Template talk:Connected contributor

Tracking category request

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

@Sdkb Related to this and User:jlwoodwa's request below: I see Category:Articles with connected contributors has 17K+ entries and wonder if having subcategories to separate direct vs. indirect editing would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a massive 17,000-article category, so yes, I'd say it'd definitely be helpful to diffuse. In addition to |editedhere=yes vs. no, we could also diffuse by whether the edits have been checked or not. However, it gets complicated fast because of the possibility of multiple connected contributors. (Also, there's the possibility that the connected contributor has edited more recently than the check, but that gets to a flaw of this template's design.)

Any further discussion on that should take place in another thread, though, since it's rather separate from the error check I am requesting here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone else'll have to take the idea and run with it. From a technical perspective, I don't really know what I'm proposing. I just think there's a big difference between a connected contributor who has worked on the article vs. one who has not, and right now they are all being lumped into a single category. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 12 January 2024

Description of suggested change: Use {{yesno}} for editedhere.

Diff:

{{#switch:{{{U1-EH|{{{editedhere|}}}}}}|yes=This user has contributed to the article.|no=This user has <em>not</em> edited the article.}}

{{#if:{{yesno|{{{U1-EH|{{{editedhere|}}}}}}}}|This user has contributed to the article.|This user has <em>not</em> edited the article.}}

jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We want to ensure that instances of |editedhere= that are left undefined don't get assumed to be no. But if that's handled, then switching to {{yesno}} to make this template a little more flexible sounds fine to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This was probably assumed in the original request and so maybe I am stating the obvious, but this would need to be applied to U1-EH through U10-EH, like it is for -declared and -banned.  — Archer (t·c) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa and Archer1234: I updated the sandbox accordingly, but Sdkb is right, {{yesno}} should be handled first. I'm not performing the edit for the time being. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

"Banned" parameter/wording

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

option to link to user page from "declared"?

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

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

10 user limit

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