Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was snowball keep. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details[edit]

This MediaWiki page should be ~~deleted~~ blanked because the watchlist is for watching articles and pages, not for advertising pet issues. Issues that need community attention can get visibility through the community portal, village pump, or other noticeboards. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of conclusion is exactly what's currently being debated on the page, though. I agree that people do seem to be tending in the direction you're talking about, but the debate is also related to what sort of measures might be taken to increase discussion of such issues in those forums (I kind of like the idea of making those discussions much more visible on the noticeboards - especially the community portal). Should that debate be carried out somewhere else, perhaps? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this page so we can get a formal result, and have something we can point to in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I agree with you regarding the watchlist's purpose, and many people are discussing this issue on that talk page. Why do you want to delete it? —David Levy 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limit - If not ~~deleted~~ blanked, the page could have a single message with links that directs people to the places where centralized and community discussions take place. Example: "Please also see Requests for comment and Village pump for new proposals regarding the maintenance of and policies and guidelines for Wikipedia. Your comments are wanted and welcome!" Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and extremely limit the kind of notices that can go up there - stuff from the Board or about Wikimania can go in, but not local news like "discussion about admin rights". Renata (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure the page cannot be deleted. It is a part of MediaWiki. Instead of deleting it, guidelines should be put in place to use it more effectively. I agree that it is beginning to be used for a lot of issues that do not concern the entire community. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a "delete" tab and a deletion log, so I think technically it can be. Protection can't be removed, though. That said, I don't think deletion is viable either. Decommissioned, maybe? Nufy8 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you mean to nominate the actual MediaWiki page for deletion? —David Levy 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It is being abused. If not technically possible to delete, then it should be blanked and kept blank, or otherwise limited. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. You actually nominated the talk page. I'll fix that. —David Levy 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Any page can be deleted, it would just reset it to the default notice, which is a blank page, so in this case Deletion = Blanking. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whatever this MfD is supposed to be about (I assume the MediaWiki page). Just because people don't use it correctly doesn't mean the entire thing is useless. —Kurykh 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't blank certain issues are better at being advertised via the watchlists if they need widespread community input, such as the ArbCom elections and the rollback discussions: people check their watchlists far more often than they check the noticeboards. While some things that have been advertised in the watchlists probably weren't appropriate for them and could have been advertised in other places, I believe that the watchlist notices are mainly a positive. Set some guidelines for what should and shouldn't be advertised, but don't get rid of watchlist notices altogether. There are some issues that I would not have heard about if it weren't for the watchlist notices. In all: keep, don't blank; and set some limits. Acalamari 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank Its use for RFCs and everyday discussions shows it is being abused, better it be blanked (since deleting a mediawiki page is the same as blanking it) and left for things like foundation notices, etc than to permit the overuse to continue. MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't blank - It is presently a little abused. The "A discussion regarding the use of watchlist notices and whether the number should be limited is ongoing." made me both laugh and wince. It is hard to get important discussions noticed though, so whilst I think limiting may be a viable option, and more discussion over if a new notice should be added (admins noticeboard or something - it's hardly a topic in need of much bureaucracy) blanking would be a loss of a useful feature. Ian¹³ /t 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need a policy on this if it should be kept, I'm sure that we can get a proposed policy on this subject accepted in a short space of time. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ILIKEIT. BJ^Talk 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:USEFUL. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guidelines should be set in place; we should not resolve to deletion. There's healthy discussion going on in the talk page right now. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' How about making this an option under my preferences- a checkbox for "show notices on watchlist" which would give the option to see them or not. dissolve ^talk 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea because the people who disable the notices might end up missing important ones that concern all Wikipedians. The option to opt-out of things should be given sparingly because of this. Gary King (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least long enough to have a discussion about how it might best be used, and what the process should be for getting stuff published on it, and how many things may appear at once. A vehicle for reaching all Wikipedians who are engaged enough to maintain a watchlist is potentially a very valuable resource for the project, and not one that should be squandered lightly. However, there should be a clear process that allows any editor to propose items, and have them seriously considered. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, limit to four, allow users to customly remove this from their own watchlist if they wish. (edit conflict x2)I find it useful as it invites participation in areas that many users may have interest in, and I don't find it annoying as you can just dismiss the ones you don't want to see, and ironicly it is how I came upon this discussion. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't like a particular notice, hit the dismiss button. Duh. 5:15 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limit is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - let the discussion of the appropriate level of watchlist notices happen. sheesh, don't be afraid of change and growth. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank I would love to never have to see a notice on my watchlist again. :) If there is some "big" decision in the making that I might care about, I probably already have a related page added to my watchlist to help me find out about it.--Rockfang (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click the [dismiss] button, and move on. Seriously, it's not that hard... SQL ^{Query me!} 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limit per above. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.