Template talk:Warning

Change the image and put on {{Pp-template}}

I am requesting that this template's image is replaced with Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg. Also I think that {{Pp-template}} should be on the page (wrapped in noinclude tags of course). Funpika 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize

{{Editprotected}} Needs [[Category:Talk header templates]]. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/doc

{{editprotected}}
Please replace the bit between noinclude tags with {{/doc}} (but leave the {{pp-template}} tag). Melsaran (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could use {{Documentation, template}} (like {{caution}} and {{notice}}), and put the {{pp-template}} at the top of the page for clarity? Nothing too pressing but would be nice... -- StevenDH (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Yes, much nicer. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add interwiki links

Please add interwiki links: xh:Template:Isilumkiso, and zu:Template:Isixwayiso. --Blake3522 03:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add interwiki links: ja:Template:警告 --203.165.100.98 (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - All three added to the /doc page. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article message box style and substitution

Resolved.

This message box is sometimes used on article pages. So I tried to convert it like I did with {{notice}} and {{caution}} so it renders in the standardised article message boxes style when on article pages. However then it didn't work well to substitute the template when used as a warning on user talk pages. Well, it looks okay when on the user talk pages, but it pastes complex code there which might confuse those users. See the substitution example (last example) in the sandbox for this template, this revision.

So how should we go about this? It seems these are some of our options:

Keep the old code and state in its docs that this template should not be used in articles. (Since it breaks the article message box standard and thus does not stack well with other boxes etc.) Instead we can recommend an alternative template, or simply show how to use {{ambox}} directly in that case.
Use the new code that automatically shows the ambox style on articles, and accept that when we substitute the template onto talk pages it causes complex code.

So, what do you people think?

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this template to use the new {{mbox}} template last month and it solves the problems. Now it automatically has the right looks on all kinds of pages, and if you substitute this template onto a user talk page then it doesn't cause a lot of code. But I see no reason to substitute it, so please just transclude it as usual. Since you do fill in the message text each time thus fulfilling the demand that the message text is visible in the talk page code.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

For future reference, the two icons discussed here are:

Image:Imbox content.png and Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The parser would seem to suggest that the stop sign image should appear by default, but instead the ! image appears by default.

If this is so, is there a way to fix this? - jc37 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean with "The parser would seem to suggest". Which parser, where? I updated this template to use the {{mbox}} a month ago. And as far as I can see the template works exactly as it should. And yes, it is supposed to show the orange (!) sign now, so you seem to be seeing the right thing.

Can it be that you are looking at an old version of the code? Since it used to have a stop hand sign before I updated it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking back over it, it looks like I misread the "if" code on the image = line.

That aside, curious as to why the stop sign was removed. - jc37 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "serious warning" colour has been standardised to orange for message boxes for all the namespaces. (It started with {{ambox}} for the article space last summer.) Red is reserved for page deletion message boxes.

So I thought like this: The stop hand image is red so doesn't really fit well with the orange border. And this box isn't only used for putting warnings on user pages. This box is also used on other pages for other "major warnings". And then the stop hand is too strong. (But when asking a user to stop vandalising then the stop hand image is probably a nice choice.) And as I wrote in my edit comment when I did the change: "Changing to the default major warning "content" image. It looks better in large warning boxes, and it has received consensus repeatedly for all the mboxes and has been tweaked in several ways etc."

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through "WhatLinksHere", and it's being used for (at least) two separate behavioural warnings, and content warnings.

One behavioural warning type is where the stop sign would be appropriate for, and the other is where the exclamation point would be more appropriate.

(See for example Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001.)

To have separate images intended for the same box would seem to cut down on usability.

The problem, of course, is that a "warning" has degrees of severity. Technically, all the mbox types are warnings. Though most of the "types" deal with content, not behaviour.

So perhaps it would be better to create another "type"? Deletion isn't the only severe warning. There should probably also be a red warning box for noting inappropriate behaviour.

And Template:warning should then probably be replaced, deleted, and salted, with a soft redirect to mbox.

What do you think? - jc37 08:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37: I disagree with you on most points.

1: No, not all the mbox types are warnings. "Notice" and "protection" are informative notices, not warnings. And "move" is a suggestion, not a warning.

2: What you don't seem to understand is that {{warning}} is part of a set of templates: {{notice}}, {{caution}} and {{warning}}. These templates make it easy for editors to use some of the mbox types without knowing the more complex mbox syntax. It is much easier to learn how to use this:

{{warning| A short warning text. }}

Than to learn how to use this:

{{mbox
| type = content
| textstyle = text-align: center;
| text = A short warning text.
}}

And once I get around to write up the full documentation for {{mbox}} it will be scary. Most users will not want to use the mbox then. (Think the full {{ombox}} or {{tmbox}} documentation with small classes and all, and add to that the explanation of different styles in different namespaces and the "demospace" parameter and some other stuff...)

So I certainly don't think that {{warning}} should be "replaced, deleted, and salted, with a soft redirect to mbox".

And regarding the centring: For short messages we often use centred text, but for longer messages we should use left aligned text. I think most warning messages are long enough to be left aligned, but this template did use centring for a long time so when I updated it I didn't want to be too bold, so for the time being I kept the centring.

3: Since this template is mostly a user friendly way to use the mbox orange major warning "content" type, then it should of course use the same default image. That is, the orange (!) icon.

4: If you need to warn users on their talk page, then perhaps you should use another template? A template that by default uses the stop hand for severe warnings. Consider making a special {{user warning}} template for that. Oh wait, we already have that. Have you seen Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace lately? (But you might need a more user friendly and generic user warning template.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on several points.

However, I think that there is a difference between the orange content warning and the red behavioural warning.

The stopsign with the hand obviously is intended for behavioural warnings, implying: "stop what you're doing".

The problem being that both (and others) are "warnings".

And yes, I know about the old way the templates were tiered, prior to mbox. And that's still probably a good idea. But by developing the mbox standard, I think we've uncovered/revealed a place where usage should probably be split.

And, yes, most (though, you're right, not all), of the mbox templates are warnings of a type or other. Any of the cleanup tags, or the deletion tags, or the move/merge tags, just for a few examples.

My point was that we should come up with 2 better names (one to indicate a content imperative, and the other for a behavioural warning), and deprecate the name "warning", as its semantic usage is vague enough to be confusing.

Incidentally, check out Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines for some different categories of policies, related to which "warnings" might be necessary. (Behaviour and content are but two.) - jc37 22:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated above: No need to rename this already existing template. This one is meant to be a generic warning template. Not just for "content" warnings. It can be and is used for any kind of major warnings. If you want it to be two different templates then add a new one, and set that one to have the stop hand as default image. And "advertise" the new one in a very visible way in the documentation of this old one. (And also link back from the new one.) Thus this very generic and easy to find name {{warning}} will help people find the other template too. Problem solved.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not.

Just because there was a consensus for content warnings to use the ! image, doesn't mean that this template has such a consensus. Indeed, the reverse would seem to be true.

The proper resolution would probably be to reinstate the stopsign image on this template.

In looking over the notice/caution/warning system of templates, these were clearly designed to be used for editor behaviour, not for notice concerning the content of a page.

However, I recognise that these templates have also been used for content. And that's why I think that the usage should be clarified/split. Confusion, especially when talking about warnings, is not a good thing.

That's why it would seem obvious that this template should be split, to allow for the content warnings, yet for this template to be the overall warning with it's stopsign image (its historical usage).

In the best of all worlds, I think we should see 2 new "types" for mbox called caution and warning, the latter of which has a red border, and the stopsign image.

But regardless of that, this template should have it's usage clarified.

Let me ask directly: Do you oppose the creation of something like Template:Content warning? - jc37 10:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we have good reasons both ways, but that your and my preferences are very different. I don't think you and I can agree in this case, at least not based on our ideas up until now. (Which is unusual, we usually do agree on other things!) So we might have to announce this discussion in other places to bring in more editors and let the majority decide.

But before we do that, I have a wild idea that we might agree on! So here goes:

I would not like to add the types you mention to the {{mbox}}, but that and your words "best of both worlds" inspired me to the solution below.

I looked around how this template is used. And the red stop hand fits best in the majority of the usage cases on "User talk:" pages. While for the majority of usage cases on all other types of pages, even on "User:" pages, the orange (!) icon fits best. But I really like the short and clear name {{warning}} for both our usage cases. So it would be nice if we could keep this name for both cases.

So, how about we make it so the template automatically displays the red stop hand when on a user talk page, but on all other kinds of pages it displays the orange (!) icon? (And we show it clearly in the documentation to avoid confusion.) That would make this template very easy to use.

Then of course, there are some rare cases when we want the stop hand on other pages and the orange (!) icon on user talk pages. But there are several technical but fairly user friendly ways we can fix that too. For instance we can give the template a "type" parameter with two values, say "type=user-warning" and "type=other-warning". (We probably have to ponder the exact naming for the two types. I would like a shorter type name but didn't come up with anything good and clear, you might have some ideas?) But most users will never have to learn how to use that parameter, they can just go on and use {{warning|Some text.}} and things will just work™ !

I love technical solutions to human problems. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, that's not a bad idea.

So on all talk pages (the "odd" namespaces), it shows as the stopsign, and on even namespaces it shows as the "!"?

That sounds great. The only place where we may run into some trouble is in the Wikipedia namespace where there are several noticeboards/xfd/etc which are in the even namespaces. But once this is implemented, it should be easy (easier) to find those specific instances and modify as necessary? - jc37 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, glad you like it.

But no, I meant that we should show the red stop hand only when on "User talk:" pages. On all other kinds of talk pages and on "User:" pages we should show the orange (!) icon. That seems to be the most correct usage based on how I see the {{warning}} message box being used out there currently. That is, on other talk pages the warning message is mostly put at the page top warning about something, and then the orange (!) icon is more appropriate. And I think that holds also for the noticeboards in the "Wikipedia:" namespace.

But you and I should probably look around a little more to see how this message box really is used, before we decide exactly what namespaces should use which icon. I just base my assumption on my limited experience of seeing it used on pages and spending a little time looking at pages from "What links here". (That people often (unnecessarily) substitute this template makes it harder for us to find out the true usage.) If you know some noticeboards where this template is mostly used as a "user warning" template, then could you point them out? I would like to take a look.

And right, if/when we have implemented this then there are only a handful of cases that needs adjusting. But I don't see that it would make it easier to find those cases, just that there will be fewer that needs adjusting.

By the way, to make correct usage easier I intend to add an error reporting feature: If an invalid "type=something" is fed, then the template could display a text line directly below it stating:

This message box is using an invalid "type={{{type|}}}" parameter.

Valid values are "type=user-warning" and "type=other-warning". (learn more)

And the template will of course meanwhile show an icon chosen according to the namespace. And it should of course not warn when getting no or an empty type parameter, since that is the normal usage case.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that a warning to editors be different on different talk pages? The only difference I can think of atm is that in userspace it's often a warning to an individual editor, while on other talk pages it would be a warning to more than one editor. Either way, the stop sign would seem to be appropriate. - jc37 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the warning template is put in a section on a user talk page it usually means: "Stop what you are doing." But when the warning template is put at the top of (talk) pages, like the one at the top of this talk page it instead says: "Please don't start doing something." To me that is a pretty big difference. The stop hand simply is too strong for most cases when the users have not yet done a mistake. The stop hand means "STOP/CEASE", while the exclamation mark means "BEWARE/CAUTION!". Showing a stop hand to someone who have not (yet) done anything wrong is pretty rude.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases, then I would presume that Template:Caution should be used, not this one. - jc37 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 August 2015

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

This is just a minor Wikidata update to this template. Please modify the last part of the code as follows:

from this:

}}<noinclude>{{Documentation}}<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc sub-page --></noinclude>

to this:

}}<noinclude>
<!-- Add categories to the /doc subpage; interwikis go to Wikidata. -->
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thank you in advance! – Paine 02:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Martin (MSGJ)! – Paine 21:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 10 March 2020

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

Please implement this change from the sandbox, which introduces a parameter that allows custom resizing of the image. Thanks! Sdkb (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box behavior on talk pages

As the example on this talk page demonstrates, this template should be obvious to anyone coming to an article talk page. By making it have the same yellowish background, however, this intent is foiled. The template that is supposed to create an eye-catching warning that should grab the attention of the reader simply fades into the large yellow block at the top of almost every talk page. See Talk:List of marine biologists or Talk:British Isles or Talk:Feminazi for examples. The template message disappears into the yellow noise and is very easily ignored. Changing the background to pink or even white with a red border would make it stand out and tell new editors on a talk page to stop and pay attention much better. How would gaining consensus to make this behavior change be best accomplished? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the image and put on {{Pp-template}}

Categorize

/doc

Add interwiki links

Article message box style and substitution

Image

See also Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates

Edit request on 9 August 2015

Protected edit request on 10 March 2020

Box behavior on talk pages