Template talk:Connected contributor (paid)

Template colors

Recently, after Beyond My Ken didn't notice this template on Talk:Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company during an ANI discussion, Locke Cole changed the template from the standard colors to green, with the edit summary "WP:BOLD, feel free to revert and discuss, per comment at WP:AN; to make this template more distinct from other talk page templates". JJMC89 reverted the color change with the comment, "Keep the standard colors". Then Beyond My Ken changed to green again, saying, "No, please do not. The paid editor banner should stand out against the standard colors on the talk page, it's much too easy to miss it otherwise. Paid editing is a serious problem, and we need to make certain that the required disclosures can be easily seen, and not get lost in the shuffle, as they did for me yesterday in an ANi discussion."

While I sympathize with Beyond My Ken (at some time we've all failed to see something we should have seen), this is not the way to devise a color scheme that communicates effectively. Yes, paid editing is a serious problem. But Wikipedians hold diverse opinions about what issues are most serious. One can easily imagine champions of talk page notices for civility, discretionary sanctions, contentious topics, not a forum, round in circles, censorship, language varieties, merged pages that must be preserved for attribution, etc. all competing to make "their" notice more noticeable. That's the road to chaos, and to all notices being lost in a riot of styles.

If consensus finds that a color other than the customary mustard yellow is necessary (rather than all of us reminding ourselves to read more carefully and not edit when tired), green is not the solution. Green is a terrible choice because of its connotations of "go ahead, this is okay", instead of the "use caution" conveyed by the usual shades of yellow/orange. Consider, instead, #fffaef, the lighter yellow color used to make the important {{BLP}} template stand out. Or a more strongly colored border and icon, such as used in the {{Controversial-issues}} template. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Green I am a fan of the green. It improves the visibility. I don't believe that it endorses paid editing by virtue of its association with the green of a traffic light. I don't really buy the "color=meaning" argument, as it varies among cultures and you can find a rationale for any combination you like online (red=anger, red=love, red=war, red=blood, red=happiness, red=sadness?) Also, does anyone really, really know what color is red or green or yellow? --- Possibly (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I am in favor of any color which stands out from the normal talk page banner color, and the green serves that purpose quite well. (It's also the proverbial color of American money, which correlates to the dollar sign image on the template.) I have absolutely no objection to another color, as long as it clearly visibly contrasts with the normal coloring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I prefer the green. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Revert to status quo ante - I concur with Worldbruce that the color change is confusing. Green, and indeed, a pale shade of green for templates, usually denotes approval. Granted, there may be variations in cultural associations with the color green, but on Wikipedia, green backgrounds consistently represent something being approved – for instance, successful RfAs and approved AfCs. On the other hand, informational talk page templates consistently use a shade of tan. I would rather maintain consistency with the existing color scheme than give the impression, to readers, that paid editing is somehow endorsed by Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• I do like that the template stands out more, so I think the rationale for the change was appropriate. However, green can subtly imply that the community endorses (not just permits) the activity, which is not the case. See an example of usage of this template with paid editors that are blocked and used many sockpuppets: Talk:Martin Saidler. MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Revert to status quo ante. I agree with Altamel. Green implies approval or endorsement and this template does not suggest any of that between Wikipedia and a COI partner. We can discuss other colors later, but green is a bad choice and should be reverted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Green, the reason I chose it was because of greenbacks. I'm not necessarily married to green however, simply something to visually help it stand out would suffice. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Revert to status quo ante. Green implies endorsement for something that rightfully needs to stand out. I would argue for orange as an alternative though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not green We use green for good things around here. I'm not convinced that it needs to stand out compared to any other talk page banner. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Return to status quo - While suggesting green for warnings means your communication skills are lacking (and so I oppose green extra much), reverting to default is the obvious step while a discussion is taking place. CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. If consensus agrees on a new color scheme, it should of course be applied. After there is consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• The irony when banner blindness is so bad with useless banners that our solution is to start making notices in different colours. Soon talk pages are going to go from a wall of text of meaningless words, into a rainbow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, the solution isn't to introduce color. On the other hand, vague passive-aggressiveness isn't helping either, Procrast. (If you have a template in mind you find useless, argue for its removal at its talk page) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Limit of users

This template is limited to 10 users, but there are pages with more than 10 paid editors. See example here: Talk:Martin Saidler. Can we extend the limit? MarioGom (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I used to be proficient with templates but haven't really messed around with them since WP:LUA was added. My understanding is there's a way to make templates with unlimited parameters, and perhaps that's what should be done here. Unless someone steps up and just does it, I'll try and research how it's done and update the template. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Let us first ask the natural question: if this happens only to a small subset of pages, perhaps the current implementation (where you simply use two or more instances of this template) is sufficient? Do y'all think an effort to extend the limit based on the number of cases is warranted? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes these things are pretty simple, it's just a matter of knowing how to do it. I don't know if there's a noticeboard for template editors, but you might even ask there (or perhaps WP:VPT) and see if someone can assess the difficulty level of changing it. Work has kept me busier than usual or I'd likely be further along in learning LUA. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ux-EH

If a paid contributor's edits are only to the talk page of the article to which they have a COI, but not to the article itself, does that count as "edited here" when specifying |Ux-EH=? — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Archer1234, no, the purpose of that parameter is to inform other editors about whether a COI editor could have in some way skewed the article's NPOV in favor of the subject. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alts for subsequent editors

Currently, the template only allows you to add SPAs for the first COI editor listed. An option should be added to be able to specify SPAs for subsequent COI editors. I don't see why that shouldn't be an option. As with other parameters, "alt(x)" should be linked to the user, i.e. "U(x)-alt(x)", so that it can be specified for each individual COI editor in the list. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)