Template talk:Paid

Needs to be changed
I'm trying to edit this, but can't see how to make the fix. When posted on a talk page, it currently produces:




 * X, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, discloses that they have been paid by A to edit this page.

What we need is employer = and client = and paid for their contributions. Something like:


 * X, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, discloses that they have been paid for their contributions by A, on behalf of B."

But if A and B are the same, B can be omitted. Can anyone help with this? Sarah (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am happy to edit the template, but I would really like a straight answer to the question I've now posed a couple of times to you - why is it necessary to say "paid to edit page Y" on Page Y's talk page? It's redundant information, and your wording is actually more convoluted than what currently exists. As a side note, you're not exactly making minor edits... Primefac (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It says "paid to edit this page," on the talk page. Perhaps they were paid to edit the talk page, or perhaps the article. It is more likely that they have been paid to make contributions helpful to the payer or client, with a view to improving one article or a suite of articles, via direct editing or talk-page proposals or drafts. We also want to be able to keep track of payers (PR companies) and clients, and naming them in the template is an easy way to do that.


 * So when someone is paid to edit or influence the article on Religion X, we want to know on Talk:Religion X that Smith PR paid the user on behalf of The Church of X. That is, employer = Smith PR, and client = The Church of X. Sarah (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging who said s/he might be able to help. Sarah (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:SpellBrite and Talk:MasterCraft (TCS product) for the most up-to-date versions of the talk page template. Of course, neither user added the employer or client information, but it's there to be observed. also contains examples. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , you can see on Talk:SpellBrite that the template doesn't deliver the information we need. It says: "Mhbte, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, discloses that they have been paid to edit SpellBrite." Paid by whom? Sarah (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , the template can't supply information that wasn't given to it. You'd have to ask the editors who paid them so it can be added to the page. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging because I'm failing to explain this properly. We need a template that requires employer to be filled in – that will leave a space if it's empty and a request to fill it. We also need it to leave a separate space for client, and to make that obvious and easy to add and understand. But if employer and client are identical, they don't both have to be filled in. Also, it is still saying: "X, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, discloses that they have been paid by A on behalf of B to edit [title of article]." But they're advised not to edit the article, so we need instead to refer to contributions to Wikipedia. Sarah (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no code we can use that requires employer to be filled in. We can add red text or something if not, but there is no way to prevent the page from saving using just template code if a parameter is not supplied. If a user does not supply this, we should AGF and ask them why not, and if they genuinely don't understand, feel free to do it for them - there are only so many hoops it is reasonable to get people to jump through. Transparency is one thing, but if our steps are overcomplicated, then no one will understand how to. While I can change the wording of this, and the template, it already appears to do what you want (provide space to disclose employer, client and additional text if needed. Adding an article is shortly going to be introduced, as and when I sort it out, and I'll default it to the page name. More complex cases can be handled with additional text. Mdann52 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a paid editor not edit the main article they're supposed to be editing. If you'd like to go around reverting them, feel free, but until you can guarantee they're not editing the page I think "editing " is appropriate. I'm working on getting the params required, but since I haven't seen a solid consensus at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure it's been on the back burner (though the argument is so multi-threaded and convoluted it's impossible to follow). Primefac (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of them don't. BP's PR person created drafts in userspace and asked others to carry them over. Primefac, there is already consensus for this. It is policy that editors must disclose employer and client for paid contributions. Sarah (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't mistake my speed (or lack thereof) for not doing the work, it just hasn't been high on my priority list and my life is rather busy at the moment. I don't want the template to be yelling at users, so I'm making sure that I do this in a non-BITEy way that is still user-friendly. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having just re-read your comment regarding BP - when a draft becomes an article the creator still gets all credit for editing that article, so they have directly edited the article, they've just been wise enough to pass it through Draft process first. Primefac (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is just one example. PR people are often told not to edit the article by their companies, some of which have signed up to a code of ethics re: WP. The talk-page comment has to fit all scenarios, so it needs to say "contributions to this topic." That covers everything. And "contributions to Wikipedia" won't work on all user pages, because some do volunteer work too. Sarah (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, BP didn't pass it through the draft process. Sarah (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes

 * Despite the changes, when I add:




 * I still get:


 * Mr. Nobody, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Smith Public Relations on behalf of Church of X to edit [name of article].


 * Also, filling in the "additional" parameter produces words after the sentence. Sarah (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole point of the "additional" parameter was so that the additional text would go at the end. It allows for more freedom that way. Primefac (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks very odd.


 * What about "to edit [name of article]? I can't see where that is coming from, and it needs to change because PR people often don't edit the article. Sarah (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * saw your ping. I agree that the language must cover situations in which a paid editor gets his contributions into Wikipedia, whether by posting directly into the article or on the talk page. We also need to cover situations in which the paid editor behaves in a deceptive fashion by pocketing the money and asking another editor to carry out the changes. That is expressly prohibited by the TOU, which forbids deceptive practices. I think that objective can be satisfied by simply changing the wording from "to edit [name of article]" to "to change the content of [name of article]." "Edit" refers to a specific action, directly editing the article. "Change the content" refers to the actions that are functionally the same as editing, but can also include placing material in draft form on the talk pages or having another, nonpaid editor place material in the article on the paid editor's behalf. The latter technique has been utilized in the past and is a realistic possibility for editors, especially administrators, who have a network of friends and acquaintances in the project. Since the purpose of using "cut-outs" is to evade the TOU, it is covered by the TOU and its prohibition on deceptive acts. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, I'm finding it difficult to explain what's needed, and it's frustrating (there was discussion elsewhere too; I may have to put myself through template school!). , I'm not asking that the template not be saved if something is not filled in, but that it leave a space or red text (or something) if employer – the entity paying for the contributions – is missing. I would also like to remove "this user discloses," because they don't always disclose. A template similar to would be helpful so that we don't need a separate box for each paid user:


 * The following Wikipedia contributors have been paid for their contributions to this topic. The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require that this be disclosed. Relevant policies/guidelines are Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure and Conflict of interest.


 * User A has been paid for their contributions to this topic by [employer: Smith PR], on behalf of [client: The Church of X]. Additional relevant affiliations: [whatever]
 * User B has been paid for their contributions to this topic by [employer: Jones PR], on behalf of [client: Opponents of The Church of X]. Additional relevant affiliations: [whatever]

-


 * Mdann52, are you willing to make something like the above? The template shouldn't say "paid to edit this article," because they're often paid to influence the direction of content, not edit it. This can be done by taking control of the talk page, supplying what appear to be neutral sources, etc. Also, an earlier version of this template defaulted to "paid to edit" the article of whatever talk it was posted on. That doesn't work because The Church of X might pay to influence Religion X, so "this topic" is better wording. Sarah (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , two of your concerns have already been changed (one by me, one by Mdann52, in three different ways), and I am currently working on a multi-editor version of the paid template. Once again, you're asking for something that is not required at this exact moment, so I haven't been giving it my 100% attention, but I should have it done in the next day or two. However, the original paid template should be kept as-is because it's being used on user pages. I'm not going to overhaul it simply for use on talk pages. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know which changes you're referring to. I added client and "this topic" myself, instead of the article name. Perhaps we should create a new template if you don't want to help, but this is now day five (or thereabouts) of trying to explain this, and it's very frustrating. If the template is poor, there will be endless confusion from paid editors and volunteers about how to fill it in, so we need something clean and simple, and which readers will understand. Whoever writes this has to understand the paid-editing issues, so that we can anticipate "if we say this, some people will understand it as that." But when I try to explain certain issues, you have tended to ignore what I've said or told me that I haven't responded, so I'm obviously not communicating well. Sarah (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm doing my best to understand, and I apologise for mistaking your edit as Mdann's. I'm a little insulted you think my template is poor, because it is incredibly straight-forward in my mind (three required parameters and two optional ones). I think the confusion in getting this sorted comes because requests are coming in faster than things can be edited, and so a "I haven't seen this change" note often is coming after the change has already been implemented (cache issues, I imagine). I think the best thing to do is stop having long rambling paragraphs about what each of us would like, and come up with a specific (bulleted) list of things that this template should have. That way, we can check things off when they're done and know exactly where each of us stands, and nothing is being ignored simply because it was item 3 in a 5-item list of things that need changing. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to add the changes SV is suggesting, as the TOU does require disclosure of "affiliations," which would include third-party p.r. firms. There is some discussion of including Elance and other middlemen, but I don't see that as being contemplated here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, I apologize if you felt insulted. My frustration stems from not being able to do this myself, and not being able to communicate clearly what's needed. This is an important issue for WP. A good template – one that's easy to fill in and makes sense to readers – will reduce the pain and personalization.

I presented my request above. A template similar to, to be placed on article talk (we can create a new one if you don't want this one to be used), with space for multiple paid editors, because there is often more than one over time, and multiple employers. The issue isn't straightforward; the combinations can be quite complex. Sarah (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on that, and should have something done in the next day or two. I now see what you're getting at. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , please see paid-talk. There's still wording to nitpick over, but I'll start replacing the paid messages on Talk pages with this shortly. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

some examples and requests
I have been working this a bit. See User_talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/Efficient_energy_use and see also Talk:Everett_Stern. Works nice!

Two things, Sarah will disagree with this, but I would like there to be an "affiliation" paramater, with the text to read, ", and has an affilation as follows: (fill in)"   We can decide what goes there, but we need it.

Also, it would be very useful to have another parameter to provide a diff, if the paid editor disclosed somewhere and that needs to be linked. I included a diff when I implemented the tag at Everett Stern - the paid editor disclosed the paid editing in an edit note, that i linked to. The parameter could be "diff" and the resulting text could be "as disclosed here" with "here" having an embedded link to the diff. Thanks for your work on this, Primefac! Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can add a catchall "extra text" parameter that will be appended to the end of the text. That way if the editor wants to add any additional text (such as affiliation, since it's such a vague term) they don't have to figure out what parameter is necessary and can be as specific as necessary. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I've added an  parameter, examples are on the template page. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * super helpful and diplomatic too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories
At the moment users who use the template on their userpage are added to Category:Paid contributors. Should the pages where the talk page variant is used be added to something like Category:Articles with paid contributors? Would allow for people to keep a closer eye on said pages. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful. Sarah (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm fine changing the specific name if necessary. Primefac (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Primefac. Sarah (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
I have seen editors talking about these disclosures could be 'advertising' for the various PR agencies etc. Would it be possible/useful to simply add  to the userbox option of the template? This would prevent paid editors' user pages from being used as resumes or any form of SEO. J bh Talk  14:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good idea,, though I've left it off of paid-talk since an article's talk page should be able to be indexed. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the work you are doing on this! J bh  Talk  17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC FYI
Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Instructions overhaul
I just completed an overhaul of the instructions for use of this template, and I think it now reads much more clearly than before. However, there is still a problem: I indicated in this overhaul that the template can/ should be added to article talk pages (hence the "talk" parameter). Apparently this was intended to go on a USER talk page (?). But user talk pages are regularly archived, and so a talk page announcement on a user talk page template would have to be re-added each time such an archiving takes place (which seems silly). I don't recall (maybe I am wrong) disclosure on a user talk page as being one of the viable ways/ places of making disclosure— I thought that the options were on userpages, article talk pages, and edit summaries (as specified at WP:PAID). If this is so, then we need to remove the suggestion that users use this template on their user talk pages, and perhaps should also remove suggestions that it be applied to article talk pages altogether in deference to the template for "connected contributor", no? KDS4444 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , if I placed paid at the top of my userpage, along with all of the other notices, it wouldn't get archived. Second, I fixed all of your additions, because this template is not for Talk page usage, just User Talk. Third, you've made it about as difficult to comprehend as possible. I do like that you've added some more information, but putting all of those explanations inside the "examples" table was (in my opinion) not really a great idea. I'll see about reorganizing the layout later. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really did think I was improving the page. As it existed before, and trying to imagine how it might look from the perspective of a new editor reading it for the first time, it didn't seem to make a lot of sense and I couldn't tell which kinds of pages should have which kinds of templates, esp. with regard to user pages and talk pages (or rather user talk pages).  Also, the way the page read, it encouraged users to create templates that had the word  in them, which can't have been how the template was actually meant to be used (and nothing on the page explained this).  The page had been written from the perspective of someone who was already very familiar with how to use template, and seemed potentially very confusing for someone who was not.  That is what I was trying to address.  If you feel I did more harm than good, I apologize— perhaps you can take a stab at addressing the parts of it which I think we both will agree were disorienting and poorly explained for a person reading it for the first time.  I see this sort of thing rather frequently on Wikipedia on pages meant to give instructions on how to do something: the instructions are not written for new users, and make assumptions about the reader's knowledge and familiarity (or contain downright mistakes that advanced users simply know how to work around).  If you think you can do better here, then by all means do so.  Just please don't leave it the way it was, because the way it was was not clear.  I seems especially important to me that if we expect users to properly disclose paid edits, we need to make the disclosure process as straightforward as possible— otherwise people will shrug and say, "Meh, maybe I just won't bother."  It is more difficult to hold them accountable if they have a hard time figuring out how to do it.  Good luck!  Thank you.  KDS4444 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've managed to address some of the concerns you raised with your good-faith edits; I've removed the incomplete usage in order to encourage full/proper disclosure. If you find my changes lacking, please let me know so that we can work towards a more comprehensive and useful /doc. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still concerned that that users are encouraged to place a version of this template on their user talk pages when those pages are regularly archived and the template (presumably) along with them. Also, from what I recall, we require paid editors to make a declaration on their user page, the article talk page, or in an edit summary, but not on their user talk pages.  If this is so, then I don't see the point in having a template to fulfill a requirement we don't have, and think those parts of this /doc should probably be removed, n'est pas?  If we leave them in, then we might confuse editors ("Well, I made a declaration on my talk page, what's the problem?  You meant the article talk page?  Well, nobody told me that!").  The instructions given at WP:PAID are actually disappointingly vague on this (check 'em out, and I think someone should probably clarify them) but if you read them carefully I think you will see the same interpretation that I do, and that user talk pages are not intended as one of the three acceptable places for a declaration of a paid COI.  KDS4444 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thing: this template does not allow an editor to list his/ her paid COI edits within the userbox. The template I created for non-paid COIs, UserboxCOI, has this function.  Shouldn't we add this here?  Perhaps I will have a go at putting it in as a parameter, feel free to undo if I muck it up!  KDS4444 (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried to do this, but felt certain I was going to muck it up. Do you think you could make this change without breaking the template?  It should allow users to list their paid edits by article within the userbox just like I did for UserboxCOI but without messing up those userboxes that already have an   parameter specified.  I could probably figure this out if I spent enough time, but I am not a programmer and the risk of disaster is simply too high for me.  Much thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First, given that there are zero "archived" pages in Category:Paid contributors, I don't think we need to be concerned about them being archived.
 * Second, Userboxes are meant to be small and simple. However, some people seem to feel that UBXs can be whatever size they want. So, I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On your first point, you still aren't quite getting me and I am not sure why: what I mean is that USER TALK pages get regularly archived (usually by the users who are associate with the account) and that their content then gets completely moved into a place where it can only be seen if another user bothers to look into that archive (I have four or so of these on my own user talk page, I am certain you have many on your own, yes?). Do you see what I mean?  And I agree that userboxes are meant to be small, but they also seem like an appropriate place, if a user is also mentioning that he/ she was paid by so and so on behalf of such and such, to indicate which articles were also edited rather than have users forced to list these separately on their userpage (presumably along with who paid them and on whose behalf, a second time, which makes the userbox then redundant).  I see no risk of such userboxes becoming unweildy or long, as most paid-for edits are for one article, not dozens, but the way this userbox is currently structured there is no option at all for including this information.  I guess I will try making the change myself so you can see what I mean.  Wish me luck!  KDS4444 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , now I think you are the one not getting it. You are right, user talk pages get archived. My point was that in the category I linked above, there are zero "archived" talk pages in that category, which means that the people using them aren't putting them in a location where they would be archived.
 * As to the second point, I said I'd look into it, given your previous expression of concern that you'd be able to do it properly. It doesn't have to do be done today, and I still intend on doing it. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now created a new template, UserboxCOIpaid which takes care of this issue and allows users to place a userbox that covers employer, client, and edited article(s) all in one spot. Also, it looks like the other templates in   are designed for article talk pages, not user talk pages.  Doesn't that suggest that this template is for use on article talk pages rather than user talk pages? (although its title does not specify, and I suspect this is part of the mixup). With regard to the statement above that people aren't putting them in a location where they would be archived— you are right, I am still not getting you.  I archive my own talk page, as does any user, and if I put this template on my user talk page, I would have to re-add it each time I archived that page— I don't know of any template that gets used on a user talk page that must not be summarily archived: all the ones I can think of (user warnings, notices, etc.) belong in an archive along with user talk page discussions etc., but in order to fulfill the terms of use, this template would need to be put back on the user talk page if archived.  Does that make sense? KDS4444 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Take a look at my talk page. Hell, take a look at your talk page. You have an archive box at the top. It doesn't get archived every time. I have auto-archive configuration, talk header, a top icon... some users have twice that much! As long as it's not in a section and as long as it's not dated, it doesn't get archived. Placing a talk page notice at the top of a page is what you're supposed to do with talk page notices.

On an unrelated note, I've made the changes you were so desperate to get integrated into paid, and redirected your template to this one as it is now unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was mean. And you didn't address the categorization issue I mentioned, which still implies that this template is meant for use on article talk pages rather than user talk pages. The Foundation's statement at WP:PAID pretty clearly suggests that it is article talk pages where a disclosure may be made.  It makes no reference to user talk pages. Finally, why would the template have a parameter for the user's name if it was to be placed on the user' own talk page? KDS4444 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorization issue?
Okay, let's start from zero. This template is meant to be placed on either a user page or a user talk page. It places users into either Category:Paid contributors or Category:Paid contributors/No listed employer. What's the issue with this? For article talk pages, we have connected contributor (paid), which was split off from this two years ago. Primefac (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay— why do we still suggest that this template be used on a user talk page when there is no policy or guideline indicating that this is a suitable place for it? In fact, if a user placed this template only on his/ her user talk page (and nowhere else), he/ she would not have abided by the terms of WP:PAID (which require an announcement on the user's page, in an edit summary, or on the article talk page).  It looks to me like the solution to that is to remove any discussion of use on a user's talk page— we can't tell people "You must put an announcement in location A, B, or C" and then offer them a chance to also put an announcement in "D" which, if not also accompanied by A, B, or C, would, by itself, represent a policy violation.  And if we are going to encourage use on a user talk page, then there is no point in asking users to announce their user name in the user talk page version— the documentation and template should just say, "This user..." etc.  Lastly, the "articles" parameter should provide links to the edited articles, not just a list of them.  The version you edited most recently (thank you for that) still does not do this, whereas the one I had created did.  And all of this should be reflected in the template's documentation, which remains unchanged since I tried to clarify it and was reverted.  Let me know if this makes sense, and I will try to explain further if it does not. (I know, I am getting worn out by all of this too, and am about ready to throw in the towel even though I still feel quite certain that the template is flawed and problematic.  Sometimes the inertia and friction are just too much.)    KDS4444 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and it's not for the two of us discussing it to change how the template works (i.e. by removing an entire aspect of how it works). Personally I see nothing wrong with disclosing on a user talk page, since 90% the time I'll go straight to a user talk to discuss something (I rarely visit userpages). As for linking in the userbox - the wikilinks have to be added, since there's no telling in what format someone would be adding the links (see the second example where the list of articles is a list). Primefac (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Primefac, I have been kind of half watching this. Please do listen to KDS here - as somebody who actually has to use this thing, the user feedback is very valuable, and rare. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the input; I've been meaning to ping you and to get your thoughts. I'll be honest, until KDS's most recent post I genuinely had no idea what they were talking about (and it's no fault of theirs, I've just been completely misreading most of the earlier posts). If posting on a user talk page simply isn't allowed (as opposed to "we never thought to include it in the directions") then I have no problem removing that aspect of the template. However, it seems to me that prohibiting talk page usage seems rather silly, given my previous statement about how many users go straight to a user talk when looking up an individual, and possibly has been left off the instructions as an oversight. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I just read this discussion carefully. [[User:KDS4444 you have made reference several times to this going on User Talk pages (and Primefac you have too), and with that, I understand your concern about archiving (somewhat.....)
 * In my view this should only go on the just-plain User page. That is where we look to understand what people are doing in WP.  Also, there is a category that tracks this template at Category:Paid_contributors, and we only need one instance of the template.  You can see in that category that some people have put the template on both their talk page and their user page, and doing both is just clutter.  So the instructions really should just specify "user page" and not say "user talk page."   (about the archiving issue on a talk page, the way to handle that is just to not sign it... and then a bot would never archive it)
 * On the issue of article listing, I agree that it would be ideal if the template auto-created Wikilnks to article names. Those are my thoughts... Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated the /doc and removed all mention of the User talk usage. However, because of the extant use on some talk pages, I've left the actual code there for the moment.
 * I've also made it so that if article is used, it links to the page (even if it's input as a wikilink). However, due to the nature of articles and the fact that they're a bulleted list, those still have to be input as wikilinks (see examples). Primefac (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple articles
For the plain template, is there a way to list multiple articles?

The template for the userpage that allows multiple articles to be listed is broken, even in the example there... Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the inline paid there is not (though ostensibly one could put multiple items into the article param, such as Example, ABC and Snoopy), but it will be trivial for me to do so. As for the UBX version - what's broken? Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Usage" update
, I see what you were going for with your last edit, but maybe we should brainstorm here what the /doc should look like here, and then update it all at once.

I'm starting to think that we should do more like the infoboxes do - show the template with all of the blank paramters (styled as }) and then maybe give one example using "real-world" text. This might cut down on some of the confusion. I originally gave a boatload of examples with different parameter levels because I made the /doc at a time when I was unsure about how to make such things. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to undo/correct. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac, UpWork doesn't pay freelancers. They hold payments from the client and release them when work is done (and collect fees from the money). (see their legal stuff). Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I guess my point is that I want to update the /doc but would like other opinions on the process. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully people will weigh in here.  What PAID/TOU is after - what we want -  is the whole picture.  What is/are the article(s) where you did work, where is the money coming from (whose name is on the check or credit card paying you), on whose behalf, and is there any other relevant info?  The template should facilitate getting all that info. Working through options
 * articles= Acme, WidgetX, Executive Y | employer =Acme| client= Acme | affiliation=none -- is somebody writing about the company they work for
 * articles= Acme, WidgetX, Executive Y |employer =Acme | client= Acme | affiliation=hired through Upwork -- is a freelancer hired through Upwork to edit about Acme
 * articles= Acme, WidgetX, Executive Y |employer =DigitalMarketing, Inc | client= Acme|  affiliation=none -- is obviously somebody working for a marketing agency writing about their corporate client
 * articles= Acme, WidgetX, Executive Y | employer =DigitalMarketing, Inc | client= Acme| affiliation=hired through UpWork -- is a freelancer hired by a digital marketing agency to write about their corporate client
 * this template has been unclear and with unclear instructions, since it was created, in my view. It is hard for people to use on their userpage and we should make it super easy and obvious.  Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed part of the discussion (which is possible) there was no consensus to require that we put any affiliation. If someone is hired (even as freelancer) by UpWork that is their "employer". Primefac (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Employer is who pays you. We just talked about that. and PAID flows directly from the ToU  which requires "employer, client, and affiliation".  Not "or". "And".   Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly the "unless" clause is triggered, then, or I misremembered past discussions. I'll work on updating the template. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any progress? =) –xenotalk 23:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so? The template has been edited a couple dozen times since 2017. What still needs updating? Primefac (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought this section was an agreement to add “Affiliate” as a parameter and that you were going to work on updating it. Not sure if that's been done? –xenotalk 13:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do that one edit to be silly, I believe it makes sense
referring to this edit, you reverted it because "we're not here to be silly". I believe by making that edit, I have made it less silly, because what person paid by "ACME" would edit articles on letters? I don't see any Wikipedia policy stating that you can make documentation examples more relevant. MEisSCAMMER(talk) (contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A, B, C, and D are often used in place of non-numerical lists as examples (as opposed to saying "Example 1" "Example 2" etc). Primefac (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK then, sorry for wasting your time. MEisSCAMMER(talk) (contribs) 17:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)