Talk:CentralNotice

CENTRAL NOTICE:

Banner Requests

Campaign Calendar

Usage Guidelines

Admin Interface

Interface Documentation

Archives

---

1, 2

Other archives: Talk:CentralNotice/Calendar/Archive.

Central notice in en on cywiki

Once again, no notice was given to me of the English-only banner on the top of all Welsh Wikipedia pages. I've received several emails from the community who are very offended. I've also spent two hours searching where to translate it. What a waste! I'm now going to suggest that NO banners to be placed on Wicipedia Cymraeg. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Llywelyn2000. If it was the Wikimania banner — you can now translate it. Have no idea why it wasn't made translatable from the start, I rather share your state of mind. If it was some other one, please point which one. --Base (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Base; yes it's the Wikimania Banner. Any idea where can it be translated? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It now has the "help with translation" link in it. Here [1]. --Base (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. How can we ensure this never happens again? Any ideas? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If the link isn't compulsory per CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines, maybe you could start a related thread on the talk page (and maybe link it from other more prominent discussion venues). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference, the banner did not just lack the link (or mor precisely it did have it but the code responsible was commented), but the text strings were hardcoded in it, so just providing the link by itself would do nothing. The guadilenes actually already do have requirement of not setting English banner to people who user non-English project/UI. --Base (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Banner overload - update guidelines?

Our original guidelines weren't intended for so much activity. I believe these guidelines should be revised and have more structure. They are too vague in certain aspects. We can categorise them depending on who requests them, and keep certain annual events like wikimania permanently on calendar and plan accordingly.

There seems to be a banner overload that happens intermittently. And people requesting these campaigns, don't usually have an idea of the impact and reach of their own requests. I am currently in a country with a population of over 1 Billion, a high or even normal priority is serving up way too many views than it should. In times of multiple campaigns running concurrently, this is becoming a really pestering issue. It will certainly affect future campaigns and fundraising plans, if we burn these views out so quickly. We get several million views more in large countries than we should. We need a guideline that takes in to account the size of the country and the number of ongoing or planned campaigns - If 2 or more banner are supposed to be run, lower banner weightage should be considered, or we can limit certain community campaigns in a month to a certain number. We need some solution here, this is going to be an issue sooner or later. The staff should take a look here. If no one comments, I am going to propose and make some changes here. Theo10011 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. These banners should be the exception, not the rule. It might be worth creating some other space in the interface for smaller campaigns to be displayed - maybe a line of text under the user links, for example? But the current overload of banners is getting a bit ridiculous. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(Moved from RFH) Basicly yes, the problem is brightly there, and I as a user executing some of the banners putting in recent months am not very happy about that. But. What I am not sure is how to make rules more strict without scaring "clients". What I mean is that it is already not uncommon for people rather than meet the requirements we set here on Meta to just put a banner locally in SiteNotice where they can do whatever they want (links to third party sites unwarned, third parties' trademarks as the most blatant abuses from my POV but not the only ones). While for some communities we can appeal with the fact that we have geolocation and SiteNotice does not, in case of many other languages that is not really a problem (my native Ukrainian including), as most of the language's speakers live in a single country anyway. Another good thing we have is banners' rotation, but this is performable via scripts locally too. I think a reform would be a go only if we adopt some global rules concerning any banners, rather than just CentralNotice. --Base (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose some amendments -

• Limit community campaign number to 3 (or 2) in a month
• Strictly enforce a limit of 2 geolocated campaigns
• Staff campaigns won't be affected so any community limit has to take any ongoing or planned staff campaign in to consideration
• Better calendar and scheduling - update calendar with annual campaigns like wikimania, elections, fundraising months marked off
• lower visibility/weightage of campaigns - 50% or lower for geolocated
• avoid high visibility all together
• Most campaigns originate from either chapter request or commons - better co-ordination with both
• Avoid large, bold and bright banners in lieu of more direct smaller banners

Some thoughts to start thinking along. Theo10011 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking only for the campaigns I run for IdeaLab like the current one, I think it's a good idea that these centralnotices are limited to 50% or lower, and I'm always OK with deferring to a banner for a community event or program to be shown more often than one for Inspire. I think a calendar is a great idea as well to help plan and negotiate conflicts ahead of time. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think WMF and Community has to find balance, instead of requiring community to sacrifice for WMF. — regards, Revi 15:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Most WMF campaigns can be suppressed without damage. Nemo 21:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should ban CentralNotice usage altogether outside of the annual fund-raiser. I'm very sick of the constant use of "leaderboard A" to advertise discussions that I don't care about (harassment campaign, picture of the year, etc.). Nobody is saying these aren't worthwhile projects, but they don't need to be advertised to every user in such a prominent place. Try MassMessage or e-mail or something less annoying. Stop abusing a tool designed to be as in-your-face as possible.

Alternately, we could implement opt-out/unsubscribe lists for CentralNotice, similar to what horrible companies who won't take "no" for an answer do. You would end up requiring users to opt out of specific categories of notices they don't want to see (e.g., surveys, contests, fund-raising, elections) rather than doing the right thing of not spamming users with noise they didn't ask for. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but I think we should try to prevent overload in the first place, rather than letting people opt-out. There is the occasional interesting/important one for them to see; we just need to figure out a rate at which they are not too painful and disruptive. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree that we should prevent banner overload. Especially for banners which are enabled for logged out users we need unmistakable restrictions, we shouldn't set too much banners for logged out people (of crouse for logged in as well). --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree for banner that have an impact extensively in several languages and projects and countries and absolutely for banner put for very long time, but open to a more rational use for some banners that have an impact in limited regions or for limited projects and limited with the timeline. I have seen banners put on centralnotice for several months and the worst banners have been that of the community (some banners put on projects for three months). About Inspire campaign I am in the IEG too and I would also bring here the other positive aspect of this campaign and basically that some people (not being member of the community) apply for a grant thanks to the banner. The biggest benefit is that these are people not member of the wikipedian community and they bring a valuable "different" point of view and new blood. It's difficult to do outreach with other tools (like mass-message), because it's an "out"-reach. --Ilario (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem with taking a lot more consideration to banner overload etc., but would objects to any suggestion that limit CN to fundraiser only. MassMessage or emails etc. are suitable for certain type of users and campaigns but totally unable to reach out to certain type of editors/readers that CN would. One additional suggestion I would add is minimal scheduling notice. There's rarely any campaigns that are truly unforeseen and urgent. Seeing repeats requests for CN by 24 hours time or even NOW on RFH is not unusual but definitely should be. -- KTC (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Reading through the comments here - 1) I agree we need an alternative to CentralNotice. But as admins here, we answer the requests and turn-on most of these campaigns ourselves, so it's a bit of our responsibility to be good caretakers of it. 2) Banning all CentralNotice usage doesn't seem like something we can just do ourselves? There are certainly more stakeholders than just us - chapters, committees, annual projects, groups - I imagine a lot of people will have an earful to say if we just unilaterally initiate something like that. It's going to need a bigger discussion and consensus than just admins here getting together and deciding to ban all community usage all together. 3) We can't really do anything about WMF campaigns, they built this originally and are the primary users of it, and honestly, I don't want another round of staff vs community faceoff that go nowhere - These are all bigger decisions that require wider community input and consensus. If anyone wants to pursue that, they should start an RfC. However, the intention here is far simpler, we as admins here, can tighten up the guidelines for centralnotice usage and try to discourage longer, more visible campaigns - I think that is an achievable goal that won't require a lot of consensus. All the comments so far above seem to be in agreement to a certain extent about limiting usage.

So, Here are some ideas/suggestions to add to the guidelines and for admins to keep in mind -

• Exclude Meta, campaign only on content projects - The campaigns include Meta a lot. Meta isn't a content project, all other projects are. There isn't likely to be a lot of views generated through meta. How about adding a guideline to limit campaigns to content projects only? (Also mention there that project-specific campaigns should use site notice or local banners)
• Soft-limit/hard-limit - Set a monthly limit on campaign number to 2.
• Campaign length - 1 week, maximum 2 weeks. Month-long campaigns should be really avoided.
• Banner weightage/priority - High priority should never be used by community campaigns, Medium for important and short campaigns (1 week or less). Low <50% (~30%) is the ideal priority for community campaigns.
• Better calendar/scheduling - We need a better scheduling system, wikimania scholarship, elections, fundraising should be permanently on an annual calendar and should be given priority. (this is a project one of us has to undertake to make a better scheduling system, any takers?)
• Smaller banners - perhaps we can suggest smaller banners or text based messages. The loud, colorful, persistent banners really detract from common usage of the projects. They make reading articles difficult with a distracting banner. They should be much less distracting. More Suggestions to achieve this are welcome.
• Alternative - Admins themselves and guidelines should suggest alternative communication methods, massmessage and email are alternative that should be suggested to people requesting these campaigns. If WMF staff or any community member, wants to come up with a new way for Mediawiki where local solution can pick up the slack for these banners, it would be appreciated.

Those are a few from the top of my head. Please offer feedback and finalise these soon. This is turning in to a real problem. The wle campaign has been running for a month, and I remember dismissing it at least 2 dozen times in the last weeks - I can't even imagine how those banners would seem for regular logged-out users. I really hope we can avoid situations like this in the future. Any others suggestions? Theo10011 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

June 31st?

Not found in my calendar.--Tekstman (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests process

I might have missed something but did we have a vote approving that new process? It seems to be more than just changing the venue where the requests are proceeded so it requires it, IMHO.
It is not very clear as well in my opinion. If I am going to create a campaign on behalve of some project I am active in how should I proceed? I am more than welcome to have it reviewed, but as I do not need another Meta/CN admin to actually create it some steps a little bit not adapted to it. (e.g. It might be much easier to actually create a banner and link it than to specify what are the landing page and stuff). It also removes some of the flexibility in terms of creating banners for approved campaigns in short time. E.g. on Wiki Loves Earth some countries provide data needed for the campaign for their specific country just several minutes before the start, while WLE campaigns as whole were known to be expected to run. On CEE Spring I had been creating new banners for Ukrainian campaign on very short notice like several mins before the week (wasn't able to get new banner text from the other local orgs faster), though the campaign itself was approved. Actually in such cases when the review was going on on other pages (there are such for WLM, WLE, Wikimedia Ukraine campaigns) even if with shorter time, I can probably just apply IAR and proceed as usual, but I'd rather we have some common exceptions to the process written in its page itself. I do not want to have a feeling that what I am doing is an abuse. --Base (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Base. You haven't missed something, there wasn't a vote approving the process. I reached out to the CN and Meta admins who use Central Notice to get some input. What was fed back was that generally having some sort of formal but lightweight approval method was a good thing. What we have is fairly basic but the current form isn't something we are stuck with. It most definitely can be improved with time and feedback and by more people than just myself. I would like to find ways we can provide additional things such as regular banner metrics etc. as part of the process. What this is deliberately meant to do is to make project leads think about their use of CentralNotice more than just a last minute thing. We need to use CentralNotice in a more efficient and effective manner. People need to think in advance about how they are going to use it. It's such a powerful tool than people need to start seeing it as such.

For the time being there are three campaigns with exceptions relating to their organising for this process. WLM, WLE and Fundraising. For these, approval will simply be broad approval for the campaigns since they have such complex setups. If project leads get campaign approval then I see no issue with any CentralNotice or Meta admin dealing with last minute changes or campaign setup whatever their relationship. I see no issue with you assisting with the CEE spring banners all I would ask is that they request the banner more than a week in advance which is not a particularly strenuous requirement. You do some excellent work with CentralNotice and I definitely want to support you in doing that as much as possible. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Curious about the request process. I requested a banner for the international LGBT writing weeks and did not get respons yet. Do I need to wait a little longer? Can I place it in the calender? --Denise Jansen (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

French WikiCon

Hello,

I don't see the banner for the French WikiCon. It is mentioned in the calendar. Could someone look at it? It's very important to publicise the registration as it's the first time that a WikiCon is organized in French!

 Done Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Jseddon (WMF): but I don't see the banner. I've tried with different accounts and on different browsers. Pyb (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It is now disabled so that is not strange. Jseddon (WMF), I would have enabled it but I am not sure about having that link to a non-Wikimedia site without any explicit notice about it and its ToU/PP. Well and also that pointer cursor and translatable message for alt text of the close button look a little bit weird but are much less concerning things. --Base (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Emergency request based on community processed request for sitenotice

Hey All,

Just want you all to be aware that I have processed an emergency request due to an issue with the korean wikipedia not showing sitenotices to mobile users. It was based on a request on the local wiki as well so as far as I am concerned the need for local involvement has been met. I've logged the request and marked as completed for transparency CentralNotice/Request#Emergency_-_KoreanWikiConference. Currently this process is not designed for such requests so I was bold and felt this was the best way to handle such a request. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

We should have a formal guidelines for these 'urgent' or 'emergency' requests - they should have prepared in advance, so I tend to say NO to any future "emergency" requests. (Though I'm not a CN regular.) — regards, Revi 09:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So in this instance they actually weren't after a central notice banner in the first place and were in fact only after a sitenotice which they requested through their own wiki. This got enabled however there was a technical limitation they discovered whereby sitenotices hadn't been enabled on mobile webviews on the minerva skin front end. In this instance the mobile banner was only created to supplement a community decision in lieu of the technical issues. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do agree however that if Central Notice banners are the main intention then they should in fact go through the 7 day process. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I know that the sitenotice is there by myself being kowiki admin. However I believe all CN request (regardless of their previous status) must be held for '7 days community consensus' period, regardless of their excuses. I already know the requester was told about mobilefrontend's ability to show sitenotice (wgMFEnableSiteNotice), and it should've been done this way, not using CN. If they wanted to use CN, they should have used CN at the first place, through correct process. — regards, Revi 11:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Usage Guidelines - New Draft

Could all CentralNotice admin's review the new draft of the CentralNotice Usage guidelines. For comparison: CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines. Much of this is simply either a rewording or codifying of existing best practices. Comment here, let me know if any of you have any issues. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will leave this open for comment for two weeks before adopting the new draft. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, the guidelines are good but in my opinion it penalizes smaller communities where the use of the centralnotice may be crucial to consolidate geographically spread users. Probably an easier guideline for banners impacting on smaller communities makes sense. In my personal context I run banner for Italian Switzerland and this banner has an impact in more or less 1 million of potential readers, but the use of the centralnotice for me is vital because I cannot use Italian Wikipedia because I will impact on 80 millions of potential readers to inform only 1 million, it doesn't make sense to apply so strict rules. In addition the rule per geography penalizes the Switzerland where we have four different communities and sometimes four different banners. Applying the rule of 2 banners per geography, we will fill the limit quickly. Probably using the terms of "campaign" instead of "banner" and giving easier rules for smaller communities or for low impact campaigns may give more efficiency to the banner and may help smaller projects and communities to reach out their potential users. --Ilario (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Ilario, so I have modified this particular guidance. The limit now only applies for any one language + country + ***NEW*** project combination. This wording allows much more flexibility and lessens impacting smaller communities. Seddon (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would separate here this other comment because related to another topic. It's good to give a notice to the community but some chapters run some campaigns following the annual plan which has been approved by the FDC. In this case there is already a top-down approval, if we include also the chapters agreement that some chapters have signed and allows them to use the Wikimedia projects to communicate their initiatives, this new rules would generate a worst impact in the realization of the annual plans. In my opinion there should be a second option beside the approval of the community and it could be, for instance, a banner related to the activities indicated in the annual plan of a chapter or approved already in the chapters agreement because they already have a top-down approval. For instance recently in Wikimedia CH we will run a "call for projects" to invite people to submit their proposals, but this initiative is part of the annual plan and agreed with the FDC. The chapters for instance plan to run at least one survey per year, but the approval is already included in the annual plan. I think that, if included there or if supported by the agreement with WMF, there is no sense to ask for a second approval. At the moment the centralnotice seems to be a good option to run campaigns by wikimedia affiliated, by these rules invite them to use more the sitenotice of any single projects. This will create an overlapping of competencies and for some countries also two banners at the same time from two different sources. --Ilario (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. Thanks for opening the conversation about this draft. I have a few questions and comments to share and look forward to your feedback.

re:Banner requirement
How do you define “Wikimedia Owned”? Does this also affect surveys done via the WMF Qualtrics account? What about other service sites a Chapter might have a contract with, like portals to attract new editors or to generate project ideas.

re:Campaign requirement
We think “Limit - Hard limit of 2 campaigns for any one language/geography/project combination.” needs more clarity. You might want to add “2 campaigns at the same time”.

re:Approval
We’d like to second Ilario here: Please let us not over complicate or duplicate approval processes; especially not those that are already covered via the annual plan grants process or the chapters as well as the fundraising agreements. A good coordination is essential, of course, but I would advise against introducing a double approval.

We are also worried about having just one point of contact for survey approval. We are, for example, consulting with your Learning & Evaluation team when it comes to survey design and would prefer not to introduce an additional step into this process.

That “advocacy requires explicit community approval” is already current practise and should be followed without exception. So thanks for making this so clear. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Nicole Ebber (WMDE)::

Wikimedia Owned - I have changed this to Wikimedia Controlled. Domains do not have to be controlled but the landing page content must be controlled by a Wikimedia Entity.

Campaign requirement - To be honest this wasn't a rule created by myself and stemmed from the central notice admins. I think the limit applying per month was missing and was a key part of the guideline.

Approval Currently central notice usage isn't, as far as I am aware, actually something thought about by the FDC and until very recently usage not considered as a "resource" by the grants staff. I have put in specific exemptions for fundraising by the WMF and Chapters based on Ilario's feedback. With regards to survey approval, this approval should be sought from Learning & Evaluation in all cases. I have no issue in survey signoff being sought directly from chapters.

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Seddon! Sounds good; we appreciate your thoughtful response. Cheers, Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The new process has clearly failed, as evidenced by the lack of transparency in what campaigns have been run after June 2016: CentralNotice/Calendar/Archive#2016. --Nemo 08:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

21 days approval timeline

To add this 21 days time period to the 7 days of "community discussion" is way too much. Such a simple process of approving campaign, especially if it related to affiliate one (such as local events and conferences, writing contests and such) should not take more than 3 days. 28 days process to approve each banner is not effective work in anyway we will look on it. We should make process proccess easy, while we keep them under regulations - but not to make them too bureaucratic --Itzike (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Too many centralnotice banners for logged-in users

I am receiving centralnotice banners for both the FDC and the CC 4.0 change. In my opinion a single banner is already a bit pushy, and two is over the line. I propose that after a logged-in user dismisses a centralnotice banner, that campaign is never to appear again for that user, even after the user logs out and clears cookies and then logs back in. --Pine^✉ 19:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

While I deeply value being informed about ongoing editing campaigns through centralnotice banners, lately I have become frustrated with the persistence and number of notices. I second Pine's suggestion to limit banners for logged-in users. In the meantime, in Preferences under the Gadgets tab (on en.wiki), you can check the box for 'Suppress display of CentralNotices'. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment Gobonobo. I am hoping that eventually the Newsletter Extension will allow for more announcements to be nicely organized in newsletters, and that fewer notices will appear in CentralNotice banners and watchlist notices. --Pine^✉ 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please be diligent with HTML authoring

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T123314

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T151480

I'm looking at this WAM banner, and I notice that it doesn't use the default close button, causing it to not have a label that can be used by screenreaders etc.. It also includes an image, without specifying it's width and height (this causes reflow problems in the DOM structure). The images used also don't specify alt attributes... (either empty alt to ignore the image or an actual descriptive text for the image). This happens again and again with central notices, the Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/WMNL_register_WCN_2016 and the CC4.0 banner have similar problems... Please take better care of authoring and reviewing the HTML of the banners.. This code deploys to virtually ALL pages and should be of the highest quality. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

And using the unsupported <center> tag... Useless transparent tags... There are better ways to do this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

+1. Helder 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

CentralNotice/Request#Czech_Wikiconference_2016

Hello, what else needs to be done to get CentralNotice/Request#Czech_Wikiconference_2016 running? It's now a few days past its scheduled start date and I do not know if anything is missing in the request or whether the reason it has not yet been approved is simply the missing attention by a central notice admin. Experience from previous year suggests that the banner would greatly help Wikimedia Czech Republic to attract participants for its annual conference which is about to start in merely two weeks. I will greatly appreciate the help of whoever is able and willing to assist. Regards, --Blahma (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(uninvolved) And another banner using the deprecated hideBanner() function... Please make a change similar to this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Request vs. approval

Hi, do I need to fill out a request if I don't need approval for a campaign (under "online Fundraising Banners run by affiliates") and I don't need help to set up the campaign (as I am a CN admin)? Thanks. -- Samat (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF): Samat (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Uniformed services (India)

There is no response from the central notice admin even after repeated pings for the part 25 days. I request @Seddon (WMF): to put in his views. All the requested changes have been made. The banner request can be referred at CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Uniformed Services (India). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk — mail) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Geo-targeting states

It does not make sense for people in San Francisco to see events from New York City, 3,000 miles away (4800 km). The geo database has State level detail so I filed T152297 for exposing this information. Dispenser (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Calendar disjunct from reality

The calendar has become useless: most campaigns which are currently enabled (wikimaniareg2017, WMDE_twl_voting_2017, CelticKnot, FoP_ZA, wle 2017 tw) did not bother to update the table. I'll update the header, which does not conform to best practices and guidelines.[2] --Nemo 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)