Template talk:Edit COI

Template:Edit COI is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

On 27 June 2023, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:Request edit to Template:Edit COI. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

A likely omission

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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:

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]

NONEWSECTIONLINK

{{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

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:

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.
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]