About [[MediaWiki:Watchlist-details]]

The wording is unfortunate because people may press the "watch" button at a user talk page and wonder why this number is incremented despite it was just a talk page. The concept that only pages are watched and talk pages always have the same status is not properly communicated. I propose the following wording:

$1 pages on your watchlist. A page and its talk page is only counted once.

or

$1 pages on your watchlist, not separately counting talk pages.

or

$1 pages on your watchlist. When watching a page, its talk page is automatically watched and vice versa but only one of them is counted.

or

$1 pages on your watchlist. Talk pages always have the same watch status as the pages they belong to and are not separately counted.
RE rillke questions?20:43, 16 April 2013

I don't think it's a good idea to turn the system messages into documentation. The wording is correct, because you can only watch a page (and its talk), and when you click "watch" on a talk you're still watching the page (and its talk). So what's confusing is perhaps the watch button on talks, and that tooltip (or the message appearing after clicking, now in a JavaScript box) could be improved?

Nemo (talk)02:42, 17 April 2013

The wording is correct but the situation is potentially confusing. It would be also ok if the feedback messages MediaWiki:Removedwatchtext/en, MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext/en will say that both, the page and the talk page are watched. The tooltip is MediaWiki:tooltip-ca-watch and MediaWiki:tooltip-ca-unwatch. I wonder if {{TALKPAGENAME}} and {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} could be used for clarification.

RE rillke questions?21:35, 17 April 2013
 

Adding separately (proposal #2) to the message will not overload the message, won't be wrong and IMHO it would be also an improvement.

RE rillke questions?21:48, 17 April 2013

I'm closing this thread for now as it's inactive. If you still think it should be changed, please file a bug in MediaWiki>Watchlist so that hopefully someone else will weigh in.

Nemo (talk)20:19, 21 July 2013

Because Rillke felt boring and isn't annoyed by this system (this here for discussing changes) that is obviously not working, he opened bugzilla:53098 over such a stupid tiny issue.

RE rillke questions?15:00, 20 August 2013

Thank you for taking the time to do so.

Nemo (talk)21:24, 20 August 2013