MediaWiki talk:Cite-ve-dialogbutton-citation-educationpopup-text

Suggested changes
Following up from mw:Topic:Wh1vsit92x6bpqp7, I'd like to request that this notice be changed so that it reads:

This adds a link to a helpful newcomer-friendly page where newcomers who want to learn more about what qualifies as a reliable source can do so. It also adds the words "reliable" and "reputable", alluding to the fact e.g. that not all websites are going to be acceptable (the current version is borderline misleading). Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  07:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Help Project, Wikipedia talk:Usability. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * what are the steps to see this popup right now, I can validate if it will hold wikitext or not. — xaosflux  Talk 10:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: Presumably clicking on the 'Cite' button. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  10:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that, here is this page in visual editor: edit, clicking "cite" isn't showing me that - is this a skin-specific or mobile thing? — xaosflux  Talk 10:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: Try running it in an incognito tab - it only appears for new editors. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks that helps - will look in to, probably later today. — xaosflux  Talk 10:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

&#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  20:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * need some more info. — xaosflux  Talk 10:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Testing at test wiki link test in private window - currently waiting for batch refresh. — xaosflux  Talk 18:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The wikitext didn't work for me. You could try  tags. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  18:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tried wiki html links, and html links - pending message refresh on testwiki. — xaosflux  Talk 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: That didn't work either. I think the message should.still be changed, sans the link. I suppose you could do something like . . . (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliability)
 * ❌ so a few problems:
 * Information on Wikipedia is expected to be verifiable, and to use reliable sources - but that doesn't mean the information itself is "reliable" - note, even the page you suggested mentions reliable sources not reliable content
 * Links don't work in this message, and without linking to even what our definition of something means here, we should not use ambiguous terms
 * If you want to get links to work on that message you will need to submit a software feature request
 * Bare url's in an interface message don't go along with our normal style
 * I don't think we should dump a new user in to page 5 of a tutorial lesson where the next action call is to take a quiz.
 * So, all that being said - at the very least this is a controversial edit so consider that we are now at stage 3 of WP:BRD and you will need to develop a consensus for these changes. Feel free to advertise this discussion in appropriate places like the village pump. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was meant to be directed primarily to User:Sdkb, but all participants are certainly welcome to continue discussing improvements for this message. — xaosflux  Talk 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Qwerfjkl/Xaosflux—thanks both for engaging! I think that the wikilinks are the most crucial part of this, so I'll file a Phabricator task for that, and I think we should put this on hold until that's resolved—gaining editorial consensus is hard enough even without technical hurdles haha. Once that's done, I'll be happy to pick this up again and advertise more widely. I think we could address the reliable source vs. reliable information distinction by going with Improves your content by adding reliable sources of information instead. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks, prob should ask that all of this same class of messages support wikilinks, not just the one. And of course just because I think link to page 5 of a help instead of for example WP:V is a bad idea, doesn't meant that everyone else won't support it - the 'not done' here is just as to the immediate-edit-request process; please consider it the same as a bold/revert step not some sort of hard "NO, so say I the admin!". —  xaosflux  Talk 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux Done at T298837. You're better at writing good phab tickets than I am, so feel free to edit it. And yep, understood—I hadn't initially added an edit request tag to this precisely because I figured there might be some hurdles (both technical/editorial) before it'd be ready, but I'll continue with the process and hopefully it won't get stuck. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 March 2022
Following the discussion above and at the Village Pump, there's clearly consensus to change this line. What precisely to change it too is slightly less clear, but I think the closest to a consensus version is Content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. You can cite from books, newspapers and websites. (This hews closely to the universal editnotice wording.) Could it please be implemented? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * seems ok enough, do you want to drop the "Improves your content...." part too though? Here is the current message:
 * What do you want the entire new message to say? — xaosflux  Talk 09:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, drop the "improves" phrase, so that what I put above (link included) is the entire new message. Editors rightly pointed out that "improves" gives the impression references are just optional rather than expected. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)