Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edit requests/Archive 1

Edit Request Wizard Reforms
One of the largely noncontroversial reforms I think would be welcome is a rewrite of the edit request wizard in javascript (so make it similar to the current file upload wizard). This would allow people to submit edit requests without having to learn wiki syntax. Of course, this would make follow-ups very difficult on the part of the submitter of the edit request, but hopefully once the reply functionality is implemented that will change.

I'm happy to work on this, but it will take me a while due to my limited understanding of javascript. Does anybody here have a decent understanding of javascript, in particular in the mediawiki environment? If not, no worries. Also let me know if you'd be interested in working on this rewrite in general and I'll be sure to include you on the discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * regardless of what else we do, this would be a helpful improvment.  DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly helpful links for project page
I'm pleased to see the creation of this WikiProject. Would displaying these links on the project page be helpful?


 * Edit requests
 * User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable
 * Template:Edit interface-protected
 * Template:Edit fully-protected
 * Template:Edit template-protected
 * Template:Edit extended-protected
 * Template:Edit semi-protected
 * Template:Request edit

I'm also curious if Editor assistance/Requests is part of the scope of this project. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was able to transclude the EDITRQTable on the project page. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProject
Pinging all editors involved in proposal discussion:, , , , ,,. I have gone ahead and created this WikiProject. I've never set up a WikiProject before, so please let me know if I did anything wrong. We can continue the discussions we were having on the propsal page here. We should also advertise the WikiProject now that it has been created. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently had an extra space in their signature. Repinging with correct username. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the initiative ! I'm afraid I'll be on Wikibreak until the end of March so cannot be too active here for now (if you see me being active on Wikipedia in general feel free to trout me etc), but will be ready to dive into edit requests after the break is over. Good luck! Sdrqaz (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have went ahead and created the wikiproject talk page banner. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and ! I very much appreciate your taking the initiative. I must admit, in all my years I have never been involved in the creation of a new wikiproject, so I'm open to suggestions on where my time can be best put to help get things off the ground. For convenience, here is the consolidated list of ideas from the initial discussion at WP:VPIL. Per the current task list on the main page, I believe two umbrella tasks are a) to help COI contributors write better requests, and b) to improve the infrastructure around the edit request system, and a big part of that would be integrating the Edit Request Wizard with the current Edit Request queue. I am by far the most qualified to work on the first of these, but very interested to contribute to the others. I'll think on it and follow up, early next week most likely. WWB (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree those are the two tasks we need to be working on. I've started work on the conversion to javascript (see section below this). It will take me a few months, however. I think to fully integrate the wizard into the current system, we would have to create an RFC. I would recommend holding off until we have the javascript version to implement the RFC, but we can definitely start drafting the changes we would like to be made. One of the specific tasks we need to do is come up with more specific guidance on responding to edit requests. I often see edit requests being declined for formatting reasons, however this should not be the case because these are brand new editors that shouldn't be expected to know how to format citations, for instance, correctly (in my opinion at least). Sam-2727 (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer instructions rewrite
One idea to improve the edit request process was a rewrite of the instructions for reviewers, currently found here. I have created a draft in my userspace at User:Z1720/RE Instructions which I encourage COI reviewers to help write, edit, or provide feedback. When it is "complete" I will post another notice here for additional feedback. Thanks in advance for your help. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added to it. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors usage of the Helper Script
If it helps build the project, I created a SQL statement to get the list of edit requests by user for a certain time period. In this case, it's those from March 1 and onward:

Edit request process
Hello! Gary here, hoping to update the James F. Allen article on his behalf. I've disclosed my conflict of interest at Talk:James F. Allen (businessman), where I've submitted several requests still requiring editor review. One of the requests was posted back in December, and since then I've attempted to seek editor assistance at WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Gambling, the Teahouse, two related article Talk pages, and a specific editor. However, the requests are still unanswered even with the "request edit" template. I know this is not a space for asking about specific updates, but I saw this project at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests and thought I'd ask if there's something else I should be doing or if there are other spaces to seek editor assistance. I'm trying my hardest to be patient but guidance on appropriate next steps and/or confirmation I'm at least following the process correctly would be very much appreciated. Thank you! GaryBitner (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have reviewed the first three of your unanswered requests and given them a go ahead. I'll need to spend some time on the last (unfortunate) request or have someone else review it, as I am not sure if this type of reference works. It's unfortunate that there was so little progress on your suggested edits, but your requests have been fine so far. Hope that helps. Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Some problems I've noticed with the protected edit request system
I've responded to probably hundreds of protected edit requests now, and I thought I'd write down here some of the problems I've noticed with the system: Some of these problems are ones I could plausibly fix myself, but given the goal of "reforming the process of edit requests" I thought it would be helpful to write them down here as well. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A huge number of the protected edits that come through are blank. I think the reason for this is that above the edit request box there is a huge dump of text that >90% of people don't read, so they don't understand what an edit request is. Something like "Please state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below, empty requests will be removed/ambiguous requests denied" or something along these lines, in a big, red, obvious box that no one will miss might do the trick. I think a lot of people think the edit request form that gets put in front of them is a request to be able to edit a page, and this could be cleared up for people without expecting them to read the huge text dump (that no one reads).
 * I think there needs to be better written guidance for how to handle requests, as Edit_requests is woefully minimal. Most of the accepted norms for handling edit requests are just understood by having enough experience seeing other users respond to edit requests, there is no information actually written down that people can access.
 * For instance, if something is easily verifiable, you probably shouldn't be instantly closing someone's request because they did not provide a source – you can just find a source yourself or wait for someone else to. Obviously if it's been sitting there for a while and no one has responded it to you can probably just close it, but I often see newer editors quickly close new edit requests because there was no source provided, even when it's a matter trivially easy to verify. Not exactly their fault, as there is zero guidance on any of these matters.
 * It seems also that the practice of just removing/reverting blank edit requests has become the accepted norm, but this is not actually written anywhere, and probably should be.
 * I also think Template:EP needs some work.
 * Firstly, I think the big red information symbol makes people feel discouraged or that they've done something wrong, probably the ❌ red X is better.
 * As well, I see many requests denied by fairly new editors using this boilerplate: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There are definitely changes that obviously would require consensus to change, but almost all edit requests do not, and the way this is written makes it sound (both to new editors closing requests and new editors making requests) like people need to argue their point on a talk page first, and then open an edit request, which is not the way these things should be procedurally handled in >99% of cases. Possibly that can be fixed by just expanding Edit_requests and providing guidance there instead, though.
 * More minor point, but there should probably be a template for responding to requests to add something to a list that doesn't have a corresponding Wikipedia article, as this happens all the time.


 * I think there's a lot of good stuff here. Responding to some specific points:
 * Dealing with empty requests has been a perennial discussion that never seems to go much of anywhere. I've seen suggestions of rewording, edit filters, edit notices, etc for years. To quote myself from a previous discussion on this topic - Editors who leave a letter-perfect blank edit request template are arriving there by trying to edit the page, landing at the View Source page, clicking on Submit an Edit Request, and saving the page with no changes in spite of all the instructions on the three preceding screens telling them how it works. Changing the text probably won't make a difference, and I'd rather not implement a software solution (like an edit filter) that might accidentally block legitimate requesters. Removing these (or answering them, if you like) is fairly trivial, I don't see a need to fix it.
 * Removing empty requests was added as the last bullet of WP:TPO a couple years ago following the above-linked discussion. It could probably be more visible; I see no reason why the same text couldn't be added to other relevant pages based on that consensus.
 * I have no problem with adding some more guidance for people new to responding to edit requests.
 * I prefer the red "i" to the red "X", though I think I might like it better with no symbol at all. To me, "X" is a teacher marking a student's answer wrong. The "i" is providing information, which is what we should be doing when declining a request - though it all seems a bit harsh to me, which may be why I've noticed myself starting to use the EP templates a bit less when responding to some requests.
 * I'd be fine with a WP:WTAF addition to the templates - I wrote one that I use myself at User:ElHef/WTAF. I also have one for image requests at User:ElHef/ESPimage. Feel free to use them (as noted on the image reply, I stole that one from years ago). &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake, I didn't know about that line in WP:TPO, thanks – probably worth copying over to Edit_requests given it's linked at e.g. Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, etc. You might also be be right about, I guess it might be perceived as a "you're wrong, idiot" to people in the same way a red information symbol can be perceived as a "warning: you have done something wrong" to people. Not sure how to make this friendlier/more welcoming.


 * Regarding blank edit requests, I just tried to submit one now as an IP - it actually sends you to a second page with an error notice in a big red box that says "Wait! This edit request looks empty!" I think I gave people a little bit too much credit. If even that error page doesn't discourage them I think there is probably nothing at all you can do to stop people submitting them barring an edit filter, which you're right is probably unnecessary. There could, however, probably be an extra line in the "What an edit request IS NOT for:" saying it's not a request to get permission to edit the page yourself, as it does seem well meaning people still get that confused. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with edit requests
Hello, WikiProject Edit Requests! My name is Matt and I'm trying to update and improve the Nate Morris article on his behalf. I shared a draft replacement back in January, but progress has been slow and I've struggled to get editors to review and update the article. I've reached out to three WikiProjects and four individual editors for help, and I've broken up my larger request to go section by section for easier review, but many of my concerns about the current article remain. The edit request queue seems to hover at ~200. Are any editors here willing to assess my requests or are there any other places I should be going for assistance? I'm trying my best to navigate Wikipedia's COI rules and edit request process. Thank you! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Matt. You're in the right place. I assume you're talking about . I'll have a look at it, but will probably reword what you've written. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at Village pump's idea lab
Members of this project may be interested in this ongoing discussion:
 * Village_pump_(idea_lab)

Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . For the record, given the immense backlog I suspect that decreasing the number of editors that can deal with it isn't the solution. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Limiting the scope of COI edit requests. JBchrch  talk  17:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests § Requiring verbatim suggestions
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests § Requiring verbatim suggestions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Kiwi Camara
Hello! My name is Sarah and I'm attempting to update and improve the Kiwi Camara article on behalf of DISCO. I've disclosed my COI and posted a link to a draft at Talk:Kiwi Camara, but I have not received any feedback from other editors even after posting requests for help at WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject United States, and the Teahouse. I've also added the edit request template. Might someone here be able to help or say if I'm going about this process the wrong way? Thank you! Sarah DISCO (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Responded on Talk:Kiwi Camara. 15 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions about the Edit Request Wizard
I am going to post some information to the talk page of a user who has a declared COI but is not paid, and who has asked where to request edits. I looked at the Edit Request Wizard which seems like a very handy tool, and I have a couple of questions.

In Edit Request Wizard/COI, which is where the editor is taken when clicking "I have a conflict of interest" in the WP:ERW, there is a field with the heading "For large requests".
 * The explanatory text says "If you are requesting substantial changes (as a rule of thumb more than one paragraph), enter the page name here instead (only use for pages that are sparsely edited)". Is this because substantial changes should normally be discussed on the talk page, in order to reach a consensus, before an ER is created? Maybe there could be a sentence explaining that. The COI notice Template:Uw-coi includes the line "We ask that you: [...] propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the  template)". If the editor clicks "request edit", they get to the template documantation, which prominently features a link to the ERW. I imagine it could be a bit confusing for a new editor who has followed all steps carefully, is told not to use the wizard for a page that's frequently edited, but isn't presented with an alternative.
 * Secondly, something I think is probably just a typo: the "large requests" input box uses the editnotice Edit Request Wizard/Paid/Editnotice and not Edit Request Wizard/COI/Editnotice. I don't want to mess with this since I don't know for certain, though. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ted Cadsby
There's an open peer review for Ted Cadsby by an editor with a disclosed COI to the subject, who's looking to get the article compliant with guidelines (particularly removing the COI banner template). It's not exactly an edit request, but it seems like this project is adjacent to dealing with COI-related issues, so I thought the PR might get more visibility if I posted here. Would anyone here be interested in taking a look? Zetana (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Help at Shinola
Hello! John here on behalf of Shinola (retail company) (as disclosed on the article's Talk page) to suggest some updates and corrections to the company's page. I understand I'm not supposed to update the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but my month-old requests are not getting feedback using Template:Request edit. I also tried getting help at WikiProjects or the Teahouse. Can someone here help? My requests are to correct existing text. Thank you! JS at Shinola (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:TikTok, and a broader concern
Hi, my name is Billy and I'm a Director of Corporate Communications at ByteDance, TikTok's parent company. I'm posting here because I proposed some significant lead/layout changes to the TikTok article in late September 2021, and despite multiple uninvolved editors expressing their general approval of the proposal, no one has yet had the desire and/or the capacity to implement the changes (or the willingness to give me the green light to do so).

Beyond my frustration at the slow progress of my own request, I think this exposes a hole in the COI edit request process: For significant, extensive requests like mine, paid editors are encouraged to gain consensus on the Talk page rather than use the normal request edit template. But very few editors appear to be motivated enough to dedicate themselves to reviewing and implementing a time-intensive proposal from a paid editor. I don't know if there is a broader solution to this problem, but at the very least I hope someone here will be willing to take a stab at implementing my own proposal.

Pinging a few names from the Participants list here:, , ,

Thanks, Bkenny44 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you: there's less motivation among editors to complete longer edit requests, and the longer they sit there the less likely they will be completed. The problem is the people fulfilling the requests are volunteers, and long requests like this can take hours or days to complete, which is not a fun task (at least in my opinion). I also encourage you to post on the article's Wikiprojects, asking for an editor to take a look. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment to fulfil the request. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in as a fellow COI editor to say this is a longstanding challenge for just about anyone making COI edit requests. It's part of what spawned this discussion early last year as well as the resulting list of ideas. If you're interested, you could join WikiProject Edit requests (which resulted from the linked discussion) to help collaborate on some ways to alleviate the issue. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can this be looked at?
Wikipedia_talk:Edit_Request_Wizard

About the input text box in the wizard and its default html properties being erroneous - please read before taking bad actions...

THANK YOU!

bumped — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfart404 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Old &#x1F4A9; 404 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for HubSpot
Hello! On behalf of HubSpot, I've submitted a request to update the Software and services section. I've proposed specific text additions based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources about some of the company's major products, similar to what's already said about HubSpot CRM Free. I've disclosed my COI and included Template:Request edit, but the request has gone unanswered for a month. Might a member of WikiProject Edit requests be willing to take a look and update the article appropriately? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your input is needed at a discussion about replying to edit requests
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests about the template for replying to edit requests that says " Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template." Personally I have objected that this template is not only unhelpful and dismissive, it is illogical - how was a user supposed to establish consensus BEFORE posting a protected edit request, which will pretty much always be their very first edit to the talk page? Any input on the subject from members of this Project would be much appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)