• @Rentier and Doc James: This template is invisible for me right now both on this page and in articles. How about for you? I can't see any recent changes that could have affected it. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartse: That's strange. It works for me. What kind of browser / screen size are you using? Rentier (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rentier: Hmm indeed. Browser is: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0 (Linux i686). Screensize is 1680 x 1050. It's worked fine before and other templates show up as normal. Tried clearing caches/purging and restarting to no effect. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartse: Very hard to guess what might be happening. Perhaps it was hidden by an ad blocker. I made a small change that could have fixed it if that was the case - is the template still hidden on Template:Undisclosed_paid? If yes, does the template show up when you are not signed in? What if you try a different browser or device? Is the template completely invisible or do you see any part of it? Rentier (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rentier: Well it's working fine again now! Whether or not it was related to your change I'm not sure. Cheers regardless. SmartSE (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is per Template:Ambox documentation. Orange is used for major article issues. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, every other major issue template uses an orange color. However, the UDP template is a special case as the UDP template is visible (to my knowledge, all other templates only show up when you access 'page issues') when viewing Wikipedia from a mobile device. Having a bold red coloration, I feel, is a stark warning for potential undisclosed paid editors. I see no reason to change it to orange.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also want readers to notice this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the return to ambox? This makes the template invisible on mobile. Rentier (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Wikipedia is literally not optimized for proper content editing. No ambox modules are visible on m.wiki, but you can find it grouped in Page issues at the top of the page, forcing HTML to display {{UDP}} is basically bypassing the mobile accessibility modifications. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 03:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One can edit just fine on mobile now. So yes the notices are important their aswell.

It is also a notice to readers who may be mislead by paid editors. For example we had this happen[1] which ruined a lot of peoples lives it appears.

Restored it to how it was before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc James. I think the accessibility concerns are secondary to the paid advocacy issues. We should be thinking about making the other COI templates visible on mobile, not the other way around. Any data on how many users click the "Page issues" link? It doesn't take an UX expert to predict that the number is going to be really small. Rentier (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree we should make the COI template visible as well on mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't contest the restoration/reversion, not much of a need or will. But either way, I believe this template is getting undue importance; there's always been content issues and it's barely relevant when you consider issues like lack of verifability and original research which are threats to an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. While I'm not questioning the problem that UPE surely is, we're overplaying it with all these relative comparisons and that article that you've pointed to is very situational, and could have been related to almost anything else; the fact that it's related doesn't imply the causation. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making such a change would require a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a version of this templates for talk pages? The template:connected contributor (paid) makes a definitive statement that X was paid and we often use this tag when it a DUCK situation; I only use the "paid" template on talk when we have an actual disclosure of paid editing. I am using the plain template:connected contributor for now for these cases... Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use the COI template when the editor discloses and this when when the editor does not. I think what we have for talk pages currently works and is clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]