Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Had the idea sometime in mid-2008 and discussed it in various places but didn't get around to writing and proposing it until April 2009. One discussion point worth noting is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Places this proposal has been advertised (see also what links here):
That's the full list for now. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC) updated 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC), then further updated 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm frankly outraged that we're even discussing having ads on this project.... Privatemusings ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)oh wait.... ah... well.... carry on then.
If this proposal works out, I propose to link from WP:CANVASS, WP:CONSENSUS and various other places. Including any discussion that doesn't seem to have been advertised widely enough. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Marking this as a how-to guide would circumvent the inevitable WP:CREEP accusations that will crop up if this is proposed as a guideline. A good idea to bring these ideas together on one page, but I don't think there's much of a 'guideline' here. Happy‑ melon 11:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
{{how-to}}
is perfect.
Anomie
⚔
14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There should probably be some form of hierarchy of where advertising is (in general) appropriate. The watchlist-notice and site-notice come at the top (rarely used), but not quite sure how to arrange the others. Anyone want to try? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the list needs a little more organization, as it is everything seems to jumble together. Perhaps something like this:
Anomie ⚔ 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget about the WP:AAlerts news ticker. Although that should be used for WikiProject-centric things mostly. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
When I read about this, my first thought was "This is for articles that seem to be advertising a product or service". "Advertising" is one form of publicity; "Publicizing" is much more neutral. Please, please change the name. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, but I wish the list to be more definitive and less motherhood. Issues include (hypothetically):
Of course, one can always attempt to implement the proposal and see if anyone screams. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
People don't like it, probably because it targets people who aren't looking for discussions. But, I've been involved in a lot of "big" discussions, and a watchlist notice brings in way more than if you were to advertise on everything else on the list. We've got a problem that cannot be solved with the current places for community discussion. I've been on-wiki for four years, and I hadn't even heard of all the things on the list. One problem we have is that the lists places bring in the same old editors every time. When you're doing something big, you need uninvolved editors, who by defintion have no idea the discussion is taking place. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Something to consider would be to have the possibility to have a list of links to community discussions in the watchlist, but hidden by default, and a discrete button would allow to show them. Only crucial ones would be shown by default. Cenarium ( talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on advertising discussions has focused on where to publicize them, but another important topic is how to publicize them. I'd like to suggest using English instead of cryptic abbreviations to get people involved in discussions. It's alienating for someone who is not an insider to see a list of discussions on BLPs, NFCC, the WP:FLP/PR trial, and similar incomprehensible topics. To involve more members of the community, not just the regulars in these discussions, takes the effort to type a title people can understand. And, going beyond the topic of advertising (publicizing) discussions, it would be best if the discussions themselves were similarly comprehensible — not because of a glossary of terms or a link, but because writers take the extra moment to communicate their arguments to someone other than the specialists who frequent these debates.
Specifically, I propose that announcements of community-wide discussions use full English titles describing the topic of discussion. Fg2 ( talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added WP:CENT to the general section. If someone feels it doesn't belong there, that's fine too - I just thought it seemed a logical candidate for that section. — Ched : ? 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? rootology ( C)( T) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
They're all loaded up now except for RFA, which felt off when I looked at it in preview (but the RFA botted table should probably be on AN/ANI as well, in hindsight...). It looks fine, so let's see what happens. Only pushback so far is here, if you want to review it. rootology ( C)( T) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please find a more subtle way to integrate your templates into the pages if they must be there. They really look like crap at the moment when they are just plunked in there with large margins on each side. They disrupt the page in a noticeable way, which is very irritating given that they have nothing to do with the pages in question (you are basically just advertising for your discussions, which is not really totally appropriate, but anyway). You have already irritating the ref desk regulars by adding it to the (protected) ref desk header without discussing it first, I suspect you will do similar on these other pages. Consider more subtle ways of integrating such things into the pages if need be. -- 140.247.251.231 ( talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This move was suggested when the page was created (see section earlier on this talk page), and the page should have been moved back then. I've now moved it. Hopefully better late than never. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made a small expansion with this edit, to cover notices to noticeboards that archive rapidly. For example, a notice to AN will be archived in 48 hours (I think). So a discussion running for a month will either need a more permanent notice, or several notices posted throughout the month-long discussion. Please edit and change as needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added a note to the page regarding the best first step for attracting more (or any) input to discussions on quiet talk pages. I'm not certain I've put it in the right place, and the phrasing could probably be improved, but as this talk page is itself very quiet(!) I've been bold rather than wait for discussion first. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Had the idea sometime in mid-2008 and discussed it in various places but didn't get around to writing and proposing it until April 2009. One discussion point worth noting is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Places this proposal has been advertised (see also what links here):
That's the full list for now. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC) updated 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC), then further updated 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm frankly outraged that we're even discussing having ads on this project.... Privatemusings ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)oh wait.... ah... well.... carry on then.
If this proposal works out, I propose to link from WP:CANVASS, WP:CONSENSUS and various other places. Including any discussion that doesn't seem to have been advertised widely enough. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Marking this as a how-to guide would circumvent the inevitable WP:CREEP accusations that will crop up if this is proposed as a guideline. A good idea to bring these ideas together on one page, but I don't think there's much of a 'guideline' here. Happy‑ melon 11:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
{{how-to}}
is perfect.
Anomie
⚔
14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There should probably be some form of hierarchy of where advertising is (in general) appropriate. The watchlist-notice and site-notice come at the top (rarely used), but not quite sure how to arrange the others. Anyone want to try? Carcharoth ( talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the list needs a little more organization, as it is everything seems to jumble together. Perhaps something like this:
Anomie ⚔ 14:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget about the WP:AAlerts news ticker. Although that should be used for WikiProject-centric things mostly. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
When I read about this, my first thought was "This is for articles that seem to be advertising a product or service". "Advertising" is one form of publicity; "Publicizing" is much more neutral. Please, please change the name. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, but I wish the list to be more definitive and less motherhood. Issues include (hypothetically):
Of course, one can always attempt to implement the proposal and see if anyone screams. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
People don't like it, probably because it targets people who aren't looking for discussions. But, I've been involved in a lot of "big" discussions, and a watchlist notice brings in way more than if you were to advertise on everything else on the list. We've got a problem that cannot be solved with the current places for community discussion. I've been on-wiki for four years, and I hadn't even heard of all the things on the list. One problem we have is that the lists places bring in the same old editors every time. When you're doing something big, you need uninvolved editors, who by defintion have no idea the discussion is taking place. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Something to consider would be to have the possibility to have a list of links to community discussions in the watchlist, but hidden by default, and a discrete button would allow to show them. Only crucial ones would be shown by default. Cenarium ( talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on advertising discussions has focused on where to publicize them, but another important topic is how to publicize them. I'd like to suggest using English instead of cryptic abbreviations to get people involved in discussions. It's alienating for someone who is not an insider to see a list of discussions on BLPs, NFCC, the WP:FLP/PR trial, and similar incomprehensible topics. To involve more members of the community, not just the regulars in these discussions, takes the effort to type a title people can understand. And, going beyond the topic of advertising (publicizing) discussions, it would be best if the discussions themselves were similarly comprehensible — not because of a glossary of terms or a link, but because writers take the extra moment to communicate their arguments to someone other than the specialists who frequent these debates.
Specifically, I propose that announcements of community-wide discussions use full English titles describing the topic of discussion. Fg2 ( talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added WP:CENT to the general section. If someone feels it doesn't belong there, that's fine too - I just thought it seemed a logical candidate for that section. — Ched : ? 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? rootology ( C)( T) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
They're all loaded up now except for RFA, which felt off when I looked at it in preview (but the RFA botted table should probably be on AN/ANI as well, in hindsight...). It looks fine, so let's see what happens. Only pushback so far is here, if you want to review it. rootology ( C)( T) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please find a more subtle way to integrate your templates into the pages if they must be there. They really look like crap at the moment when they are just plunked in there with large margins on each side. They disrupt the page in a noticeable way, which is very irritating given that they have nothing to do with the pages in question (you are basically just advertising for your discussions, which is not really totally appropriate, but anyway). You have already irritating the ref desk regulars by adding it to the (protected) ref desk header without discussing it first, I suspect you will do similar on these other pages. Consider more subtle ways of integrating such things into the pages if need be. -- 140.247.251.231 ( talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This move was suggested when the page was created (see section earlier on this talk page), and the page should have been moved back then. I've now moved it. Hopefully better late than never. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made a small expansion with this edit, to cover notices to noticeboards that archive rapidly. For example, a notice to AN will be archived in 48 hours (I think). So a discussion running for a month will either need a more permanent notice, or several notices posted throughout the month-long discussion. Please edit and change as needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added a note to the page regarding the best first step for attracting more (or any) input to discussions on quiet talk pages. I'm not certain I've put it in the right place, and the phrasing could probably be improved, but as this talk page is itself very quiet(!) I've been bold rather than wait for discussion first. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)