Template talk:Connected contributor

Tracking category request
Uses of this template that have no and also a value for checked for the same user indicate an error, as if the user has not contributed to the article, there is nothing to check. Could we create a check and maintenance category for this issue? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sdkb Related to this and User:jlwoodwa's request below: I see Category:Articles with connected contributors has 17K+ entries and wonder if having subcategories to separate direct vs. indirect editing would be helpful. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a massive 17,000-article category, so yes, I'd say it'd definitely be helpful to diffuse. In addition to yes vs. no, we could also diffuse by whether the edits have been checked or not. However, it gets complicated fast because of the possibility of multiple connected contributors. (Also, there's the possibility that the connected contributor has edited more recently than the check, but that gets to a flaw of this template's design.)
 * Any further discussion on that should take place in another thread, though, since it's rather separate from the error check I am requesting here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone else'll have to take the idea and run with it. From a technical perspective, I don't really know what I'm proposing. I just think there's a big difference between a connected contributor who has worked on the article vs. one who has not, and right now they are all being lumped into a single category. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer, I've implemented diffusion, with articles directly edited by contributors now going to Category:Articles edited by connected contributors, which should gradually populate. I've also implemented the check I requested at the top of this section, going to Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters. Cheers,  Sdkb  talk 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , your recent edits to this template seem like an error to me. Coding:
 * Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters
 * indicates that the act of populating Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters is an error in itself; i.e. the category should be kept clear at all times. Are you working on clearing it? There are over 250 members – and thus [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error&namespace=1&hidelinks=1 over 250 errors] demanding immediate attention.
 * Looking at one of them, Talk:Debbie Gibson, I see that there is only one contributor, who has indeed contributed to the article.
 * Your assertion that this use of the template that has no is wrong:
 * They have simply omitted the parameter, not used it to lie. I think you should assume that unless they explicitly declare that they have not edited the article, that they indeed have edited the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Wbm1058! 250 errors on a template with 18,000 transclusions doesn't seem like a particularly high rate to me. The way I interpret the documentation, yes should always be used if the user has edited, never assumed — we could just as easily assume that omitting it means the user has not edited, which creates ambiguity. The banner language and category also will not be changed unless the parameter is used.  Sdkb  talk 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Wbm1058! 250 errors on a template with 18,000 transclusions doesn't seem like a particularly high rate to me. The way I interpret the documentation, yes should always be used if the user has edited, never assumed — we could just as easily assume that omitting it means the user has not edited, which creates ambiguity. The banner language and category also will not be changed unless the parameter is used.  Sdkb  talk 18:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The way I interpret the documentation, your reading comprehension needs improvement. "(optional)" does not mean required.
 * editedhere
 * Yes/no parameter (optional). If the COI editor has edited the present article, enter "yes".
 * If you want to populate your new category Category:Pages using connected contributor with conflicting parameters, so that someone may, at their leisure, next month or next year, work to clear the category by filling in this optional parameter, then fine. I object to elevation of this optional parameter to a requirement, omission of such is a hard error demanding top-priority attention. Just populating the category, with a warning message, should be sufficient.– wbm1058 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand optional to mean that the parameter is not required in all uses of the template, but it should still always be used where it applies.  Sdkb  talk 02:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 12 January 2024
Description of suggested change: Use yesno for editedhere.

Diff:


 * We want to ensure that instances of editedhere that are left undefined don't get assumed to be no. But if that's handled, then switching to yesno to make this template a little more flexible sounds fine to me. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was probably assumed in the original request and so maybe I am stating the obvious, but this would need to be applied to through, like it is for  and .  &mdash;  Archer  (t·c) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the sandbox accordingly, but is right, yesno should be handled first. I'm not performing the edit for the time being. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating edit request as the code here does not appear to be ready to go live. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Banned" parameter/wording
Wouldn't "blocked" be more common? Today there's also partial blocks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

option to link to user page from "declared"?
Hi, based on community feedback, I am adding this template to the talk pages of pages that I've edited. Is there a way to link to my userpage for the COI declaration? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You can add the otherlinks parameter of connected contributor to add a wikilink (e.g., COI declarations: User:Rachel Helps (BYU)) or a full URL (e.g., COI declarations:). These examples link just to your "Conflict of Interest statements" section, but you could link to each specific COI statement section as appropriate. Alternatively, the declared parameter can be added to place the diff # (i.e., "oldid" number) of a specific edit that adds/changes a COI declaration, but if you change the COI declaratation subsequently, you'd need to update the diff # wherever you specified it. &mdash;  Archer1234  (t·c) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

10 user limit
I notice at Talk:Monero that user1 through user10 have all been claimed, so a second duplicate template has been added to hold the overflow. Would it be practical to expand the template to allow for more users? Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The ideal coding would allow indefinitely many connected contributors to be declared without repeating the code internally. I'd support a switch to that, but I'd oppose increasing the number by copy-pasting further, as more than 10 is very rare, and there is an associated maintenance burden with longer code.  Sdkb  talk 18:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)