Template talk:Peer reviewed

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

How can[edit]

How can a template be a policy? Anonymous101talk 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the template is proposed policy atm. --Skenmy talk 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I support the use of this template. I also don't think it has to be policy, (though not opposed to that) but it could be used as an option to help the reviewer formulate talk page notes. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Same here, not necessarily policy, but it would be extremely helpful in the process. Plus, Google might see this as a part of the formal validation process if it were to become policy. Thunderhead 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, very good point. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


It would be very helpful to include the revision ID (you can get out of diffs and a few other places) so we know exactly what version it was of. The other idea would be to use the reviewer permission to mark this in the history, which would probably make it even more useful for getting on google news, as they can easily only index reviewed revisions, and we can provide rss/dpls for it. TheFearow (userpage) 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be ideal, once we have more Wikinews:Reviewers and an approved system set up at Wikinews:Reviewing articles. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
whoa. You mean you could mark it as having passed/failed review using Flagged Revisions? Like in the article edit history where it says "sighted" or "validated" right now? That'd be sweet if that's what you mean. Gopher65talk 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


should this template have a parameter 'a' for accuracy? or 'f' for fact-checked? Or does this fall under verifiability? --SVTCobra 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that falls under verifiability, though I would not be opposed to changing the current wording to make that more explicit. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's this?[edit]

I'll tell you what it is, one of the best templates to ever have been created on Wikinews. This is exactly the kind of work which will make a real difference in demonstrating that we can be considered credible. Skenmy deserves a great deal of respect for doing the legwork. This is something which I'd suggested as part of the recent discussion about restructuring our publishing process but didn't have the opportunity to develop the idea further.

I think we should ideally be looking to link each of the checklist criteria to an appropriate page explaining the requirement. I also think that we might want to look at substituting the template rather than including it. This is because as Wikinews policies and guidelines evolve the criteria will also change but the template on article talk pages needs to reflect a check against the criteria at the time of publication. This will probably require more than simply changing the instructions to say say subst since it might need adapting such that the article talk pages don't end up with loads of awful if statements or whatever. Adambro (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be substing this on talk pages and not transcluding it. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe just subst at archive time? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I think it is a good idea to subst right away. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed version[edit]

Shouldn't the template contain a link to the version of the article that was reviewed? That way other reviewers can see what changes have been made since the last review. - Borofkin (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe Skenmy has added a field for revision ID. --SVTCobra 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that - thank you Skenmy! Cirt (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Is it possible to get the template to accept both Pass and pass? Currently it only accepts the un-capitalized form of pass, which can be a problem if you forget and type Pass. Thanks. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, is that what I did with it? Yes, absolutely then, please sort that out. I'm sure it is do-able, but I dunno if it's easy or a pain, I've no knowledge in such things... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was problem. It's happened to me countless times and i'm sure it will happen a lot more. It's rather easy to fix but you have to know the template to make sure you are not screwing up anything. I tried doing it myself but I couldn't quite get it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added this functionality now! --Skenmy talk 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You da bomb! —Calebrw (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe 'passed' as well? -- DizzyStar (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it state that use of this template is the required format for a review?[edit]

TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) used the rollback tool to revert the publication of an article that had been reviewed and published by Cometstyles (talk · contribs), and commented on the talkpage: Rolled back for lack of a formal 'peer reviewed' template. The review by Cometstyles (talk · contribs) was pretty explicit in stating he felt the article was ready for {{publish}}: Well I have gone through the article and it was a bit biased previously but it seems like Cirt has fixed that aspect of it and now I can see that its well written, well sourced and unbiased and the writing style and settings is excellent as well..I believe it can and should be published now. Also, in his edit summary in the edit that published the article itself, the comment was also pretty explanatory: its great, well written,well sourced, very professional, can be published. So I ask - Where does it state that use of this {{peer reviewed}} template is the required format for a {{review}}? I was under the impression that {{peer reviewed}} was merely a helpful tool to assist the reviewer in commenting after reviewing an article, but not a requirement if the reviewer does make a review comment on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well {{Review}} does say "Reviewers: See {{Peer reviewed}} for help with review comments on the article's talk page." . I have to say that forcing the use of it is a good thing. For one it ensures that those important points (verifiability, npov, etc) are actually looked at. For two it gives us just a little more reliability for those places that don't believe Wiki based news is possible. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I had actually added that bit to the template, and again the text of that is to "help" with review comments. I think it is a good step forward as well, but it was not discussed, and this action was not supported by any requirement stated anywhere on this site. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I really really really dislike yanking articles that have been published. That being said I have done it once or twice when its been necessary. As for what TUFKAAP did, meh. Not the best idea, but I assume they felt they had good reason. I think we should simply require the use and move along. /me shrugs. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well in any event I feel the use of the rollback tool to do this, without an explanatory edit summary, was also not the best way to go. And please note that this template is proposed, and there was never a discussion about requiring its usage as part of a review, or a consensus to do so. Until that is done, editors should be able to review/publish articles and then give an explanatory review comment in a new subsection on the talk page, without being required to use this template to do so. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the template can be used but is not required. Another aspect we have to consider is that some user, mostly new users, don't write anything on the talk page, rather then write something like "Review pass" in the edit summary when they add the publish tag. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the poll, in the subsection below. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll - Should the usage of this template be a required formal step in the review process?[edit]

Should the usage of this template be a required formal step in the review process? 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Voting is evil, etc, etc. However, I do believe that this discussion should be mentioned at the overall discussion at Wikinews talk:Reviewing articles if not completely moved to that location. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is part and parcel to us being listed in Google news. "Yea, it looks good" simply doesn't cut it - no matter who says it. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I can see that you are obsessed with Google News. Have you seen that a lot in the list are press releases which is not news? What if you have to kill off what is good about wiki, and most of the participation, to get into GNews?Ccas (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a note at the policy page where this was being discussed that voting is taking place here. It seems somewhat strange that voting is occuring here, not there, but oh well. Here we are. Jade Knight (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. There already was a note there, and I posted a note about it in a new subsection with an appropriate title at that talk page. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I will petition for rights to be removed from anyone who self-publishes and sights an unreviewed article. I had a case this morning where someone self-published just because the {{review}} stage was not official policy; this was a waste of time as the user was not an Editor - the article never appeared on the main page. From this I was left to update {{New Zealand}} so that the infobox will only show sighted and published articles, there is perhaps a need to go through more of the infobox templates and enforce this.

Those who are opposed to the review process and vote thus below should be aware that those in favour of the process will continue to insist on reviews. Ignoring the current convention we've been working with for a few months will just mean people oppose you getting the right to sight. Arguing that it is un-wiki is pointless, this is our mechanism for controlling the front page and I see nobody who votes oppose putting forward any argument why you should be allowed any old thing on the front page of en.wp. They have an even more strict and controlled process than we do; our process has social and technical enforcement measures that prevent rouge contributors from damaging our credibility or jeopardising our Google News listing. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: From this I believe that nobody should be granted Editor status without being listed on WN:RFP for several days soliciting input. I would urge administrators not to grant the right to people who have not demonstrated support for the review policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the review process in that I am acting with good faith within the current proposals. I won't sight anything that hasn't been reviewed. However, I have advocated for a relaxation of the proposal: I am not yet convinced that I should vote in favour of the current proposal. I will understand if that disqualifies me as a "flagged revisions editor," though I hope it doesn't. Although I understand that Brianmc's comment wasn't directed at me personally, I don't intend to form a cabal of rouge editors (or of any other colour) and I think that giving 'editor' privileges should be a response to support for the community's values, rather than outright support for a particular proposal. By the way, self-publishing is encouraged by the Breaking News instructions, though I suspect this is an oversight. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • read like a threat :) Imagine when "peer review" means review by privileged editors who need approval of even fewer bureaucrats who got there first. Are we using the success of WPedia to fund a few future journalists at Wnews, who are willing to put up with anything? Ccas (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This poll has now been open for over 2 weeks. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


  1. Support It is a good template, it makes sure that people look at the key aspects of an article. It also helps us keep our formal review proccess, FORMAL. Oh, and everyone uses it anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it should be required as it is a physical example that the article was reviewed. Until we get far enough along with this whole process, then I think we need to use it every time. When we pick up new contributors, then it should be an example of how we conduct editorial reviews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. strong support I won't sight anything that doesn't have this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. strong support Definately a good idea, useful step in the review process and helps keep opinion of our editorial process up. TheFearow (userpage) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support "Yeah, I think this article looks good" is just not a proper review, this template shows that you have checked. Sure, you could fake it, but I doubt many users want to do that. Anonymous101talk 08:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support Absolutely. This is a necessary step in ensuring we have a verifiable, reliable news source that can be trusted. --Skenmy talk 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Its needed to ensure newsworthiness etc.. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I have taken some time to give this a good deal of thought and I am changing to Support. Helping to formalize this part of the {{Review}} process in the long run will be a good thing, both to help bolster the integrity of the review process, and to help make sure articles actually get a quality review and not a quick skim. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak support I agree that some kind of review process is necessary, but I'm still not convinced that the mandatory use of this template is the way to go. However, I have no alternative suggestion(s), so, for the moment, I weakly support this by default, due to the fact that some review process is better than none. I, of course, reserve the right to unsupport this should a better proposal come along:). Gopher65talk 16:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well it doesn't have to be _the most amazing_ template, but without it most people will just glance over an article and go "ok, I 'reviewed' it, and it looks good enough". At least with a template they have to fill it out and they can't say they "Didn't know" they were supposed to check the copyright or similar. Ok, most of us probably don't need this help - we know the dealy - but the newbz don't. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually like the template, I'm just not sure that a template (by itself) is the best way to go. But like I said, I haven't thought up anything else, and I haven't seen anyone else think up a better idea either. So for the foreseeable future I support this. I just don't think we should think that this is the end all of the quality control process. Gopher65talk 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support However, I do not think that the fail version of {{peer reviewed}} should be necessary to remove the {{review}} template. It is too much work when something not even close to reviewable has been submitted. More importantly, I suspect some people are issuing passing reviews without doing a proper job. It's hard work, but you have to check that everything is sourced. You have to check grammar. You have to make sure it is properly categorized. You have to make sure the links work. --SVTCobra 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Sometimes an article is pure dribble, and it fails in every way. Personally I'd only provide a fail review if I thought that the article had a snowflake's chance in hell of eventually being published. I therefore don't think that a {{peer review}} template should be necessary for an obvious fail. Gopher65talk 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I think everyone agree's on that. When I (and most) see an article that is just no chance of passing (not long enough, etc). Just kick it back to develop with a {{cleanup}} or such. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support At first it took a lot to get used to, but I believe this is a net positive in terms of boosting credibility for Wikinews. Mike Halterman (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Oppose We should certainly require the editor that changes an article from {{review}} to {{publish}} to make some explanatory comments in a new subsection on the article's talk page. But the usage of this template to do so should not be required. I believe this template was modeled after the template PGAN on English Wikipedia used for the Good Article evaluation process - a template which reviews articles for five main points, under a similar style and structure. However, please note that on the page Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it is explained that the template is not required there either, but "may help you organize the critique". Two other review templates are suggested there as well: GAList and GAList2. The usage of this template in the {{review}} process should be a helpful suggestion, a tool to aid the reviewer, but not required. However as stated at WN:REVIEW, an explanation by the reviewer when publishing, in a post in a new subsection on the article's talk page, should be required. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thought this over a good while and changed to Support. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Should be optional. I find it somewhat useful to make sure I cover everything but I can see how some people consider it just a useless form to fill out. However, if it does become mandatory, can I recommend calling it Form 14, Class B --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    We are not WP. we are a news organization. WP has different standards for articles. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree there is a vastly different standard, but just because a user did not fill out the template but there is proof that the user did a review such as c/e, does that make the review invalid? Is a review that used a template better as a result? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    IMO it does not make a review invalid. I expect that people will sometimes forget to add the template. If it was published and the template forgot to be added, then the user who did the review can be contacted, or for verification another 'editor' can also add the template. With only the trusted users having 'editor/reviewer' status, I would asume to trust the person doing the review. But IMO its not grounds for un-publication (assuming the reviewer was a trusted user with editor status etc.). I am very against taking any article out of publication for this, for a minor typo or a single source etc. In some cases its required, but not to fix a small mistake. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Soft Oppose, prefer optional use. Durova (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose; this would hinder both timeliness (critical for many users at Wikinews, evidently), as well as reduce the wiki-nature of Wikinews. It would also discourage participation, I believe. Jade Knight (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    This template is already used in the super-majority of reviews (probably something like 98-99%), this is just making the review process the same for every article to ensure reliability. Anonymous101talk 10:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose Wikinews:Reviewing articles is not yet policy. When that is policy, by all means lets come back and revisit this, though I am not yet convinced this is good for everyone. As an inexperienced contributor, I like to use it, but I see how some experienced editors find it clumsy and we should trust them with a 'looks good' review, especially for scoops and breaking news. There is a cliché: 'trust but verify'. I think that applies here: let the experienced editor publish, but read the article yourself, and unpublish if you find they made a mistake. From what I have seen, that won't happen often. The template doesn't fit some specific circumstances: (a) if one contributor checks facts and POV, while another checks the other three things (b) a decision to pass a review and publish 'on balance' where an article is really outstanding on four checkpoints, but deviates from the fifth, say the style guideline, in a way the reviewer feels does not need to be fixed urgently (the style guide is great but lengthy, and a writer can have a good reason for deviating from it, so it should not be made mandatory by implicit inclusion in a mandatory template) --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    The thing here is that it is the established editors who are applying this. The template effectively is our editorial review process and we need it to maintain credibility. Personally I find it very useful as a checklist of things to review, but I probably have an advantage over you on things like the Style Guide - I drafted portions of it. Have you seen WN:ARTICLE and {{Howdy}}, a new approach to inviting people to get involved? These are under discussion on the Water Cooler. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It is clear that it should be a sequential matter, policy->template. Somebody try to push it into hen and egg matter. If you voted in the template before policy, isn't pushing too harder, harder than threat of revoking privileges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccas (talkcontribs) 02:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per my comments on Wikinews talk:Reviewing articles --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This is a significant move away from wiki-style user-generated content. It adds unnecessary bureaucracy to the publication process, and will discourage participation. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Your reason is weak. This is Wikinews not Wikipedia. In order to ensure that the news is worthy of being published to avoid mistakes, copyright.. template:Peer Review is needed to ensure, infact this encouraged me to edit Wikinews, also creates less edit confilct and rubbish. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Well, is Wikinews intended to be a wiki, or a collaborative online newspaper? The two are not the same… Jade Knight (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    How is it not a wiki? Just because you can't put any old shite on the main page? Nobody prevents you editing or creating an article, but we have certain standards. This is a non-argument that insults the contributors who pour a great deal of effort into the project. We want to be taken seriously, we want listings alongside credible news sources like AP, and we're not going to get it if someone can publish My dick On Wheels and have it show up on the front page. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    You're ignoring my point, and replacing it with a straw man: surely you realize that current oversighting requirements for publication prevent random new users from publishing vandalism at Wikinews. Jade Knight (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think you have a point. It is still a wiki. And get your terminology right, "oversight" is the process of removing a sensitive version of a page from the history so that nobody, including admins, can see it. This template codifies when to sight an article, and it ain't when it just 'looks good'. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    # Oppose While I myself use it, and do encourage others to use it, I disagree with its requirement and I agree with Jade Knight that it discourages participation and takes us away from the "wiki" aspect of what we do. Maybe revisit when we've quadrupled in contributions and users... Cary Bass (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thought about this for a while and striking my vote of opposition. Swayed by Gopher65's arguments, who hasn't explained, however, why I just archived a not so good article by BrockF5 that was never unpublished from last December but oh well. I'm still not ready to fully support it though. Cary Bass (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It certainly does discourage participation in initial article conception, but I think that is the whole point. Articles should only be written by people who are capable of a minimum level of writing competency. A Wikinews article cannot by its very nature undergo a long editing cycle like articles on Wikipedia can. Articles on Wikipedia often spend *years* being written and rewritten, and so it doesn't truly matter if the initial attempt is a dismal failure. But on Wikinews it does matter. We don't have years to write and rewrite and copyedit an article, we have days, and often, hours. That means that the initial quality has to be high enough for an article to quickly be copyedited and factchecked. If the initial quality isn't high enough, the editing process will take too long, and the article will cease to be news. See User:BrockF5's articles for a good example of this. He is a good faith editor who has made a consistent effort to write local interest articles, but they are of such poor quality (in his case due to a language barrier) that the vast majority of them end up being deleted before anyone takes a crack at copyediting them:(. He became frustrated by this (obviously) and now rarely participates at Wikinews in any capacity, which is sad. I'd rather be upfront with people about our (necessary) quality controls, rather than backstabbing them after the fact, and pushing them away. Gopher65talk 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Wikinews is not Wikipedia. But is Wikipedia successful? Wikia is way off to be a competitor. Whereas free/paid press release agencies have way more news at Google News than Wikinews. I'm not trying to discuss what Wikinews is or is not. We do need some success model and roadmap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccas (talkcontribs)

thoughts on using a template[edit]

Random musing on using this template. One of the problems with using a checklist, is you only check things. Does this template discourage constructive criticism - as it really only provides a pass/fail list. No article is perfect, but as I look through all the peer reviews, very few, and almost none of the passed reviews, contain any kind of you could do this better next time. I think one of the most important parts of any review system is identifying our weaknessess. (and we all have something we can improve) Should we somehow encourage more criticism in reviews? Bawolff 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably should encourage both. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps another optional tag could be added, similar to comments. If you want to enter a criticism, use it, else leave it blank. Prehaps there is a better word that could be used though. Critique maybe. Gopher65talk 02:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews:Editor link[edit]


In the documentation section on "Use [Using Easy Peer Review]", I recommend replacing

make sure you are an [[special:listusers/editor]],


make sure you are an [[Wikinews:Editor|editor]],

as this links directly to an explanation of the term (and, by using a pipe, reads more smoothly). --Pi zero (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DoneGopher65talk 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentation subpage[edit]

{{editprotected}} I suggest the documentation for this just be moved to a subpage, using {{documentation}}, so the template itself can be fully protected without requiring an admin to copyedit the documentation. --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems very odd that the template itself is fully protected, but the subpages that contain the text — Template:Peer reviewed/Passed and Template:Peer reviewed/Failed — are not. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Done and Done --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of cross symbol[edit]

The red X looks strange when used alongside the green check. I propose that we change the red X to File:Symbol_unrelated.svg instead. Thoughts? — μ 11:12, June 10 2010 (UTC)

Pretty uncontroversial, and it looks okay! Done --Skenmy talk 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • /me wants smilies/frownies :P --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been replaced by a large blue question mark. By all means thanks for that, it's been tickling me for a while during the last few weeks of the UoW round. Gryllida 12:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The change from File:Symbol unrelated.svg to File:Symbol question.svg was precipitated by WN:Water cooler/proposals#Making the red tick mark blue. --Pi zero (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


Before placing a request to edit this protected template, I would like to know if it would be a good idea to have a parameter for mentioning who created the article? I believe it would help some of us, who wants to read comments added by the reviewer(s) and also who created the article. (On a limited data connection, one would not have to open the history page.)
acagastya 10:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm. We pointedly don't use a by-line; like most sister projects I know of, we don't consider any article "owned" by a particular user (even though in practice most of our articles have a single dominant author); we don't want to discourage others from touching "someone else's" article. So we'd want to think carefully about how to implement such a thing. Done well, though, it might be made useful, yes. --Pi zero (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can contribute. (Should have framed the question in better way; emphasising creator). Well, one thing to add. I hope the parameter is filled automatically. If it is manual, it would actually be problematic when the article fails in review.
acagastya 11:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)