Template talk:User Wikipedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 22. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 February 16. The result of the discussion was "speedily kept".

This page was nominated for deletion on 2010 January 11. The result of the discussion was keep.

On 27 June 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:User wikipedia to Template:User Wikipedia. The result of the discussion was moved.

Wording

I decided to change this template so that it displayed "wiki" rather than "wik" because I felt that it was a better description and that there was enough space for four letter. --R6MaY89 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope nobody minds that I added the letter "a" in there, so that it says, "This user is a member of Wikipedia..." Cernen 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new option called 'Addict' to refer to a wikipedia addict. I try to add a link to the category (Category:User Wikipedia/Addict) by using the word Addicted in the info. For some reason it wouldn't accept the format, and link wouldn't show. Can somebody with more syntax knowledge fix it? (Sorry about all the edit I made) - 01:15, December 23, 2005 (UTC) / Kickboy

Replaced Category:User Wikipedia/Administrator

I've been bold and replaced the above cat with Category:Wikipedia administrators, as that one sounds better and is older. The prefix of "User Wikipedia/" is bulky and cumbersome when compared to the nicer, simpler, older, version. Wikipedia:Use common names. Blackcap (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator image

Image:Admin mop.PNG is used for the administrator userbox. According to the image page, though, the image is copyright. Doesn't that mean it can't be used on user pages and should be removed from the userbox? --Angr (tɔk) 11:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was designed for userpages. It is the wikipedia logo which is not a copyright infrigment on userpages. If you are suspicious of the copyright images of wikipedia or wikimedia logos, please ask the board members before taking action or suggesting action as board owns the copyrights and will decide if its ok or not. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take or suggest any action, I was just asking. It's just there's been a lot of talk about the use of copyrighted images on user pages, and I wanted to make sure my own user page was OK, and I found that both Image:Admin mop.PNG and Image:Wikimedia.png are copyrighted. Okay, they're copyrighted by Wikimedia, so maybe it's okay, but I wasn't sure. --Angr (tɔk) 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. sorry I got excited with that comment ^_^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia

from User talk:AzaToth

why did you rvv my edit there? I rvv:ed it back, according to the ongoing deswitching. _→AzaToth 22:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are breaking my and many other people;s userpage. You should fix all userpages prior to doing that. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no difference, they are only extracted, there were only four that was missplaced that I forgot to put back. Perhaps it's one of them you are refering to. and please be more civil. _→AzaToth 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That revert breaks at least my userpage and god knows how many others. Please make responsinble edits to tempates, whatever you are doing I see no discussion over it. I would have (and had) labeled it vandalism for removing 5000 bytes from a template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are all responsiple edits, the only thing that is made, is that the templates are split onto their new tem,paltes, and a temporary redirect is made from this templates. So please stop your dissruptive work. _→AzaToth 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you need to work this out on this page without revert warring over the template. I'm reverting it back to what it was before this revert war started and getting out of the mess. Whatever consensus develops here, respect it when the page is unlocked. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue has been taken up at AN/, so I'm leaving it to that and staying out. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, here's a hint... if you use userboxen on your userpage, at some random point in the future someone will edit them and possibly break your page. If you wish to prevent this and have a stable userpage, SUBST the templates. R adiant _>|< 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That defeats the purpose of templates. So al templates should be subst just bacuse some irresponsible person will break it? Currently many wikipedia userpages are broken because of irresponsible edits of some people on this template basicaly declaring ownership without caring what their actions are leading to. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-templates

I have protected this page to prevent the usage of meta-templates. Please note that WP:AUM is a very important piece of policy, and that userboxes are not and never have been an issue that is important enough to justify violating it. Further reversion will be interpreted as vandalism and attempts to facilitate a DDOS attack on Wikipedia, and I will block for it. Phil Sandifer 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not missuse your admin privileges, and unprotect the page at once. Perhaps you should read the history log first before you are doing things like this. We are breaking out the templates from here, but as a temporary solution they are redirected until all user pages has been converted. _→AzaToth 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It completely misunderstands the priority of what you're doing. It is preferable to have user-pages broken temporarily. Phil Sandifer 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion might take a couple of weeks (or months), I don't think thats "temporary". But even so, what you are doing is wrong. _→AzaToth 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, knowing this community, the userpages will be upgraded within days if the template is protected or deprecated somehow, and never if it is not. Please note that we have been asked by Jamesday (no less) to cut down on meta-templates. Anyone who is upset that his userpage is now broken can and likely will fix that in a matter of minutes as soon as they notice. R adiant _>|< 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azatoth is well aware of the WP:AUM policy, I think he should be formally warned not to use them and blocked if he continues. I don't like spending hours deprecating conditional templates just to have someone work against that progress. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, I was in the progress to remove the meta templates from this when snowspinner stepped in. What I had done was exctacting the templates to their new templates and as a temporary solution to not break user pages, include them here until userpages in converted. I don't like your radical mission to obliverate meta-templates in one instance, I prefer to make it more slowly to not dissrupt wikipedia (in contrast to your behavour). _→AzaToth 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't at all consider temporarily breaking (well blanking) this User page template as being any disruption to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The no-meta-templates policy is clearly defined. Protecting a page that uses them is hardly an abuse of admin powers. One must not ask another admin to enforce policy. FCYTravis 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy have nothing to do with this, as I said above, I was in the progress to remove the meta templates, but not dissrupting wikipedia or her userpages. _→AzaToth 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burden the servers with meta-templates against policy, or disrupt userpages. Tough choice there. Screw the userpages. Honestly, userspace is not sacred, and Wikipedia is not a free Web host. FCYTravis 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just highlight that fixing this template and fixing it is a current task for the WikiProject, however we are now totally unable to do that, and it would have been probably split by now if it wasn't for the protection. Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted it so that no longer do any pages use the switch function (the meta problem). So the problem is fixed. There is no reason to change the current version of this template, so the protection can remain or whatever, I don't really care. A question though, can't normal users see the hsitory of a page when it's protected? All someone had to do was visit the old version and use it to fix all the userpages.--Commander Keane 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping normal users from viewing history. The only thing they can't do is edit or move :) FCYTravis 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a vote (which it apparently isn't), I'd vote unprotect and revert. Explains why the hell my RCP userbox went away without any changes to its source. --DCrazy talk/contrib 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extra lines

Hey All. Since the template is protected can I make a request of someone with power? Can we please remove the extra lines at the top of this template or at least put them on noinclude? Thoes lines carry over to user pages (and it makes me sad to have whitespace on my userpage where I could stick a userbox). Thanks! --ShakataGaNai 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Potential Solution?

Alright, apparently the major concern of WP:AUM is that it is a DoS vulnerability. So I think there should be a way to force this template to be substituted whenever included on userpages. I'm pretty sure that's not a feature in the current software, but it should not be hard to add this ability. Using __FORCE_SUBSTITUTE__ or some other keyword in the template itself would cause all instances of {{user wikipedia|whatever}} to be converted to {{subst:user wikipedia|whatever}}, thus alleviating the major complaint of WP:AUM. --DCrazy talk/contrib 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do...

Not to be pointy but if this doesn't get unprotected and made useable again, it might as well be deleted, it is useless in its current state. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what format it is in, I just want to use this userbox. Can we revert it to the working version until this dispute is resolved? Prodego ^talk 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It does work. It just doesn't do stuff that policy won't allow it to. [[Sam Korn]] 00:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, remember ignore all rules, I mean just temporarily, unless this template has already been split, this is messing up my user page Prodego ^talk 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fixed my page, was actually quite easy, copy the old version of the template page to my sandbox, subst the template from there, revert the sandbox, and done! Prodego ^talk 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the split templates??

This whole fiasco has been handled very unprofessionally. Whoever did this obviously doesn't know what they're doing and shouldn't be allowed to do similar again IMHO. You're supposed to run a bot to change the template links on user pages before you mess with splitting the template! So now the template has actually been split, where are the split versions? there are no links to them anywhere. I'm looking for the RC Patrol template, where is that now? —gorgan_almighty 11:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind I found it by trial & error. This has still been handled very unprofessionally. If you can't/won't run a bot to do it properly as above, then leave it to someone who can/will. —gorgan_almighty 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone was working on splitting the templates when someone else locked this one. --DCrazy talk/contrib 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted to the metatemplate version of the template per Avoid using meta-templates alternatives #6. Protection entirely negates the harmful effects of meta-templates, since without edits the daughter templates don't need to be updated. This is a viable solution until the template split is completed: the harmful effects of meta-templates are negated, and user pages don't break. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of the split templates can be found here. Also, it looks like Commander Keane didn't catch all of the existing 'meta' usages of this template (probably the odd bug where 'What links here' doesn't always update immediately), so I am going through and manually adjusting this on various pages before the template gets reset to the 'non-meta' version and breaks displays again. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, too late... it's broken again. I've updated about 2/3rds of the listed pages and will continue converting to the replacement template boxes. Of course, there could still be more users whose pages aren't showing up in 'What links here'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner reverted to the broken version, without any discussion beyond the edit summary "Wrong solution." This, despite the fact that the "wrong solution" makes full technical sense and no arguments whatsoever have been put forth against it. I'm not going to bother reverting back; I suppose someone or other will unilaterally revert without discussion again. This violates both Avoid using meta-templates and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by repeatedly editing a frozen meta-template to make an unneeded statement against meta-templates, particularly when doing it to a meta-template that's being phased out. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What technical sense does it make? [[Sam Korn]] 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of background, to help clarify the 'ridulously uninteresting' 'technobabble mumbo-jumbo' as described in another comment. Every time a page is edited and saved, the data is stored in the database. Since accessing the database requires much more effort on the part of the server than simply serving an HTML file, each page is automatically cached the first time it is viewed after an edit. This means that a page must only be retrieved from the database once every time the page is editted; after that, it just hands every new user the same copy it gave to the last user.

One problem is that these copies are static; if you change a template used on that page, the copy doesn't take that into account and will still display the template as it existed at the time of the last database retrieval. To fix this, Wikipedia automatically clears pages from the cache if a template they use is updated. This means that if one template is used of 100 pages and a user corrects a typo on that template, 101 pages (including the template) are cleared from the cache and must be individually retrieved from the database. This is demanding on the server, but is usually not excessively so since the load is spread out over a few days as each page is accessed for the first time since the template's change.

Meta-templates are to be avoided because they consume massive server resources when updating. This is because every template that the meta-template is used on is purged from the cache, and since those templates have been updated every page they are used on is purged. For example, let's say a metatemplate is used on 50 templates, each of which is used on 100 pages. Correcting a typo in the metatemplate will force the update of 1+(50x100) pages, or 5001 pages which must be individually retrieved from the database. This is can have a very negative impact on Wikipedia's servers, particularly since the popularity of userboxes might mean bigger numbers being multiplied together.

As described on WP:AUM (Alternatives #6), these problems can be avoided entirely by protecting the metatemplate. If the metatemplate isn't edited, the cascading cache clearing doesn't happen at all. As such, the metatemplate actually places less stress on the server than a normal template, which is regularly updated. Thus, protecting the metatemplate from edits is the perfect solution to this dispute: the metatemplate is rendered harmless to Wikipedia, and no page breaking occurs.

This assumes that another admin won't unilaterally revert back, both clearing the hypothetical 5001 pages (though this template is currently used on far fewer pages) from the cache and breaking talk pages. I apologise if the admin meant well in doing so, but unexplained reverts with edit summaries as flippant as "Wrong solution" are somewhat irritating, especially where the revert is to a broken non-solution. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note what the above says about why 'meta-templates' are sometimes bad... the utility ones like 'qif' end up getting used in lots of other templates which get used on lots of pages. It is the end number of pages which the template 'rolls out' to which is of primary importance. Yet that really has nothing to do with 'meta-templates' except when they are widely accessed. It would be possible to create a single template which calls no other templates, but displays any and all userboxes based on parameters passed to it... completely in compliance with AUM, but horifically violating the actual logic behind it. Such a single template would then be linked to every page with userboxes and cause them all to be updated any time a userbox was added or updated. One template... which would be a much worse problem than any meta-template. This is why running around screaming 'meta-template... outcast unclean!' is counter-productive. This particular meta-template causes very little server load... but ok, it was being converted into multiple templates to minimize the number of pages linking to any one of those boxes. Logically the time to change this template is after all the user pages have been switched over... at which point this template would be on far fewer pages and an update to it cause little server load. Updating it while it is still extensively linked causes the problems AUM seeks to avoid. We should be seeking to make smarter templates... not wipe out all 'meta-templates' on sight. Some of those meta-templates cause far LESS server load than 'simple template' alternatives. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one reason why meta templates shouldn't be used. Actually, in my opinion, all userspace templates should be immediately substituted. I don't see any reason why there needs to be some fantastic auto-update system. Why does a userspace page need templates? Back to the main point, Phil's action was entirely reasonable. Your solution put strain on the servers, that the simple version didn't. Are you going to contest that? Breaking people's userpages seems quite fair to me, if they are putting strain on the servers. Teach them a lesson. [[Sam Korn]] 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "Actually, in my opinion, all userspace templates should be immediately substituted. I don't see any reason why there needs to be some fantastic auto-update system." - So... why haven't you subst'd the two transcluded templates at the bottom of your user page? Ponder that and you may understand why this 'fantastic auto-update system' is needed. As to the rest of your response... Phil changing the template BEFORE it was replaced on user pages actually put more strain on the servers than waiting to change it AFTER the user pages were updated (at which point fewer would have linked to it). In addition to needlessly messing up user pages this 'solution' also violated the logic behind WP:AUM. Think about it. 'We must change this widely used template to avoid the possibility that it will be changed and cause a server spike as all the impacted pages are updated'. Hoooray... the action directly accomplished what it was theoretically intended to avoid... and broke a bunch of user pages in the process... which caused people to revert back... and more server spiking. Whereas if he'd waited until the pages were updated far fewer of them would have been impacted by setting this to the simple template form. Again, much of the 'meta-template jihad' is misguided. Meta-templates are not 'inherently evil' and in some cases are less of a server drain than simple templates producing the same results. There certainly is no reason to go around smashing meta-templates and thereby causing the very problem that the policy seeks to avoid (while breaking pages in the process). --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot. Now rectified. Thank you for pointing out my omission. A little more assumption of good faith would not have gone amiss, given that all the other templates on my page are substed.

I have three main arguments against meta templates. 1. They do cause more server strain than if they were not used. You can't argue that. The template called one of the if templates more than ten times! 2. The coding is horrendous and completely unintelligable. 3. Editing them is all but impossible unless you understand the syntax back to front.

No user pages were broken. None of them had ugly code showing through. They might not have been saying exactly what the creator had wanted, but what can you expect when you transclude a template? This is a salient lesson for all who would use transclusion where it isn't necessary. Finally, my change was only an hour after the last one. Very few pages would have been cached in that time. If it had been much more than an hour, I would have thought very hard before making the change. [[Sam Korn]] 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On AGF: I was. I actually assumed that you had deliberately left those two templates transcluded so that you would automatically receive any updates to the standard 'disclaimer' type text they contained. I viewed that as a good thing and was trying to point it out as an example of the sometimes beneficial nature of transclusion. Oh well. :]

On your 'arguments against meta-templates': I've got the same arguments against them. It's just that those arguments aren't relevant here. The template was being transitioned to a non-meta version. Work was progressing towards that universally held long term goal. So the question was only as to what should be done in the interim. My view is that disruption should have been kept to a minimum. Whether you call it 'breaking' or only 'displaying wrong' it caused significant changes... which led to a revert war... which caused more server load. In this case, the best way to comply with WP:AUM would have been to do nothing. Let the template calls be converted over to the new individual templates and then change this one. What you say about the past (short time between prior update and your change) makes sense, but failed to account for the future... where it was inevitable that people would not know what was going on and just restore the old version. Yes, there are also 'rendering' issues which might justify changing some templates immediately, but with a template like this those are insignificant compared to the mass page caching/updating problem. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

I've tried to read through all this technobabble mumbo-jumbo, but it's really just so ridiculously uninteresting that it reminds me why I'm a finance major :-). Can someone please just tell me how I can put the equivalent of what was {{user wikipedia|welcoming committee}} on my user page??? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{user wikipedia/Welcoming Committee}}. [[Sam Korn]] 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

I think this should be unprotected, since they have been split, it can now be unprotected safely, but I don't think the admins involved should have done so anyway. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That aside - Can someone please remove the included spaces which are destroying everyones userpages for nearly a week! Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made. Bring it up for unprotection at WP:RFPP. [[Sam Korn]] 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remove the following:

<noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia userboxes|Userbox wikipedia]]</noinclude>

The "Wikipedia userboxes" category is not for userboxes, but rather for userbox preview pages and other project related articles. - TCorp 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a list of what old parameters should be mapped to what new templates on the page would also be helpful. I've been updating pages as they show up on 'What links here', but as that is broken and doesn't list all pages it'll be a while before they all get sorted out. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why oh why did you guys choose to have your stupid edit war here. This box is redundant anyway. Anyone who has a userpage is obviously a member.--God of War 19:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I chose something that was undeniably not false to make the default. [[Sam Korn]] 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... why?

I've been reading the above, and I can't work out why one extremely obvious thing hasn't been pointed out at all...

Why do we even have this userbox? I mean, come on, anyone who has a userpage is a member of Wikipedia. I'm probably being extremely anal or something but I don't see any point in this userbox, and I am very amused that such a furore has been raised about it without anyone mentioning the obvious.

I can't have been the only one to say this, surely. Then again, maybe this template was a link from WP:BJAODN and I missed it. That'd make sense, I guess... --Ciaran H 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something to be aware of is that this template ({{User wikipedia}}) used to contain code for over a dozen different userboxes—not the most basic one you currently see. In that earlier form (you can view the source, but please take care not to press the "Save page" button), the code for several userboxes was included in this template, and the {{switch}} template was used to select and show the correct code for the requested userbox. So, for example, putting {{user wikipedia|administrator}} on a page would result in this userbox's switch template showing the administrator userbox. Since this violated Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (now deprecated), there was various locking and reverting until all the code for the various userboxes was forked off onto individual template pages (e.g., {{user wikipedia/Administrator}}). The current form, while admittedly stating the obvious, is generally not the subject of controversy. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to move to userspace

Can we move this to userspace? The Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_22#Template:User_wikipedia doesn't seem to be reaching a consensus, so I'm proposing the German userbox solution. --Swift 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the result was keep, I'm guessing this point is moot. I'm removing the "proposed deletion" from the template. --Tim4christ17 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

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

Hello, (echoes), seems this talk page has been empty since 2006, I hope you brought wine and provisions. My edit request seems simple, and wondering if a consensus somewhere came to the present mislink, but please link this page to "Wikipedian" and not "Wikipedia". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly done this, even though there are 2,000 transclusions, because it appears to make much more sense. It appears that Wikipedia community did not exist as an article when this template was created, and nobody has bothered to change the link since its creation. If this is controversial, any template editor is welcome to revert my edit and start a discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is general consensus that "Wikipedia" should be capitalized. Another suggestion, "User Wikipedian", also had traction, but requires more intrusive work or usurpation as there is another identically named userbox over there. I'll pick the original suggestion as the path of least resistance. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia → Template:User Wikipedia – Wikipedia is capitalised. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1234qwer1234qwer4 I don't know that there is anything controversial about this move. Since there is little chance of anyone contesting a capitalization fix, you might want to try WP:RM#TR first. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a better move might be to Template:User Wikipedian given the changes to the template that have taken place over time, but that is occupied by a somewhat more tendentious template. Dekimasuよ! 04:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipedian, per Dekimasu, sounds good. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia user sounds good too. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using RM process for Template titles unless the title can't be settled some other way. Template titles are not rendered, so don't matter with respect to title policy and style guidelines. RM process is for article titles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that TfD explicitly says to use RMs to discuss renaming templates. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes Wikipedia is clearly a proper noun! Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mellohi! Any comment on the subpages? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't foresee bringing the subpages into alignment with the new title here being controversial; feel free to do it boldly, @1234qwer1234qwer4. Sdkb ^talk 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]