This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following up from
mw:Topic:Wh1vsit92x6bpqp7, I'd like to request that this notice be changed so that it reads:
Improves your content by adding sources of
reliable information. You can cite from reputable books, newspapers, and websites.
This adds a link to a helpful newcomer-friendly page where newcomers who want to learn more about what qualifies as a reliable source can do so. It also adds the words "reliable" and "reputable", alluding to the fact e.g. that not all websites are going to be acceptable (the current version is borderline misleading). Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Xaosflux: That didn't work either. I think the message should.still be changed, sans the link. I suppose you could do something like . . . (See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliability)
―
Qwerfjkltalk20:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Information on Wikipedia is expected to be verifiable, and to use reliable sources - but that doesn't mean the information itself is "reliable" - note, even the page you suggested mentions reliable sources not reliable content
Links don't work in this message, and without linking to even what our definition of something means here, we should not use ambiguous terms
If you want to get links to work on that message you will need to submit a
software feature request
Bare url's in an interface message don't go along with our normal style
I don't think we should dump a new user in to page 5 of a tutorial lesson where the next action call is to take a quiz.
So, all that being said - at the very least this is a controversial edit so consider that we are now at stage 3 of
WP:BRD and you will need to develop a consensus for these changes. Feel free to advertise this discussion in appropriate places like the village pump. —
xaosfluxTalk20:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Qwerfjkl/
Xaosflux—thanks both for engaging! I think that the wikilinks are the most crucial part of this, so I'll file a Phabricator task for that, and I think we should put this on hold until that's resolved—gaining editorial consensus is hard enough even without technical hurdles haha. Once that's done, I'll be happy to pick this up again and advertise more widely. I think we could address the reliable source vs. reliable information distinction by going with Improves your content by adding
reliable sources of information instead. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sdkb: thanks, prob should ask that all of this same class of messages support wikilinks, not just the one. And of course just because I think link to page 5 of a help instead of for example
WP:V is a bad idea, doesn't meant that everyone else won't support it - the 'not done' here is just as to the immediate-edit-request process; please consider it the same as a bold/revert step not some sort of hard "NO, so say I the admin!". —
xaosfluxTalk20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Xaosflux Done at
phab:T298837. You're better at writing good phab tickets than I am, so feel free to edit it. And yep, understood—I hadn't initially added an edit request tag to this precisely because I figured there might be some hurdles (both technical/editorial) before it'd be ready, but I'll continue with the process and hopefully it won't get stuck. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Protected edit request on 22 March 2022
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following the discussion above and
at the Village Pump, there's clearly consensus to change this line. What precisely to change it too is slightly less clear, but I think the closest to a consensus version is Content must be verifiable through
citations to reliable sources. You can cite from books, newspapers and websites. (This hews closely to the
universal editnotice wording.) Could it please be implemented? {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sdkb: seems ok enough, do you want to drop the "Improves your content...." part too though? Here is the current message:
Improves your content by adding sources of information. You can cite from books, newspapers and websites.
@
Xaosflux: Yep, drop the "improves" phrase, so that what I put above (link included) is the entire new message. Editors rightly pointed out that "improves" gives the impression references are just optional rather than expected. {{u|Sdkb}}talk