This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Connected contributor (paid) template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This template was considered for deletion on 2018 March 10. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. |
Users who have been paid to edit Wikipedia must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages. |
Recently, after
Beyond My Ken didn't notice this template on
Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company during
an ANI discussion,
Locke Cole changed the template from the standard colors to green, with the edit summary "
WP:BOLD, feel free to revert and discuss, per comment at
WP:AN; to make this template more distinct from other talk page templates"
.
JJMC89 reverted the color change with the comment, "Keep the standard colors". Then Beyond My Ken changed to green again, saying, "No, please do not. The paid editor banner should stand out against the standard colors on the talk page, it's much too easy to miss it otherwise. Paid editing is a serious problem, and we need to make certain that the required disclosures can be easily seen, and not get lost in the shuffle, as they did for me yesterday in an ANi discussion."
While I sympathize with Beyond My Ken (at some time we've all failed to see something we should have seen), this is not the way to devise a color scheme that communicates effectively. Yes, paid editing is a serious problem. But Wikipedians hold diverse opinions about what issues are most serious. One can easily imagine champions of talk page notices for civility, discretionary sanctions, contentious topics, not a forum, round in circles, censorship, language varieties, merged pages that must be preserved for attribution, etc. all competing to make "their" notice more noticeable. That's the road to chaos, and to all notices being lost in a riot of styles.
If consensus finds that a color other than the customary mustard yellow is necessary (rather than all of us reminding ourselves to read more carefully and not edit when tired), green is not the solution. Green is a terrible choice because of its connotations of "go ahead, this is okay", instead of the "use caution" conveyed by the usual shades of yellow/orange. Consider, instead, #fffaef, the lighter yellow color used to make the important {{ BLP}} template stand out. Or a more strongly colored border and icon, such as used in the {{ Controversial-issues}} template. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This template is limited to 10 users, but there are pages with more than 10 paid editors. See example here: Talk:Martin Saidler. Can we extend the limit? MarioGom ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
If a paid contributor's edits are only to the talk page of the article to which they have a COI, but not to the article itself, does that count as "edited here" when specifying |Ux-EH=
? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c)
22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the template only allows you to add SPAs for the first COI editor listed. An option should be added to be able to specify SPAs for subsequent COI editors. I don't see why that shouldn't be an option. As with other parameters, "alt(x)" should be linked to the user, i.e. "U(x)-alt(x)", so that it can be specified for each individual COI editor in the list. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Connected contributor (paid) template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This template was considered for deletion on 2018 March 10. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. |
Users who have been paid to edit Wikipedia must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages. |
Recently, after
Beyond My Ken didn't notice this template on
Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company during
an ANI discussion,
Locke Cole changed the template from the standard colors to green, with the edit summary "
WP:BOLD, feel free to revert and discuss, per comment at
WP:AN; to make this template more distinct from other talk page templates"
.
JJMC89 reverted the color change with the comment, "Keep the standard colors". Then Beyond My Ken changed to green again, saying, "No, please do not. The paid editor banner should stand out against the standard colors on the talk page, it's much too easy to miss it otherwise. Paid editing is a serious problem, and we need to make certain that the required disclosures can be easily seen, and not get lost in the shuffle, as they did for me yesterday in an ANi discussion."
While I sympathize with Beyond My Ken (at some time we've all failed to see something we should have seen), this is not the way to devise a color scheme that communicates effectively. Yes, paid editing is a serious problem. But Wikipedians hold diverse opinions about what issues are most serious. One can easily imagine champions of talk page notices for civility, discretionary sanctions, contentious topics, not a forum, round in circles, censorship, language varieties, merged pages that must be preserved for attribution, etc. all competing to make "their" notice more noticeable. That's the road to chaos, and to all notices being lost in a riot of styles.
If consensus finds that a color other than the customary mustard yellow is necessary (rather than all of us reminding ourselves to read more carefully and not edit when tired), green is not the solution. Green is a terrible choice because of its connotations of "go ahead, this is okay", instead of the "use caution" conveyed by the usual shades of yellow/orange. Consider, instead, #fffaef, the lighter yellow color used to make the important {{ BLP}} template stand out. Or a more strongly colored border and icon, such as used in the {{ Controversial-issues}} template. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This template is limited to 10 users, but there are pages with more than 10 paid editors. See example here: Talk:Martin Saidler. Can we extend the limit? MarioGom ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
If a paid contributor's edits are only to the talk page of the article to which they have a COI, but not to the article itself, does that count as "edited here" when specifying |Ux-EH=
? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c)
22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the template only allows you to add SPAs for the first COI editor listed. An option should be added to be able to specify SPAs for subsequent COI editors. I don't see why that shouldn't be an option. As with other parameters, "alt(x)" should be linked to the user, i.e. "U(x)-alt(x)", so that it can be specified for each individual COI editor in the list. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)