This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Edit requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The steps in the "Planning a request" section does not seem to reflect how edit requests, at least from the COI side, seem to work. Very few edit requests seem to have started as non-templated discussions on the talk page; people go straight for the template. That is probably because the likelihood of someone seeing a non-templated request is low. Should this page reflect that reality, and if so, in what way? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Most people who are restricted from editing (mostly due to low editcount, non-autoconfirmed) don't know what templates are, how they work. However, when someone clicks the "view source" option at the same location as "edit" option, they are taken to a page with a banner giving them instructions to hit the blue button, which creates pre-filled templated section at the bottom. Hence, the straight to template thing. In fact, the template wasn't even visible on mobile devices at all until very recently. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
If edit requests don't have consensus they can be declined and there is even a templated answer declining and directing the requester to get consensus. Thinker78(talk)00:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Ending the idea of establishing consensus for edit requests
As brought up in the previous discussion, no one gets consensus for edit requests. Very few edit requests attempt to establish consensus, and that is also rarely a reason they are denied. This is because it is an unnecessary step. When editors want to add content to an article, they just do it. They don’t have to propose changes on the talk page first. Why do editors suddenly have to get their changes confirmed just because the page is protected? For fully-protected pages, sure, it makes sense to require consensus. But anything else is both not how it actually works right now and unnecessary slowness added to the (already incredibly slow!) process. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I seem no need to do anything here - edit requests are handled by humans, who should have good enough judgement to know whether a request requires a formal consensus or not. * Pppery *it has begun...02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that’s true, but by that logic, why do we have policies and guidelines? We shouldn’t give what few requesters whom read this page the impression it’s necessary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Recommend using the textdiff template
Given the number of requests that don't fully implement WP:EDITXY it seems like suggesting the use of {{TextDiff}} or a similar template might be worthwhile. This might be a useful "stencil" for editors unfamiliar with ERs to use. Thoughts? --N8wilson🔔00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Rejuvenating the discussion here after the other one got archived after I replied. There are still people who follow these instructions. This argument sounds a bit like the Nirvana fallacy. This proposal also does have benefits lots of times, as it makes the changes clearer, especially when people follow the x to y format and decide to include the entire paragraph just to add a single sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the responses on the archived thread cover more than enough reasons not to do this. Added complexity with very few situations where it will be more clear than it is without using the template isn't worth it.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
When the use is inevitably botched by the majority of the vanishingly small minority who will use it, it will make things less clear. You'll notice, however, that I said that there would be very few situations where it would be more clear, not that it would be less clear.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't really get how someone who understands the instructions here can botch understanding the very easy docs of textdiff. There is only one added step(going to and understanding the docs), which amounts to little complexity. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Going from reading no documentation other than what pops up when you try to edit a page you don't have permissions for to having to read up on a template, and figure out what a template is, is a massive increase in complexity which will only dissuade the sliver of those requesting edits that follow the existing instructions.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to figure out what a template is, you only have to realize that you can magically generate a diff with {{ | . I also didn't understand what your first half sentence(up to the comma) meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence describes the standard work flow now, which is trying to edit a page you can't and being funneled into an edit request, versus what you suggest which involves reading documentation on a template.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to make reading the docs mandatory. I just wanted to make this a recommendation on at least this page. It could be extended to the ERW and submit an edit request preloads. So, this recommendation has multiple levels:
Oppose 3; I've seen too many instances of the literal {{TextDiff|ORIGINAL_TEXT|CHANGED_TEXT]} from {{request edit button}} for me to be convinced that adding it to further preloads is a good idea. Don't really care about 1 and 2. * Pppery *it has begun...01:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Springnuts Sorry for the late response, but the 3O page says 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. N8wilson only made one comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The page lacks advice on what to do if a request - especially a CoI request - is declined, and the reason the declining editor gives seems to be wrong, unfair, or based on a misreading of ether the request or Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the procedure is to reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I've tried exactly that, and been reverted and told "Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Edit COI}} template for this proposed change." Greater clarity about this point would be beneficial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
If an edit request was declined, unless you make a different one or change that one very much, probably you are going to be reverted if you just copy paste the declined request. You can check the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Regards, Thinker78(talk)19:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't copy'n'paste the original request. I did exactly as advised above: "reopen the request, and post a note under the first rejection that you are asking for other editors to give their opinion" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not know if this is the place to raise this issue, or if it should be checked on somewhere else (if I should ask elsewhere, I would greatly appreciate being pointed in the right direction). But I think the tool that automatically updates Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests might not be functioning currently. Even after purging its cache, it still displays edit requests that I have already responded to and the last entry listed has the date and time of 2023-10-11 10:45. I have looked in on the list briefly several times over the last several hours and haven't noticed any new entries added. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The appearance of the page in the category is more or less instantaneous. But the bot takes a while to do its job. There are four "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request" sections on the page right now in various statuses. The bot's table links to the first active request on the page (the part#editextendedprotected in the URL). The bot only detects the first active request on the page. The first active request at the time on writing is the one from 9 October 2023. It is a relatively rare situation to have more than one active request on a talk page like that. That's why the bot doesn't have a feature to detect more than one requests.
Sometimes an edit request is closed with {{subst:ESp|?}}, for the reason that the request is slightly ambiguous, with no further action taken by the responding editor. In some such cases, the suggested material is non-controversial, would improve the article, is reliably sourced, etc. But, it is, again, slightly ambiguous. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I suggest adding to WP:ERREQ something along the lines of: "If you decide to reject a request, that in essence holds merit, simply because it lacks Mona Lisa level perfection, nothing is stopping you from improving the relevant article yourself based on feedback contained within the request." I can give two examples. Although I fear these will be used primarily to point out why requests get rejected or have been taken at heart after all or are exceptions, instead of to better understand what I am suggesting here. Regardless, 1. a dead link, and 2. a production company. I'm not the kind of editor to keep logs of where I've seen what, so you'd have to take my word for it, but I've seen this happen many times. So, my suggestion is to have the information page suggest one additional step if the decision is to reject a request: can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Another, sort of, example here. The responding editor reacts, "In any event, this request is not specific enough - you need to specify the exact wikitext you want to be added and where it should be added - just "please add content about bar" is not enough." --62.166.252.25 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"can I, as the responding editor, still take some kind of action to improve Wikipedia based on this feedback." Yes. Any editor may edit any Wikipedia page (unless it's protected). If another editor objects then the edit should (no guarantee that it will) generate discussion of the proposal. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
include that you can change parameter from yes to no for declined requests too similar to further info needed section 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think what you're proposing is substantially the same as the current wording of the section. Liu1126 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The transaction consisting of an edit request answered with "Not done" at [1] is the latest such transaction I've seen fitting a pattern that concerns me. I'm talking about cases where the content of the request isn't for a specific edit but, rather, an unremarkable inquiry or suggestion such as one typically sees on talk pages, potentially leading to a constructive discussion. But because the user added it through the edit request mechanism, another user will respond "Not done, we need the specific changes you're requesting", close the request—effectively shutting down the discussion and leaving the original poster hanging, no doubt frustrating them and possibly deterring them from ever bothering again.
I imagine that these are users, possibly brand new to editing, who thought that making an edit request is how you initiate a discussion on the talk page. Instead of shutting them down, it would be helpful for the respondent either to explain that their post is acceptable but that they should remove the template, or else to remove the template on their own. Or perhaps an option could be added for the edit request response parameter to indicate that the contribution is legit but not technically an edit request as Wikipedia defines it, producing a canned message that explains this and invites others to respond as they normally would if the post hadn't been tagged as an edit request. Or maybe there's some other option. Anything other than the slap in the face that's happening now. Largoplazo (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion is not shut down. It's just no longer listed in the place where volunteers go to help with specific, uncontroversial edit requests. Local discussion can continue just as it would if no edit request template were used. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That isn't how it looks. Think of it from the point of view of the original poster as well as, perhaps, other people. "I think this article could stand improvement in such-and-such an area." "Not done. Please state exactly edits you want made." It comes across as "Go away and don't bother us till you have specific text of your own." The user doesn't know, "Oh, they're responding that way only because I used that template" and no one is explaining that to them. It is not user-friendly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm all for increasing the user-friendliness of the template. I don't think the discussion looks closed or shut down. I frequently see discussion continue on declined requests. We might disagree on the problem but agree on a solution. What are you proposing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Procedure for requesting an edit to protected talk page
If a talk page is also protected, the best one can do is ask someone with an access level capable of editing the page the page to do so via the user's own talk page. 74.65.143.60 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
