Would it be difficult to have two options at the bottom of the page: "Watch this article forever", and "Watch this article for two weeks"?
Catherine
Expiring watchlist entries after a certain default period (unless you make an edit in that period) may also help (but also has some screwup potential).
It does, yes. Some of the articles I watch are infrequently edited, but if someone comes along and vandalizes them or inserts blatant POV, I want to be sure to see it. As far as the vandalism goes, it may come as a shock to some, but not every vandalism is caught--I recently found a country page that had been vandalized nearly two months earlier.
kq
When I was pruning my watchlist I came across several pages that no longer existed. Could these be removed from the watchlist automatically? Or do they make no difference anyway?
It would also be useful if there were some sort of notification that a page on watch had been deleted.
Regards
sannse
sannse wrote:
When I was pruning my watchlist I came across several pages that no longer existed. Could these be removed from the watchlist automatically? Or do they make no difference anyway?
It would also be useful if there were some sort of notification that a page on watch had been deleted.
I found many redirects. A "purge all redirects from my watchlist" comment might be useful.
tarquin wrote:
sannse wrote:
When I was pruning my watchlist I came across several pages that no longer existed. Could these be removed from the watchlist automatically? Or do they make no difference anyway?
It would also be useful if there were some sort of notification that a page on watch had been deleted.
I found many redirects. A "purge all redirects from my watchlist" ***command*** might be useful.
sorry. bad typing :(
tarquin meant to write ;) --
I found many redirects. A "purge all redirects from my watchlist" command might be useful.
That might be good, as long as there was no risk of not noticing that a page that had been moved. If a page I'm interested in suddenly becomes a redirect, either because the page has been moved or through an edit, I want to know.
I don't think that what you are describing would affect this? Although an "ignore all redrects" command might.
sannse
User Wik is intent on trying to claim that people from the United States are "U.S.", not "American". I have backed off on almost every argument that I've been involved in since I came to Wikipedia, but I can't see backing off on this. It is offensive to me to have my nationality minimized like this, as if I don't have the right to call myself what I feel I am. "U.S." is not the correct term to use to describe people and institutions of the United States.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
At 07:24 PM 8/9/03 -0700, RickK wrote:
User Wik is intent on trying to claim that people from the United States are "U.S.", not "American". I have backed off on almost every argument that I've been involved in since I came to Wikipedia, but I can't see backing off on this. It is offensive to me to have my nationality minimized like this, as if I don't have the right to call myself what I feel I am. "U.S." is not the correct term to use to describe people and institutions of the United States.
Depending on context, either or both is correct. I am an American, but an American or a US citizen; the U.S. government is often referred to that way; and while the ambassador to France is the American ambassador, our representative in Lima is the "Ambassador of the United States of America" on all official paperwork.
How about you both put this aside until Monday?
The issue is that the term American - technically referts to people of all Americas.. Arent Mexicans, Bolivians, Guyanans (where Vespucci first saw "America") and so on. Even in the name United States of America -- US people *of America.
Now the typical response is a practical one -- USA people are called by default Americans -- its a common term, and theres no reason to change it. I agree with this view -- but dislike your (Rick) one sided way of putting the issue to the list (explain the debate please people)-- and dislike even more your inuendo toward a nationalist appeal.
Nationalism of any kind is irrelevant here. The opposing argument can just as easily claim that the use of the term American -- as it refers to only one state out of many -- simply comes from the 400 pound Gorilla effect. But only the conventional arguments are important here, and Wikpedians are perfectly willing to defy convention to forward Wiki goals. "Americans" can mean two different things entirely. Its a paradox -- like many things in adult life.
Respectfully, -S-
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
At 07:24 PM 8/9/03 -0700, RickK wrote:
User Wik is intent on trying to claim that people
from the United States
are "U.S.", not "American". I have backed off on
almost every argument
that I've been involved in since I came to
Wikipedia, but I can't see
backing off on this. It is offensive to me to have
my nationality
minimized like this, as if I don't have the right
to call myself what I
feel I am. "U.S." is not the correct term to use
to describe people and
institutions of the United States.
Depending on context, either or both is correct. I am an American, but an American or a US citizen; the U.S. government is often referred to that way; and while the ambassador to France is the American ambassador, our representative in Lima is the "Ambassador of the United States of America" on all official paperwork.
How about you both put this aside until Monday?
-- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org http://www.redbird.org
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Tarquin wrote:
sannse wrote:
When I was pruning my watchlist I came across several pages that no longer existed. Could these be removed from the watchlist automatically? Or do they make no difference anyway?
Please no!
It would also be useful if there were some sort of notification that a page on watch had been deleted.
Yes, I'd like this too.
I found many redirects. A "purge all redirects from my watchlist" comment might be useful.
And a "purge all nonexistent pages" would be fine too.
I deliberately have both nonexistent pages and redirects on my watchlist. Maybe I'll find that I must purge these to make it short enough -- then such purging commands would be useful. But please don't purge them automatically.
-- Toby
sannse wrote:
When I was pruning my watchlist I came across several pages that no longer existed. Could these be removed from the watchlist automatically? Or do they make no difference anyway?
It would also be useful if there were some sort of notification that a page on watch had been deleted.
I've also weeded many of these from my watchlist. Quite often they have not been deleted but changed into redirects. It may not be possible or practical to transfer the watch listing when an article has been redirected, and sometimes it's useful to know if something has been redirected.
Ec
Catherine Munro wrote:
Would it be difficult to have two options at the bottom of the page: "Watch this article forever", and "Watch this article for two weeks"?
This was suggested back when the "watch upon saving" option was started. It's still not a bad idea.
-- Toby