Template talk:Edit COI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template background color changes?

I just posted {{editrequest}} at Template talk:respell [1], but now the background color I see is not brown/camel, it is white/transparent. Any logic? -DePiep (talk)

REQUEST EDIT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerrangers1 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Template work

Once all the corresponding template work is completed, I would like to suggest we remove all the small text and just replace it with "You can find instructions on how to submit or review a {{edit COI}} at Wikipedia: Requested edits. The link goes to a place with similar (but more thorough) text. User:Corporate Minion 07:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: insert the word 'potential'

Hi,

I suggest that instead of "does not want to make because of a conflict of interest" it would be clearer if the wording was "does not want to make because of a potential conflict of interest".

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead option

I suggest the 'Go ahead' option of this template be removed, or be updated to be more in line with the WP:COI guideline. A very long-winded example, but a starting point for discussion:

{{edit COI | G}} = Template:Request edit/proceed to declare that you do not have a connection to the article topic, and to claim that the request is a non-controversial edit, and to reject the request, and to ask the submitter to implement the edit themselves. The submitter may reject the non-controversial edit claim, and re-submit the request for an impartial editor to implement.

Comments? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 11:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say leave it for now, but I think ultimately it should probably go away, if we ever get a more solid policy on COI. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was created based on discussion with a lot of editors. Some felt having the COI's username in the edit history created more transparency and accountability. Others feel COIs should take credit for their work. Some editors just don't like proxy editing. The go-ahead template gives editors the flexibility to handle it how they want to, while creating a formal approval that avoids "casual reviews" where someone says it "looks good" but didn't properly vet it.

In my view, a narrow focus on who clicks the save button is terribly prescriptive. We have no firm rules, we are not a bureaucracy and WP:COI is only a guideline. The important part is that decisions are based on the judgement of volunteers. The go-ahead template is very close to how AfCs are accepted, but the original author is maintained in the edit history.

It's largely needed just because not everyone is pro-Bright Line, so people who prefer to do things differently have the option that still follows the spirit. Corporate 16:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

New categories

I've modified the templates and doc, adding in the following new categories:

• Category:Implemented requested edits
• Category:Partially implemented requested edits
• Category:Declined requested edits

-- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 09:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We are indebted to you good sir! Many Request Edits (including my own) were accepted when they should have been declined. This should make it easier for anyone who wants to overlord over them. Corporate 17:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On hold?

Does anyone know how to get an "on hold" template like {{edit COI|onhold}}, like the one for GAs started? CorporateM (Talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

More detail

This template may be used by those unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Could we add simple instructions such as: Add to talk page not article page, use this basic format when unsure, ask at help desk for more help with this template, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A sentence about where to post the template has been added. (How's that for fast action?) – S. Rich (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Template needs heading

This template needs a level 2 heading, something like "COI edit request". That way: a) the section shows up in the Contents, b) it can be easily linked to, and c) visually no longer merges with the section above it. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other similar templates, such as {{edit protected}}, don't generate headings. It's because the template is sometimes used part-way through a thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought a heading is not a good idea. I ran into lots of COI edit requests without headings, but when I do I'll just add them manually. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for a transcluded template to generate a heading which has an edit link going to the page where the template is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Already done

It's unclear what parameter to use in response to an edit request if the requested changes were already applied by someone else - in some cases months ago. A or D|T can be used, but an new, additional D|<letter> parameter would be useful. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I've recently learned that I can use a custom D message. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I think that the name is rather unclear, as any newb IP could use this purely because of the name. I think that a name like {{COI request edit}} or something would be more appropriate. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. I just accidentally tried to use this myself. -KaJunl (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to edit this page because I know the release dates of the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesstron21 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Messum's page

Would it be possible please to amend this according to the changes I tried to affect yesterday using the name "CorkStreetGallery"? It was an honest mistake to use this name. I thought of it because it's a) Wikipedia couldn't recognise the name we used previously (and no one of my colleagues could remember the passowrd in any case) and b) because CorkStreetGallery was in line with a dozen other in-house user name/passwords the company shares.

We need the page changed you see, because it no longer reflects the company's current status. Since the street is now being redeveloped, it's very important that visitors to our page do not have the impression that we were "pushed out".

Also, no such person as Johnnie Messum works here. His name is Johnathan Messum and he is not the head of the company. That is still David Messum, founder and still chairman.

Finally, the list of artists exhibited needed to be augmented, as many of these artists have wikipedia pages, and several are represented solely by Messum's, who represent certain estates and maintain copyright.

Could you help me do this please?

Thank you.

Andreagates (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know which article you are referring to; you have posted this on the talk page for a template. Suggest you repost at the correct page. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg Earnings

On Mark Zuckerberg's Wikipedia page, it says he earns $1 a year. Is this because of Max, his new daughter? Or is this a server error? This $1 a year thing is, just, no. Sydney4363 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done: please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. See Template:Request edit/Instructions for more information. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

edit to biography of living person: Michael V. Drake

Michael Vincent Drake (born July 9, 1951)[1] is an American university administrator and physician. In 2014, he became the current president of The Ohio State University. From 2005 to 2014, he was the chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. During his tenure, UC Irvine was named one of Sierra magazine's "top ten coolest schools" for its sustainability efforts and recognized for increasing minority enrollment. While UC Irvine chancellor, Drake fired and rehired legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of the then-new UC Irvine school of law. At Ohio State, Drake has been criticized for firing band director Jon Waters after a report criticized the band's "sexualized culture." Deborah Athy Guinan (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please make your request at the talk page of the relevant article, possibly Talk:Michael V. Drake. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

180.191.142.208 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)FPER

An AFC-style status indicator in the template

When {{AFC submission/pending}} is invoked, it has a message saying something along the lines of The Articles for creation process is slightly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 411 submissions waiting for review. I have implemented similar functionality in Template:Request edit/sandbox/request. Does anyone think that this would be a bad idea to implement in the main template? As is, a well-meaning COI editor who uses {{request edit}} has no idea how long they should expect to wait before some sort of response. If you do think this is a good idea, what should the boundaries (currently defined at User:crh23/RE status/level) and expected wait times (implemented directly in Template:Request edit/sandbox/request) be? Cheers —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits counts greater than 10 pending as a {{backlog}}, so it would be fair to add a notice if {{PAGESINCAT:Requested edits|pages|R}} is greater than 10. I don't think it's necessary to fuss over the details of levels and arbitrary expected wait times, but see no reason to not state when there's a backlog, and by how many. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Well, there's backlogged and there's backlogged. Considering the backlog currently goes back to last August, I think there is a reason for distinguishing the degree of backlog between the 10 request "might take a few days" and the 150 request "might take a few months". —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Although there are old requests, some are dealt with almost instantly; there's no queuing system. If there were 5000 pending requests, the notice might read "a snowflake's chance in hell of this being done in your lifetime", but in reality, it could be answered in seconds. That's why I say "arbitrary". But a general indicator of the facts can remain open to interpretation, and the application of a little reason i.e. "this is an uncontroversial request" or "this is unlikely to be accepted" allows users to get some idea of what to expect, without the need for what may often turn out to be ridiculously off speculation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I can see that putting estimated wait times may be a bad idea. Not sure 10 is the right threshold for a backlog, or maybe just have two levels of backlog (backlogged and very backlogged?), to give a better idea of how freely the system is flowing. I've modified Template:Request edit/sandbox/request to remove the time estimates as I agree that they are somewhat arbitrary and not useful, what do you think of it now? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Edit: 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. 10 does seem a bit low for a backlog, but that's what they're using. I just had a look and without effort found an old request that had been accepted, but no marked as answered. There's probably loads like it, plus a few nonsense requests, and some some complex nobody is willing to tackle them. The normal crop is probably a fraction of the total. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Having had a look through a fair few of them, it's fairly rare for them to be unambiguously answered but not marked: it's more common for some sort of discussion to have started but never concluded, or for the request to be too complicated. There are a lot that are relatively simple though, so it is somewhat a case of more requests than willing editors. I'm going to polish the template up a bit (move the components out of my userspace), then I'll make a new section here and wait a while to see if anyone has any more comments. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Add an {{rfc}} to the new section. It's a significant change to a high vis template used in contentious situations. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, done. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New version in sandbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a replacement version of Template:Request edit/request at Template:Request edit/sandbox/request. The major change is that the new version adds a counter and basic status indicator to the template, where the status is based on Template:Request edit/level. Is this new template suitable to replace Template:Request edit/request? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Basically I think the providence of information that helps people understand things is great (that's why we're here, right?), but like in the creation of articles, we should present that information with a neutral point of view. In the case of COI edit requests, there are factors outside the scope of template coding in play that affect the length of time a request might sit dormant, such that it's effectively anyone's guess how long it could take - no matter the length of the backlog. With this in mind, I personally would prefer the message to be a neutral statement of the cold fact that it could take time for the request to be answered, and to put that statement into perspective, the number of outstanding requests. I would thus prefer to omit from the message, any arbitrary level of backlogging. If the technology is ever available to algorithmically determine the number of watchers who actively respond to requests on the related subject who have recently edited and who have not added a holiday template to their user page etc. etc. then I'm all in favour of more accurately attempting to define the level of backlogging, and how it may affect the request. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, since it provides more information to those waiting for responses to their edit requests. APerson (talk!) 19:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per APerson. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd say there's no opposition to this; it's uncontroversial insofar that it's including relevant detail rather than changing functionality, and would say you've waited long enough, and should go ahead with the update. If there are any complaints down the road, it's trivial to revert. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone with any complaints. Implemented the changes. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

would like to edit Lon Safko wikipedia page as i have recently read about this person and contribute to this page. i am an independent contributor with no connection to the person or business. thanks

InsatiableAK (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Request edit}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Withdraw" option?

This template doesn't appear to have an option to withdraw a request. Seems like it should. Seems like someone aught to make this available. Does't seem like it should be that difficult. Would do it myself but would probably get yelled at so will refrain. Please create an option to withdraw an edit request. Thanks. KDS4444 ^(talk) 13:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

While I am at it, it might also be a good idea for this template's documentation to say something to editors placing such requests about the edit request process— like, what to do if you don't get the response you were expecting, what alternatives you have if your edit request is denied or isn't handled appropriately, etc. It is good that we have instructions for those answering such request, but given that those placing it are apparently at least superficially familiar with templates, it might be a good idea to fill things in from their perspective as well, no? KDS4444 ^(talk) 13:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Another decline reason - "Clear consensus against"

Currently this template allows: Declined parameters

{{edit COI|D|ADV}} for declining promotional content.
{{edit COI|D|V}} for declining content not properly sourced.
{{edit COI|D|O}} for articles with obvious omissions that need balance.
{{edit COI|D|R}} when changes ask to remove sourced content.
{{edit COI|D|D}} to request the editor attempt to discuss with involved editors first.
{{edit COI|D|S}} for requests that are not specific enough.
{{edit COI|D|T}} for requests that aren't an improvement.
{{edit COI|D|C}} this issue has been discussed and no clear consensus was reached.

I think it could be nice to also have:

{{edit COI|D|CA}} this issue has been discussed and a clear consensus against was reached.

with an optional:

{{edit COI|D|CA|Example talk:The subject#Discussion}} this issue [[Example talk:The subject#Discussion|has been discussed]] and a clear consensus against was reached.

with the link resolved of course.

Just me? fredgandt 20:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like it's possible to cover that possibility (that there was a discussion with clear consensus against the edit) by changing the "C" reason to read "this issue was discussed and no clear consensus in favor of the edit [or something] was reached." APerson (talk!) 00:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clear consensus against is quite different from no consensus. fredgandt 01:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(Agreed.) KDS4444 ^(talk) 13:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending requests number is incorrect

Recently, a change was made to Salvidrim!'s Dashboard. The result of this change is that their dashboard now appears in this list at the very bottom under "Pages included". The appearance in that list has increased the number of EDIT Req's that display in the COI edit req template, so that it now reads 1 pending request more than it should. The template draws from that list, what number to display. Before Salvidrim!'s change to their Dashboard, the number had been perpetually stuck at 3 pending. As you can see from the list, in addition to Salvidrim! there are 3 other templates. With the pending edit request backlog at around 100+ just a few weeks ago, these rogue templates were easily hidden, and it was impossible to notice that the count was off. But now that the list is down to zero, these stand out. This is something I've been trying to figure out how to fix. I was hoping someone might have some input on the matter so that the correct number of pending requests may display once again in the request template. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 05:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Fixed — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've also fixed the other categorization of the templates so that they are not counted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo ᔦᔭ 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

some proposed changes

I (Greg Hollingshead) now live in Toronto, Ontario, not Edmonton, Alberta. At the Banff Centre I was Director of the Writing Studio from 2000 to 2017.

Greg Hollingshead Greg Hollingshead (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Greg Hollingshead

Spintendo      16:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Other reasons for edit request

Hi, while processing various edit requests I've run in to another group of edits that need review and processing and would like to expand Template:Request edit and Category:Requested edits to include them: edits requested by restricted editors (to unprotected pages). I think we should just expand the definition of Category:Requested edits to include any other reason that an edit may not be made (not ONLY COI) by an editor (as opposed to the cases where the edit "can not" be made due to protection). Any objections? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly this could just add a parameter to this template if we want to track these differently? Other option would be to make a new template/category - I think it is important that useful edits are able to get made even in the face of technical or administrative restrictions on editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, it could just be "do nothing". — xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that templates are only truly useful so long as they are dynamic, and having the COI-ER template being able to handle any number of requests that editors here see fit to assign upon it is a true sign of that dynamism. Just one year ago with the backlog at 140+ requests the template was barely able to handle its own role, let alone others. But today is a new day. I'm all for it.  Spintendo  06:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a great idea Xaosflux I usually help out with EP and SP edit requests but I can add EDITREQ to my watchlist to help out with non-COI edit requests. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as how the COI connected contributor template is used with COI ER's, there ought to be some sort of easy way to explain with each request what the background circumstances are surrounding each non-COI ER (or, what I am starting to call meta-edit requests). In the example I encountered recently, other editors were needed to explain what those circumstances were behind an editor requesting that a template be edited. It would be much easier knowing this right off the bat. The info should ideally include whichever documentation/decision/ruling/admin action is prohibiting the user from making the edit themselves. That way the editor would know exactly how the request is to be handled according to whichever restrictions are in place. Ideas?  Spintendo  22:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree knowing off the bat would make the process easier. I also think it should be listed at WP:RESTRICT as well that the editor can use edit requests via the talk page. This would be a simple, easy way for editors who are processing the request to see the circumstances and also prevent future, potential abuse of this process. Maybe {{Request edit}} could have a switch so that the line "user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest" could be replaced with something alerting the reviewer to check WP:RESTRICT. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it correct that there is no central Wikipedia: page discussing edit requests?

There are various types of edit request processes. I think this one is the most active. Does any central documentation hub exist? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: you could try: Wikipedia talk:Edit requests and the associated project page. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I wanted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

Want to update the template as the current season will starting by December 15. Need to update the participating teams and Fixtures. Once the game is started, scores also has to be updates as per the template. Jibugibson44 (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Request edit}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. (ping Jibugibson44) Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Information to be added or removed: Need to review for notable criteria Explanation of issue: Been advised to use talk page to get edit changes on the page References supporting change: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Danish_Renzu Cinephile786 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: Review template messages Explanation of issue: There are some template messages, please review article and edit accordingly. References supporting change: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Illegal_(drama_film)

Cinephile786 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cinephile786: If you are requesting to update this template, please use {{Edit template-protected}}. Otherwise, edit the respective talk page, or file an edit request if neccessary.{{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 21:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

3rd Parameter

In the source contains the following. |2={ { {3|} } } (note: the curly braces are spaced so it would show). This implies there is a third parameter. Now it's hard to figure out becuase the 2nd parameter only works if the first parameter is D, and I don't know about the 3rd parameter. So I don't know what it is, I want someone to tell me what it is, what is it? It's useless and strange. It traces back to this revision with User talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_7#Need_an_admin this discussion. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 06:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC); edited 23:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Likely an artefact from when it was created; potentially a feature that never got implemented. It's been there since 2012 when the template was overhauled. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So I found this at Template:Request edit/Parameters.

Param name	Description	Options
1	This determines the template's purpose. Generally, this should be blank for minor requests.	Choices=Request,Significant Edit,Answered,Go Ahead,Partially Complete,Declined;Default=Request
2	Reason (leave blank for a request). Prefilled codes at ADV (advertisement), V (unverified), O (omits too much), R (removing well cited content), D (please discuss), A (go ahead), S (not specific enough), T (not an improvement), and C (no consensus). You can also write your own.
3	Only used in certain circumstances when asking the requestor to do the edit. Requires 1 be set to Declined	Choices=,A;Default=;Depends on=2

3rd parameter is useless. You can already do {{request edit|G}} or {{request edit|D|A}}, but a 3rd parameter exclusively for that? That's too much. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How to request edit where the talk page is apparently locked for some unapparnet reason

looking to request an edit on the article at Pedophillia in order to correct an obvious WP:NPOV problem, but the article's talk page also appears to be locked for some unapparent reason. Is there any other place to put the edit request? 98.178.179.240 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be a subsection of WP:RFPP for such requests. I don't see it, though... I'll look into where it should be. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Found it (it was a broken header). See WP:RFED. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Original: |S = The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Proposal: |S = The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the [[WP:COIN|conflict of interest noticeboard]].

Simpily, it's a link to the COI noticeboard. We can all agree on this change. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Reopening. The link to the COI noticeboard is broken. Please change [[Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflict of interest noticeboard]] to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflict of interest noticeboard]]. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 02:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please include {{edit semi-protected}} in the See also section of this template. I used this template by mistake because I couldn't remember that {{edit semi-protected}} was the name of the template I actually wanted. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

Please add the following after the pblock line for when a non-blocked user adds the {{Edit partially-blocked}} for the requester.

|user = {{{user|}}}

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition please change the following

   |ADV = Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone.
   |V = Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
   |O = The suggested edits are good, but the reviewer felt omissions in the content may create balance issues.
   |R = The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. Consider re-writing, instead of deleting, bias content that needs to be written neutrally. 
   |D = The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.
   |A = The reviewer requests that the COI editor implement the proposed edits directly.  
   |S = The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflict of interest noticeboard]].
   |T = A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. 
   |C = A consensus could not be reached.
   |#default = {{{2|}}}

Now replace with the follwing

   |ADV = Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone.
   |V = Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
   |O = The suggested edits are good, but the reviewer felt omissions in the content may create balance issues.
   |R = The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. Consider re-writing, instead of deleting, bias content that needs to be written [[WP:NPOV|neutrally]]. 
   |D = The reviewer would like to request the editor to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.
   |A = {{#ifeq: {{{pblock}}} | yes | The requesting editor is no longer blocked and can edit the article directly|The reviewer requests that the COI editor implement the proposed edits directly.}}
   |S = The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the  {{#ifeq: {{{pblock}}} | yes |appropriate [[WP:Noticeboards|noticeboard]]|[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflict of interest noticeboard]]}}.
   |T = A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. 
   |C = A consensus could not be reached.
   |#default = {{{2|}}}

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've implemented the second request, but not the first; please get a consensus that your proposed change is necessary. Primefac (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

I am submitting the following changes to ensure the article is accurate. The information that I am submitting can be verified by any independent person. Here is how the article must appear to ensure its accuracy:

Manhattan Village Academy was founded in 1993 by Mary Butz, a 25-year veteran of the New York City Board of Education. Butz was invited to establish this new small public high school by famed educator Deborah Meier, who worked closely with Ted Sizer and the Center for Collaborative Education. After selecting the site in a commercial loft building in the Chelsea district of Manhattan, Butz persuaded nationally known architect Beverly Willis to collaborate with her to design the space for the school. Butz recruited the students and faculty and shaped the culture of the school around the ideas of "reason, respect, and responsibility." The motto of the school from its inception was "a good school dedicated to the liberal arts." In the first graduating class, every student went on to attend college. The school was recognized by Chancellor Rudy Crew as one of the best high schools in the city and was regularly ranked among the city’s best public schools under Butz’s leadership. She maintained policies of open enrollment, project-based assessment, and close attention to punctuality and student deportment. When she left the school in 1999, she selected Hector Geager to succeed her. He introduced a series of innovative educational approaches; such as 7 Critical Thinking Authentic Performance Based Portfolios, 26 Critical Thinking Units--one per teacher twice a year, Success Units, Curriculum Mapping, High Performance Teams, School Uniform, an Internal Accountability System, a Critical Thinking Summer Academy, PM School and Saturday Academy and an open Advanced Placement Program with over 17 AP Courses, among other educational changes (See the School's Comprehensive Educational Plan--CEP--from 1999 to 2019). Mr. Geager continued the progressive work that Ms. Mary Butz began based on her philosophy of reason, respect and responsibility. Under his leadership, punctuality and attendance were expected, as part of the school philosophy. Admissions also became selective due to the thousands of parents and students that wanted to enroll in the school (See the high school student applications breakdown for the school and check with the Office of High School Admission). Since 2004, Manhattan Village Academy became one of the top schools in New York City, and every year was recognized by US News and World Report among the top schools in the city and the nation for minority students (See US News & World Report's School Ranking starting in 2004 and the State Department of Education school designation and recognition for closing the achievement gap). By 2018, it had reached a 100% graduation rate, a 98% college readiness index and a student attendance rate of 97%. From 2014 to the present, Manhattan Village Academy became the school with the highest impact and performance in New York City (See the DOE Dashboard). Mr. Geager retired in February 2020 due to a medical condition. In September of 2019, Christina White became interim principal of the school and was appointed principal of the school on March 11th, 2020. Hgeager (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Request edit}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Request edit wizard

I've noticed a lot of editors create malformed edit requests, either in wording, technical format, or both (see above). Because of that, I created an edit request wizard. Do other editors think it would be useful to link to it on the template documentation to encourage new editors to use it instead of directly using the template so there is less of a chance they mess up? Sam-2727 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't hurt, but you can't fix stupid. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This template name is inaccurate and confusing

Why does this template have the generic name "request edit", when its wording actually amounts to "request edit but the requester has a conflict of interest"? That makes no sense. The "how to use" instructions here don't even mention or deal with the COI assertion which is part of the template. IMO this generic name should apply to a generic request - basically usable as a synonym for {{Edit semi-protected}} or equivalent. There was recently a user who included this template, {{edit COI}}, as part of their own talk page edit request, causing considerable puzzlement as to just who had accused the person of COI. We replaced it with the "Edit semi-protected" template which was clearly what the user intended. I doubt if this is the first time that someone has been confused by this title. Can we create a separate template for "requested edit by a COI user," if one is needed, and let this template's wording simply say the equivalent of "this is a requested edit"? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

revised template

Wugapodes, Your changes in the template are a very good start to the implementation of my suggestions. I had not thought it would be possible to do it this simply. Congratulations! DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Change backlog indiactor

The current increments of the {{Request edit/backlog}} indicator go up in increments of between 6–9 with level 1 being "36 or more" requests. With there being at over 210 currently, there is little point having an indicator which is almost guaranteed to be at level 1. I suggest that the increments be changed to 50's with level 5 being "50 or less", and level 1 being "250 or more". therefore changes in the e shown in the indicator. Terasail^[✉] 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Change thresholds for "backlog level"

Change the number of edit request thresholds for protected edits so that the backlog counter is not guaranteed to always be at a level 1.

• Level 5: 6 → 50
• Level 4: 14 → 100
• Level 3: 24 → 150
• Level 2: 35 → 200
• Level 1: 36 → 201

This change will have limited impact since it will only change the text in the request and the backlog bar from "very high" to "high" at the moment. The change will bring the thresholds more in line with the original limits before they were changed in April 2020. Terasail^[✉] 20:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Terasail:  done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Declined Box change

Can the class "edit request" be added to the template so that it is inline with the rest of the response and edit request boxes which all have this class. This would be done by adding the following to the tmbox template parameters:

|class=editrequest

Terasail^[✉] 16:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Showing usage of "(Partly) declined parameter"

I noted that every option in the Request Options and Response Options sections have {{tl}} links that allows a reader to immediately see what that usage will look like. However, no option in the (Partly) declined parameter section offers this very handy and convenient help.

Do you - like me - see value in adding links in this section to immediately see the wording of each option? I'm thinking they could lead to a copy of Template:Request_edit/doc at Template:Request edit/declined/doc where, using option |V as my example, instead of something like the current passage for {{edit COI|[P or D]|V}}:

{{request edit|P|V}}
{{request edit|D|V}} for declining content not properly sourced

...you'd instead see how it actually looks like:

{{edit COI|D|V}} →

[2]

(This expansion demo template outputs not only the example but also the code that produces it. I'm sure there is one that outputs ONLY the example, which is what I want here. I would like to ask you to see past this snag. Thank you)

---

So to repeat, my idea is for Template:Request_edit/doc to link directly to anchors in Template:Request edit/declined/doc in this way

In Template:Request_edit/doc you'd have this (for our example with the |V parameter) - note how the usage has become clickable (you must hover above the line to see the link):

{{request edit | P | V}}
{{request edit | D | V}} for declining content not properly sourced and the link would lead to the result of using this combination (in Template:Request edit/declined/doc):

{{edit COI|D|V}} →

[3]

(Again please ignore the code that produces the example.)

I can copy Template:Request_edit/doc into Template:Request edit/declined/doc. I can create the links in the former, and have them point to anchors in the latter. What I need help with is:

1. Template:Request edit/declined is edit protected. If this suggestion achieves consensus, a template editor needs to point its documentation to the new page at Template:Request edit/declined/doc
2. Hopefully there are better templates to use:
   1. Instead of {{xpd}} something that ONLY outputs the example
   2. Instead of {{braces}} something that makes it more visually obvious the reader is looking at links - currently it is only when you hover above the link it gets underlined and you get visual confirmation it is indeed something clickable.

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Link to the article on conflict of interest

The words "conflict of interest" should be linked to WP:CONFLICT. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it already does? Primefac (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests (plain and simple)

I'd like to create a copy-paste edit request instruction that uses a template that is dead simple for both the editors making the requests and those answering them. Something that already has instructions and the actually usually-needed parameters included in the template copy-paste. Nothing that isn't absolutely needed in 99% of cases. Nothing that creates a canned response. Can someone help me write that?

What I'm looking for is something along the lines of Help:Archiving (plain and simple) that doesn't require any learning. Just copy-paste and follow the included instructions. valereee (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: in general the ER process is:

1. Click "View Source" on the page you are reading that you can't edit
2. Click the giant blue "Submit an edit request" button.

It will lead you to a page that looks like this that includes the ER directions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, thanks! And that happens for pages that aren't protected, too? (In the case of a COI editor.) And edit requests made that way give clearer instructions to the editor responding, also? So maybe I create a page at WP:Edit requests (plain and simple) that says exactly that, and point people at it?

The impetus was that I am working at Special:Permalink/1072785891#Proposed changes: Opening paragraphs and I couldn't tell from the linked instructions at that template how I should indicate that I was working at that edit request. I wasn't accepting it, I wasn't declining it, but I was answering it. And for that particular template, the instruction page is quite dense and full of instructions for communicating detailed info about the resolution and yet doesn't tell me to simply insert |ans=yes into the template to take it out of the category. I assume because whoever wrote those instructions assumed that anyone reading them already knows that basic bit? :) Speaking as a person who experiences a small thrill of accomplishment every time I use a template correctly for the first time, no such assumptions should be made. :) valereee (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So, that won't work for the COI use-case, since you won't fall in to the "view source" option; the template to use is: Template:Request edit - I'm not sure how to make the best directions for COI editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that's the template this user used. And the instructions it links to are what got me here in the first place. Maybe what's needed is to fix that template so it doesn't link to that instruction page? valereee (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest."

Is there a version of the template without this part? Trade (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This template is specifically intended for that use, though, so I don't see why that would be necessary (?). There are separate templates for making requests in other cases where an editor is not able to edit a page themselves, such as the protection-related request templates (see an example right above this section). Actualcpscm (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Link to Article

Hi! I've handled some edit request (both COI and SP/EP), and I noticed that this template does not link to the article for which the edit is requested. In contrast, other request templates such as Template:Edit semi-protected and Template:Edit extended-protected include that: "It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Article Name." It's quite a handy feature, and I don't see any real reason against implementing it for this request template as well. I would have loved to provide a textdiff suggestion, but I am completely clueless about how templates work, and looking at the source code here didn't help. Thanks in advance! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Should be, anyway. Izno (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Izno, thanks a bunch, it looks to be working great! If I may take the liberty to be a little bit annoying, could you make an analogous change for the other versions of the template, i.e., {{request edit|R}} and {{request edit|N}}? I can't gauge how much work that would require, but I am very thankful for your help :) Actualcpscm (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 24 April 2023

The feature that User:Izno kindly implemented after my request (see above) breaks here, though I'm not sure why. Maybe it has something to do with the ampersand? I wish I could provide a textdiff for a fix, but my technical understanding just is not on that level. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is supposed to provide the link in the answered form? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ Sorry for the confusion, it breaks on the talk page of this article when it's not answered; the link doesn't work correctly. See this version. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay I see the problem. It is trying to link to [4] which doesn't work. I'll let Izno look at this I think :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Maybe done, maybe not? :) Izno (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The link in the edit request here still doesn't work, it appears to include this character after the ampersand: ⌸. Honestly it's an edge case, I feel like the effort-reward ratio is off here, so don't worry :) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To editor Actualcpscm: reopened that edit request you linked, here, and it worked for me. Took me directly to Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute – isn't that what it's supposed to do? Appears to me that editor Izno has fixed it with the {{Full url:}} function. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, works now. I suppose it had still cached the old template when I tested it there, my bad. Thanks a bunch to everyone taking the time to deal with this! Actualcpscm (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)