Template talk:TFA-editnotice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated Template-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wording[edit]

"visible to everybody in the world" vs the original "live"? I prefer the original. It seems more accurate in a way (at least "everybody in the world" seems like an exaggeration), and the new version seems to me possibly, ever so slightly, to encourage vandalism. Rd232 talk 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A very, very good point. Switched it to just "visible" - I think that's more comprehensively understood than "live." ~ Amory (utc) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Trouble with just "visible" is ambiguity - is it clear enough that it'll be visible to anyone visiting that page? it could be visible to just the editor (if you really think about it the ambiguity goes away, but many won't and may get the wrong idea). I chose "Live" because I thought it did convey that, and I thought it was a term people would be familiar with from TV. And I guess I came up with that precisely to avoid saying "visible to everyone", per the logic above. I don't know how else to convey that without over-emphasising the point in a way that may encourage vandalism. Perhaps "part of Wikipedia", or something in that direction? "part of the encyclopedia"? Could also be considered to be encouraging v... Perhaps a more radical change of wording? Rd232 talk 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree that it's ambiguous, but you do make a very convincing point. Do you think that "... your changes will instantly be viewable by anyone" is still too enticing? ~ Amory (utc) 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I think the word we're looking for is "public" or perhaps "published". Rd232 talk 06:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! ~ Amory (utc) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the extra line breaks? It just makes it taller, and the first added line break introduces a grammatical issue because the sentence "You really are editing it ..." is broken off from the "it". Rd232 talk 13:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto-speedy tag[edit]

To avoid a large number of later-blanked editnotices being created and to ease navigation for existing ones, why not add some code for auto-tagging it for speedy deletion--I used <noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d}}|2010-05-15|This will auto-tag it for speedy deletion tomorrow.|{{db-G6}}}}</noinclude>

on yesterday's, but it could easily be configured as a parameter (like delete=no/yes depending if there is already an existing notice) using the existing {{{day}}} param for something like <noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{#time:d}}|{{{day}}}|Foo|{{db-G6}}}}</noinclude>

Or use {{CURRENTDAY}} for consistency rather than #time. Does this sound OK? fetch·comms 00:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can we use an svg like File:Information icon.svg to avoid the blurry left icon? fetch·comms 01:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
For those who want to set this template up early, I think it's possible to use #ifexpr instead, and only show the g6 if the current date is later then the tfa date. fetch·comms 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
YesY Did that. Doesn't quite convey the same message, but I think the scaled png was just too ugly to display at the top of a FA, of all things. Amalthea 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it doesn't. The eye-catching orange colour was more important for me than being very smooth (always looked fine to me anyway), as was distinguishing the notice from MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. Can we not find or make an acceptable version of the orange icon? Rd232 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Alright, I'll try. Amalthea 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no good at this. But at least it isn't blurry:

Amalthea 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about my speedy idea? It seems no one has bothered to delete the now-empty editnotices from old TFAs, and this would eventually make it harder to locate editnotices actually being used later. fetch·comms 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
My comment on that got lost, so here it is again: It doesn't work, I'm afraid. It will display the template, it will claim to be in the category, but if you'd actually look into the category, it won't be there unless someone null edits the page, to cause a database write. But see #Proposed alternative display below, seeing that there are no objections I'm about to bring that live. Maintaining the template subpages is easier than the current system, so there's no reason to wait for a bot. Amalthea 09:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording 2[edit]

The current tone taken by the edit notice comes off as accusatory and assumes the editor-to-be has mal-intent (i.e. "don't waste your time"). Not only does this present a challenge to and further encourage vandals, it goes against WP:FAITH. A neutral style of writing should be used, one that assumes the reader is here for benevolent purposes, along the lines of:
You really are editing it and if you press Save, your changes will be public — immediately. Don't worry, our volunteers work tirelessly to ensure the quality of your (and our!) hard work; vandalism will be swiftly reverted and malicious users prevented from editing, so you can rely on a positive editing environment in Wikipedia. We look forward to your contribution!
Anthiety (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Malicious" isn't the best word either, though. I think that "please do not waste your time and theirs by saving changes which do not improve the article" is less accusatory than calling others malicious. fetch·comms 09:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The implicit subject in "please do not waste your time" is you, the reader. Saying "malicious users [will be] prevented from editing" is a factual statement that makes no assumptions (and only implies the reader if he or she considers themselves to be one); thus it is more neutral. At any rate, it can just as easily be edited to read: "vandals [will be] prevented from editing"; the important thing here is to remove the accusatory "please do not waste your time". Anthiety (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anthiety, 25 May 2010[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please change:
Vandalism and test edits are swiftly removed by Wikipedia volunteers, so please do not waste your time and theirs by saving changes which do not improve the article. Of course constructive changes are welcome – but know that vandals will be blocked from editing.
to:
Save, your changes will be public — immediately. Don't worry, vandalism will be swiftly reverted and malicious users prevented from editing; our volunteers work tirelessly to ensure the quality of your (and our!) hard work. We look forward to your contribution!
Because it is more in the spirit of WP:FAITH and uses a less accusatory tone. Especially, the phrase "please do not waste your time" implicitly labels the reader as a would-be vandal and may encourage real vandals. See "Wording 2" on the talk page for a full explanation.
Anthiety (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the spirit of this request. The current notice does seem rather unprofessional and accusatory. However this should be discussed, so I have disabled the request for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is all the discussion it needs by now, no one seems opposed. Anthiety (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed alternative display[edit]

I propose we display the TFA editnotice this way: we create Template:TFA title/date for each day (instead of the editnotice for each article), editing of the subpages of this template are restricted to admins (and account creators) using the title blacklist, and we display the TFA editnotice using Template:TFA title/{{date}} in template:editnotice loader{{Editnotice load}}. This is faster to set up for each TFA and additionally, provides a way for users to know TFA's title through a template, Template:TFA title, so they can for example embed recent changes to it, etc. Cenarium (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Place it in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main instead: {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{TFA title}} | {{TFA-editnotice}} }}
The page titles can be created/maintained by one of the FA helper bots down the line. But yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I would do it, too. Maybe group the FA titles of a month together into one subpage, with a switch statement, for less clutter, but that's a matter of taste. Amalthea 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll ask for a bot to do it, I suppose the bot can detect the daily TFA title through parsing the TFA template for the first link and/or link under 'more'. Do you think we need to protect the subpages with the titleblaclist (I don't know how to do that) ? We'd need to grant the bot with account-creator rights then. Cenarium (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism wouldn't do much damage there. If we keep the pages for historical reasons though, with one page per day, nobody would ever have them watchlisted, and there should be no reason to ever change them, so I'd still protect them. You should probably bring it up at the BRFA. The titleblacklist modification is easy, just say the word. Amalthea 12:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Cenarium, thanks for letting me know about this idea.
I agree that some auto way of doing it would be great; I've been manually doing most of them for the past week. So, yes, I support the idea. Let me know if it goes to BRFA or whatever; I can even write a bot for it myself if noone has something handy.  Chzz  ►  18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have requested it here, still no response. We can start using the new system without waiting for a bot though.
Amalthea, that was also my thinking wrt protection. I'd appreciate if you made that modification please, I guess it's better to have it done before deploying the new system. Cenarium (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
YesY Done. Amalthea 09:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
... and YesY switched to that system. We have no bot yet, but it's already less work than before to create the TFA's notice. Amalthea 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and the bot is live now. Cenarium (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No link to block[edit]

Shouldn't there be a link to WP:BLOCK? –dffgd 23:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor tweak[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please change <tt>Save</tt> to <tt>Save page</tt> to properly match the text shown on the save button. A minor point, but best to avoid any potential source of confusion when dealing with newbies. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Thank you[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you, for the work helping produce such a useful tool, much appreciated! User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for edit proposals[edit]

There have been comments above and on the related Template talk:New release editnotice regarding the current wording. As this template is fully protected no significant wording changes can be made even by an admin without consensus, or lack of opposition to a proposal.

I propose the following three wording changes:

1 Vandalism and test edits are swiftly removed by Wikipedia volunteers, so please do not waste your time and theirs by saving changes which do not improve the article. Be aware that vandal accounts are blocked so the IP address cannot be used to edit Wikipedia in future. Constructive changes, however, are welcome.

Put the vandal statements together, and put the constructive statement on its own - more logical. Change "know that" to "be aware" - more formal. Add link to WP:Block - useful. Change "will be" to "are" - move from a future intention to an ongoing actuality. Add an awareness of the consequences of being blocked - that it's not just the account, but the IP address. For some people this will mean they are completely blocked from creating another account and editing Wikipedia, unless they change IP provider. Change "of course" to "however" - the positive statement is in contrast to the negative.

2 You are actually editing it and if you press Save page below, your changes will be publicly viewable – immediately. Please double check that your changes are correct and constructive.

Simply adding the advice to check. This finishes off what is implied by the opening words of the template. Makes active and clear what the advice actually is.

3 There has also been concern that the template is edged slightly toward assuming bad faith, and that the positive statements are too little or too late or awkwardly worded. For example the "We are excited to have you contribute!" right at the end. I think that on the whole the template is appropriately informative, so much so that the "We are excited to have you contribute!" sits badly, making the template appear a little insincere. The template is essentially not about welcoming someone to contribute, it is about advising them to be careful. There is nothing wrong with being factual and informative, and no need to apologise. On the whole I suspect most people prefer a neutral informative sign to one that sends out confusing or conflicting messages. I suggest cutting "We are excited to have you contribute " SilkTork *Tea time 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose all of the above. Point 1: More formal is not better; mentioning IP address is confusing (many won't know what it means) and also misleading (implies it would be blocked forever); we don't want to send newbies to WP:BLOCK if they're not actually blocked or threatened with it - we want them to go to the sandbox or tutorial or talkpage. Moving "constructive" down weakens its significance, as if it's an after thought, and changes the emphasis of the whole thing, and makes the whole notice much more about Don't Do That. Point 2: unnecessary and slightly patronising. In the same boldface as the "actually editing" warning it's also too prominent, and if moved to the next paragraph, it's duplicative. Point 3: we absolutely want something that conveys some sense of an enthusiastic and lively community, and not a webpage that you happen to be able to edit. Rd232 talk 17:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Display of template to autoconfirmed users: is it necessary?[edit]

Methinks autoconfirmed users are already aware that they are editing Wikipedia and most are probably aware of the issues surrounding vandalism. So why display the obvious to autoconfirmed users? Just saying. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As an editor of over seven years, I find the notice annoying and mildly demeaning.—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thirded. There should be a way to hide this for autoconfirmed users without each individually applying a CSS fix. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. At the very least, I feel that there should be a hide button to temporarily collapse the notice, as it takes up a large amount of screen real estate. Habstinat (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this template for the first time, over two months after this discussion. Maybe if no one cares enough to address this request, then we ought to just delete this eyesore. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I assumed I was being shown this message by mistake. Why do autoconfirmed users need to be provided with links to the sandbox and the tutorial? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotes around article title[edit]

Hi. Can someone please add quotation marks around the article title? It currently reads like this:

Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 is Today's featured article

It should instead read like this:

"Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962" is Today's featured article

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 20:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template header[edit]

This template comes across as incredibly patronising. As noted above, the "We are excited to have you contribute!" seems awkward and insincere, but if there's no consensus for that to be removed, I think a small step in the right direction would be to replace the hysterical "You are editing Wikipedia right now!" with "You are editing {{PAGENAME}}". The body of the template could then begin "If you press save page below...", etc. If I've understood it right, this template is designed to offer helpful advice to new editors, so the link to WP:TFA is unnecessary. If I'm wrong about that, the header could read "{{PAGENAME}} is today's featured article/list" instead. Either way works. The point is to be a little more straightforward and professional, without having to resort to exclamation marks and obnoxious bold text that imparts absolutely no useful information. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think our goal with this message isn't to be serious and professional, but rather to be welcoming and encouraging. I think the theory is that the bold exclamations will help new editors be bold in editing. And the fact that they are editing Wikipedia as a whole, and not just any particular page, may be exciting for them. The TFA page should be changed to talk more about what featured articles are, and the process articles have to go through to achieve the status. You are right in that the page as it stands is unnecessary for new editors to look at for advice, but that can be changed. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013[edit]

The text parameter of the editnotice template currently has the following source code:

| text = "{{PAGENAME}}" is {{#ifeq:{{{list}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured list|Today's featured list]]
  |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article|Today's featured article]]

For better capitalization, I think it should be changed to:

| text = "{{PAGENAME}}" is {{#ifeq:{{{list}}}|yes
 |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured list|today's featured list]]
 |[[Wikipedia:Today's featured article|today's featured article]]

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - that's how it's shown on Main Page ("From today's featured article", "From today's featured list"). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 April 2015[edit]

Could we replace the Wikipedia:VAND link to Wikipedia:Vandalism? Redirects in piped links always bother me... Eman235/talk 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2017[edit]

[[file:note icon.svg]] --> [[file:ambox important.svg]] 95.49.251.199 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a rationale for the change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2017[edit]

Please change Save changes to Publish changes to match the interface. Home Lander (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)