Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Watchlist survey

New functionality was recently enabled for Wikipedia's watchlist. The change was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 83#Enable "Show changes since last visit" on watchlist, after which a Bugzilla report was filed at bugzilla:33123. It introduced a default style of watchlist highlighting for all users. Following a number of complaints about the style, the change has been temporarily reversed so that this survey may take place.

Among other things, this new functionality allows users to differentiate pages in their watchlist that they haven't visited since the last change, from pages that they have already visited. You may find this a very useful feature—it will make a watchlist similar to most email clients and forum pages, which show unread items in a way different from read items. This feature has been in use at Commons and Wiktionary for some time, so some editors will be familiar with it already.

At the moment, the change is invisible, but there are methods to make it visible right now, for yourself. Check out Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists for details.

• The highlighting default present on some of Wikipedia's sister sites can be turned back on for every Wikipedia user across the board. This style setting is shown to the right. In this scenario, it would still be possible for editors to customize their own watchlists to look different from this, using the instructions at Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists.

• It is also possible to turn the feature on for all users, but with a different style than the one in use at the other sites. A new default style would need to be chosen as the default. In this scenario, it would still be possible for editors to customize their own watchlists to look different from whatever default is chosen.

• The feature can also be left invisible across-the-board for all users by default. In this scenario, it would still be possible for editors to switch the feature back on in whichever style they choose.

The purpose of this page is to obtain feedback from you, the user. It is not a binding vote. It is a survey. What do you prefer? Do you have accessibility issues? Are you not bothered one way or the other? Do you tend to customize everything anyway? Whatever the final outcome, it will have to work for most users, so it is important to find out what works for you.

• Please add your name, and optionally, a brief comment, below one of the options presented.
• If you want to discuss this, or have other options you think should be considered, post on the talkpage.
• If you have a question on how to customize your own watchlist, post at Wikipedia talk:Customizing watchlists to get advice.

Turn on the default bold style for everyone. Users who prefer something different can opt out by customising their own watchlists.

I love this feature. It really helps with watchlist management. --Nathan2055^talk 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Moving my support to option 2 for reasons mentioned there. --Nathan2055^talk 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. SpinningSpark 00:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Don't care between this and option 2. Option 3 would result in few newbies ever knowing about the feature, which IMO is unacceptable. Anomie⚔ 03:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Sweet ! This is Green eggs and Ham but give it one full month switched on and there will be howls of outrage if it is withdrawn. It will be on by default, I can see this as inevitable.Penyulap ☏ 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) abstain Penyulap ☏ 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. This is the default email for emails and many forums, it makes no sense to hide from new users. Making it opt out is very easy and people who cannot deal with the default behavior of most email readers can check of a box. Chico Venancio (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   But a) once you read an email, it generally isn't rebolded five minutes later, b) you can delete an individual email, but it's harder to "ignore" a single change in a watchlist item, c) you generally have to open an email or forum post to read it, but with the use of pop-ups that isn't necessary for watchlist items, etc. At minimum this needs to be better designed and there needs to be a way to opt out without messing with css. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That really depends on how active you email contacts are. Articles only became rebolded if they are edited. Of course it should be easy to opt out, "check a box". Chico Venancio (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. I shouldn't have to create a css page to turn this on, this should be a checkbox on the preference page, and enabling something like this should be the default setting there.  What I need on the watchlist is more than this one small change.  In addition to the edit comment I need a snippet view of the first few lines of new posts.  Then I need a "hide" checkbox to remove the post from my watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Torn between options 1 and 2. The newbes would never find out about this otherwise. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Enhanced functionality should be put to use once it's developed; the main "problem" established users have with it is that it differs from what they're used to, but that isn't an issue for the new users on whom the default is effectively imposed (they don't know they can change it, whereas the established ones do know). Ideally, only new users' opinions should be counted towards this poll (assuming you get any). Side note: the enhanced watchlist feature is excellent and should be better publicized; maybe not made the default, but there should be a dismissable notice at the top of everyone's watchlist informing them about the option (and about the daft wikilogical decision to place the option somewhere other than the "watchlist" tab of preferences; there should in fact be a note about it on the watchlist tab as well). Ideally the message would appear precisely when someone's watchlist is starting to reach the stage where the grouping would be beneficial. Also I don't remember if expanded watchlist (shows all changes not only the most recent) is now the default, but if it isn't, it definitely should be. Sorry to be off-topic, but this is a rare situation where there's a chance the right person is listening. Victor Yus (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Bold style on by default with the option to turn it off in Special:Preferences. I currently have it turned on via css. I prefer this to option 3 because, as has been pointed out by others, newbies won't know about it. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Useful feature long overdue. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. I suppose I agree with what Bruce1ee said, though I haven't bothered to modify my own css regarding this yet; not terribly torn up one way or another so long as nothing too terribly silly is implemented. Frankly I haven't the foggiest why people seem to care so much about this in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. -— Isarra ༆ 16:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I liked the bolding for the few hours it was turned on. Enable this for everyone, but make it easy in the preferences to turn off. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I hated it at first, but now find it immensely useful. I've added it to my css file. It adds a very helpful feature. There will always be people who want the old way, for understandable reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. This is the common format I use on other wikis, and I prefer it for consistency. The other alternative I like most is File:MwWatchedReverse.png. Helder 18:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Progress is not possible if all we do is listen to the loudest minority of people instead of those people who like something and so don't speak up. --Jayron32 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Works fine on Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. This is how the other Wikis run it, and there should be some level of consistency between the interfaces on the sister projects. Imzadi 1979 → 00:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. I go with what Imzadi said Openskye (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    mild preference for this. Whatever the decision is, the option to turn off/on should probably be a checkbox in preferences, for those of us who don't know much about CSS. VikÞor | Talk 02:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Changing to support of Option 2. I actually like the fading of the viewed links, rather than bolding unviewed. --VikÞor | Talk 02:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18. I was waiting for this feature so long! I support the reasoning lTopGunl - "If it is left off, the newbies will never find out about it. Those who don't like it can however simply turn it off." Not only newbies wouldn't know. How the older users who would like it would find that out? That from nowhere new option is now available? However The Opt out should be pretty much easy and as intuitive as possible - on the watchlist itself or in the preferences. Not by personal scripts!!! Comment for those wwho think that this in needless change, because they did not need it before and they do not see immediately its value: Wait until You will come back from short holiday or wait until you have job, when You can no more check the watchlist everyday... Or at least wait for few days of your own experience and try to see how well it will fit your taste then. --Reo ⁺ 11:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Ltr,ftw (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. ShaPhi7 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. It has worked well for me on Commons. People shouldn't have to edit their .CSS files so it should be a preference for those that don't have web design background like me. Royalbroil 12:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Works well at Commons, as others have noted. My choice. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. The new style was terrific. The one problem with it was the way it was introduced. Technical people tend to think they know what's best for everyone. Sometimes they do, but even then they need to be aware of the psychological aspects of change management. Even a perfect change introduced to all users with virtually no notice, as that one was, will cop massive opposition, simply because it's a change. Garnering earlier responses from a tiny subset of Wikipedia editors won't ever work. So, please introduce the change again, but before you do, go away and learn something about change management. It's a serious and quite large area of study. It's not just a nerd/geek thing. In fact, nerds and geeks are probably the worst people for managing change. Naturally enough we have an article on it. And there's a lot more to it than that! HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. But it should be more obvious how to customize your watchlist. Perhaps a link on the Watchlist page itself? For the two years I've been here, I certainly didn't know until just today! Jesse V. (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Dlrohrer2003 10:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. This feature has been very helpful to me. People are only upset because they didn't see any discussion about it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. The foundation can change the styles as much as they want in the name of accessibility, as long as they make it easy for me to not participate. I'd hope they give us more warning in the future, like they did for making vector skin the default. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Kvng (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. I don't much care what the style is, but I don't see any good reason to have the default be different from the default at any other project—and that goes for both "whether the feature is enabled by default" as well as "what it looks like on the watchlist". I realize that change is bad, but I also realize that if we left it alone (no matter what the watchlist styling was) for a month, nearly everyone would be used to it and quit complaining. We should not kill a useful feature (especially a feature useful to new users) so that a couple of power users can have it "their" way. The power users can go edit their CSS pages. The rest of us should get to use this feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. I'm fine with turning on this style, on the condition I can easily turn it off if I want. I don't want to be dealing with CSS code - Having say a dropdown list (to say, choose between all the styles - the current default, the bolded and the various others shown on this page) would be perfect. Anjwalker ^Talk 03:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. I find the bolding very useful. Krystaleen (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. I agree with Anjwalker, set this up, but set up something so we don't have to tweak CSS code. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. The bolding seems pretty useful. Most people would appreciate it, and those who don't can go into their settings and turn it off. —Compdude¹²³ 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The number of commentators to the contrary below (not to mention at the Village Pump) would seem to put the lie to the assumption that "most people would appreciate it". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

35. This is a really good MediaWiki feature that I regularly use in several other wikis. I cannot remember anyone complaining about it on these wikis either, it's simply the normal software behavior that everyone is used to. So I suspect that a lot of the opposition can be attributed to just the fact that something is being changed, rather than the actual merits of the feature. --Tobias K. (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. Bold is fine, though I'm okay with any styling, so long as the feature isn't invisible. --Yair rand (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Suppport; I don't much care what the style is; just show me and anyone who doesn't decide it's ugly. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. Very useful on Commons, and surely it will be the same here. But I'd don't really care if it's this or Option 2. Rehman 02:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Useful feature, new users will never find out about it if it's off by default (so Nay on option 3), and inconsistency within wikimedia sites is bad (so Nay on option 2). However, the change should be noted for existing users in a site-wide banner, and there should be a easy, reversible, one-click method to turn it off linked directly from that banner. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. It's a lot harder to opt-in if you've never seen it and don't know it's available. But if it's there and you don't like it, the first thought is always to check your prefs. Users should always be able to opt out, though. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. Hard to express how little I care, really. Current style is great and I am used to it and proposal looks good. But if there is a new and potentially more functional option, please just implement it. With or without an opt-out surely we can cope. And yes I think there are more important issues. Mcewan (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. The bold thing is pretty reasonable. I work on both en.wiki and Commons — watchlist of over 8000 items on each — and Commons has had it for quite a while. Indeed, I think I sort of forgot that bold wasn't enabled on en.wiki. It does help me pick out what still pending easily, particularly with the "Mark all pages visited" button that clears the bolding on everything once you're done reviewing changes. --Closeapple (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. It works well at Commons, is relatively unobtrusive, and is similar to what people are already used to from many e-mail sites. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn it on for everyone, but with a different style (pick the style you like best below). Users who prefer something different, or prefer the feature turned off, can do so by customizing their own watchlists.

1. At first I liked the bolding idea, however now that global CSS had it removed, I decided to try out the stars. They are awesome with the exception of a few bugs I'm going to put in the star section. As well, I believe it should be opt-out instead of opt-in because the noobs would never find WP:CUSTOMWATCH and flip it on. In fact, until this fiasco, I used user script for this functionality because nobody knew about CUSTOMWATCH. Proof positive that this should be implemented. --Nathan2055^talk 15:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Edokter (talk) — 19:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. If it is left off, the newbies will never find out about it. Those who don't like it can however simply turn it off. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Don't care between this and option 1. Option 3 would result in few newbies ever knowing about the feature, which IMO is unacceptable. Anomie⚔ 03:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   There are many features newbies don't know about, I don't see why this or any other feature in the preference page should be turned on by default just to cater to them. I suggest that if standard features available directly via Wikipedia are becoming too overwhelming or complex for newbies to discover, a video tutorial shown to them upon signing up should assist. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps some actual research should be done, but it seems to me a new user is going to be looking at their watchlist asking "What changed in this stuff that I'm interested in since the last time I looked at it?". This feature makes determining which pages changed much easier. We shouldn't make every new user have to dig through their preferences to find out how to turn on such a helpful feature. Anomie⚔ 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Equal choice with 3 if and only if this is controlled by preferences, not by script/css. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Is a gadget satisfactory, or must T38509 be fixed? Anomie⚔ 15:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I think either would be fine, so long as it is made quite clear how this can be "fixed" if desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Same reasons as before: [1], [2]. People need to be more open to change, especially when that change is in the form of progress. TopGun made a good point as well. Not having this enabled by default is basically the same as robbing newbies of knowledge about the feature. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. The green star option as a default looks best to me. It stands out enough without taking over the page. Ideally you'd be able to tweak this in the preferences but enabling it via scripts is OK as a short-term solution because the green star is hard for anyone to object to. Yaris678 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Should be possible to set in in preferences without the need for additional scripts, as Nikkimaria points out above. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Any except bold stars, italics, or highlight. JJB 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Nikkimaria. --J36miles (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Nikimaria. If it can be turned off with a gadget, that's great. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I never knew you could change your watchlist to show unread changes until it was turned on for everyone. There should be an option to turn it off in preferences, not by having to add code to your .css page. I think having the dotted lines is the best, because it isn't too bold. That way, newbies (I was one not a long time ago) can decide if they like it or not. Anyways, the people for which this is annoying are mostly people with large watchlists—people who would know how to turn it off in preferences. David1217 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. A useful feature; default style isn't too important as long as we whiners can conveniently change styles or disable. Kilopi (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. New users may not get around to looking at their account preferences page for quite a while, so if this feature is not turned on by default it may be a significant amount of time before they find it. This would be a waste, in my opinion, as it is likely to be most useful for new users who haven't yet worked out the Wikipedia jargon, the usernames of bots and regular editors, etc., and need to check most or all of the changes on their watchlists to work out what is going on. Experienced editors can always just turn the feature off if they don't like it. I think newbies would prefer the subtle underline to the default bold style, hence I'm commenting in this section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. I'm for a small 'c' indicating the change and a pop-up explaining what does this letter means, much like how bot edits are currently presented. Bold, underline or different color are not obvious at all.---Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 20:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. I like the style that fades the items that have been viewed, rather than bolding unviewed items. (changed support from option 1) --VikÞor | Talk 02:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. I found the bolding obnoxious and distracting but the feature makes sense overall and opt-out with some more subtle style so that it's available to newbies makes sense to me. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Forgot to "vote" here. Already described preferred style below (highlight with different colour, no bolding, black font). - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. The bolding is too much, now that I'm seeing some other possible options. Opt-in seems inappropriate for the quite useful functionality. --IznoRepeat (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support for fading out instead of bolding. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support for fading out, bolding is a bit obnoxious. JHS_nl (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. I prefer this option. It can be too difficult for some people to customize. But, I prefer stars; fading is hard to see on some screens. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. If this feature is not provided as default (opt-out), very few new users will ever know about it. Veterans who dislike it will be savvy enough to figure out how to turn it off. --Noleander (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support anything more subtle than bolding, e.g. italics, an icon or letter. Which is easier- for newbies to opt out of a default or for experienced users to opt out? Clearly it's less hassle for experienced users to customise the look (gagdets and customisation are some of the most newbie-unfriendly areas of Wikipedia). So, enabling this information by default and asking anyone who doesn't like it to opt out is more realistic than expecting newbies to opt in. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. I support this, please. I shall pick my favored option below. Moreover, I echo number five (Nikkimaria) above: for this to be controlled by preferences, not by script/css. Fylbecatulous talk 20:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Not making it available by default is silly as it means many editors who would find it useful would never find that this is available. But making everything bold on first visit is almost as bad as putting everything in upper case - a more subtle way of differentiating between visited and unvisited pages is needed. waggers (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. There are other options which should be more acceptable than bolding. CT Cooper · talk 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Opt out is the right way to go. With opt-out, old users who have strong preferences against this will be able to figure out how to opt out, but new users (who are unlikely to find opt-in features) will benefit from it, most of them will appreciate it, and most will never know that it didn't exist forever. As a user, bold would not be my first choice (I've voted below), but it's OK -- and consistency with other wikimedia sites has value. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Useful feature, but the boldface was absolutely horrible. A more subtle style might appease both those who like and hate this feature. Also, WP:BIKESHED. —Ruud 11:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. I like the flexibility of this option, and users can opt out too. Let the user adjust his/her preferences as desired. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. I understand the objections to making the bolded option the default, but that can be fixed by making the default style something very unobtrusive, like the green stars or the subtle underlining, can it not? And while I'm sure a better technical implementation can be installed down the road, coding aesthetics hardly seem like a rational basis for depriving the masses of a useful tool. I would have never known about this option if it hadn't been made opt-out, and I am very grateful that I do. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment: I note that many of the !votes for option #3 are specifically opposing the bolded option. The closing admin should note that many votes for #3 should be interpreted as anti-bolding, and not opposed to the feature in general. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just tried to turn the option back on for myself and realized that it involves pasting code. I can't imagine that it isn't possible for the change to be done with a radio button in the Preferences menu, and it is imperative that that be done as soon as possible. If that can't be done (and until it is done), the feature must be opt-out -- and, furthermore, someone should answer for why the change was turned on when it lacked this basic feature. Still, my preference remains for opt-out to be made possible on the Preferences menu. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it invisible for everyone (no bolding or stars, etc). Users who want to use this feature can opt in by customizing their own watchlists.

1. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Assuming this means no bolding or stars... Smarkflea (talk)
3. --Since most people don't like the bolding, and the default is all or nothing, I would suggest to leave it invisible and then let people who like the bolding to add the script to their preferences page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. WP:CUSTOMWATCH will do the get great after a few months. mabdul 01:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice given the current implementation. If that is improved, equal choice with 2. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Generally the best approach for changes to the user interface. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   After a couple of days of living with this, I'd like to add to what I said before. I continue to prefer that everyone be able to opt-in, rather than be put in a position of opting out of something that they would prefer not to have. I also see from the discussion below that different users prefer different appearances (for me, italics, for others, other choices), and there is no reason why anyone should not be able to choose what (if anything) they prefer. That said, having installed the italic view for my own use, I have come to really like it! For me personally, it is very helpful to be able to see quickly what I have and have not reviewed already, and I personally do not find it to be visually disruptive. In fact, I'm getting to where I feel as though I would never want to be without it! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. In trying to script customizations for this feature I realized its technical implementation is exceedingly poor and very limiting. It was done with a <strong> tag in an odd location, when it should've been done purely with classes. Styling a feature like this using an HTML tag is so very 1999. This is old code and shouldn't have been newly implemented on an additional wiki before it was updated. Rather than merely making it invisible, this entire thing should be completely disabled until it's coded better and a style is chosen by the community. Even then, the new feature cycle generally starts with opt-in, then after a while someone might propose turning it on by default across the board. That would be the cycle to follow here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per typology and disability access; but, also strongly per Equazcion's criticism of the implementation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Equazcion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Equazcion. Advertising WP:CUSTOMWATCH a bit more broadly so that those who do want highlighting on their watchlists can implement it easily would be a good idea, too. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. The bolded text on Recent Changes is helpful for quickly spotting pages since the few bold items on that meta list stand out. However, using the same formatting on the personal Watchlist makes that page difficult to read because nothing stands out. For me, it is a visual accessibility issue. The WP:CUSTOMWATCH page is helpful also. — Sctechlaw (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)   Oh, and another thing: if it's not going to be Opt-in for some reason, then Opt-out must be implemented for those of us with accessibility issues. Otherwise I, for one, won't be able to use the Watchlist, and thus will likely have to stop editing. It is not simply a visual preference issue, it is a visual accessibility issue. — Sctechlaw (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I did not like the changes and prefer to have my watchlist remain as is; I think allowing an opt in - opt out mechanism makes sense...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. I use the preference that adds everything I edit to my watch list. I scan my watchlist several times a day and have my own methods for deciding which edits to check. Bolding or italics would make it much harder for me to do these scans and make me much less effective. A green star with plain text would be the least annoying option, but I don't see the advantage as my browser changes colors for the links I recently visited anyway. And no, thank you, I don't want to mess with CSS scripts.--agr (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. I prefere it as it is. The option of being able to customize your watchlist is good enough. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Based on all the complaints on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), including one of my own, I would prefer for the default to be the "normal" one that I had come to know over my 2.5-year Wikipedia service. Personally, I also feel that it is more my responsibility to know where I left off with checking pages on my watchlist than an automatic system's. Promote the availability of the new option to Wikipedia newcomers, but don't force it upon them or Wikipedia's valued longtime contributors. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Jafeluv (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Right now it seems it's a bit complicated to opt out, so until that's fixed, please make it opt-in, i.e. leave it disabled by default. (I didn't like it when I saw it, either, way too much bold.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Opt in if editors want it, shouldn't be forced on every editor. Mo ainm~Talk 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. SupportSHould be opt-in just like anything in this world, if it opt-out wikipedia is becomign liek goverment forcing stuff onto people and makign them opt-out if they dnt want it, everything ina person life should be opt-in they choose they want it.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Seems like the most reasonable solution: business as usual for those who don't care about this option (including yours truly), while those who do get to pick their favorite style in the process of opting-in. GregorB (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. If you want to use it, use it. But don't bother the rest of us with it. All Gadgets work that way - I see no reason why this one shouldn't. That said, I think it should be integrated into My Preferences => Gadgets to make it easy for people to use it if they want. Regards SoWhy 12:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per Sctechlaw and agr's comment. Opt-in or out should be personal preferences. --G(x) (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support What happened to the previous RfC where there was an overwhelming response for opt in? Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. —Deor (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. No bolding or stars or anything else? I'm in.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. This. Please this. GRAPPLE X 14:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. I have mine bolded, but you should need to opt in not out. It was easy enough to modify my css page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. For me and the way I use my watchlist it's just annoying, and I don't see why I should have to opt out of it. If possible it should be set up so that the opt-in can be done through preferences or gadgets. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Best option for those of us who keep our watchlists as small as possible. If there is to be clutter, it should be clutter I've decided I want to have. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. Absolutely the most reasonable solution. NiciVampireHeart 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Vastly preferable and Daniel Case has said it better than I could. MarnetteD | Talk 17:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the "newbies will never know about it" argument this (and other editing options) could be made a part of the WP:TUTORIAL if they aren't already or they could be made part of a totally separate and new "Tutorial". There are all manner of things that newbies won't know about when they start editing and this one is not any more or less important than than any others. Heck there are still things in "My Preferences" that I have know idea what they do. MarnetteD | Talk 17:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, just because it's made opt-in now doesn't mean it can't be made opt-out in the future, once something more broadly accepted is fleshed out and it's been proven popular enough. That's generally how things are done here. Someone might suggest a new option be enabled by default somewhere down the line, but it's not done immediately, especially for changes to such an important backbone of the user experience. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

32. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. --Stryn (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. I vote for opt-in. Frankly this whole thing seems like gilding the lily. I've been perfectly fine with how the Watchlist looks and operates in my years here and see no need for any changes period. Just because we can make changes doesn't mean we should. Sector001 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. This, I think, is the better option. The watchlist changes things really works only for users who edit a lot and are on frequently. I check in a few times a day and there is little point in my seeing a sea of bold or some other "marked as changed" mechanism. Frequent users can easily opt in to use the feature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 May 2012
36. Opt-in or opt-out, I don't care, as long as opt-out is available in the Preferences menu, either by default or as a gadget. I don't care that it can be done using CSS in a user's common.css, all users should be able to turn it off easily without such technicalities. Nageh (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. People who want it can buy into it. People who don't won't. (And, in the future, if Wikipedia makes a highly visible change to a fundamental part of the interface, how about the designers put in something just as visible telling people what's going on? I suddenly see parts of my watchlist boldface, and think, "what the heck's happening here?") Ravenswing 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. Default should be opt in. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Team opt-in! I would rather opt into something than continuously have to opt out of it. UserPreferences have watchlist settings options listed for pages edited, moved, and created. If anyone wishes to add an article of interest that they visit, they can still "opt in". — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. My76Strat (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Opt-in is the best way for most people. Those who want milk and sugar in their coffee can easily add them, while those of us who like it plain don't have to make a special order, you know? Textorus (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support per Textorus. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. Should always be opt-in, not out. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
44. MER-C 02:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
46. Endorse. I feel that Wikipedia needs more proactive editors. Being proactive is a habit. If an editor takes an effort to customize his watchlist, then this editor will likely be proactive enough to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A well-informed editor is likely to be a good editor. So yeah! Opt in. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per SoWhy, but with high visibility in the proper My Preferences section (not necessarily gadgets). In general, I'm against opting out options on any website; Facebook took it too far by actually invading privacies (facial recognition—if they're still doing that) unless one opted out. This isn't at that level of nuisance, obviously, but I think as editors become more familiar with Wikipedia, the options also open up, which will keep interest in the internal workings of this site—not just editing text and pictures. At least for me, it's been nice discovering the hidden jewels of Wikipedia. But these options should be just that: options. And it took me quite a while to get used to the bolded unchecked pages over at Commons. I really did prefer the plainer en.wikipedia watchlist, though now I know I have the option, I'm definitely an opt-in (and have done so already)! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
48. The change makes the watchlist much harder to read. And making it the default means that you're changing something without asking first, and then leaving it to users to work out for themselves what was changed and how to change it back if they don't like it. Making it opt-in at least means that the users know what happened and how to reverse it if they don't like it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
49. As clearly achieved WP:SNOW in the previous RfC - why are we having another? - If certain people don't get the result they want in this RfC, will we have a series of RfCs until they eventually "win" due to fatigue? - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50. Wahrmund (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
51. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52. I favor leaving the default the way it is, which works fine for most users. The "improvement" proposed is not an improvement for most of us - namely, those of us who have only a few dozen watchlist pages, are not tech-savvy enough to know how to code changes into our preferences page, and do not follow Wikipedia politics so as to take part in this kind of survey or discussion. (Call us the Silent Majority. I only stumbled on this discussion because I wanted to find out how to turn off the green "updated since my last visit" annoyance.) Those who do want the change appear to be the most active Wikipedians - those who have hundreds or thousands of watchlisted pages, have the technical ability to customize their settings, and are in the habit of participating in RfCs and other obscure discussions. If you make this change opt-in, the clued-in tech-savvy minority who like this change can implement it, and the more-casual-user majority won't be bothered by it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
53. And for goodness sake, next time a sudden change like this is implemented, start by "telling people what's going on?" (per Ravenswing). I couldn't figure out what the bold/starred/bold/starred stuff meant until I came across discussions about it. First Light (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
54. Keep the default - and a whole watchlist full of bold is a strange use of bold. Bold should be used to pick out the unusual - having it the norm for most pages (unless I have opened them) just gives me a bold watchlist. I probably look at 20% (if that) of my watchlist - I check edits on some pages (depending on who the editor is) - but not on things like the admin noticeboards. The intro to this page is clearly partisan as well - it's telling me how great the change was - which was not the consensus.. Secretlondon (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to keep the default, shouldn't you be posting in Option 1? That's the MediaWiki default; the enabling of this feature brought enwiki in line with the default after a long time of being different. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he means to use "default" to mean the long-standing status quo at Wikipedia. That should be fairly obvious, and it would be a big mistake to start responding to opposition by nitpicking their chosen words, as if that should somehow indicate something about the validity of their opinions. This could easily get out of hand, and I'm surprised to see you resorting to this, Anomie. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Or it could be that people are confused about what the default actually is, and I thought I would correct them. There are enough people posting in this sections with selfish or silly reasons that I can't see this ending very well no matter which way the RFC is closed. What would be the point in trying to "discredit" two comments out of 58 for word choice in the face of that? Anomie⚔ 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No one's confused. In case you are doing thusly, allow me to correct you: The technical default they haven't been privy to for years is not what these people are concerned with when they say things like "let's keep the default", I assure you. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All the more reason to correct them, then. Anomie⚔ 03:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't correct them. You suggested they should be voting on something else by jumping on their use of the word "default", when it was clear what they meant. That's not a correction, it's a strawman argument, and it's not helpful. A lot of people disagree with you, and it's not because they're confused. They are not. You'll need to accept that. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

55. Aside from being implemented without clear consensus or even adequate notice, the "improvement" is ugly and very hard to read (at least in Monobook, and I have no interest in switching to Vector). I appreciate the possibility of enhanced functionality but would much prefer to opt in on that if a genuine improvement (i.e., one that employs good typographic design) becomes available. In the meantime, it ain't broke, so don't fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
56. Leave the goshdarned default alone and let those who like daft styles opt in Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to keep the default, shouldn't you be posting in Option 1? That's the MediaWiki default; the enabling of this feature brought enwiki in line with the default after a long time of being different. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ...it would be especially unhelpful to copy/paste the same pedantic reply to everyone who makes the same "error" in wording. If you decide to remove your comments here, feel free to also remove my responses. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OTOH, if people are confused about what the default actually is, it might be worth correcting them. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

57. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
58. I am surprised that it was not opt-in ONLY from the very start. Otherwise it is like painting a bulls-eye between your eyes and being surprised for a millisecond or so that someone shot at it before you end up dead! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
59. I don't see why newbies would be interested in this feature, since it's only useful for those who have large watchlists. Chick Bowen 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
60. Regardless of my preference, this obviously splits opinion so the old setting should remain the default. joe•roe^t•c 06:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
61. Definitely should be opt in. Default style is fine in my eyes. MLVD (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support opt in. Weaxzezz (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support opt-in. Some editors liked it when it was implemented; and if it were opt-in, it would then be more intuitive for the user to be able to choose between different options. I have a large watchlist - all the articles I've written, many articles I've expanded or otherwise majorly rewritten, a number of AfD topic lists, a couple of project pages, and some vandal targets that I watch. The sea of bold made it hard to scan for the changes where I needed to hit diff - I missed some things, in fact. What I am using to determine whether I need to visit the page again is the color of the diff link and/or the page link. What I would really like is for the colors of visited and unvisited links to be more different! That would accomplish the same purpose - and would also help on article pages, by indicating if a link is piped to a link I've already visited. Bold is way overkill; but those with small watchlists or who want it for some other reason, give it to em as an option. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Check out WP:CUSTOMWATCH for tips on how to customise your own watchlist, if you haven't already done so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the visited/unvisited link colors in page content are generally not set by Wikipedia, so they're going according to your browser settings (default blue/purple, usually). In Firefox 12 for example, you can change them in Tools -> Options -> Content -> Colors. That would affect all sites though, not just Wikipedia. Or you can try the customization options Elen linked to. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

64. Support opt-in. Bazonka (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
65. Yes, please. Spencer^T♦C 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
66. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support per Daniel Case (and possibly others after him but I stopped reading). And for those who don't like support bolded, please opt out or close your eyes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support opt-in. No need to change something that perfectly works. - Darwinek (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
69. The watchlist is a personal feature; a user's preference has no bearing on any other part of Wikipedia. Thus, having nothing enabled and allowing a user to opt-in is the least invasive. If people are worried about new users, there would be no problem with having an options link on the watchlist page itself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
70. Let those who want something different choose what they want. Leave the rest of us to use what we've always used! MeegsC | Talk 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Not sure why this wasn't done in the first place. Angryapathy (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
72. I liked the stars, hated the bold, and was generally confused when this change happened suddenly. Opt-in is the simplest way to make the majority happy. Hopefully the opt-in allows for the variety of choices shown below. — Scientizzle 17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support – Should have been opt-in from the start. The changes basically amounted to fixing something that wasn't broken. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. what-giants2008-said (I was gonna say it;). It is (was) annoying; don't be. If some want a gadget to tart things up, whatevers. Leave teh serious out of it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
75. JordanKyser22 (talk) 3:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
76. I agree with SoWhy in #21. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. - The stars are just awful. The bolding is awful. It is tolerable (but annoying) on the commons because I follow hardly anything there. Here I've got 1,000s on my watchlist almost all of which, except for a tiny winy bit, have been edited after me. So the whole darn list is filled with stars and bolding, making it useless for my purposes. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support The current watch list (bare and simple as it is) is an essential tool. Additional bells and whistles can be added per preference but the default should be stripped down and simple. --RA (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support as the general way to introduce changes. Love the feature, and will opt in, but please advertise these things better: the watch-list page was an excellent place. --LCE(talk contribs) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support opt-in. --Olivechamp (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support opt-in. Let people who want additional features add them manually. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support opt-in. As was pointed out above, bold should call out unusual activity, and if you have a huge watchlist and only check a few of the articles, this is very distracting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. -- a <strong> tag? Shirley you jest... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually went to check this to see if it was the correct tag to be using (as opposed to a semantics-less tag or another semantic tag). <strong> actually is, by my interpretation, the correct tag in HTML5,[3] though the default styling for <strong> is apparently undesired by at least 2/3. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

83. Support ThemFromSpace 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support I see no reason to change. Dan653 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong support – My 23,790 page watchlist would not appreciate it. (I can't stand this on Commons either.) Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 03:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support No bolding please. Poeticbent talk 03:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
87. I prefer the old system. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Did the developers engage with editors before working on this? While working on this? Before implementing this? --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be hard to answer your questions, since the feature appears to have been in the code since December 2004 (see T2454), although it was disabled here on enwiki due to concern over database load. If by "implementing this" you mean "turning this on for enwiki", we asked them to do it which would IMO constitute "engagement" with editors. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, since Anomie has a tendency to bring this up repeatedly without also mentioning the counter-arguments that have been stated in response, I'll have to do that for him again. Those who oppose the feature and/or the manner in which it was implemented would point out that not nearly a broad enough demonstration of consensus is represented by the 20 support votes for this high-profile change to an essential tool used by every editor nearly every time they edit; and that some did so on the condition that a preference switch accompany implementation, which the proposer did not make it clear he saw no need for and wouldn't be requesting. That's just a "quick" rundown though. WP:VPT has more. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So who's jumping on who now, Equazcion?
    The question was "did the developers engage with editors?", not "did the developers ensure that a major RFC with at least 1000 participants was held about something that is already enabled on Commons and other-language wikis, and was only disabled on enwiki due to technical concerns?". Anomie⚔ 19:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ever the pedant; there are ways to answer questions so that the question is answered, and there are ways that ensure the person asking isn't mislead -- yes, even if it means adding something they didn't (explicitly) ask for. Friendly advice that might make you more likeable. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

89. Support Changing current practice is rude to all the editors who use it. Particularly when different editors prefer different styles. To do this based on a consensus of the small fraction of editors who have the time to respond to this RFC is an example of the Tyranny of the majority. Instead, a tooltip bar should be added with links to Help page(s), and a list of the different Watchlist styles. This list should also have instructions on how to opt-in to one of them (with the concern of retaining new editors, this would help them come up to speed faster). If the opt-in could be automated to clicking a link that would be awesome. A link to opt-out going back to the default would also be useful. I also see no consideration for editors:

    • who have poor eyesight (e.g. have trouble distinguishing bold from normal weight typefaces);
    • who are color blind; or
    • who are totally-blind.

    Lentower (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

90. Support The bolding and stars would only be beneficial to some editors and would be non-beneficial to the rest, with it also having no effect on the readers. Therefore, it should be opt-in for those users that would find it beneficial, don't subject it to everyone and force them to opt-out. Silverseren^C 07:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
91. Nothing wrong with the current list format; no reason to change it. BigDom 13:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support per JasperDeng. I prefer to leave as-is. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support - but allow users to choose from any of the options below, in "Preferences: Watchlist", and without having to fiddle around with CSS. (But if by any chance it is introduced as a default, then offer an explanation on-screen - the mystery blast of bolding was unexpected and unexplained, as well as unwelcome.) PamD 21:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. An opt-out with a subtle change, such as the subtle underscore or the c, might be acceptable. (Please note that if colors are used, an accessibility survey must be performed, to ensure that, as in the diff change, the new version is usable by people with normal or slightly impaired vision, as well as the color-blind.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support if only because the first attempt was so totally fucked up that doing it again would cause... issues. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - Please leave this to the individual user. No one needs the computer to tell him what he has seen; he may choose to take the computer's assistance: but he, I am sure, will find that he does not need it. Twozenhauer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
97. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
98. All such changes should always be opt-in. -Scottywong| comment _ 22:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
99. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - I know that familiarity can be an obstacle to change, but I do not like this feature at Commons and I did not like it when it appeared (briefly) here. My reasons for disliking it have been better expressed by practically every other of the previous comments in this "opt in" section, so I'll resist the broken record syndrome. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
101. I could live with the green stars, but not the bolding. Opting in seems to be the fairest to all concerned. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided that the new function will be switched on by default for all users, but with a different style, a new style will have to be chosen to use as the default. Here are the current options:

Note: Most of these styles are displayed in the Vector skin.

If the new function is enabled for all users with a new style, I would prefer the following style as the default:

This poll should also be used to set the style, if this ends up an opt-in choice. Lentower (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. simple. That's the reason why I'm using Modern! mabdul 09:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. simple, agree. My watchlist is set for only the past week's activities so it's easier to keep track of. If I really need to see others that I have worked on, I look at My Contributions. No bells or whistles necessary. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Simple, of course this is the right one! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I love the "Faded Old" and "Highlight" options, but if we're picking a default, it should be a plain watchlist. Not every user views every single edit made on their watched articles, so this should be an option you can choose if you desire. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Leave the goshdarned default alone. Just because you can do something does not make it worth doing Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
6. A star should be shown if you can really tell that it is not vandalism. It would be depressing to show one otherwise. Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Too much bold loses its impact and becomes visual noise. What we have works for most of us. Those who need a change, a different visual organization or a different approach have been around long enough to know about changes and where to make requests or just know enough to ask. where information on changes might be found. Newbies don't need to know about these options, any more than they "need" to know about the various gadgets and skins. If they are interested in possible alternatives, they will ask. It works; leave it alone. If you can't leave it alone, please remember that many, many editors are not computer experts, and opting back into this format should be a box tick or something equally simple. As soon as you write, "insert the following in. . . ", we panic. Bielle (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. per Bielle ThemFromSpace 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. per Bielle. Distractions make things harder for me. Most pages on my watchlist I haven't been the last one to edit so they will all show up bolded and with stars. No! Please! (fortunately I have the CSS in my file that gets rid of the whole darn thing.) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it the same but make it so you can look at the whole week instead of three days. Nhog

1. To keep it consistent across wikis. SpinningSpark 00:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. As it is on Commons. With bolding it's easy to see at a glance which pages have been changed. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. As I said above, consistency across sister projects is a good thing. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Consistency with Commons - many people use Commons. Royalbroil 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. While Emerson did point out that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," in this case I'm for keeping it consistent across the projects. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Also support. Makes sense to me, and it also matches many email clients. Jesse V. (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Works well at Commons, no complaints there (that I've seen...) --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. A consistent interface across all wikis would be the best option. Helder 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Consistency. Rehman 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Consistent with other wikis and both easy to spot (distinct) and easy to ignore (inobtrusive). The perfect alteration for the feature. It is so inoffensive that I didn't notice the change, at first, during the initial rollout. After I spotted it (and figured out what it was), it was informative, but it was subtle enough that it would only really register when I was actually looking for it. The perfect indicator. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I can't see much to complain about with bold vs. non-bold for Latin or Cyrillic text; that's relatively unobtrusive. Most e-mail programs and webmail sites now use bold for new e-mail; so much that a new user, who is familiar with e-mail but not Wikipedia, would probably understand immediately that bold items have somehow become "new" or updated, without having to be told. (I could see how it bold might make Middle Eastern/Asian fonts look ugly to those languages' native readers, though. Also, I once saw a couple of computers that had some font confusion and would show bold by substituting Arial Black instead of Arial Bold. That's pretty ugly even on Latin/Cyrillic text.) Really, I'd be OK with any of the suggestions above that aren't a foreground color change: Particularly, if Wikipedia defaults to grey-fading or subtle color changes, I can just about guarantee we will get a loud and unpleasant education about how many people don't have the eyes and/or computer display settings that some people were sure "most people" had. (And non-subtle, easily-viewable color changes would be less aggravating, but still add another level of complexity to the color scheme: What colors would we default to so that a recently-visited (normally purple) but newly-changed link can be immediately understandable as visited, as opposed to one that is both newly-changed and unvisited (normally blue)?) --Closeapple (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I like the Commons functionality and agree with Closeapple that bolding is relatively unobtrusive and is both intuitive and a "normal" thing that people used to other areas of the internet will already be used to. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It stands out without interfering with the readability of the page. Yaris678 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This looks good as well --Mjs1991 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. If it must happen this is the choice I'd prefer. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I love the stars, except for the fact that the don't have a "Mark all as read" button yet (most likely because the devs had to crank out these stars quick to keep the WP:CUSTOMWATCH people settled down at WP:VPT. I'd be happy with either this or stars and bold if that could be fixed. --Nathan2055^talk 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Quite good looking and doesn't hurt my eyes with bold. Soft, does thy work. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. If we do end up choosing a new style, I'd go for these stars. Anjwalker ^Talk 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Concur with all above comments. I'll need to play with this, to find out what works best for me, but I'll start with stars. --LCE(talk contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Stars. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. 2nd choice —Ruud 11:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looks quite good --Mjs1991 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. That looks very nice and would be good for the newbies, and the rest of us. Openskye (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I love this one. I saw the stars appear a few days ago, liked it, but the bolding is exceptional, obvious, and easy on the eyes. If this can't be default, at least it should always be an option—though I'm also open to changing the color of the star. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Most pleasant and easy to work with ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 15:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've tested it and looks better, also highlighting the new revisions that you haven't read is very useful. --Hahc21 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please avoid anything that only involves a color change... those of us who are color blind really struggle with the kinds of color changes that are common. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. To my eyes, the easiest to work with. If this were available, I would enable it for my account. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC) In fact, I just did! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Typography. (Fallbacks through Subtle underscore, and Colour change (if colours are worked on prior to implementation, the proposed colours are dodgy), finally plain). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. This would be my 2nd option if it has to be opt-out--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am using this and it is not distracting and I can easily identify the pages which I haven't visited since the last change. Very accommodating to the eye. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Non intrusive. And less likely to push away newbies who don't know where to go and ask what it means before they find it out by visiting the pages. I'm using a lime underline, that is even less intrusive than the grey and minimally visible. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Non-intrusive. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. This seems like the most acceptable default, if this is the route taken. The bolding, changing colors and adding stars - way too intrusive for a relatively minor feature. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. If it has to be opt-out this is my perfer method it is the most less intrusive of all and would still achive the goal set out--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Joy. Regards SoWhy 12:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per above. MER-C 02:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Undecided about required opt-in vs opt-out. In terms of formatting, I'd prefer underscored as it is less 'in your face', particularly for those articles/pages I am not worried about reviewing all the time. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Personally I prefer the green stars, but I think the subtle underscore would be the most acceptable default, per all the above editors who say it is non-intrusive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I agree, not too annoying. David1217 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per above. —HueSatLum 21:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Least intrusive. The bold option is a usability nightmare. --Wolbo (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Seems the most sensible. --MuZemike 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. The bold is too intimidating. --Tea with toast (話) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. The most easily noticeable for me and visibility friendly. Fylbecatulous talk 20:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Appears least distracting to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. I might actually use the feature with this option, but the others are so distracting I never would. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Not so distracting and keeps a useful feature, but could still have an opt-out for editors which even then wouldn't want it. CT Cooper · talk 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. This is the only implementation I've seen so far which I would be happy to opt into. Italics aren't really clear enough, colours could be problematic for the colourblind, and some of the other implementations are a bit too distracting. —WFC— 20:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Seems the best to me. As others have noted, bolding the non-viewed changes and fading the viewed changes causes the viewed changes to fade away. Colors (and enhanced links) may be invisible to the colorblind; stars and/or c should be located among the other flags (m/b/N/...) if at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. 1st choice —Ruud 11:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. I like – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 23:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. To address the concerns about accessibility and intrusiveness that have caused many people to oppose the change in general, this option needs to be made as unobtrusive as possible. The subtle underlining seems to me to fit that bill. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. - jc37 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kilopi (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have been trying every possible combination of the above. My preferred (and implemented) choice is span.updatedmarker { background-color: PeachPuff; color: #000000; } combined with strong.mw-watched a { font-weight: normal; color: #000000; background-color: PeachPuff; } - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. -GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 12:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Hd a bit of a think about it.. I definately do not want a few of them, such as the "c" and the fading of ones you already been to, but I'm quite content with whichever of the other options are chosen. I do think this one is the best though (based on examining the samples and imagining it is full scale though..).--Coin945 (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Olivechamp (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. 3rd choice —Ruud 11:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. I like – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 23:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I like this idea... and maybe it could be used in combination with the green star. Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Not a fan of the green stars - they seem like just extra clutter to me. YMMV, of course : ) - jc37 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. - jc37 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, non-obtrusive, but still highlights new changes Chris857 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I like this too. Plain black text is the most readable font--otherwise we'd all use bold or subtle underline or orange or whatever for body text. And it seems to me that the unreviewed change listings are precisely the ones we most want to read easily, not the listings of changes that we have already reviewed. So any appearance modification should be applied to reviewed changes, not unreviewed changes, and faded seems one good way to do this.--agr (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. The functionality is useless and distracting for anyone using the watchlist to decide which, relatively few, changes need to be visited. This is the least distracting of the options but would give usable information to anyone who wanted it. The visual semantics are similiar to the change of colour of a visited link. --Mirokado (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Informative but non-intrusive. My pick of the bunch. BlackCab (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think this is admirable, simple and unobjectionable.Waysider1925 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. It is more intuitive to have old stuff fading away. --Tea with toast (話) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. After trying "Faded old changes" for a while, along with experimenting with bold and stars and all that, I find this one to be the cleanest and most intuitive. You also don't have to look for any signs of changes. You know instantly what's been changed and what hasn't, without the messiness of bold or the difficulty of underscoring. Best of the bunch, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Not good on white background; further, harder to quickly track past changes. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How is it no good on a white background? I have a white background and I can see the grayed out text just fine. What's harder to track past changes is looking for the subtle underscoring (above choice). because the text remains the same. Here, one swift glance tells you, boom, you have three changes. Works for my eyes, at any rate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11. This is great, it's a more subtle change than a lot of the other suggestions so should go some way to appease those voting against enabling the feature altogether. waggers (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes, it looks great to me..It'll be good.  Brendon is here 12:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agreed on this being the least intrusiv. (2nd place for underscore, 3rd for highlighting.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. This is my first choice. Most of the other options add visual clutter to the watchlist, but this one makes it easier to spot the changes without adding adding any distracting clutter to the page. Also, I agree with the other users who like it for being both subtle and intuitive. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. My only choice. Best of the bunch. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. I like this better than anything else. Maybe there could be choices between them in preferences, but I think this should be the default. Easier to recognize new changes than anything else. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 23:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I already voted for this one, but I would like to add that after another week's worth of using this, perhaps the faded text is too faded. As a quick glance for recent changes, this option is excellent. But once I've visited the page and I need to return to a previously viewed page via my watchlist, I'm finding that it actually does get difficult to read with a list of faded pages in a row. Something I hadn't thought of. I still think I prefer this over bolding, so I'm merely making a comment that this option could still be improved some. In addition, maybe the font shrinkage shouldn't occur (would help with reading grayed out text as well). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. — Edokter (talk) — 19:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was thinking maybe u for updated or unseen... but c for changed us probably better. As with the green star, this is a specific but small icon that would appear along with and m or b. As I mentioned on the talk page, another option would be a black star... but I'm currently leaning towards c. Yaris678 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I like the thought of n as it has similarity to m and thus is the least out of place looking. Plus add the little squiggly lines (which I assume is because of the tooltip) and we're in business. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. With an explanation tooltip similar to bot edits. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Least obscure. Best for both color-blind and totally-blind editors. With the tooltip, this is also the most understandable for new editors - the easier and friendlier we make it for new editors to come up to speed the better. Lentower (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. 4th choice —Ruud 11:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly describe your preference. Extended descriptions should go on the talk page.

1. jc37 09:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: The talk page has two additional options: Fading; and highlighting (rather than bolding); which I think should also be under consideration here. - jc37 09:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks! : ) - jc37 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Any except bold stars, italics, or highlight. JJB 17:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
4. --regentspark (comment) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am opposed to using stars. These should be reserved for featured articles. BollyJeff | talk 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Stop fiddling with things that are not broken and focus on more essential tasks (database delays, file moves are glitching with 50/50 chances on Commons, etc, etc). The old watchlist was fine. The wikimedia software was glitching too often in the past few weeks, and those experiments with switching on/off the watchlist features only made it worse. Materialscientist (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   FYI, it's two different groups of people. The watchlist-bolding system has been in place for a long time, it was just disabled here on enwiki because of concerns the high level of activity here might blow up the database. But I guess the sysadmins decided it wouldn't be a problem and flipped the master switch in the configuration to turn it on here (since we asked them to). All the activity "switching on/off the watchlist features" since then has been the work of admins here messing around with MediaWiki:Common.css to change the styling between "no change" various other options. Anomie⚔ 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, but Materailscientist is correct, these things are tampering. There are bugs that stop pages being parsed properly, and break stuff. Tampering with settings unless the project requests it is a waste of everyone's time. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
   

7. I would like to throw in that we use something that involves more than just a color change. I am color blind and most of the time I cannot see the difference between the color changes for a link that has or has not been visited... or changing from red to green... Something that also (or an option for color blind people) that makes unvisited pages bold, or italic, or underlined... or some other visual cue would be much appreciated. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. No preference. And I guess I am not the only one. Hey wait! how did I get on this page.... Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
   
9. I would actually prefer it how Google does 'priority inbox' -- I'd like a section at the top with all the changed pages, and then below that in a separate section, all the unchanged pages. Zad68 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]