Template talk:Edit COI

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

A likely omission

[edit]

Under the Template documentation heading and How to use subheading, then {{edit COI}}, the last of 4 starred items is the following: * References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST.

I'm almost certain that there was an omission of the digit 1 before URL. Augnablik (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 22 February 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Remove encouraging of re-posting changes where they are not supported by reliable sources.

Currently, using a decline reason of V adds Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. It is the only reason that adds an message for the editor with the COI to re-submit a change. I believe that this message, a subtle encouragement that the editor tries to push a change that isn't supported by WP:RS, is harmful and encourages an editor to try and force unverified (and likely imbalanced) information by repeatedly requesting edits. While they would inevitably end up being blocked, it still likely wastes the time and energy of independent editors to vet these requests. Where there are genuine and verifiable content changes to be made though, removing this sentence of course does not prevent further discussion.

Diff:

−
Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
+
Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources.

Tim (Talk) 14:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

{{Edit COI/proceed}} inserts __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ into pages where {{edit COI|g}} is used. That removes the new section tab from the talk page. Some examples are at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"New Section" tab not appearing on article talk page. Does anyone know why NONEWSECTIONLINK was used? Can it just be removed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was originally added by CorporateM when he created the template. CorporateM, do you remember why you originally did that? --rchard2scout (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been removed as a result of the VPT discussion linked above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to improve Edit COI template

[edit]

Greetings, editors! I'd like to propose an update to this template to improve the infrastructure for managing COI edit requests, specifically to encourage greater engagement with the request queue. For context, I work at Beutler Ink, a firm that helps clients follow Wikipedia's COI rules.

First, I want to say: the Edit COI template (which has been maintained recently by Primefac) and its associated queue (created by Anomie) are great tools that enable responsible COI contributions. Still, I have identified potential improvements based on my own experience using the template and feedback from colleagues and others who rely on it. With this proposal, I'd like to address two issues:

  1. The edit request table provides no details about the content of the requests, making it difficult for reviewers to decide where to start, which can discourage editors looking to handle something quickly.
  2. It's cumbersome for reviewers to identify requests that match their expertise, which reduces the chances that complex or specialized requests will find a knowledgeable reviewer.

To address these issues, I propose modifying the template to include:

  • A "request summary" field, where the COI editor briefly describes the nature of the edit request at the time of posting. Instructions on the template page should be updated accordingly.
  • A "request status" field to indicate whether the request is new or under review. This would be initially set by the COI editor and updated by the reviewing editor, especially if more discussion is required.

I believe these updates would make the template more useful for reviewers, who could quickly see when a new request is made, along with a brief summary—e.g., "Seeking to add citations to unsourced content about the company's early history." Once the template is updated, the COI edit request queue should also be revised to display the new "request summary" and "request status" fields.

To this end, I've also posted on the AnomieBOT talk page, where Anomie noted that any new fields would need to be encoded in the URN links. That's outside my technical expertise, but I'd welcome input on how we might accomplish this.

I welcome any feedback on whether these changes would improve the process, and suggestions for how to implement them effectively. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to weigh in. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just took a scan to see if I could help with any of the COI requests, and then got spooked at the morass of you plunge into, some top level info would help.
I do think some summary is useful to know if the nature of request is.
For example:
- correction of erroneous information?
- out of date information?
- challenging the framing of something?
- etc.
Then also do you have
- Sources?
- Sources accessible online (or are they from a book etc.)
- Sources in good standing on RSP?
- No sources but this is a request and you can find
- Some other?
Then nature of edits
- Specific language requested?
- Just help fix, however way you want.
Last, if not already there:
- What is nature of the COI by the requestor?
155 backlog isn’t so bad for all of English wiki, but hard if each one is a tangle.
(sorry for formatting issues I had lots of line breaks but the app has decided to eliminate all of them). Jenny8lee (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, User:WWB Too asked me to look into adjusting the template. I've made a new version in my userspace at User:Bawolff/Edit_COI (As well as subpages for the subtemplates). The main changes is a new "under review" status, which requests can be marked as when there has been some sort of back and forth already or the request is waiting for additional info. It also adds a summary field. The idea would be to later change the bot to take this information into account when creating User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable. What does everyone think? Bawolff (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as odd that even User:Bawolff/Edit COI/new sets the "status" as "under review". Anomie⚔ 16:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re User:Bawolff/Proposed COI request table, I'd be likely to just add two new columns (status and summary), but without removing the existing columns with protection info and without trying to add a "last edit to talk" column which would take too much processing to figure out if it's actually relevant to the request or is to some other section on the talk page. Anomie⚔ 16:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks like i copy/paste failed on the urn, should be fixed now. For the last edit thing, i think the idea was it might still be useful even if its just last edit to talk page and not last edit to that section, on the belief that most of these talk pages are not super busy thus allowing the reader of the list to quickly see at a glance if anything new has happened, even if the new thing might not be relavent. Bawolff (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]