Template talk:TFA editnotice

Wording

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

A very, very good point. Switched it to just "visible" - I think that's more comprehensively understood than "live." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with just "visible" is ambiguity - is it clear enough that it'll be visible to anyone visiting that page? it could be visible to just the editor (if you really think about it the ambiguity goes away, but many won't and may get the wrong idea). I chose "Live" because I thought it did convey that, and I thought it was a term people would be familiar with from TV. And I guess I came up with that precisely to avoid saying "visible to everyone", per the logic above. I don't know how else to convey that without over-emphasising the point in a way that may encourage vandalism. Perhaps "part of Wikipedia", or something in that direction? "part of the encyclopedia"? Could also be considered to be encouraging v... Perhaps a more radical change of wording? Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that it's ambiguous, but you do make a very convincing point. Do you think that "... your changes will instantly be viewable by anyone" is still too enticing? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I think the word we're looking for is "public" or perhaps "published". Rd232 ^talk 06:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Auto-speedy tag

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

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

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

Oh, and can we use an svg like File:Information icon.svg to avoid the blurry left icon? —fetch·comms 01:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For those who want to set this template up early, I think it's possible to use #ifexpr instead, and only show the g6 if the current date is later then the tfa date. —fetch·comms 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Did that. Doesn't quite convey the same message, but I think the scaled png was just too ugly to display at the top of a FA, of all things. Amalthea 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't. The eye-catching orange colour was more important for me than being very smooth (always looked fine to me anyway), as was distinguishing the notice from MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. Can we not find or make an acceptable version of the orange icon? Rd232 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Alright, I'll try. Amalthea 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

• 
  SVG
• 
  PNG

Amalthea 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about my speedy idea? It seems no one has bothered to delete the now-empty editnotices from old TFAs, and this would eventually make it harder to locate editnotices actually being used later. —fetch·comms 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment on that got lost, so here it is again: It doesn't work, I'm afraid. It will display the template, it will claim to be in the category, but if you'd actually look into the category, it won't be there unless someone null edits the page, to cause a database write. But see #Proposed alternative display below, seeing that there are no objections I'm about to bring that live. Maintaining the template subpages is easier than the current system, so there's no reason to wait for a bot. Amalthea 09:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording 2

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

"Malicious" isn't the best word either, though. I think that "please do not waste your time and theirs by saving changes which do not improve the article" is less accusatory than calling others malicious. —fetch·comms 09:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The implicit subject in "please do not waste your time" is you, the reader. Saying "malicious users [will be] prevented from editing" is a factual statement that makes no assumptions (and only implies the reader if he or she considers themselves to be one); thus it is more neutral. At any rate, it can just as easily be edited to read: "vandals [will be] prevented from editing"; the important thing here is to remove the accusatory "please do not waste your time". Anthiety (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anthiety, 25 May 2010

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

I support the spirit of this request. The current notice does seem rather unprofessional and accusatory. However this should be discussed, so I have disabled the request for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is all the discussion it needs by now, no one seems opposed. Anthiety (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed alternative display

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

Place it in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main instead: {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{TFA title}} | {{TFA-editnotice}} }}
The page titles can be created/maintained by one of the FA helper bots down the line. But yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I would do it, too. Maybe group the FA titles of a month together into one subpage, with a switch statement, for less clutter, but that's a matter of taste. Amalthea 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask for a bot to do it, I suppose the bot can detect the daily TFA title through parsing the TFA template for the first link and/or link under 'more'. Do you think we need to protect the subpages with the titleblaclist (I don't know how to do that) ? We'd need to grant the bot with account-creator rights then. Cenarium (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism wouldn't do much damage there. If we keep the pages for historical reasons though, with one page per day, nobody would ever have them watchlisted, and there should be no reason to ever change them, so I'd still protect them. You should probably bring it up at the BRFA. The titleblacklist modification is easy, just say the word. Amalthea 12:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, thanks for letting me know about this idea.

I agree that some auto way of doing it would be great; I've been manually doing most of them for the past week. So, yes, I support the idea. Let me know if it goes to BRFA or whatever; I can even write a bot for it myself if noone has something handy.  Chzz  ►  18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have requested it here, still no response. We can start using the new system without waiting for a bot though.

Amalthea, that was also my thinking wrt protection. I'd appreciate if you made that modification please, I guess it's better to have it done before deploying the new system. Cenarium (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Amalthea 09:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

... and Y switched to that system. We have no bot yet, but it's already less work than before to create the TFA's notice. Amalthea 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and the bot is live now. Cenarium (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No link to block

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

Minor tweak

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

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

Thank you

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

Consensus for edit proposals

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

I propose the following three wording changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Display of template to autoconfirmed users: is it necessary?

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

I agree. As an editor of over seven years, I find the notice annoying and mildly demeaning.—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. There should be a way to hide this for autoconfirmed users without each individually applying a CSS fix. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least, I feel that there should be a hide button to temporarily collapse the notice, as it takes up a large amount of screen real estate. Habstinat (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Quotes around article title

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

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

It should instead read like this:

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

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

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

Template header

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

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

Edit request on 26 August 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 17 April 2015

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

Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2017

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

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

Protected edit request on 15 December 2017

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

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

Protected edit request on 17 November 2018

Plz unlink the Publish Changes button 110.227.66.218 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Ed g2s (talk · contribs). Clicking the button would cause you to start creating the page Publish changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I've replaced this with Template:Clickable button instead, which isn't a link, just a styled span. ed g2s • talk 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wording

Can the attempt not to damage section link to Wikipedia:Vandalism not WP:VAND please? Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 January 2020

[[File:Note icon.svg|70px]] → [[File:Note icon.svg|70px|link=]]. The image is in the public domain and you would not be redirected commons when you click the image. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 04:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this needed? It's not clear from the rationale why this edit is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To expand on the rationale, if the image is public domain then we don't need to link to it for attribution purposes. This avoids someone being taken to a potentially surprising place if they click on the icon. I see no reason not to implement this minor change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Commons link has never been considered a problem in analogous images elsewhere on the site. And we certainly need to state the copyright status. So I would oppose the change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, please see MOS:PDI for more details — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Please add a tooltip showing that the Publish changes button in the notice itself does not publish changes when clicked. 95.49.85.227 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Instead of
<td>Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|Sandbox]] for test edits, or go to [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}]] to make comments or suggestions. See the [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] on how to get started editing. We are excited to have you contribute! Thank you.</td>
I think it would be better if these changes occured.
<td>Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for test edits, or go to [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}]] to make comments or suggestions. See our [[Help:Introduction|introduction]] on how to get started editing. We are excited to have you contribute! Thank you.</td>
Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Please don't paste code blobs into talk pages, not only is it messy, it's not clear what needs altering and it's not possible to properly test the changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Please see this diff: 1. I hope this makes it clear what changes I would like done in the template. Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it works, but it's merely bypassing a redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I requested that sandbox should be lowercased and changing the the before introduction to our. Could you change that please? Interstellarity (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: should be done now. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Not yet. The capitalization of sandbox should be lowercase. Thanks so much for your patience. Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Design tweaks

I've made three smallish design tweaks to Template:TFA-editnotice/sandbox:

1. Changed the button from {{Clickable button}} to {{Button}}, the correct template to use for non-clickable buttons; it includes a tooltip and design indication, so people are less likely to think it's the actual "publish changes" button and get confused. I also added support for different interface languages, which was previously missing.
2. Changed the color scheme from none (white) to the one used at {{Instruction editnotice}} to make the notice pop a little more and hopefully people more likely to read it.
3. Changed the sandbox link so that, if a user is logged in, it goes to their personal sandbox rather than the communal one.

Do these all sound alright? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It primarily seems to be a warning to be careful when editing TFA, not a general instruction for pressing "Publish changes". I wouldn't expect nor use green; orange could be an option?

Regarding the button change, the section "Protected edit request on 25 June 2020" above seems to prove a need for the proposal. People are indeed confused by the current blue button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Orange would be fine with me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, using orange. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wording during pending changes trial

I believe users whose edits will be subject to review under pending changes don't have a "publish changes" button, but instead their button is called "submit changes". Would it be helpful to provide both options in the edit notice? (e.g. 'X' is today's featured article. You are editing it, and if you press Publish changes or Submit changes...)

Pinging Sdkb, as I think you were involved in organising this trial. Jr8825 • Talk 02:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: we can detect if the user is subject to pending changes, right? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have any technical expertise here. If this is possible, it would definitely be preferable as two separate buttons could potentially cause confusion for new editors wondering why they have one option but not the other. Jr8825 • Talk 02:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thinking a little more about it, a personalised template may not be feasible. The situation depends on whether there are already unaccepted pending changes on a page, in which case the edits of users which wouldn't normally be subject to review are 'held up' behind the pending edits, with the exception of reverts of the pending edits. Users in this position see "submit changes", even admins or pending changes reviewers who can automatically accept their own changes. Would displaying both buttons in the edit notice be too confusing? Jr8825 • Talk 02:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Layout errors with the template

Hello! I've tried to edit a featured article via mobile and the warning notice was displayed incorrectly (please see the image). There should be no repetition (the sandbox/your sandbox) and there should be an empty line above the links to the template. Could someone please have a look at this and fix accordingly? Thank you! --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: I think I've fixed the first issue but the second issue remains. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

Change the Publish changes button to look like the actual button. foobarbaz 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

Per WP:EGG and WP:EEGG, replace “Use {{If IP|the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox{{!}}sandbox]]|your [[Special:MyPage/sandbox{{!}}sandbox]]}}” with “Use {{If IP|[[Wikipedia:Sandbox{{!}}the sandbox]]|[[Special:MyPage/sandbox{{!}}your sandbox]]}}” (‘the’ or ‘your’ is moved into its respective link: “Use the sandboxyour sandbox”). –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Good change. Sdkb ^talk 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)