Template talk:Connected contributor (paid)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Connected contributor (paid). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"This user has not yet declared a connection."

How do we know that someone's been paid if they've not said it? Alakzi (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, I seeded all of the paid-talk templates with information taken from the {{paid}} and Category:Paid contributors. If they did not state an employer, I did not copy one over. Of the three individuals in this category, it was fairly obvious from their contributions which page they were working on. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"This user has not yet declared a connection" reads as "this user has not disclosed that they've been paid", whereas what's intended is, "this user has not disclosed who they've been paid by". Or is it not? Alakzi (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the box says "they are being paid." The statement after their username says "they haven't said who is paying them." Primefac (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that's not what it actually says. By stating that they're being paid, they do declare that they have a connection; which is to say, they may have not disclosed who they're connected with, but they have disclosed that they are connected with someone. In {{Connected contributor}}, |declared=no means that a COI is suspected. Alakzi (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, you make a good point. I've changed the language. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Still unsure how to use this

Previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Paid template and Template talk:Paid#Needs to be changed

Mdann52 and Primefac, I'm still not seeing how to use this. For example, in the case of a paid editor (User:A) who is working on Religion X, and we know the client is the Church of X, but we don't know who is paying (e.g. we don't know which the PR firm), what do we write? I have tried:

But that produces "has not yet declared a connection." But they have declared a connection; we just don't know who the employer is.

Adding "unknown" to the employer parameter produces "paid by unknown." Sarah ^(talk) 16:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've moved this post, repinging: Mdann52 and Primefac. Also Coretheapple. Sarah ^(talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, if you know that the Church of X has hired (either directly or indirectly) User:A to write the page, but the user has not declared that they are being paid by a PR firm, then one must assume that the employer is also the Church of X. Not everyone goes through proxies and PR firms; sometimes they just hire someone. This is the reason why the employer parameter is required but the client is not. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But in cases where we don't know the employer, what do we write? Sarah ^(talk) 17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: "This is the reason why the employer parameter is required but the client is not." Declaring the client alone is declaring a connection. So we can't have the template say no connection has been declared when it has. Sarah ^(talk) 17:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, apparently you don't get it. If the Church of X has hired User:A directly, then they are both client and employer. If the user has not declared a separate employer (such as a PR firm) it makes the most sense to assume that client and employer are the same. Given that "employer" implies the person doing the actual paying, the employer field is required. If there is no client parameter given, then the assumption is that client=employer. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My first question is what we write when the name of the client has been declared, and we know there is a separate employer, but the name of the employer has not been declared. (I have other questions, but I'll ask them separately to avoid confusion.) Sarah ^(talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you know for a fact that there is an employer different from the client, then "unknown" should be used. At the moment it's really the only way to go, as the template is not set up to handle a yes-client/no-employer situation. However, I can add an employer=no parameter-check that will list a client even if the employer isn't given. Would that work? Primefac (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We need the template to be set up to handle a "employer=unknown; client=Church of X" situation, because it's not uncommon, which is perhaps why the Foundation stressed, including in the FAQ, that both parties must be named. Sarah ^(talk) 17:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Break

Primefac, it seems just the same to me. When I write:

{{Paid-talk|User1 = A| U1-employer= |U1-client=Acme Ltd}}

it still produces:

A (talk · contribs) This user has been paid by on behalf of Acme Ltd.

When the employer is unknown, we need something in that field. The template should be able to handle multiple combinations. For example, on the talk page of Painkiller X:

A (talk · contribs) This user has been paid by Smith Public Relations, on behalf of Acme Pharmaceuticals.

The above means both employer and client are known.

A (talk · contribs) This user has been paid on behalf of Acme Pharmaceuticals. The person or company paying for the contributions is UNKNOWN.

The above means the client is known, but the employer is unknown, and this is signalled, rather than the template just having a word missing.

A (talk · contribs) This user has been paid by and on behalf of Acme Pharmaceuticals.

The above means the employer and client are known, and they are the same entity.

Sarah ^(talk) 16:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be slightly nit-picky here, but if you don't add a blank UX-employer= parameter, it shows in the result as has been paid by {{{UX-employer}}} on behalf of ACME. However, I see you're scope-locked on getting it changed even more, so I'll fiddle with the code. I'm rather busy this weekend so it might not get done today. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done now, probably. Alakzi (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been asking for the same thing since 4 September. I'm obviously expressing myself poorly, but it seems clear that "This user has been paid by on behalf of Acme Ltd." is not ideal. I wonder whether Frietjes would be willing to help with this. Sarah ^(talk) 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, the template has already been updated thanks to Alakzi. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Fork

I'm noting for posterity that this template was forked from {{Connected contributor}}. Alakzi (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteforsyth, I've just seen you make edits to the above related to employer/client, so in case efforts are being doubled, I want to make sure you're aware of this template. Sarah ^(talk) 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of

Primefac, looking at the template you added to SpellBrite and User:Mhbte, that user has not been paid on behalf of Spellbrite, which is just the name of the product. They have been paid on behalf of whatever company makes the product.

Also, what does "U1-EH=yes" mean? Can this be clarified for new editors so that they know how to use the template? Sarah ^(talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"U1" is the first user listed. "EH" stands for "edited here", i.e. whether they've edited the article. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi is correct; its usage is in the template documentation right before the examples. As for Mhbte, I have clarified their {{paid}} template, however the SpellBrite template is still accurate so I don't see why that needs changing. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So what would "U1-EH=no" mean when posted on a talk page? Sarah ^(talk) 17:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That user 1 hasn't edited the article the talk page belongs to. The note is hidden for any value of "U1-EH" other than "yes". Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to tidy the English, it currently says:

A (talk · contribs) Their editing has included contributions to this article. They have been paid on behalf of Acme Ltd. They have not yet declared their employer.

Could it say instead?

A (talk · contribs) has been paid on behalf of Acme Ltd. The person or company paying for the contributions is unknown. A's editing has included contributions to this article.

It's important that "employer = " in the template does not produce the word employer, because most people will misunderstand that. We mean "the person or company paying for the contributions". And the bold helps the important parameters to stand out. Sarah ^(talk) 17:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Alakzi. Sarah ^(talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that bolding the client/employer will bring undue emphasis on what should really just be a maintenance template (never mind the fact that "employer" is almost universally recognised as "the one paying the person"). However, you seem so set on making it your way and not considering anyone else's opinion that I will leave you to edit this template to your heart's content. If you need technical assistance on this or any other template, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with it so far, Primefac. The problem is that the terms of use have been in place for over a year, and we still don't have a template able to handle the most likely combinations, so we do need to produce something asap. (The bolding is just a suggestion; not a major issue.) And no, employer is not universally understood that way. Lots of people will think it refers to the user's day job. Sarah ^(talk) 18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you still wanna reword the prose, or would you prefer to use Pete's version - provided that we can find another label for "employer"? Alakzi (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, I've only just realized that Pete was working on the other template, so perhaps for now we should focus on his version. Sarah ^(talk) 18:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - why not try language something like:

SomeEditor has been retained by SomeCompany to edit on the behalf of SomeOtherCompany
SomeEditor has been retained by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf.

This keeps from getting bogged down in the complexities of 'employer' vs 'client', day job, contractor etc. it just states that someone has paid for the edits the context of how the editor is being paid is not really important for this discussion. All we want to know here is if the editor is directly retained by the article subject or if there is an intermediary/PR Agency. Just my 2 cents. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 20:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, yes, exactly. But the discussion has moved yet again (fourth location in eight days) to Template talk:Connected contributor. Sarah ^(talk) 20:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#RfC:_Terms_of_Use_-_how_to_disclose_broker_.28Elance_etc.29 Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Drafts etc

Ping User:Alakzi User:Primefac User:SlimVirgin, I see this adds an article category. Is there any other reason why it mentions "This template should be placed on article talk pages" in bold? I ask because the ToU states "on all contributions". This discrepancy is noted at talk of WP:PAID with consensus that the ToU applies to drafts etc, so I was hoping we can just use this on userspace drafts, draftspace drafts and AfC. Can we relax the article cat and any other constraint to enable this? Widefox; talk 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why the text/cat can't be changed to "...should be placed on talk pages" or similar. There definitely needs to be the distinction that it go on Talk pages, but you're right that it can be (and actually is) used on Drafts/sandboxes/etc. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No objections from me. Alakzi (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, you mean place it on other pages in addition to talk pages? If so, I have no objection. But it should go on talk pages as a minimum. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I've already been bold and updated WP:PAID and WP:COI to remove the restriction to just "articles", and directly use the ToU wording ("all contributions"). We cannot reduce the scope of the ToU as we are not allowed to weaken it. The method (ie this template) can be changed, but I felt I had to fix that issue immediately and go with the wording for this template. There's User:DGG and others in agreement that the ToU talkpage option covers drafts (ie "all contributions"). I'm not sure how it's come be be thought of as just for articles, but that (IMHO) mustn't happen. Widefox; talk 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I wasn't thinking of non-talk pages no (no opinion). I'm sure you can word it better than me, but felt compelled to fix this now I've double-checked with others about the scope of the ToU. All paid editors I've interacted with have quoted the ToU at me as not applying to drafts (or applying only to articles), so this is also a real compliance issue due to not being explicit about drafts etc. Widefox; talk 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another problem I've noticed with drafts is that the paid editor requests their deletion, so the provenance of the paid text disappears. Paid editor A creates a draft in a sandbox, non-paid editor B adds it to the article, paid editor A requests deletion of the sandbox. So the history of the text, and that it was paid text, is gone, unless you know where to look and have access to deleted revisions, which readers don't for the most part. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

SarahSV Just to be sure, a non-paid editor B - not a sock/meat/paid and not an article creation?

If that's the scenario...doesn't this happen when paid-COI editors draft changes and COI edit request? We actually specify that don't we? Don't we use a merged tag or something to specify the draft can't be deleted and the article contains text from it. WP:CUTPASTE or MERGE (or something). (If they added it themselves it would be easier, otherwise B becomes a tainted paid COI editor that must disclose somehow, or disclose the COI author. I haven't researched my reply) Widefox; talk 23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, in the examples I'm thinking of a paid editor rewrites an article as a draft in userspace, then asks another editor (a regular Wikipedian) to add it to the article. There's no merging, so all you can see from the history is one edit changing the text. Sometimes the Wikipedian makes clear in the edit summary "copied from User:X's draft," and sometimes not. The paid editor then asks for the userpage draft to be deleted. This removes all trace of the paid text unless you know where to look for it.

If you merge the draft into the article, then you have paid editors' names in the article history, and it will look as though they've edited it themselves, so I'm not sure that is a good solution. A better solution would be that paid-editor drafts should not be deleted on request. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

SarahSV yes, I seen paid COIs make drafts and request this. (offtopic continued on your talk) Widefox; talk 01:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I agree, the user space drafts, or anywhere text is developed should not be deleted. I would have thought that doing so was already prohibited based on copyright. If a paid editors writes the text and another editor inserts it into the article the paid editor need to be credited not the editor who inserts it.

Thinking about it a bit more is there an issue that the text created by a paid editor is in fact a work for hire. In which case would not the copyright for that text actually lie with the person who paid for the edit? Yuck... that could be a bit sticky since the paid editor can not agree to license the text under Wikipedia terms without clearance from their client/employer and we would need to document that release. Or am I missing something? I've got to be missing something... Jbh ^Talk 00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, exactly, I was thinking deletion would be suppressed for copyright alone per WP:CUTPASTE.

(What this reminds me of, is with the Linux kernel, with binary blobs (loadable kernel modules) that the kernel reports it is "tainted" - a consequence of which is the whole tainted kernel is treated differently. That was my inspiration when I said (talk PAID I think) that a tag visible on the article being tainted may be (ultimately) desirable/needed - a bit like article source attribution notices from old encyclopedias etc. Random thought at this point.) Widefox; talk 01:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this might create a copyright problem. Perhaps we should add to WP:SPEEDY that paid drafts should not be deleted on request. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. There should also be instructions, if they do not already exist, on {{edit request}} to link to a diff of the requested edit as well as instructions at COIN for those adding material from COI 'suggestions' in general. Jbh ^Talk 10:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.

Would it be useful in the long-term to specify that paid drafts should go in draftspace and then they are less tied to the editor, easier to prevent deletion, and any teams can work on them (thinking out aloud). Widefox; talk 18:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits reviewed / checked variable

I've added a {{{checked}}} argument that indicates that the contributions of a COI editor have been reviewed/checked for neutrality (same as {{Connected contributor}}). That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hey I have been wanting to ask someone this. Sometimes we get very long lists of editors (I had 40 on one article!) and this template becomes intrusive. Would it be possible to build some kind of collapse function into this, like the bannershell for wikiprojects or a hat? Would be very useful on some articles. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Use on drafts

The template instruction says This template should be placed on article talk pages and on drafts. I took this to mean that if the article involving the COI editor was in draft, the template should go on the draft article page (where it is prominently seen by AfC reviewers, for example), rather than the draft's talk page. I am now led to believe this is not correct, and the template only goes on the talk page. If that's the case, shouldn't the wording be This template should be placed on the talk pages of articles and drafts.? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Template edit requests

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

[Note: I do not have a "COI" with regard to this topic, or I would be using the {{tl:edit request}} template.] I have some thoughts/ suggestions for the documentation of this template, and am interested in sharing them with the hope that others will agree that they are useful and will improve the use of the template, but am not comfortable making such edits to the template directly (WP:BOLD notwithstanding).

1.) First, the first sentence reads "Use this template when dealing with users who are being paid to contribute to Wikipedia"... That is horribly vague and unhelpful. How about, "This template should be placed by any editor on the talk pages of any and all articles for which at least one editor has been identified as a paid contributor." ("dealing with" sound like a mob hit!). That rephrasing makes clear who can place it and why/ where it should be placed (the original version does neither).

2.) The second paragraph has, in bolded text, "This template should be placed on the talk pages of articles and drafts." But does that mean it should be placed on the TALK pages of both such articles? Or does it mean that the something other than the "Page" should get this template? And does it mean that every article or draft with a disclosed paid COI should have this tag placed on it whenever one is identified? Are there any context when its placement is perhaps inappropriate or not necessary? When everything is in bold, no one can tell which part of the sentence if the important part and which is just necessary additional text. I think I know the answer to the question of where (which venues) the template should be placed, but this piece of instruction is, again, awfully vague about that.

3.) The third sentence reads, "Paid editors are required by the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use to disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to edits for which they are compensated. The employer is the person or organization paying for the edits, such as a PR company. The client is on whose behalf the edits are made; this is often the subject of the article. When employer and client are identical, simply supply the employer". (I am not sure I know how that is an "instruction", really, but that aside...) An editor could also have made a disclosure on his/ her user page or in an edit summary-- this sentence makes it sound like if a user has NOT done all three, then that user has not fully disclosed (...and therefore can now expect to have his/ her account blocked, created articles deleted, etc.). I think that if we are going to make this [kinda redundant] statement here, we had best be clear about what it means and who will get in trouble for what, as a result.

4. The fourth sentence reads, " you should post the disclosure at the top of talk pages as follows: {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertName|U1-employer=InsertName|U1-client=InsertName|U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.}}." But it does not make clear if every article with a paid contributor somewhere in its history should have this tag or not

More suggestions to follow, peraps, Let me now if any are considered implememtable. Thanks! KDS4444 ^(talk)

All of those seem to be suggestions for the documentation, not the template itself?

While the current wording of the first sentence can be improved, "by any editor on the talk pages of any and all articles for which at least one editor has been identified" seems somewhat over the top. How about removing "by any editor" and "any and all" and changing "at least one" into "an"? I think that wouldn't change the meaning at all but would sound better.
I'm not sure I understand the second question. The second paragraph says it should be placed on talk pages, and it should be placed on talk pages. The categories mentioned in the third paragraph show that it's only meant for talk pages, not for others. There is a separate temnplate meant for the user page disclosure.
The fourth paragraph about employers and clients sets up the fifth where that information is translated into template parameters. That said, the paragraph does not say the ToU require the use of this template - the other methods you mention are equally valid. It does say, however, that editors who, for example, only disclose that they are paid but not by whom are in violation of the Terms of Use.
I don't think clarity for the last issue is possible. For example, there will be some paid contributions that predate the ToU requirement - should those be tagged? Maybe, maybe not - that would depend on context. Personally I'd say the template should only be used if there's an issue regarding those paid contributions that requires dealing with - if a paid contributor fixes a grammar mistake or reverts obvious vandalism, I wouldn't add this template to the relevant talk page. Huon (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For reasons that are unclear, the OP has been removing the PAID tag from the talk page of Tom Paradise, an article they edited for pay per the tag at the article and their userpage - see:

diff, with edit note removing connected contributor template— I have already declared this on my userpage, WP:PAID does not require multiple disclosures ...Which, as far as I understand it, is true. KDS4444 ^(talk) 06:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
diff, edit note: removing connected contributor template for second time. Please discuss with me before placing it back....A request which was then ignored. KDS4444 ^(talk) 06:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
diff, with edit note: for the third time, am removing the connected contributor template. I asked for discussion before anyone replaced it (per WP:BRD), and did not get it. Please discuss this with me before putting the tag back there. Thanks. ...Which again was completely ignored-- imagine my frustration. KDS4444 ^(talk) 06:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the only example I am aware of, where a paid editor actually tried to remove the tag from the article Talk page (this has nothing to do with whether they edited the article for pay -- they did and have disclosed that -- but purely whether this should be disclosed via the tag at the talk page of the article that was edited for pay.) Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For reasons that are equally unclear, other Wikipedia editors have insisted on the placement of that tag, despite my having made a specific paid COI statement elsewhere on that page in preference to it-- which then, yes, is part of the reason I came to this page to see what the documentation had to say about it's use, and found what I believed were some problems worth addressing. And so I am not sure what the purpose of the above paragraph serves other than to imply that my suggestions are not worth consideration and must be self-serving somehow, which is not the case, and wouldn't it be nice if my good faith in this-- after eight years of editing, 20,000 edits, and the creation of over 130 articles with NO COIs-- could be assumed to be real instead of being maligned? And wouldn't it be even nicer if I were not being constantly followed everywhere I went by one other editor like some kind of gadfly? Because it has become more than annoying and I would very much like it to stop. KDS4444 ^(talk) 06:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I posted because what you want is clear, but you didn't state it clearly. It is clear that you want to have the "right" to prevent articles you edited for pay from being tagged as such on their talk pages. I do not believe you will ever get consensus for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Usernames used in "Example" section

It might be a good idea to tweak some of the usernames used in the "Example" section because two of the links lead to actual register accounts: User:zz and User:Ted Matthews. These accounts may no longer be active, but the "Ted Matthews" might be someone's realname and there's no indication that the account has been blocked/banned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add error message for misplaced transclusions in sandbox

This is meant to help cut down on misplaced transclusions on non-talk pages by giving an error message when that happens.

Example:

This template is to only be placed on talk pages.

However, I'm having issues making it so that the error can be bypassed when demonstrating the template on the documentation page's example section or elsewhere. Can someone with more experience with templates help out so it can possibly go live on the main template? Thanks. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it myself, question now is whether this change should go live? (diff) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Also made the demospace parameter stop the template from adding categories in order to avoid improper categorization (as well as a includeonly HTML wrap to prevent the first one from adding the category from being added to the template page itself). (new diff) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Error was changed to be "should only be used" instead of "is to only be placed" to make it less harsh and easier to read. I also used {{tl}} to make the error not ambiguous as to what template is causing the error message to appear. (new diff) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I've made all the changes I want to right now. I'll commit the edits to the main template after at least 24 hours, as to give time for anyone to raise any (legitimate) concerns with my changes. Here is a summary of them:

- Added the following to the "other=" parameter of {{Talk other}}: {{error|{{tl|Connected contributor (paid)}} is to only be used on [[Help:Talk pages|talk pages]].}}

- {{Talk other}} now wraps the template's code instead of just two categories, as to make the error display properly. The proper template will only display if it detects it is on a talkpage (otherwise showing the error instead).

- Added the ability for the template to pass a {{{demospace|}}} parameter to {{Talk other}}'s own demospace parameter.

- As to help prevent improper categorization, all categories are now wrapped like this: {{#if:{{{demospace|}}}||(category)}}. Template demonstrations should have demospace set to some value in order to not incorrectly place a page in categories meant for talk pages. The first of these (the U1 batch's "no known employer/client" category) is wrapped in <includeonly></includeonly> as to prevent the template page itself from being incorrectly categorized.

You can also view all the changes in my latest diff, provided above, as well as here.

Please ping me ({{ping|Kirbanzo}}) if you have any questions or concerns about these changes. Thank you. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Been a while, so I'm pushing the changes now. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Limit of users

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)

I used to be proficient with templates but haven't really messed around with them since WP:LUA was added. My understanding is there's a way to make templates with unlimited parameters, and perhaps that's what should be done here. Unless someone steps up and just does it, I'll try and research how it's done and update the template. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Let us first ask the natural question: if this happens only to a small subset of pages, perhaps the current implementation (where you simply use two or more instances of this template) is sufficient? Do y'all think an effort to extend the limit based on the number of cases is warranted? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes these things are pretty simple, it's just a matter of knowing how to do it. I don't know if there's a noticeboard for template editors, but you might even ask there (or perhaps WP:VPT) and see if someone can assess the difficulty level of changing it. Work has kept me busier than usual or I'd likely be further along in learning LUA. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template colors

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)

Green I am a fan of the green. It improves the visibility. I don't believe that it endorses paid editing by virtue of its association with the green of a traffic light. I don't really buy the "color=meaning" argument, as it varies among cultures and you can find a rationale for any combination you like online (red=anger, red=love, red=war, red=blood, red=happiness, red=sadness?) Also, does anyone really, really know what color is red or green or yellow? --- Possibly (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I am in favor of any color which stands out from the normal talk page banner color, and the green serves that purpose quite well. (It's also the proverbial color of American money, which correlates to the dollar sign image on the template.) I have absolutely no objection to another color, as long as it clearly visibly contrasts with the normal coloring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the green. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Revert to status quo ante - I concur with Worldbruce that the color change is confusing. Green, and indeed, a pale shade of green for templates, usually denotes approval. Granted, there may be variations in cultural associations with the color green, but on Wikipedia, green backgrounds consistently represent something being approved – for instance, successful RfAs and approved AfCs. On the other hand, informational talk page templates consistently use a shade of tan. I would rather maintain consistency with the existing color scheme than give the impression, to readers, that paid editing is somehow endorsed by Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I do like that the template stands out more, so I think the rationale for the change was appropriate. However, green can subtly imply that the community endorses (not just permits) the activity, which is not the case. See an example of usage of this template with paid editors that are blocked and used many sockpuppets: Talk:Martin Saidler. MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Revert to status quo ante. I agree with Altamel. Green implies approval or endorsement and this template does not suggest any of that between Wikipedia and a COI partner. We can discuss other colors later, but green is a bad choice and should be reverted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Green, the reason I chose it was because of greenbacks. I'm not necessarily married to green however, simply something to visually help it stand out would suffice. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Revert to status quo ante. Green implies endorsement for something that rightfully needs to stand out. I would argue for orange as an alternative though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Not green We use green for good things around here. I'm not convinced that it needs to stand out compared to any other talk page banner. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Return to status quo - While suggesting green for warnings means your communication skills are lacking (and so I oppose green extra much), reverting to default is the obvious step while a discussion is taking place. CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. If consensus agrees on a new color scheme, it should of course be applied. After there is consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The irony when banner blindness is so bad with useless banners that our solution is to start making notices in different colours. Soon talk pages are going to go from a wall of text of meaningless words, into a rainbow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the solution isn't to introduce color. On the other hand, vague passive-aggressiveness isn't helping either, Procrast. (If you have a template in mind you find useless, argue for its removal at its talk page) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)