Template talk:ESp

Edit request on 6 June 2013

please change the code from this

{{EP
 |{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}
  |page move|move request|pagemove|moverequest|move|rpm|rm|pm|m
  |d|do|done
  |pd|prtdo|partly done
  |deny|not|notdone|not done|n
  |nfn|ndfn|not now|notnow|now
  |consensus|c
  |specific|spec|detail|?
  |ad|a|already
  |question
  |ques
  |q
  |rs
  |r|rfpp|rfp
  |doc
  |nlp|no longer protected
  |permission|perm|p
  |note
  |misplaced|mis
  |xy={{{1}}}
  |u|un|unprotected=semi
 }}
 |ESp=yes
}}

to this

{{EP|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}
  |page move|move request|pagemove|moverequest|move|rpm|rm|pm|m
  |d|do|done
  |pd|prtdo|partly done
  |deny|not|notdone|not done|n
  |nfn|ndfn|not now|notnow|now
  |consensus|c
  |specific|spec|detail|?
  |ad|a|already
  |question
  |ques
  |q
  |rs
  |r|rfpp|rfp
  |doc
  |nlp|no longer protected
  |permission|perm|p
  |note
  |misplaced|mis
  |xy={{{1}}}
  |u|un|unprotected=semi
 }}|ESp=yes}}

which will lessen the mess if someone substitutes the template (see here). I added substitution prevention to the {{EP}} template since I can't see a reason for substituting that one, since it would make an even bigger mess. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

feel free to move this request when responding, but I thought I would leave it here to make it clear which template I was discussing. Frietjes (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a html comment for displaying and not redirecting the page. Feel free to restore the redirect. mabdul 07:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Changed it, tried it, didn't work, reverted. The problem was that the parameter {{{1}}} wasn't being passed through - I have encountered such problems before, and it comes down to a failure of {{subst:#switch:{{expression}}|...}} to subst cleanly - it's done outside-in, so the expression is seen as something beginning with brace, which isn't one of the switch test values. The whole switch therefore comes back with its #default= value (if there is one) or blank (if there isn't).

It's probably a good idea for you to put your proposed new version into Template:ESp/sandbox, see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I made the change. It looks like you were missing a safesubst for the lc:. The testcases seem to indicate everything works now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2013

Make these changes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

Make these changes. This greatly simplifies the code and removes the need to change this template when new options are added to Template:EP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. What a very good idea. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request!

Please make {{ESp|xy}} to read from "Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format", to "Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Despite what the first graphic and icon says, I've Done this for you, although it is true that you could've done it yourself. I understand templates can be intimidating, especially ones like this in which the actual code is hosted on {{EP}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I actually didn't find codes to edit on this page. I could have done it myself if I knew it is at {{EP}} before. Thanks again! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

change commonly-used template wording?

The consensus template answers with:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

This is probably the most common template I've seen used at edit requests, and I think it's seldom helpful, and particularly not to newer users (which includes the majority of those making edit requests) who have no idea how to even get started on establishing consensus. If the change they are proposing is actually controversial, we need to tell them "This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion."

And if the change they are proposing isn't actually controversial, we should just be making that change. If we don't know whether the change is controversial or not, and we don't have time/inclination to try to determine that, we shouldn't be answering that edit request but leaving it for someone who does know. It's better to leave the edit request open than to provide an unhelpful or incorrect response, IMO. valereee (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: If the change is controversial, could the discussion just happen in the same section that the original poster created? GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I actually wondered about that, but does the 'edit request' template/box make other editors decide they can safely ignore once it's been marked as answered? valereee (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Ah, I see your point. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the request is controversial in the reply would probably help with the understanding of the requestor for why the request has been denied along with 'newer' responders understanding the actual purpose of the response, rather than just being a response for when only 1 editor has discussed the change up to that point even if it might not be controversial. Terasail^[✉️] 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Any chance we can get this changed? valereee (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, would you be willing to make this change? I'd like to see us change from

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the edit semi-protected template.

to

This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion.

valereee (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee is there consensus for this change? (just kind of surprised to see a ping here) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, sorry, just went through category template editors looking for someone I knew/was currently active. :) Yes, there seems to be at least not NOT consensus, and my feeling is that if no one has spoken out against, try making the change and see if that raises objections. valereee (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee, done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

(rubs hands together) Now we see who objects... :D valereee (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie and Valereee: I would rather see it like: This edit or topic may be contentious, there may be existing discussion regarding this topic on the talk page, or the editor reviewing the request may not believe the edit is an improvement. Please establish consensus for this edit through discussion on this talk page. If there is an existing discussion please contribute to that section, and if there is not you may discuss in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. If you're finding it difficult to establish consensus, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on how to proceed.

We don't want to advise people to open a new section if there is existing discussion, and we should provide links to help new users to help them understand how consensus works, and how to proceed if consensus isn't working out as they'd hoped. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should be asking complete noobs to "establish consensus", period. Even with a link they don't know what that means, and I think it's just a brushoff. I'd be good with This edit or topic may be contentious or there may be existing discussion regarding this topic here on the talk page. Please join the existing discussion or open a talk section to discuss.

If the editor reviewing the request doesn't think it's an improvement, they should say that. "This doesn't look like an improvement to me. If you'd like to get other opinions, please open a talk section." That should be a different template, IMO. Establish consensus is too jargony to use with people who are probably making an edit request because they don't have ten logged-in edits yet. And telling people at that experience level to go to dispute resolution is just plain not helpful. valereee (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If we're not expecting a new editor to click a link to Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion to figure out what consensus means, how do we expect them to know how to create a talk page discussion, or contribute constructively to an existing discussion? As for the not thinking an edit is an improvement, then you essentially have two people disagreeing on an edit, at which point it should go to discussion anyway, so I'm not sure why that shouldn't be included in the response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

When someone first comes here, it is incredibly confusing. We need to try to mentor them through the process. We take maybe a few minutes to explain what we mean by consensus and why it's so important here, then give them the link for more information. If we don't have the time and patience to do that, it's better to leave the edit request for a few days to see if someone else will answer it. No edit request needs to be answered in minutes or hours. valereee (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that sending people to WP:DR is a productive approach in any sense for this reply. The link to WP:CON may be useful but it could also overwhelm a user since it does provide a lot of information which is not really related to edit requests being declined for a contentious change which doesn't have consensus. Overall I think that the new wording is an improvement on informing users why the request was declined but the link to WP:CON is required. Creating a page at Help:Edit request may be more productive, with a section explaining why a "controversial" edit was declined and what steps they can take in detail in order to fix this. Terasail^[✉️] 19:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

On a side note, the reply option can be expanded upon with/without the userscripts and this can be used to tailor the response to why the specific steps to take or what specifically is controversial. Terasail^[✉️] 19:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the language over to This is likely to be a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. I think this is a bit better, as contentious is generally a better fit, and it removes the unnecessary "actually". I've also expanded the talk page discussion line to encourage taking part in existing discussions, and if there are no existing discussions to explain why their edit should be made. The most common response I get to edit requests when telling someone to get consensus or discuss on the talk page is "How do I discuss?" so I feel the "explain why the edit should be made" language will be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I have removed the "likely to be" since as a reviewer who is declining the request "you" (the responder) are deciding that it is infact contentious/controversial and that a discussion is required. The likley bit provides nothing apart from the miscommunication that it might not actualy require a discussion and might just be the responder not wanting to complete the request. Terasail^[✉️] 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I used that wording as that vast majority of edit requests are answered by people with no involvement on the talk page. When you see an edit request and glance across the talk page, you can get an idea if the edit is likely to be contentious. Not that it necessarily is, but likely enough that it will be that actual talk page watchers should be involved in the discussion. That said, I don't mind overmuch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the way I see it though is that as a responder who closes the edit request it is part of the closing to determine if it is controversial. And that no edit request apart from clear errors and vandalism should just be closed with just a glance even if the tools make it easy to do so. Terasail^[✉️] 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting here that if you're going to make huge breaking changes to this template, please make sure the script that probably everyone uses to answer requests gets fixed as well - I was confused as hell and a little annoyed that "please establish a consensus" turned into a wall of text that then hides the message I was trying to leave. I'm not going to unilaterally revert these changes, but I am stating for the record that I am hella opposed to having any more than a single sentence as a response using this template. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Changed my mind, the one-sentence "not quite right" version that we've had for years will suffice until we can sort this out. I genuinely do not believe more than a sentence of boilerplate response is helpful here, especially if there is to be more text following. That being said, in general I am not opposed to changing that response (it's just the length I have issue with). Primefac (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There is some discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 1#Discussion that may be of interest, where there looks to be a bit of consensus for the type of wording I implemented. It also covers some other aspects of current edit request patrolling, and the views around it. I still think there should be some expansion in edit request replies.

Did your custom text actually get covered up or removed by the change to the template? I normally handle edit requests via script, and haven't seen that issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but what I thought was a two-sentence reply suddenly was four, and it's hard to see the added text after glazing over the 'plate text. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It was based off GorillaWarfare's statement in the linked discussion, +1, again. I think a "controversial" response like that as well as the "no consensus" answer should maybe not have an icon, and explicitly state that discussion can continue in the same section. That, and the few replies below it, is why I added the If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• The whole point of this exercise was for us to keep the recipient of this message, which in almost all cases is an IP or brand new account, in mind. We're telling them quite brusquely to "get consensus first." They do not know what this means, much less how to go about it. It's just not a helpful response to the folks it's being used on. I think it's just a button to push when you're on patrol and don't really know the article subject well enough. In which case you should move along instead of trying to clear out the category.

If there is active discussion on a talk, edit requests don't need to be patrolled there. If a page has 500 watchers, 100 of whom visited recent edits, edit requests don't need to be patrolled there. No edit request needs to be answered in ten minutes. Just move along. valereee (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Or you'll see edit requests sit for weeks on talk pages with over 350 watchers, because for the most part page watchers aren't actually answering edit requests. Over 500 watchers here. Do you have any examples of problem closes by edit request patrollers? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, here's one (different canned response, but you get the point): [1] Asked at 11:07 am. Patrolled unhelpfully at 11:14. I came in an hour later and figured out what the person was asking for. valereee (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bold text is part of the template you get when you click the B in the edit window. It is very common to see edit requests with Bold textItalic text. In that circumstance you can see that it was a test edit, and they clicked the B in the edit window because '''Bold text''' is placed directly before the edit request template with no space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps the person thought they were asking for bold text, since that actually was a problem. SFR, surely you can remember multiple times I've questioned edits you've answered with these canned responses. It's been an ongoing discussion between the two of us for months now. I want to solve the problem, not collect diffs to use against you. Seriously, all I want is to solve what I see as a real problem: we're so determined to answer edit requests as fast as we can that we end up being actively unhelpful, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you want. If you want to go figure out the ones that are weeks old, please do. But leave them for at least a few hours or even a day to let someone at that article have a chance at them. valereee (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

At any rate, here's another: Talk:James_Charles/Archive_3#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_25_May_2021 from my own experience. ER at 10:30, patroller showed up an hour later, I showed up a few hours after that and was able to actually provide a non-canned response. These canned responses ASAP are just not helpful. valereee (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That should have been removed and possibly revdel'd as BLPvio. An IP added that someone was facing charges for grooming children with no sourcing, that should be handled ASAP, and wasn't handled firmly enough. The IP wasn't even the one who provided sources, another editor provided sources of accusations three days later.

As I've said before when we've discussed this, we do want the same thing. If I wasn't trying to be helpful I wouldn't have well over 1000 edits implementing edit requests. The overwhelming vast majority of requests, however, are vandalism, non-constructive or blank. Most of the canned response, no additional text edit request replies you see are requests that are not constructive, but people are trying to avoid biting possible newbies by just reverting them. Here's one answered in 10 minutes, [2]. As you see, since it was a good faith request, there was a good faith response detailing the reason for the decline. This as just complaining about the article, and got a canned response to close out the request, because there was no request, and it's a fairly standard complaint for India related topics. This was just a copy/paste from a news article, but was good faith, so I added that we should wait until a ruling actually happens. This got a plain canned response because it's been discussed in the past, there is a section about it currently on the talk page, and it's the specific reason the page is protected.

For the most part the only time plain canned responses with no elaboration are used is because of disruption or truly bad requests. There's some WP:ABF going on with assuming that patrollers aren't looking at the article, past discussions or other things before responding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

SFR, I am not trying to say that most patrollers aren't operating in good faith. I am saying they aren't getting trained to use their time productively. We're on the same side, here. We both want canned responses to be used when canned responses are the appropriate responses. And when they hop onto a page to answer an edit request that is ten minutes old, find there are 500 watchers and multiple active discussions, unless they are 100% sure a particular canned response is the right response (and in the case of the particular response we're discussing, it almost never is), keep moving. That's all I really want, here. valereee (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to revive this discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, all. I am late to this party, but I have long had the same feeling about the “establish consensus first” response as several others here, particularly valereee, who appears to be as offended by this template as I am. I would love to see this discussion revived and some kind of decision reached, because I strongly feel we should eliminate the “establish consensus first” response to edit requests. If we can’t agree on a new wording, let’s just get rid of it. I posted about this at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests, and ScottishFinnishRadish led me to this discussion. I’ll repost here what I said there:

I often see people reply to protected edit request messages with the canned response

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

See, for example, the most recent two messages here. I realize this is one of the established canned responses - it’s Template:ESp(c) - but it bothers the heck out of me. This response is not only unhelpful and dismissive, it is illogical. When someone posts a "semi-protected edit request on (date)“, it is because they tried to make an edit to the main page, were unable to because of page protection, and got a message and link suggesting they could edit the talk page instead. So they follow the link to the talk page, make their request or comment, and it gets published under the section heading "Semi-protected edit request on (date)". So far, so good. But then they are immediately told they should have established consensus before making their request. Establish consensus first? How were they supposed to establish consensus BEFORE making their very first edit to the talk page? This is basically just a rubber-stamp way of saying "go away and don't bother us". If it were up to me I would outlaw this response entirely. We should at least give the user the courtesy of a response to their request or comment. We could write a sentence explaining why the article is the way it is, or how they can request a change. Or we could cite the "be specific" or "reliable source" canned response. What do others think? What would be a better (more populated) forum to raise this issue? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think keeping discussion centered at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests is probably the best bet, just due to the number of watchers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.