User talk:Gryllida/Templates at talk pages

Regarding recent changes patrol, I would like to propose that we ~~# disable all templates (other than the welcome template) which are added to contributors' talk pages~~

disable all tools which use such templates

update the tools to use a box where you can type a message

OR

add a comment= param to all contributors talk pages warning templates
make sure the templates are not too wordy, and preferably remove icons (I find them annoying and useless)
update twinkle and other tools to support it (this block added later --Gryllida (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Rationale behind this is several observations:

user retention with contributors repeatedly reacting aggressively to a template added at their talk page.
a lot of vandalism fighting being done in a rushed manner but with a look at contributions of the newcomer, enough to make up a personal message
a need in firing vandal fighters who are unable to look at newcomer contribs or type them a personal message, as they are the primary source of this kind of editor retention problem

--Gryllida (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with templates, as long as they have to be customised (I think that's your #3?). Much of what I have to say to new users is exactly the same. But without customisation, it will never be read. A template along the lines of

Part 1: an edit box prefilled with "Hi x, I noticed you did y on article z. Thank you for taking the time to improve z. If you're interested in doing more y, below is a template with a bunch of links that is related to doing y, which may be useful to you. Take a look at wibble in particular. I noticed that you did that differently the last time, and this page describes why we prefer to do it the wobble way here"
Part 2: completely boilerplate welcome message similar to what we have now, but without the welcome and introduction part, because that's already in part 1.

Is that similar to what you are looking to do? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, except it's too wordy; often a link to a relevant page and just a couple words are enough to give them a hint. --Gryllida (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the revamping of templates to be more personable is something the Editor Engagement Team worked on last year, with the result that a sub-set of the standard templates (perhaps all level 1s, or something like that) was re-written. If I'm recalling right, it was the brainchild of Maryana_(WMF) and Steven (WMF) (or maybe in their volunteer personas as Steven Walling and Accedie?). I think this particular proposal sounds like too blunt an instrument, but perhaps Maryana and Steven can tell us where the template revamping project left off? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffernutter, are you sure that adding a comments= parameter to the templates sounds like too blunt an instrument? --Gryllida (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "disabl[ing] all templates (other than the welcome template) which are added to contributors' talk pages" (which you have since struck through) was entirely too blunt an instrument, which you seem to have recognized. I think "mak[ing] sure the templates are not too wordy" has been done to at least some extent already by Steven and Maryana, and is a very subjective guideline anyway (I'm a wordy person - what's "too wordy" for you might seem "just right" to me, for example), to the point where I don't think any resolution to do such a thing would be actionable. As far as "add[ing] a comment= param to all contributors talk pages warning templates", it seems to me that this already exists in Twinkle templates (certainly I'm always given the option to add a comment there), and is not terribly likely to be used by anyone responding to run-of-the-mill user behavior.

I'm not saying that making the templates sound less like angry robots is a bad thing, mind you. I'm just saying that this proposal as it's written doesn't strike me as one that's going to be able to advance us usefully toward that goal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the wording of {{Uw-test2}}, for example; it threats to block. I don't think it's sufficiently reworded, now. The icons are annoying too.

How would you suggest to advance toward the goal? --Gryllida (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea of greater personalization/customization of vandalism and other warning templates. Their "form letter" character minimizes feeding the vandals. --Yaush (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaush, please understand that the issue I'm trying to address here is editor retention caused by excessive warnings on their talk pages for something they wanted to do in good faith; how would you address this problem? I'm trying to find some way of improving attention of the so-called «patrollers» to detail, for instance, by encouraging them to look into the context (such as for leaving a personal comment). --Gryllida (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staeiou and I ran the original test of new warning templates (see [1]), but Maryana_(WMF) and Steven (WMF) ran a follow-up experiment with Ryan Faulkner (see [2]). I think that trying out some new designs is an interesting idea, but I'm having trouble imagining what you mean when you discuss making the templates shorter and more customizable (comment field). Could you give an example of an improvement you would like to test with a specific template? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]