Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters

New message

Please add following message to the notice.

Origins of characters are hidden because they may turn into Original research. Unless you can provide reliable sources about them, DO NOT UNCOVER THEM.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Message about excessive detail

TheRedPenOfDoom has added the following warning at the end of each section:

<!--Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides an overview of the character and not a fanpage that details every episode. DO NOT ADD any content that is not representative of the character over a series arc and not supported by a reliable third party source noting its importance or it will be subject to IMMEDIATE REMOVAL-->

This warning is rather salient, and I believe this should be incorporated into the editnotice along with reformatting and rewording (changes noted):

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I'm opposed to soften the tone of this message in this way and as such, you will need to gain consensus for this change before reactivating this {{Edit template-protected}} request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 05:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting discussion from Talk:List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters... Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the sentences at the bottom read " Any addition of content that does not comply with these policies may be promptly removed. Repeated insertion of inappropriate content may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are unsure about what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, please discuss at Talk:List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters first."

But in any instance I like Anon126's proposed notice better than the current one, which makes inappropriate threats that have not and cannot actually be applied as stated. (and have not succeeded in preventing fanclutter anyway, despite the draconian nature.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems good, but I might change "for an encyclopedia" to "for Wikipedia" because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I'm not sure if people will take "encyclopedia" to refer to a traditional paper encyclopedia (which would probably have much shorter entries). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also add "(See also writing about fiction.)" to that last bullet point. How about it? Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

they both sound good. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

From the above discussion, the notice would be changed to this:

Awaiting input from other editors (from the article talk page)... Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely better than the old version. Also, those souce-code-comments, telling the same thing again and again should be removed. There is nothing in them that is not already said in this template. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Second request

Please change the editnotice to the specimen immediately above. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

More specific warnings

I think this could be improved with specific warnings related to the policies:

Uh, I still don't get why "will" was changed to "may" in "will be promptly removed" or whatever like, wouldn't simply removing the word "promptly" result in both a stronger and more accurate statement to potential editors?? because right now to me it sounds like it "may be removed", as in, it "might be removed", as in, it "might not be removed", as in, "any addition of content that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies might be allowed despite its blatant violation"? I don't know, maybe I'm taking this too far but that's what it looks like anyway there's a salad commercial on TV I'm hungry wow they got bacon bits and everything ~Helicopter Llama~ 18:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor HelicopterLlama: I suppose "will be removed" is better. I originally proposed changing it to "may" because some things do stay despite not being appropriate.

Anyway, I was hoping to get some feedback on the specific examples/instructions. Concerning the first point, would it be appropriate to include a link to WP:CT#Examples? That is: (You can use citation templates in the tag to format the information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon126 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Re-ping User:HelicopterLlama

Just the "removed" language

Please change "may be promptly removed" in the current notice to "will be removed", per above consensus. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Since specifying "will" implies that a bot will come around shortly and it will for sure be removed, I generally oppose that wording; unless of course you have an approved bot that goes around removing non-complaint content (I'd LOVE to see the logic behind such a bot). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else have a proposal?

Soliciting response from the article talk page... Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)