Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Template

We now have Template:Invitation to edit. I've kept the format as it was including the green text which I quite like.

Would a small icon be appropriate to accompany the text? What about a box around it all? Anything to further distinguish the message from the article's content might be a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate boxes and icons! Sorry. Just me, I guess. But I like simple. I was hoping being green would distinguish it enough from the article. Anthony (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sure you will get other views after this is implemented! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is highly unlikely to remain a line of green text. Anthony (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I favour the single line of green text, as opposed to an icon, a box or a different font because:

• When I go to a webpage looking for information, I don't read the peripheral text. I go to the title and then straight to the main text. I can't say how common this behaviour is, but my guess is pretty common. I would almost certainly read an invitation just above the main text, differing only in colour. I'm wondering even if it needs to be a different colour. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding the message

By the way, would this message be disabled for logged in editors? How about a way of removing the message for readers who are irritated by it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be looked at. We could easily add a custom CSS class so that individual editors can hide it. I believe that showing stuff only to unregistered users is technically possible but this is beyond my skills currently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question posed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking it could be visible only to IPs on all unprotected pages. Anthony (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have had no success in getting this solution implemented. All it needs is someone with the relevant experience to write the code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Martin. Thanks for trying. We might have more success once the trial results are analysed. Anthony (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sun. Oct. 31. 2010

I am certain your description of how you "go to the title and then straight to the main text" is how most people read articles. I have observed from the comments I receive from my readers that they - and thus the average reader per se - do share the reading behavior you describe. When I am in a hurry I also do my reading like this as well. So I'll say it's safe to assume you're correct, it is a common way to go about reading.

About color, font, and box... I think a slightly different color might be a good idea. The green you've used works for me also. Boxing might be an idea as well, just to signify the text is not an extension made by the author himself.

I would stay away from different fonts, though. It's rarely a good idea to use various fonts when there's already a wide variety different aspects and details present as is the case with Wikipedia articles and pages.

The hidden page was actually hidden for me until I wrote the above comment and saved the page.

The problem with vandals, or possibly with people who mean well but who's contributions, texts and references, are downright incorrect, or disprovable, is hard to get around. As I see it there's only one way to deal with it, but it will be time consuming: Every article and it's content must be verified for as far as a verification is possible.

Completely safe it can only get if nothing in the text that relates to ongoing research and tentative hypothesis, etc., are denied entry (or deleted upon detection). However, I think such an approach ought to be out of the question.

The word 'vandal' in itself suggests a person who does not even want to contribute, they'd here to disrupt and mislead, and the writings of such an individual should be fairly easy to spot, no?

Would it be possible to set up and provide some sort of program or tool that could help track the activity on the individual articles' pages? If the original author of an article was to have the responsibility of keeping such a tool enabled for his text, his article, or the page where he wrote the initial text, that would be a start. A way to follow up and take some form of action when a 'vandal' or incorrect/misleading text was entered would have to be implemented, and perhaps a database of sorts would be helpful also - since it's always good to have some material to refer to, plus it might become of use for other types of research.

I regret I have next to absolutely no knowledge about programming or even common use of a computer, so I cannot offer much help in regard to what I've suggested, should it be found to be a good idea. AmaDraque (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation design

Suggestions to improve the invitation

(Please add your brief suggestion)

1. Centre "Click to find out how"? (Presently it's justified right.) Done.
2. Make it so the tutorial stays open when you navigate away from the page and return? Anthony (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Link or collapse

Question: is there any need to link to a separate page with the tutorial? An alternative idea would be to have a collapsed box, such as the following: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You can edit this page. Click [show] to find out how.

Getting started Click any of the [edit] links within the article and type into the box near the bottom. If you add a claim, or substantially modify one, cite a scientific article or textbook that supports your claim. (See below.) Spelling and grammar corrections or stylistic improvements are welcome and need no citations. When you're finished, briefly describe what you've done in the "Edit summary" box and click "Publish changes". The editors at WikiProject Medicine will happily answer any questions you may have. Be guided by these important principles No original research Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not advance a new position using new analysis or synthesis of published material. Reliable sources Ideal sources for biomedical claims include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party sources, such as reputable medical journals, textbooks by recognized experts, or medical guidelines and position statements from reputable expert bodies. Use your own words Accurately reflect sources but do not copy chunks of copyrighted text. In terms of expression, your contribution should bear little resemblance to your source. Citing sources Content not accompanied by an inline "citation" (a footnote marker like this[14] linked to specified pages in a journal, textbook, etc.) that supports it might be deleted. Copy the style of other references in the article and type your reference between <ref> and </ref>. When you publish your work, the footnote marker[14] will appear in the text where you typed the above, and the full reference will appear at the bottom of the article in the list of references.

Nice. With the tutorial sitting on the page to be edited, it's probably not necessary to link to the article's history, edit and talk pages, obviating the need for wizardry. Anthony (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done the necessary wizardry so that now the tutorial will link to the current article and its talk page automatically. So all you need is to add {{Invitation to edit}} at the top of the article.

Do you like the appearance of the collapsed box? We can tweak the colours of the font and background. Also it may be useful to have the whole tutorial on a background colour to distinguish it from the article when it is uncollapsed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm awed. Sure. Did you have something in mind for the color scheme? I haven't started on the new list yet; I've been on the move all day. Hopefully tomorrow. Anthony (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've improved it even more: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Anthony (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to say I think the green is a good choice: hopefully it will stand out without being too loud or clashing with too many infoboxes.--SabreBD (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from FT2

(Copied from FT2's talk page. FT2 is working on this project.)

It's nicely done, simple and effective when collapsed. Two concerns worth considering though:

1. Tagging an article as "you can edit this" may imply that others cannot be so edited. You might potentially get strong opposition for this reason.
2. The template when expanded is way too long and detailed.

Because of these I'm not sure what wider feedback will end up being. But as a concept - it's definitely worth experimenting and trying out! Nice work :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Both very good points, FT2. Thanks so much for the feedback. Anthony (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(End of copy)

I've removed about a third from the bottom. But it's still much fatter than James' preferred version. Anthony (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would be tempted to change the sentence "Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable." to something like "If you make a mistake don't worry; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable." The reason being I think even new users should try and make sure their edits are correct before submitting them. I know it's not much of a change and essentially says the same thing but to me the previous version sounds like it's ok to make editing tests in article mainspace. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good. Done Anthony (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Study Design

Aim

I'd like to compare the IP edits for the trial month with the IP edits for the same dates in previous years in terms of percentage of all edits, percentage of first time edits, type and quality of contribution, and percentage that seek help or use the talk page. This should indicate what effect the invitation has on IP behaviour.

I'd also like to follow the experience of each new IP editor, and make some generalisations about the new IP editor experience. This last is with a view to maybe improving that experience. But that's an afterthought and not really part of this process. Anthony (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Updated Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of articles in the trial

It could be a good way of encouraging anonymous readers to contribute. However I don't see much point in trialling it on a single page. Go for twenty pages across a range of topics and see what happens. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree we could start with 20. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc James suggested we do it to "a few," too. So I've altered the project page accordingly.

That would involve tailoring a mini-tutorial for BLPs and another for the rest. Can someone add and subtract whatever is necessary to turn the present (Biomed) mini-tutorial into a BLP mini-turorial and post it here: Wikipedia:Invitation_to_edit/tutorial/BLP? I'm happy to try, but I've never done a BLP, and it's probably best if someone familiar with the genre does it.

Anthony (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What articles should be in the 20?

The existing list below is being reconsidered, with a view to including only high-traffic medical articles with high numbers of good-faith unique IP editors, and low levels of vandalism, that need work, and that weren't protected during the trial dates in previous years. Anthony (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Anthony (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some time now, and would like to commence the trial on 20 medical articles. Anthony (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You might consider choosing some of the pages being reviewed for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. (The list at that page is a bit out of date; it'd be better to choose some of the more recently listed pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. I've asked at the medicine project if there is a comprehensive list of medical articles. The people at Database reports should be able to generate from that a list of those most frequently edited by IPs. Anthony (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JFW at Wikiproject:Medicine directed me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Statistics and from that MZMcBride provided the number of unique IP editors of C, B, GA and FA class medical articles for the last 12 months.

Those articles with over 200 unique IP editors in the last 12 months are

1. Human_height (384)
2. Methamphetamine (376)
3. Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder (315)
4. Eye_color (315)
5. Black_Death (297)
6. Heart (296)
7. Psychology (292)
8. Bubonic_plague (288)
9. Obsessive–compulsive_disorder (282)
10. Vegetarianism (278)
11. Digestion (258)
12. Pregnancy (243)
13. Hair (234)
14. Tuberculosis (223)
15. Bedbug (222)
16. Color_blindness (216)
17. Anorexia_nervosa (214)
18. Dyslexia (212)
19. Leprosy (205)
20. Sickle-cell_disease (200)

I have culled the following to keep the number down to 20: Louis_Pasteur (317), 2009_flu_pandemic (266), Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States (218), Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act (239), and Dream (257). Unless there is any objection, I'll notify editors on the talk pages of the 20 articles that it is proposed the article be part of this trial. Anthony (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You have picked some controversial disorders which I think is why they get so many IP edits. Might be better to start with less controversial stuff? Maybe put this on some of Wikipedia Med's most visited pages per here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of including controversial disorders. I believe the sooner new editors to such articles know about WP:MEDRS and WP:OR, the better; and the less time we waste trying to explain they can't put whatever they like into a health-related article. The main effect I hope to see is an improvement in policy compliance from new editors on such pages. Anthony (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think a better metric for choosing candidates for the invite would be pages with the most unique IP visitors rather than editors. Jojalozzo 14:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the trial articles historically have a high volume of constructive (presumably new) IP editors, it will be easier to detect a significant change in the number of such new editors during the trial period. Anthony (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the problem with having editors start on controversial pages is this may discourage them. But I agree a mix maybe useful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that unique readers is more relevant that unique editors. For one thing, if a page was semi-protected recently, the number of editors will have been artificially suppressed. For another, we want to turn those readers into editors if we can.

If you're going with editors rather than readers, then a better measure might be 'number of unique editors whose edits weren't removed as vandalism.' Editors who are adding "Johnny loves drugs and sex" to articles are not likely to become productive editors any time soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'll make high-page-view the primary parameter. Low level of IP vandalism is already a parameter. Your mentioning page-protection, Whatamidoing, made me think I'd better check any trial articles weren't protected during the same month in previous years. Anthony (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and selection of articles

I can see what you are trying to do here and applaud the sentiment, but before deciding which articles to choose on the basis of the number of IP edits, it may be necessary to work out how many of those are pure vandalism. Vandals probably cannot be turned very easily into productive editors. I was brought here by a notice on the Black Death talkpage. That page has suffered some very heavy vandalism in the past and has been a semi-protected on a number of occasions page. Once school terms begin in the western world, it will probably need to be protected again and so may not be the best article for inclusion on this list. Now I have found the project I will keep an eye out for anything constructive I can do to help.--SabreBD (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Can someone post here the (rough) school holiday/vacation dates for UK and USA please? Anthony (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

School holiday: UK/USA/Canada all start the school year in or near the beginning of September. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The same in the UK and most of Europe. Usually ending in the middle of July.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anthony (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an edit invitation is unlikely to convert vandals to contributors and that vandals should not be counted as potential editors. I'm not sure why we're looking for IP editors in any case - aren't we looking to turn readers into editors? A better metric for choosing candidates for the invite would be pages with the most unique IP visitors. Jojalozzo 14:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the trial articles already have a high volume of constructive (presumably new) IP editors, it will be easier to detect a significant change in the number of such new editors during the trial period. Anthony (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO if we have pages that are not of the best quality and get a lot of page view than we many have a good chance of attracting good editors.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Give me 12 (this will take a little longer) 48 hours and I'll contrive a list of 20 low-vandalism, high-constructive-IP-edit, high page-view medical pages that need work. Anthony (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding school holidays, is it safe to assume that this year, and for the last 5 years, the school term began before 15 September in North America and Europe? Anthony (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New list of trial articles

In light of the above, I propose the below list of trial articles:

Selection criteria:

• High average daily page view stats
• Stub, start or C class
• Low vandalism

1. Borderline personality disorder (7540) (C)
2. Syphilis (7521) (C) Excessive vandalism
3. Heart (7028) (C)
4. Pleurisy (7000) (Stub)
5. Scabies (6961) (C)
6. Eye color (6761) (C)
7. Obsessive–compulsive disorder (6739) (C)
8. Liver (6390) (C)
9. Plantar fasciitis (6296) (C)
10. Lymphoma (6194) (C)
11. Bronchitis (6101) (C)
12. Conjunctivitis (5822) (C)
13. Pituitary gland (5855) (Start)
14. Fistula (5674) (Start)
15. Vertigo (5511) (Start)
16. Eczema (5240) (C)
17. Narcissistic personality disorder (5156) (C)
18. Placenta (5057) (Start)
19. Pancreas (4694) (C)
20. Jaundice (4675) (C)
21. Gallbladder (4666) (Start)

Definition of success

I do not currently see a clear way of determining success in from trial. While the idea makes intuitive sense there are to many different factors to compare one year to another and the small trial size is unlikely to make a detectable difference in these numbers.

Comments from IPs who begin editing might be the best we will be able to gather. If one serious editor joins us that would be a success. But how would one determine this? Often people start out as an IP than create a user name. The two are not linked and thus we would be unable to follow them. Many people edit more than one topic area so if they start here who knows if they do not go off and contribute to a different area.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistical power is why I was going for articles with an already high number of IP editors. But the point SabreBD makes about avoiding high vandalism sites for the trial is sound. I'll rebuild the list to include only "high IP" articles that are low in vandalism.

All I hope for from this initial study is see if there is a significant rise in vandalism, new IP editors, quality of new IP editors' contributions (was their contribution incorporated or reverted), and visits by new editors from those articles to help pages. Anthony (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a frequent editor of bedbug, which is tangentially medical. I'm not sure how it rates as a high-IP/high-vandalism page, but I'm concerned about selecting pages with lower vandalism for this study. What if notices like the one proposed here decrease vandalism for low-vandalism pages, while increasing it for pages already high in vandalism? If it has that effect, I'd really like to know. Public awareness of bedbugs is increasing as bedbug infestations themselves increase. There is stigma attached to infestation. Not exactly a promising combination.

Study design, continued

A design that might work would be to select 20 articles. Than place this on 10 of them for one month and not on 10 for one month. After this time period switch and apply them the other way around for a month. This will allow you to compare both before and after and one group of 10 with to one group of 10 without.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the null control. Select 10 more articles that don't get included to check for extraneous changes. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of comparing IP behaviour during the trial month with IP behaviour during the same month in previous years, to avoid the possible variable of seasonal differences: holidays and weather, mainly. The null control in that case would be IP behaviour on 20 similar articles without the tutorial during the trial month, compared with IP behaviour on those articles during the same month in previous years. Then subtract any behaviour change in the null control articles from behaviour change in the ones with a tutorial, for the "treatment effect." Does that make sense?

I'd like to know (1) how the percentage of first-time editors during the month, compares with previous years, and (2) how the quality of first edits compares with the quality of first edits in previous years. That is, does the invitation encourage more first-time editors to take the plunge, and does the tutorial improve the quality of first-time edits? Anthony (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dublin City University student assignment

A teacher at DCU has set an optional assignment involving editing Wikipedia mental health articles, so I have offered to mentor the students, using this project's mini-tutorial, and am modifying the tutorial in light of this experience. See: User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Dublin_City_University_students. Anthony (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, bad implementation.

I applaud the effort here, but the use of a template in the mainspace is very problematic. This proposal will meet with some rather stiff resistance if/when an attempt is made to apply the template to more articles.

Besides, is the ultimate plan here to have a bot run around and make (currently) 6,908,097 edits (one for each article)? The whole issue of template usage just doesn't seem like an optimal solution. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the plan.

Before you removed the template, the plan was to see whether a more visible "edit this page" button made any difference at all. I thought the test case—involving a single page—was a reasonable choice, and it was supported by the editors at both WP:MED and the individual article.

I'm disappointed that you decided to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ohms law. Presently we are at proof of concept stage. After a few more weeks, the invitation will be trialled on 20 or so medical articles. If the project survives that (and it may well not if it pumps up vandalism) we'll go to the community for permission to run a larger trial. Your objection seems to be against using this type of template in mainspace both for the trials and for wider implementation, but you support the concept. I'm not very tech savvy, can you think of a way to test the concept using some other means?

And, so we can understand the problem, can you point us to the discussions surrounding the consensus that this style of template does not belong in the mainspace, please? Thanks. -- Anthony (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is eventual support for using this more broadly it would make more sense to add it to an interface message (e.g. MediaWiki:Tagline to avoid having to add it separately to each article. I have restored the tutorial to Pain as there has been sufficient support for this trial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you guys look at my contribution history you'll notice that I'm only an occasional editor here, any longer. Frankly, I just don't care about the project space any longer (or talk pages, for the most part). I do applaud the effort, as I said in the beginning, but I'm here to tell you that for my part I will remove the sort of template that you guys are trialing here, every time. Your local consensus, within your insular little group, that this is a good idea, just can't change... well, tradition, basically. This implementation is intrusive, and just not very suitable for widespread use (which seems to be something that none of you have considered.

Regardless, I've already spent far too much time and effort here. Good luck with your future efforts.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've just looked at some of your edit history and see you've done a lot of template work and MOS work. So I'd genuinely appreciate your advice about what exactly is the problem here, and how we should proceed. Your input on these matters would be very valuable. I should reiterate, none of us here could give a toss whether the final roll-out (should it occur) involves a template, but a template seems the most efficient method for the trials. Anthony (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There are scads (I'd say reams, but there's no paper here, you know?) of discussion about this in the village pump archives. and, I mean, there is a lot of discussion about this (check out the Village Pump: Proposals in particular). I'd dig stuff up, but my time here is extremely limited now. The thing is, there is a rather prominent edit button on every single page already (aside from those pages that are locked, where it's an "view" button/tab). The appearance and location of the edit button/tab can be changed. As a matter of fact, it was recently changed as part of the Usability Study (which rolled out the Vector skin). In my opinion, the effort here would be spent more effectively by contributing to the Usability team's efforts (see: Wikimedia Usability Initiative).

Regardless, even if it's just for a trial, the use of a template for this is just a Bad Idea™. :) Templates are easy to create and all, but if the plan is to not use them then... don't.

Anyway, gotta run. I've used all of my available editing time replying to this now, rather then copy editing articles. Hopefully I can get a few mainspace edits in, still. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

About "intrusive": I don't suppose you're running NoScript or some such script-blocking program? If you are, then the template appears as a very large block of green text. Most people, however, see a single light green line, about a quarter of an inch tall. It's hard for me to see that as being "intrusive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Going Dutch

This line of text was added to the invitation template

[[nl:Sjabloon:Sjabloon:Uitnodiging om uit te breiden]]

So now a line of Dutch text appears beneath the invitation when you put the template on a talk page. Is this usual? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! While you're here, Martin, would you be able to fix the tutorial so that "discussion" in the first sentence links to the talk page of whatever article the invitation is on? Presently, it's just a wikilink to Talk:Pain :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Wizard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what was appearing below the invitation: nl:Sjabloon:Uitnodiging om uit te breiden. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tutorial design

Suggestions to improve the tutorial

(Please add your brief suggestions, and discuss lower in the thread.)

1. Add a pale background colour and maybe a subtle border to distinguish the tutorial from the article text? Done.
2. Move

   "Content that does not conform to Wikipedia policy, or that is not accompanied by a "citation" (a number like this linking to a textbook, journal, etc.) might be deleted by other editors."

   to under "How to create a citation." Done.
3. Rewrite the audio for the video clip to include more information.
4. Doc James suggests the tutorial should be much shorter, like this. Anthony (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The tutorial should be customisable to its article

Another problem I have with bedbug is frequent WP:HOWTO violations. In these cases, it's the desire to be helpful that's at the root of the problem; many newbies offer up their little tidbit of advice while showing little promise of becoming competent editors any time soon. Yakushima (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we'll need to trial this on high-vandalism articles before it is rolled out to lots of articles. Perhaps we could include a couple of such articles in this trial. Or do a trial aimed at assessing the effect on vandalism in a separate study, after this one.

If each article has its own tutorial, as is presently the case, maybe you could include WP:NOTHOWTO in those tutorials where it is appropriate. Anthony (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed an WP:Editnotice at Talk:Bedbug. Articles with specific non-vandalism problems might benefit from targeted notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The video clip

I've included a 2-minute Wikimedia Foundation video about verifiability and neutral point of view. I think the audio is problematic, and would prefer to rescript it, using a different NPOV example and info on MEDRS. There is quite a bit of time at the beginning which could be put to better use, too. Anthony (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the clip. Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The size of the tutorial

Doc James has proposed a briefer tutorial here.

The big advantage of this, as I see it, is most people on the page will read all of it. Should we replace the longer version with this shorter one, cut some of the longer version, leave the longer version, other? Anthony (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep the tutorial very short. This is to get people to make there first one or two edits. They can learn about controversy latter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps it could begin with something really short and clear that gets them on their way, and has less essential stuff below it. The order in which info is presented, will be very important here. Anthony (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate tutorials?

Just wondering why we need to have a separate tutorial for every article. Is there much that needs changing in each case? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't do we? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Each tutorial links to its article's talk page and edit history. I'm assuming, if this gets rolled out, some wizard will be able to automate that for whatever article the template is on. The template is just a line of text at the moment. I was thinking of troubling the technical people with that task if the results of this trial are promising.

On a vaguely related matter: I do think being able to customise the tutorial to suit the particular needs of an article would be a useful feature. Anthony (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes page and project specific material are best. If this succeeds and is rolled out to other projects customization will be important.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But at the moment, if all that is changing is the links to the article and its talk page, then it makes sense to use a single tutorial page with a little "wizardry". That way you can continue to develop that tutorial as your discussions develop, without having to copy the changes on umpteen different pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. But I'm no wizard. Anthony (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Full article in a sandbox

I have been a editor on Wikipedia for about 5 years now, and i have always found it a very confusing environment. There are no or very few easy to use and easy to locate instructions on how to edit Wikipedia articles, or who to ask for help. There is a vast range of brain numbing Wikipedia jargon used by so called experienced editors which have little or no meaning in the real world, but seems to mean everything to them, and they always talk to other editors using this nonsense, and failing to explain what they mean in everyday language, which can be very difficult in itself due the existing cultural variations that exist around the world when using English. Added to which If you share a communication disability like mine then trying to understand how to work on Wikipedia appears to be overly complicated.

Why not create a Sandbox version of the articles to be included in this trial, which would allow each new potential editor to experiment, and make mistakes etc so that they can begin to understand how edit a Wikipedia article. This may also be useful for existing editor, due the lack of a easy to use and easy to understand comprehensive "How to use Wikipedia" manual. This is how many web site design services operate so that you use a trail version to see how things work, and if you want to use that option. dolfrog (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] Andrevan@ 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Dolfrog, the "how to" information needs to be much easier to find and understand for casual editors. Hopefully a mini-tutorial attached to each article will make a start on that. Anthony (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We could always include a button such as the one below which will help a user put a copy of an article into their userspace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Simplifying

I agree with others that the template should be shorter, although in general sounds great. Some sentences that could be simpler:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. The full policy is "No original research".: Actually quite redundant with the sentence prior to it.
• Ideal sources for the biomedical details and claims in any article include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. The full policy is "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" (MEDRS).: It is probably giving exccesive detail. I believe that without such details the message is better catched, and nevertheless the full policy is always there.
• Use your own words: Accurately reflect what the expert sources say but do not copy their text. In terms of expression, your contribution should bear little or no resemblance to your source text.
• Content that is not accompanied by an inline "citation" (a footnote marker like this[14] linked to a specific page of a journal article, textbook, etc.) that supports the content, might be deleted by other editors. The full guideline is "Citing sources".

--Garrondo (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be bold, Garrondo. [edit]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Garrondo (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You may edit this article

I've reverted to the original invitation, "You may edit", for the trial. It's a simpler, more straightforward invitation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that it's the ability rather than the permission to edit which needs to be highlighted. As one implies the other though, it doesn't really matter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. "May" means permission and "can" means ability. I would prefer to emphasise the former. But I'm really not bothered. Do you think lightening the background colour would be an improvement, Martin? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "can" is what we should stress; plus "may" just looks and sounds awkward in that sentence. More general critique: the drop-down is weird looking. How long has the format been reviewed? Blurpeace 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can someone point me to the consensus for this trial? The VP proposal, after a quick skim, was a bunch of objections to the idea being fundamentally flawed and this talk page shows no better. You can count me in the critics' boat. Blurpeace 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Blurpeace. Given your and Martin's comments, I've changed to "can". Any other specific criticisms you may have of the format will be seriously considered for future trials.

The Village Pump proposal discussion you refer to involved 12 editors. Two (Mr.Z-man, Cybercobra) were skeptical; three (Tisane, Philcha, HiLo48) were non-committal; and seven (Anthony, Yair rand, Dmcq, Doc James, MSGJ, ɳorɑfʈ, Axl) were supportive. No one opposed a trial. The trial has also been discussed here here and here at Wikiproject Medicine, and on the talk pages of each of the trial articles with the only opposition coming from two editors who in principle oppose the use of templates for this purpose. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I've solicited further input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style since it seems relevant to the MOS folks. Thparkth (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently broken on mobile wikipedia site and mirrors

The articles tagged with this template appear like this on m.wikipedia.org (Wikipedia for mobile devices) and Wapedia:

Eczema on the m.wikipedia.org

Eczema on Wapedia

In addition most Wikipedia mirrors have the same problem:

[2]

[3]

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a serious problem. Are you saying the tutorial displays, even if you don't click "show"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It does, yes, which is ironic on m.wikipedia.org because the article text itself doesn't even display by default ;) Please note that I'm not using this as an argument against this trial, I just think it should be fixed pretty quickly. Thparkth (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll pull them in half an hour if someone hasn't chimed in with a miracle cure. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a way in CSS to mark the content as collapsed that will work with the mobile sites. I'll try to get some expert help. Thparkth (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you had to remove it - I tried asking on the Village Pump (technical), on IRC, and on the enwiki-l mailing list, with no response. You know I'm not exactly a huge supporter of this idea but this isn't the way it should end - I hope we can get some assistance with how the template might be work better on the mobile site, and move on with the trial. Thparkth (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I really appreciate it. All gone (sigh) It's 2:00 am here, so I'm going to catch some zzzs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed here, at Village pump (technical). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, it would have been much easier to temporarily blank the template ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

F*#!  ;) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you're doing things over at the template. Let me know if you get it sorted, and I'll put them up again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The fix by TheDJ seems to have worked. (Perhaps Thparkth can confirm this?) I think you can safely add it back now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for Thparkth's opinion and will add it back in a couple of hours unless I hear otherwise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Yes it has been completely fixed on the offical en.m.wikipedia.org site, and also on Wapedia which is quite heavily used. I'm extremely impressed. To be honest I wasn't all that concerned with the template being made invisible on those pages - merely being collapsed would probably have been something most people could have lived with - but having it gone entirely is the best possible outcome, since there's no way for anyone to edit via those interfaces. Great job. Thparkth (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Restored. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Borderline personality disorder" is semi-protected

I'm not sure if that happened before or after you added your template, but it makes the template sort of a lie... User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it's been semi-protected indefinitely since October for "excessive vandalism". Better check the rest of your list, and make sure you know _why_ they appeared to be non-vandalized articles... User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving this comment. I've removed the template from that semi-protected article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Obsessive–compulsive disorder. Everything else seems to be okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I thought semi-protected pages had a little padlock in the top right corner, like this. The problem with these two articles is too much unsourced original research and opinion, which is the target of this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Invitation to edit

Template:Invitation to edit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I object.

I've come here from the notification posted on Eczema. I object to the use of this template on that article - indeed, on any article - because it is fundamentally ill-conceived.

1. Articles historically have contained three kinds of information; the article text itself, permanent "metadata" about the article, which is typically quite hidden at the bottom, and temporary warnings banners which are usually very visible at the top - "unsourced" "advertisment" etc.

All of these things are necessarily part of the article itself, because they are specific to each article. This new proposal wants to add something else to some articles; permanent tutorial information about Wikipedia itself. There is nothing article-specific about this information. There is no reason why the information needs to be included at the article level. Adding it to specific articles is a clear example of solving the wrong problem.

If you feel that it is too hard for new users to learn how to add information to articles, then this is something that should be addressed at the site level, either in design or in the functionality of the MediaWiki software itself. Cluttering up article content with generic tutorial banners is deeply contrary to the established principles of the project, and you should expect stiff opposition if it is rolled out more generally.

2. The task the template attempts to achieve is impractical. You cannot teach people how to add reliably-sourced and referenced content in a few paragraphs. I do not believe that a brand-new editor would have any hope of successfully following the instructions in the "Citing sources" section, for example - it simply assumes too much pre-knowledge. Just this sentence - "Copy the style of other references in the article" - would be the "I give up" point for many people.

3. The template itself is not well-designed from a user interface point of view. "Click for simple instructions." But you can't click where it says "click" - you have to figure out that it wants you to click "[show]".

4. Having the template at the very top of the page indicates that it is one of the most important things you need to know about the subject of "Pain". But in fact it is completely unrelated to the subject of pain. I understand that there is a desire to encourage more people to edit; nevertheless recruitment of new editors is a secondary goal relative to producing a useful and usable encyclopedia entry. In this case I feel the two goals are in conflict.

Thparkth (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for, that and your contribution to the mini-tutorial.

1. You are right, integration of an invitation to edit and a brief tutorial represents a shift in the nature of the interface with users. The premise is that not enough readers are editing, too many readers find the transition to editing baffling, and too many first edits to medical articles are poor.
2. The purpose of this trial is to test whether this will increase the number and quality of first edits to medical articles.
3. &   4.   I agree. The "invitation" needs more work and if this project goes on to a wider roll-out, hopefully it can be made more elegant and a bit less in-your-face. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to this discussion due to the template added to the Eye color article. My take? I'm not certain that "not enough readers are editing" is a problem. From my experience, the majority of vandalism and inaccurate information added to Wikipedia are by IPs and newly registered editors. They edit articles without adding sources, etc., etc., etc. I'd rather them find out that they can edit by just viewing the "edit" option in the corner of a section. On a more aggravating and personal note, the "You may edit this article" phrase furthers the notion that Wikipedia is unreliable because "anyone can edit," when really anyone cannot edit; vandals cannot, and users who add unsourced or inaccurate information are generally reverted as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Thanks. You've nicely summarised the key misgivings I hear expressed (most of which I share) about this project.

• Do we need more good-faith editors? Many (including me) believe we do. All of the articles I work on need more eyes and constructive input. I just noticed this from The Economist today: "The number of regular contributors to Wikipedia’s English edition peaked in March 2007 and has since declined by a third; the number of new contributors per month has fallen by half." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Will this increase the amount of vandalism and, if so, will that outweigh the benefit of any additional good-faith edits? This series of trials should answer those questions. The present 20-article trial is on low-vandalism articles. If the results are encouraging, above it has been suggested we then trial on high- or higher-vandalism articles to specifically test the effect on vandalism.
• Will this increase the amount of inaccurate, poor editing? The project is aimed at producing the opposite effect and, if it does increase poor editing, then it will be canned.
• A blatant "You may edit this article" banner makes Wikipedia look unreliable to those who don't know vandalism and poor editing is usually promptly reverted. Another sound point. Once we know whether the invitation increases the number and quality of first edits we'll be able to consider whether the benefits outweigh this perception effect.

Thanks again for your insightful observations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and explaining. The Eye color article typically has a lot of vandalism or unsourced information added already, though, on and off. But, yes, we'll see how this goes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that highlighting 'the notion that Wikipedia is unreliable because "anyone can edit"' is a benefit, because vandals can and do edit. We don't catch them all, and we certainly don't catch them all before anyone sees the changes. I requested (and was denied) semi-protection for an article that had attracted an anon who kept adding plausible-sounding, but actually seriously incorrect information (the difference between 10% and 90%). Even though the vandalism was normally reverted within minutes, it's a high-traffic article, and I estimated that a dozen readers received the wrong information each time. Reminding readers that someone else may have edited the article is not a bad thing in my mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Silly me. I thought that ALL articles on Wikipedia were editable, not just the ones that people put this highly annoying banner on. In fact, the Main Page says so right in the main header. This is an unnecessary template for all the reasons that Thparkth and others have mentioned. I admire the intention of getting more visitors to become good editors, but overall I think this implementation is a bad idea. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cerntainly not: See WP:PROTECT for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the more people know about how Wikipedia works the better it will be for everyone (especially since a lot of physicians use Wikipedia for patient care) [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Results from the Pain trial.

Has anyone analyzed the results from the trial on Pain to determine if it is worthwhile to extend the trial to all these extra articles? Thparkth (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is on 20 articles. Looking at the volume of data from the pain article it does not appear to be enough to see if a difference was made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It was put on Pain just to check basic function on an article. The tutorial was rewritten as a result, changing ==Subheading== to <b>Subheading</b> because in the former its subheadings were appearing in the article table of contents. Pain is a quiet, stable article, with about 2,800 hits a day. The template appears to have had no effect whatever on the number or quality of first-time edits, or any other editor behaviour. The 20 trial articles are of lower quality and higher hit count.

This does represent a fundamental change in the presentation of articles, so won't be rolled out without broad consensus. This is a trial, not roll-out. If the effect is negative, such as an increase in vandalism but no compensatory improvement in number and quality of first edits, the project, I assume, will be canned. If not, further small trials will be conducted to test the effect on high-vandalism articles, high edit-count articles, etc. You may be right, this strategy may be ineffective or counter-productive. The only way to know is to trial it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is not my concern. I don't believe it will make a difference to this. For what it's worth, I think the outcome will be no difference whatsoever. But even if it works, it will still be a bad idea because it is a fundamentally broken approach to data representation. Tutorials about using wikipedia do not belong in wikipedia article space, and I am certain that you will find immense opposition to this when and if it is discussed more widely. I really feel that there has not been sufficient consensus (exactly two editors supporting your initial proposal) or sufficient public discussion for even this limited trial. Thparkth (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "exactly two editors supporting the initial proposal" is misleading. It is clear from previous posts on this talk page that more than two editors support the trial. I don't think the trial on just 20 articles does any harm. I don't think it affects the readability of the article itself for users just willing to find out information on the subject. And I think it will help those that are curious about editing to find out how to do so. No one is suggesting to run this trial for a long period of time. Two months is the maximum time stated. If no significant objections have been raised by the principle editors of the articles involved in the trial then I see no reason not to allow this trial to go ahead.Polyamorph (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seven editors in that Village pump (proposals) discussion you refer to supported a trial, three were non-committal, two were skeptical about the merit of the proposal and no one opposed a trial. It has also been discussed at Wikiproject medicine and on the talk pages of the trial articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to nit-pick, but having reviewed that discussion I only see four editors expressing support - Yair rand, Doc James, Noraft and Axl. Axl's support was specifically limited to a one-month trial. Who are the other three editors you believe expressed support? Thparkth (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They're listed in my response to you in the section immediately above this one. As I explained on your talk page, if consensus develops here for the trial to be extended, we'll take it to the community first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted some raw figures from Pain's history here. It compares new editor activity while the template has been on, with new editor activity during the same calendar period a year ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Anthonyhcole

Dmcq's remarks appear to be in response to Pilcha's essay Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I may be misreading but it doesn't appear to relate to your proposal at all. MSGJ's statement "I think you have enough support for a trial" is not in itself a statement of support for anything, but a neutral assessment of consensus.

In the end I count five in favour, one of whom specified that their support was limited to a one-month trial, two opposed, and five neutral. I accept that you have a consensus for this, but it is a weak one and I don't think you should attempt to stretch the boundaries of that consensus by straying too far from what you originally proposed.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ is one of the project's most active contributors. Dmcq was referring to the template as it looked at that date. Two were skeptical of the merits of the idea but did not oppose a trial. Nobody opposed the trial. As I explained on your talk page, if consensus forms here to extend the trial, we'll take it to the community. Of course. First let's see if there is agreement here.

Can I just say, I am not confident this proposal will encourage more readers to edit, and improve their first edits. But it may. And if it does cause more doctors and researchers to edit medical articles, that's a very, very good thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Trial start

Per the above section I've changed the invitation to "You can edit this page". Given that change, I think today would be the appropriate start date for the trial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Great and how long are we planning on running it for again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

One month was the mooted duration. I'd feel more comfortable with 2 months though, as that would be more statistically powerful. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are fine for me. Maybe we can have a two phase plan: First month the investigation question would be if it increases disruptive edits, while also checking for positive preliminary results. After two months would be the moment to see if there has been an increase in the number of positive editions.--Garrondo (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the original proposal for which a consensus of exactly two editors was achieved: "I'd like to do an initial one month trial on one article, tracking the stats, analyzing the quality; followed by a one month trial of a representative sample of 20 articles; and then present the findings for your consideration.". I think to extend the trial for longer than one month additional input should be sought from the community. Thparkth (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At the original Village pump/proposals discussion, seven people spoke in favor of a trial. Two editors were skeptical about the merits of the idea, but no one opposed a trial.

• Proposer. Anthony
• "I quite like this idea, and I think it deserves a trial." Yair rand
• "I think it is about right." Dmcq
• "I think Anthony's idea is definitely worth a trial." Doc James
• "I think you have enough support for a trial." MSGJ
• "Support I think this proposal will raise awareness and expand the ranks of editors." ɳorɑfʈ
• "Support. I am willing to support a one month trial on a limited number of articles." Axl

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to this on your talk page rather than clutter up here. Thparkth (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you added the template to the articles on the 12th Jan, why is that not the start date? It would be unfortunate if every minor wording change required resetting the clock. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a trial, an experiment. It is best not to change the nature of the thing you're testing mid-trial. And you had removed the template from one of the trial articles for several days. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a problem with the template, described below, so the start date is today (until further notice  :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay so we will run it until March 20th and than pull all the notices while we analysis the data. Will need to get the conclusions written up in the sign post anyway no matter what the outcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Below, Thparkth has pointed out that this project only has consensus for a one month trial, which is true. I have changed the project page back to one month, and am about to take it to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 7. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)