Template talk:Edit COI/request

Request edit templates

My thinking: we need 1 slot for "status" and one for "feedback"

Status

d = declined

p = partially

sig = substantial revisions

a = answered [1]

Feedback

adv = promotional

v = verifiability

o = major omissions

r = cited content removed without explanation

d = please discuss with involved editors first

a = edits approved, but requested you implement yourself

Examples

{{request edit | d | adv}}
{{request edit | i |}}
{{request edit | d | o}}
{{request edit | d | r}} Comment: I find that the controversy needs to be re-written neutrally, but not removed.

That's about 10 templates. If this outline sounds good, I can squeeze out a draft of all the text and link content. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. The implemented template is already there (easy to change the pointer to "i" instead of "ANS"). The same is true of "v" (swap from "UNV"). I may have misunderstood the proposed re-write option (but that is easily fixed). If the content for the reason is similar for each feedback (e.g., adv always adds the same explanation) it can be easily incorporated to the main template and parsed out based on the status for final polishing (saves writing everything multiple times). I'll CSD the UNV page (as its function is absorbed by the others). Looks good! --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I am still making tweaks as well. After talking to Ryan, I realized answered and implemented are really the same. SIG is actually better, because it won't always necessarily be a "re-write." I'll keep churning through it. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of each decline being a separate template, I can use a switch to automatically select the appropriate message for the template. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice - I saw that in the way the templates were being written. If you can point me where to, I can help write all the messages. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is that you changing it from SIG to R or is that just the edit conflicts? It makes no difference to me, I was just going to change it back to SIG, but it doesn't seem to be sticking. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. Nice to have all of those as 1 letter options. You should be able to put the messages into the main template page now. I'll try to work more on it tomorrow. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! You're my hero. I took a first crack at some of the text, but will take a look tomorrow as well. I need to do some word-smithing and hammer it out, but in general I want to avoid over-linking to a bunch of rules and just providing some plain-English advice. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 06:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out {{new request}} for {{request edit}}. If you want to use {{new request}} as the name of the template, we can change it back. I added a link to option O to explain why one-sided is bad (to WP:NPV). I moved the word "because" into the reasoning to fix a bit of grammar in reason A. (I had painted us into a corner...) I also expanded reason A slightly. Currently, all the declines work save reason T. Default behavior does currently take anything entered as the third option and use it, so we may be able to get away with that instead. Now to see what, if anything, I broke in the rest of the template. PS. text looks good. Thank you for writing it! --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to end up repalcing/upgrading {{request edit}}, or is the intent to be an alternative (using a different name)? --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, that was my thinking was to expand on the {{request edit}} template so it was more like AfC. For example, at the bottom of this request edit, the editor just wants to update sources and their HQ - it's been up for 2 months. My guess is no one wants to do the edits because it's too much reading and cross-checking. We could update it with a D | A that would make it better and the queue more workable. I haven't taken a second look at the template text yet, but it doesn't need to be perfect. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, scratch that. I didn't look at that specific request edit close enough, but you get the idea. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template text

Ok, they can always be further improved, but I'm all done with the template text for now. Are we ready to push them live with v1? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be functional. The only hitch is that, to move it into place, the template {{request edit}} must be moved to Template:Request edit/request without leaving a redirect. Then, to minimize any downtime, User:Nouniquenames/re and all subpages except request must be quickly moved into place and the links in the main page must all be updated. Moving without a redirect is only possible with an admin's help. Moving any other way results in having to do a prohibited copy-paste move in the second step. (The alternative would be to use a different template name in anticipation of deprecating {{request edit}} in the future (replacing it with the new template). --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked Dennis Brown if he could come wield his admin powers. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just updated the main template for the move. It will not work until it is moved. The documentation is also updated, and the answer page moved slightly (with update) to prevent a conflict. The original at User:Nouniquenames/re/answered should not be moved, and has been tagged for CSD G7. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he moved it, but he says he messed it up somehow on accident, but it should be something we can fix. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because of this? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Request_edit/answered. You mentioned not moving /re/answered, but there was one there already. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I moved answered to answered1 to account for that. It appears that the template was deposited at Template:Request edit/request (where Template:Request edit was to be moved). Now Template:Request edit and Template:Request edit/request need to be swapped. Easy issue to have pop up given the number of moves involved in setting this up. I do believe an admin may have to do it though. Afterwards, I can move the documentation back in. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]