Forum:SH Archive/Telling people they're editing GAs/FAs

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Telling people they're editing GAs/FAs

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 16:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Almost every day it happens that people are editing GAs or FAs without sourcing their edits or sometimes they even make the quality worse. I've just recently had the idea of telling the people that they are editing a GA or FA. The idea came up when I randomly pressed the edit button on Wikipedia, where I saw the notice: "This is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. For details, see the disambiguation page style guideline.". I know that we're not Wikipedia, but I actually like this concept of telling people what they're doing. If there would be a notice like...:

"This is a featured article, which means that it's considered one of our best articles. Any new edits to it must adhere to our sourcing policy. Edits that lower the article's quality qualify for immediate revertion. In case you're unsure if your edit is productive to the article, it's recommended to talk to the author(s) first."

...those bad edits to GAs/FAs might reduce. Sure, "male exile" vandals won't stop because of this notice, but the editors with good intentions who are just not aware of our policies then know that they source the edit, and they reconsider if the edit is really productive. I have checked out the source, and it should be working here (unless Wikia has made something that this doesn't work). So, what do you think of this idea? Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:10, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

  • Ordinarily, I'd agree with this. But nine times out of ten, it appears that most people just disregard any messages that are directed at them, which is why I think that this wouldn't solve the problem. Besides, there's nothing wrong with reverting their edit(s) and telling them why after the fact. But just to be clear, are you talking about a template or some other kind of notice? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:58, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  • It might be worth a try (even though Tranner's right; people generally think they know everything and plow on regardless of any warnings or notices), though it could also dissuade anonymous users from fixing typos and the like. The more we put in people's way, the less likely genuine, helpful anons are going to want to fix mistakes. So, I dunno. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that a lot of people will just ignore the warning, but it might be worth it for those few who will read it and take it into consideration. Tranner, it won't be a template in the article itself, but a part of the javascript that will appear above the edit window only when you are editing the article, like in the example Pranay gave. If no one has an objection I can attempt to write up a code for it, and we can see what everyone thinks? Grunny (Talk) 08:39, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
    • I like the idea, and as long as it's not too complicated to implement, it would be worth the effort if even one or two people think twice before making bad edits to these articles. In reply to Acky's concern about dissuading anons from fixing small errors, I would simply suggest that the notice specifically state that simple spelling/grammar corrections and the like are welcome and encouraged, possibly linking to WP:BOLD. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:07, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

... How the heck do they do that? I WANT! NOW! Sikon! GreenTentacle! Xwing! GIMME! -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:41, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

  • In all likelihood, they would probably ignore the message if it was in the javascript more than if it was in template form. And let's face it - if someone's going to make a bad-faith edit, a simple message is unlikely to stop them from doing so. I might be willing to support a trial period (if one is possible), but I'd still like to see the details hammered out before I say for sure. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:55, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • The required JavaScript is on User:Green tentacle/monobook.js (copied from Wikipedia's code). It currently loads {{featured}} for any featured articles and {{disambig}} for any disambig pages. We'd obviously need to change these for better templates. If people want to give it a trial, this can just be added to the site-wide JS. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:21, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
    • The code might need tweaking before adding to the site-wide js, as it currently will only work on the monobook skin, as you can see when copying the same code into your monaco.js. Grunny (Talk) 01:02, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm a bit late here, but I like the idea. Though I think it will probably prove worthless, it can't hurt to try. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:33, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks to Sikon, I now have the code that can work in both Monaco and monobook, but we should probably make a new template before putting it into practice for a trial. :-) Grunny (Talk) 10:32, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
    • Who cares about Monaco? :-P Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:53, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
      • We might not care about it, but these messages are aimed mostly at two groups of users: anons who are forced to use Monaco, and newly registered users who probably don't know how or why to change skins. So, unfortanately, it has to work with Monaco. :( —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:46, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • I think for the people that are really only editing with bad faith, maybe the abuse filter could do something against these. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:32, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I copied GT's code linked above into my monobook.js to test it. I like it, but it should be noted that it transcludes the whole page and ignores any "noincludes". Just something to keep in mind when we come up with new messages. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:18, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we can't put anything other than the template we want to see. The Wikipedia template does not contain anything other than the template, so we'll have to do the same to make it work. Grunny (Talk) 22:30, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've created a basic template we could use, using Pranay's wording above which can be found here. To preview it with the code, just replace "addEditIntro('Template:Featured');" with "addEditIntro('User_talk:Grunny/Sandbox');" in the code GT provided. Any suggestions for wording, colors, etc.? :-) Grunny (Talk) 04:16, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
        • You can preview it without messing with any JS by adding "&editintro=User_talk:Grunny/Sandbox" to the URL after clicking edit, or by just clicking here. Just don't go editing Guri. ;-) Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:16, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  • I do have one more concern with this - how are the would-be editors going to know who the author of the article is? Obviously, long-time editors know where to find the information, but I highly doubt that newcomers would know as well. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:20, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
    • Well instead we could say something like: "In case you're unsure if your edit is productive to the article, it's recommended you ask on the article's talk page first." Grunny (Talk) 13:23, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
      • Good idea. Otherwise, I like it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:16, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
        • I shared Tranner's concern, and I too think that the talk page addition is worthwhile :P -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 16:28, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  • Kinda late to this party, but looks like an excellent idea. :) Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:38, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, changed the wording and added a link to the sourcing policy. Any other issues or ideas? Or can I add it to the site-wide js so we can start our trial of it? :-) Grunny (Talk) 21:36, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
      • It may not put an end to all vandalism and lousy edits, but it's a good idea and I don't see why not. CC7567 (talk) 22:17, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  • Preventative measures are always welcome.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No truth in me) 23:49, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, it has been added to the site-wide code. If you refresh your cache, you should all see it when you edit featured articles. Please let me know if there are any problems, or if you have any ideas :-). Grunny (Talk) 00:15, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
    • Another template should now appear when you edit good articles too :-). Grunny (Talk) 02:43, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks great. --Eyrezer 05:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
        • Looking good. Nice work. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:58, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
          • Note that this will only show if people click the main edit link. Clicking the edit link on a section will not show the message. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:08, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
            • I've changed the JavaScript to apply it to section edit links as well as the main one. Should work on both skins. Let me know if there's any problems. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:09, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks great! I'd also say the "article's talk page" text should link to the actual talk page. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:31, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
        • Awesome, thanks for that GT :-). And a link to the article's talk page has now been added :). Grunny (Talk) 23:39, September 17, 2009 (UTC)