MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn

Change being requested
For page watchers, see Village_pump_(proposals). — xaosflux  Talk 10:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

New design
Good change. I like the new design of the message; it was surprising to me first but hopefully actually attracts the attention it deserves. That said, I'm unsure if any banner message can fix fundamental misunderstandings about copyright, and the verifiability policy doesn't strictly require citations for all encyclopedic content. That's somehow a lie-to-children, but a justified one, I'd say. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please revert at least the color. It is garish and draws too much attention to itself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The color change seems fine enough to me. It's important info, and though its a bit of an arms race, yes, it's competing with other notices that have a lot more emphasis. But, as TBF notes above, through by including is problematic because citations are not always strictly required. The current wording was a result of a large discussion that achieved a careful balance — "verifiable through citations" implies but doesn't actually demand that you add the citations, but "verifiable by adding" does. deleted  removed I'm also neutral about — was there a reason for that?
 * Given that concerns about various parts of the redesign have been raised above, and that the change appears to have been a bold one, I'm going to revert without prejudice toward reinstatement if we find consensus to do so. @Oshwah, improvements in this area are always welcome, but given that this notice appears at 60 million pages, my reading of WP:TPECON is that we should be very cautious about ensuring that changes are widely advertised/reflect consensus.  Sdkb  talk 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sdkb - Fair enough. I extend my thanks to ToBeFree for starting this discussion, as well as Jonesey95 for adding their input. There wasn't any in-depth reason for the wording change other than to make the sentence read out more smoothly. If the color is too much, would anyone be opposed to me just centering the text for now? Maybe adding back the border, but without any change to the color? We can always go back and discuss that aspect of the design, color, look, etc from there... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's try centering the text. It currently gets drowned by all the boxes around it; the notice icon doesn't help much. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ToBeFree - ✅. I added the border as well, but without the code that changed the background color like in my previous modification. To everyone: Let me know what your thoughts are. My thought is that it makes this template appear like a typical edit notice box that most others also include. If anyone believes that the border should go, let me know and I'll take it off. If anything, I think that the way it looks now is much better and more cleaner than what the status quo was. Of course, I did prefer the original change that I implemented (a big thanks to Sdkb for recognizing my efforts as being made under the principle of being bold), but what matters most in the end is that improvements are made and in a way that the community (and the general consensus) feels is appropriate. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have waited for 's consent to avoid any impression of wheel-warring... &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have a strong view about the border/centering, but if others object to it, I'd want us to wait for affirmative consensus before implementing per WP:TPEBOLD (which we are not following so far).
 * I also retain my concern about giving wide notice — this is an obscure talk page, and I could easily see someone noticing the change but being unable to give input on it because they cannot find this discussion.  Sdkb  talk 18:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ToBeFree - Great input; thank you for mentioning this. I'm of course absolutely not trying to edit war, wheel war, or push any kind of... "agenda"; after all, this discussion and the changes made are only about formatting and style. It would be a very... weird... "agenda" for me to push if I had one, and I'm damn sure that any "argument" defending such agenda would hold absolutely no weight or merit at all with anybody on this project. ;-) I'm not worried about the impression of edit or wheel warring, since this discussion shows my intentions and my attempts at being open to discussion about this. However, your input and thoughts above should absolutely be acknowledged, and I 100% do acknowledge them. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb, I assumed that the deleted/removed problem was to reduce confusion over what constitutes Deleting.
 * I am more concerned about the lie-to-children that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by including citations". I suggest that it be improved along these lines:
 * "All content in articles must be verifiable. Learn how to add citations to reliable sources."
 * It's short, simple, and accurate. It eliminates certain silly problems (so, non-encyclopedic content is okay and doesn't need to be verifiable?) as well as the bigger problem, which is that including citations is not what makes a given piece of content be verifiable.  We need to avoid overstating the requirements, so that we don't produce a generation of editors who only know the dumbed-down rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please either remove the new design or give us the option of hiding it. The community should've been given the chance to accept or reject this change. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, the change was made in good faith but does seem bitey and patronising. (Sorry, I don't have a citation to a reliable source for that opinion as demanded by the notice.) Certes (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still too garish for me, so I hid it with this in my common.css:  YMMV. As an added bonus, I gained a bit of valuable vertical space on my editing screen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll copy that. I was about to adblock it with Ublock Origin (which I have installed with Wikipedia whitelisted) but that is a neater solution. Certes (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the border is what is bitey and patronizing? The message text, and the vertical space it consumes hasn't changed in years. — xaosflux  Talk 01:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's the border. I'd become blind to the existing text as just another part of the useless boilerplate that I ignore every time I read or edit a page, but now it seems intrusive.  Anyway, it's gone for me now. Certes (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We should perhaps limit the part about verifiability to the two namespaces it really applies to: Article and Draft. Perhaps with their talk pages. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95! Hey, long time no chat! I hope you're doing well! :-) Forgive me, but I'm trying to understand why you believe that simply adding a small amount of formatting (centering the text and putting it inside of a very small border) would give off a bitey or patronizing demeanor. Certes also mentioned above about the fact that they had become "blind" to the text, and that the change appears intrusive. Sure, that's understandable - the modification I made clearly shows that the change drew a lot of attention - hence why we're here right now. However, the explanation for people suddenly noticing this warning is simple: it's due to the fact that it has changed from being what we're all used to seeing for many years. I'll address what was stated above by asking this question: Let's say that this modification is implemented and not modified moving forward. In one-to-two years, do you believe that your mind will have learned to become "blind" to this warning just like before, and that you'd never notice it again? I believe the answer to this question is absolutely "yes". The reason that I hope this modification stays published is because I believe that it looks more organized, cleaner, and much better-looking than what it was before. It looks more professional compared to being some text that's left-justified and thrown on. I was just editing a page, noticed this warning (yes, I was also "blind" to it as well), and thought that it would look much better if it had a little bit of formatting improvements. Again, any in-depth details and explanation behind your thoughts here would be helpful. Thanks for responding and sharing your honest feedback and concerns. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there. If you want to quote me correctly, I said "garish", not "bitey and patronising"; the latter was our friend Certes. I will admit that I had been blind to the notice as well, to the point where I thought the modified notice was something completely new imposed upon us by the WMF. In any event, once I realized that (a) the now-noticeable notice had always been there, (b) I didn't need it, and (c) I could just hide it (and the companion "warn2" near the Publish button) and regain some valuable screen space, I hid it. I have been a bit obsessed with regaining dead screen space since the roll-out of Vector 2022. I now have no opinion on whether this notice should stay as it is or go back to its previous appearance. I trust the judgement of the rest of the editors here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95 - Please accept my apologies - I didn't mean to misquote you. We've run into each other quite a bit over the years, and I always respect your input. You've been a great contributor, and thanks for letting me know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! I just wanted to ensure that the mean thing I said was correctly attributed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Color aside, remove is the right wording. You delete an article and remove sentences. It's just grammar. And including is much more accurate than through. Through, I have it in my bookshelf – no, I have to include it in the article.
 * In regard to the color I cannot say anything because I don't remember to have ever seen this notice. I don't know how it looks like when in use. Killarnee (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Killarnee, just click edit on this page (or any other) in source mode (not VisualEditor) and you'll see it right above the edit window, below the other editnotices.
 * Having sat with it for a week or so to see if it'd grow on me, @Oshwah, I have to say that I don't find the border to be an improvement (there's just already too many borders, and an additional one with very small padding gives a cluttered visual effect), and I'm not really seeing an affirmative consensus for the change so far. Would you mind if we restore the status quo non-bordered version until consensus develops?  Sdkb  talk 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Alright now it's visible, looks like 2017 source editor also belongs to VisualEditor despite the name.
 * The blue background looked misplaced but I think the border with a decent color like the current #663300 or a neutral color like black or gray is a good idea. Without the border it doesn't look like a notice box. But I don't have a definite preference in relation to the graphic style. Killarnee (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. Go for it! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sdkb - I forgot to ping you in my response above! My bad... I went ahead and removed the border for you (and consensus of course). The only thing that is different now is that the text is centered instead of left-justified. I will state that I believe that this is a good change, but of course - if others disagree, feel free to express that opinion and remove. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Further changes
I note earlier discussion, but I think the current wording could be improved to the benefit of the project, using plainer language with the specific aim of making the intent clearer to new editors

I suggest changing:

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources."

to something like :

"If you add or update article content, you must say where you got your information, by citing reliable sources."

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "must" is too strong. WP:V does not require that you must say where you got your information in all cases, but All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Later, WP:PROVEIT has a four-item list, with the implicit statement that if the material falls outside all four criteria, a citation is not required. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then use "should". But note that PROVEIT neither says nor implies that a citation is not required for content falling outside the four bullet points. It explicitly refers to inline citations. The "nustshell" on W:V precedes your quotation with "...all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources" (my emboldening). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "must" is not correct, as I said above, and overall I don't see this as an improvement.  Sdkb  talk 17:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we restore part of the content reuse disclaimer?
Regarding MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn/Archive 1 I occasionally see newbies, and people with maybe a few months service, complaining that somebody else has altered what they wrote. We used to warn them that this would happen: now, they need to dig around in the terms of use (linked from MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning).

Therefore, can we bring back some of the sentence that was ? Specifically, the part about work submitted may be edited. I suggest this: Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, subject to certain terms and conditions. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The thread you linked above led to the large VPR discussion at . I think that discussion had the right outcome and would be opposed to reversing it.  Sdkb  talk 01:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)