Pages', 'Sarkozy at-il confondu Wikileaks et... Wikipédia ?' and similar so people will be notified about the difference without our involvement (that could even give the wrong impression that Misplaced Pages has taken a stance, as said above). --Eleassar 15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikimedia Australia about (justifiable) concerns for the image of the chapter, given widespread public confusion—not helped by ignorant, lazy journalism—about the difference between the two organisations. IMO, a main page box should be posted on enwiki now, temporarily, stating:

"Please note: Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation are entirely unconnected with WikiLeaks, despite the fact that the first four letters of their titles are the same." The Foundation might also be lobbied to write to all major news organisations asking them not to use "wiki" as shorthand for WikiLeaks. Tony (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these few links to meta will open some of your mind to use sitenotice because our mistaken-identity situation is pretty dire (see 1, 2, 3, 4). And some of those messages were posted even though there is a big red exclamation mark stating "Wikimedia is not associated with WikiLeaks". And I only showed you one page. A little bit digging and we will find even more of these messages around in different places of wikis. OhanaUnited 05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that poses a different question: If some people manage to remain confused despite the "big red exclamation mark" in front of them, what chance have we that a relatively muted sitenotice would actually get the idea across to them? We can put up all sorts of warnings and notices and barriers, and some fraction of people will remain insistently holding the wrong end of the stick however much we try to get it over to them - the question is really at what point our "notification" starts getting diminishing returns and nontrivial costs. Shimgray | talk | 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's misleading in three ways. One, the page linked to is a single page on Meta, while we discuss a site-wide notice on Misplaced Pages (I'm suprised that some of the anons found thier way to that page). Second, that particular page is so cluttered that even the big red exclamation would be lost in it. And thirdly, a line or two notice is certainly not a "nontrivial cost", nor would people that don't bother to read it necessarily constitute "diminishing returns". True, there always going to be idiots who could ignore a flashing light and siren in order to vent anger, but that shouldn't preclude us from a carefully worded short public notice (going back to my driving analogy, we don't remove speed limit signs because a few ticketed drivers say they didn't see them). bahamut0013_deeds 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too, I am surprised and don't understand how the anons can find their way to Wikimedia Forum. If one page alone shows that there's problem, then more pages will reveal an even bigger problem if we spend some time finding it. OhanaUnited 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, even the foundation felt the need to address this problem to the public by posting on their blog to clarify, I'm going to put up the notice and modified slightly from User:Chaser's wording to "Please be advised that Misplaced Pages and WMF are not associated with WikiLeaks." OhanaUnited 19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to the official foundation post directly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've killed it. With the amount of space we are already losing to donation banners the actual article was starting a third of the way down the screen. We need a different approach.©Geni 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're quoting that blog post as justification - it's been mentioned already and factored in to the discussions above. If the Foundation felt a high-profile sitenotice (rather than a low-key blog post) was appropriate, I am sure they're competent enough to do it themselves; the fact that a week later they still haven't, suggests they don't. Shimgray | talk | 21:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove the sitenotice

Please remove the sitenotice. The time for clarifying this in such a public place is past. It looks silly and isn't necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but meh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, if it's not necessary, then why would WMF post this on their blog? OhanaUnited 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Erik thought it would be good to clarify the use of the word "wiki"? You're not making an argument for adding more noise to the top of every page, especially as the WikiLeaks story has finally died down. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you call that "noise" because noise implies a negative meaning. So you think a clarification is counter-productive? OhanaUnited 19:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a real cost to using banners and sitenotices, sure. The more they're used, the more likely they're to be ignored in the future. With a two-inch fundraising banner already in place, the use of the sitenotice should be very limited (reserved for situations like outages or breakages). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, yes, a number of users do feel a notice like this is deeply counter-productive. Shimgray | talk | 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And a number of users don't. bahamut0013_deeds 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That came out in the discussion, too - but only one side was being invoked here. Shimgray | talk | 22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I must say that, as Julian Assange was released from jail only a few hours ago, this isn't out of place time-wise. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You were saying that the WikiLeaks buzz has died down, which it evidently has not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That and the TIME cover article that ran on Monday, which came perilously close to suggesting a connection. The fuss is still out there, and we are still getting emails and messages from people who are the digital equivalent of a mob with pitchforks and torches. bahamut0013_deeds 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By analogy to WP:DENY, we're only fanning the media/publicity flames by adding a sitenotice. We don't need to be telling people about this on every single last article; the hatnote on WikiLeaks is entirely sufficient. Anything else is better suited to Foundation press releases, blog posts, and the like. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How does DENY apply to sitenotice? DENY talks about how to deal with trolls and vandalism (which is not the case here). It's about information. And your remarks "fanning the media/publicity flames" completely misses the point. We could go "business as usual" without doing any clarification, and that will give journalists a field day as they keep writing whoever screwed up in their speech because they mixed up the two. OhanaUnited 03:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

By analogy to WP:DENY. I analogize WikiLeaks' semi-purposeful confusion with Misplaced Pages to a kind of vandalism (of the WP trademark/brand). I admit, not the best analogy. My point is that to put up a sitenotice overemphasizes the issue and is cruft when many people either don't care (Just gimme the info, man!) or haven't made the erroneous connection in question, and thus shouldn't be "punished" by adding a distraction to every freaking article. Further, PR seems better done by the Foundation. Have they even done a formal Press Release on this? I would think protecting the brand externally is one of the few things that quite rightly ought to be in their purview. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you about leting Wikimedia handle it, but it's been a couple weeks since this first broke (not to mention the Iraq War video a few months ago), and they haven't done anything, nor given any indication that anything is in the works. And it's quite a stretch to say that a single line notice will "punish" readers. bahamut0013_deeds 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that "they haven't done anything", at least in terms of notices and so on, is pretty much the intentional WMF response (cf/ Fetchcomm's comment of the 11th). I've made sure the press people are aware of this discussion, just to be on the safe side. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: this discussion shows that the presence of a similar notice on Meta (not the sarcastically over-done one at the top of the thread) has not solved the problem of people confusing us with Wikileaks. Evidently, many of those who come here to complain are not interested in reading the banners at the top of the page. However, it's certainly possible that it has at least reduced the number of people who are confused. —Soap— 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for sitenotice

There has been increasing talk of resolving the loose ends with regards to pending changes. Many users are likely to be interested in participating, so a sitenotice pointing to Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, which went live a few minutes ago, is requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• MediaWiki messages with interface explanation