Can all three of the "Page Issue" templates be removed from this page? I worked to simplify, to make it no longer read like a resume and not sound like an advertisement. The man is super accomplished, but there aren't any mentions of "outstanding, remarkable etc." Thank you! Applepie65 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Advert}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose we adopt Template:Advert/sandbox.

Current version:

Proposed version:

(no longer live; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Advert/sandbox&oldid=1158319912)

Changes:

• Header separation: title stands out, details are less obtrusive. Increases recognizability, reduces visual clutter, and fights banner blindness.
• Completely optional: swap generic icon to increase recognizability, and copyedit for brevity.

I plan to propose the same header separation to all cleanup templates, inspired by frWiki. DFlhb (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like it. But for consistency this needs to be adopted more generally at ambox. Can we get rid of the "Learn how and when to remove this template message", maybe replace with an icon to click for more information? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was meant to gather feedback as a prelude to proposing at ambox; hadn't accounted for this page being pretty inactive.

I support removing that |removalnotice ("Learn how and why...") and replacing it with a small blue clickable info icon in the top-right, like frwiki. DFlhb (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Is the visual icon part of a larger suite with relevant options for the other amboxes? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made it lazily from this icon, from this banner; no icon pack. frwiki uses a bunch from this ElegantThemes pack, which is a little meh. Antü Classic has some great ones (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]). Free symbols are easier to find than free icons, so more Antü-style icons could be created by looking for CC-licensed symbols (some are listed here), and adding a circle + gradient around them. DFlhb (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach to me. A consistent style would be nice, but it's important that it have a lot of options, since there are so many different icons used on Wikipedia. If e.g. {{Nutshell}} can't find a nutshell icon in the new standard style, they're just going to keep using the old one, and there we are with standard proliferation again.

Courtesy pinging @Awesome Aasim, who I know has been interested in this area. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there are also a few in Commons:Category:French Wikipedia icons redesign. Quite like their disambig icon. DFlhb (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new "small" wording better. I'm not sure that "written like an advertisement" is quite the same as "excessively promotional tone". I don't care much about the icons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the sandbox, remove the second sentence "Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." because it is self-evident. Replace that sentence with "You can help improve this article". Relevant discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Shorten_most_clean_up_messages_to_two_sentences. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus at that discussion, and this template's content is already two sentences. The sandbox version would remove three "link(s) to other policy/guideline/how-to pages/resources", contrary to the VPP proposal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of this template says:

If you add this tag, you should be able to identify specific, correctable content that tends to "sell" the subject.

The documentation of {{COI}} goes further (highlighting in original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

I propose to change the former to the latter.

My rationale is that it is often impossible to determine what issues the tagger thinks are present, nor how to resolve them. Or even that they have already been resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I might soften the last few words to "justified in removing the tag if they judge that there are no promotional concerns in the article." – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was to keep the wording consistent between templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make this task bigger, but I would change the wording on the COI template in a similar manner. I would write "justified in removing the tag if they judge that there are no conflict-of-interest concerns in the article." The phrase "without warning" seems out of place to me; who would be warned, exactly? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this addition. I have seen this tag on articles when it's obvious (to me) what the problems are, but I've also seen it when I have no idea what the alleged problem is, and no way of figuring out whether it's been addressed. For example, this tag has been on Medical simulation for five years. I see no advertising at a glance, and I see that two edits later, someone blanked a lot of content, but did that fix everything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Alpha seems to be a good illustration of the problem that needs to be solved. It's obviously not a case of Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising (nor is it alleged to be), but that means that it's harder to tell if there's still a significant problem. @Folly Mox cleaned up the article (thank you!) and removed the advert template. @Pppery re-added the template with no explanation. I glance through the article and have no idea what Pppery wants to have changed. Did he just not notice the clean-up work, so it was a mistaken tagging? Is there something wrong that I missed? A note on the talk page like "Sentences such as <quote> and <quote> don't have an appropriate encyclopedic tone" would be really helpful at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not my responsibility - I readded the tag as a procedural action since my understanding was that Folly Mox only removed it as a hack to stop bad newcomer task edits, not becasue they thought the advert issue was resolved. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]