Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Questions re content of first vandal warning message

Hi everyone. I'm curious about the differences between Template:Test1 and Template:Uw-vandalism1. The former, which is an older template, starts by thanking the vandal for experimenting with Wikipedia. Is there a particular reason that the newer template doesn't thank the user for experimenting? And in a related question, has any formal research been done to compare how users respond to different wordings, e.g. to see which messages are associated with subsequent higher rates of unconstructive and constructive edits? Thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: If I had to guess, most people that see {{Uw-vandalism1}} are doing things like adding libelous information to articles or replacing all words in an article to something entirely unrelated (see Special:Diff/932950525). Most people that see the "Test" templates are doing things like writing "Hi" or adding extra punctuation (i.e. an extra period). –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 05:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate your taking the time to write a response. I should clarify my question: Template:Test1 used to be the standard first warning even for things like Special:Diff/932950525.
At some point - probably around 2005 - the makers of the anti-vandalism tools chose to integrate Template:Uw-vandalism1 and not to integrate Template:Test1 as the first-level warning template. Since then, Template:Test1 has been nominated for deletion several times and it looks as if very few people use it anymore. I am looking for a link to discussions from around that time that explain why the less-friendly wording of Template:Uw-vandalism1 was chosen. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Clayoquot: The TestX templates were abandoned in the redesign completed by Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings in favor of the newer "UW"-style templates. A small handful of curmudgeons around here insist on using them still, which is why we haven't been successful in deleting or redirecting them yet. One of the issues with the TestX templates is that they were used for vandalism and other unconstructive edits, while the new "UW" style templates better differentiate among the different types. Thus, to replace TestX, there are two series of templates that can be considered successors, uw-vandalismX and uw-testX. While both templates at level "1" assume good faith, they distinguish between vandalism (unconstructive) and editing tests, respectively. The uw-testX is intended specifically for errant experimenters, and includes softer language acknowledging that the edit appeared to be a test. While neither template thanks the user for experimenting, both do include a "thanks" at the end. As to the research, I seem to recall some, but I'm not finding it easily at the moment. Some other old-timers with the WikiProject may better remember. --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, Thank you :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Bold the "indefinitely" word and link to WP:Blocking policy#Indefinite blocks at ..... Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, .... to make clear and follows other template which used that style. Thanks. Dede2008 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page doesn't have a link

the template shuld link to the invoking user's talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado547 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tornado547, please clarify which of the uw-* templates you are referring to. This is a centralized location for discussion of many templates. Note, that all uw-* templates require adding the signature. Substitution of these templates with signature can also be done automatically by using the Twinkle gadget. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Hi! I would just like to let you know that at the end of the page Template:Uw-delete3, it includes the words 'Thank you'. The user should not be given a 'thank you' after a second warning because third warnings and beyond assume bad faith in editors. I understand that we should WP:AGF but we shouldn't assume good faith all the time with all the editors, because there are true vandals and trolls that may not get the word 'thank you'. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 07:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

Hi, I propose to add a link to Special:MyTalk to the words "bottom of your talk page", to make things simpler for new users. Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that really necessary given that this template is posted on the blocked user's talk page, so it will usually be a self-link? * Pppery * it has begun... 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Got to say, agree with Pppery here. Izno (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This template is actually not primarily used in talk page. We use it in block justification as well. Seedherbarium, Hungryroot or Adventure Therapy are examples. In 2020, 672 blocks were made with that reason. If you want the complete list, see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/42913. For that rason, I feel there is a need for the link, as it is not immediately clear. What do you think, Pppery and Izno? Actually, what would be the enwiki-expected consensus in this case? Should I leave it here for some time? Or msg a Village pump? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Still redundant, since MediaWiki:Blockedtext includes a link to the blocked user's talk page. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, it took me several seconds to find the link - and if I hadn't know it is there, I wouldn't look for it there. Why can't we just make the job simpler for our newcomers? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we send users to the WP:Teahouse instead of the WP:Help Desk?

I noticed that templates like {{uw-v1}} reference the help desk. Since these templates will be primarily used on newcomers, can we direct them to the Teahouse, a newcomer-focused venue, instead? Sdkb (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds right but it might be good to hear first from the Teahouse's maître d', Cullen328, just in case he sees any unintended consequences. EEng 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Although I am still involved with the Teahouse, I am no longer the most active host. I suggest discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

The red link “{{subst:hangonuse}}“should be removed from the table under the heading “other.” Tanker4390 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. @Tanker4390: This page is only semi-protected and you should be able to make the change yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tanker4390: and @Deacon Vorbis: I have reopened this request as the OP's account is less than 4 days old and therefore not autoconfirmed. I have no prejudice against any autoconfirmed user in good standing completing or declining the request on its merits, or declining the request on procedural grounds after verifying the OP's account is autoconfirmed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Wow, I'm an idiot , sorry about that one. I'll take care of it in a moment here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, actually  Done now, sorry for the confusion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The User Warning Barnstar

File:User Warning Barnstar.png
Introducing Template:The User Warning Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Why? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
For those who continuously improve warning templates. Jerm (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Generalize the Islamic honorifics series

I think the {{uw-islamhon1}} series of templates should not specifically mention Islamic honorifics and should bre renamed accordingly. After all, there is nothing special about Islamic honorifics compared to other types because most types of honorifics are inherently non-neutral. Even the linked guideline does not mention Islam specifically. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Please change the help desk link to instead go to the Teahouse, a more appropriate venue for editors that have received a uw-vandalism1 warning to seek help. (Request inspired by Clovermoss at this discussion.) Sdkb (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be a good change because the help desk itself directs new editors towards the Teahouse. Since the editors who are most likely to receive this template are new editors, I think it makes sense just to directly link to the Teahouse. Clovermoss (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

New RfC regarding proposed new user warning

I've brought back an RfC proposing a MOS:FLAG user warning at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. The last one did not garner enough participation to reach a consensus, and was closed prematurely by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Given this topical torch bearer, what would have been the appropriate user warning? derogatory? Shenme (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for Uw3

Two sentences ending with the same word are poor style, aren't they? See my recent edit to the corresponding Wikidata template for a reference. — Mike Novikoff 01:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If I were a template editor, I'd probably deny this edit, as there's really no need to change it. Template:Uw3 is a template used to create level 3 warnings. The first sentence is a generic sentence used as a default. InvalidOS (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but could it possibly be that I do know what these templates are since I use them almost daily?
And I don't suggest changing the first sentence, I propose shortening the second one. Or maybe someone can come up with a different wording so as to avoid the current tautology and redundancy? — Mike Novikoff 00:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Mike Novikoff, a late reply: This is not as redundant as it may seem to. Contrary to closed communities like online games, a block on Wikipedia does not prevent reading access. Contrary to internet forums, writing is not even the main purpose of the website, which is an encyclopedia dedicated to its readers. While blocked from editing, users can still send e-mails unless this access is separately revoked. And in the future, even "editing" can be further broken down: WP:PARBLOCK2019. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of all this, including the newly introduced partial blocks. Since WP:Blocking policy is already linked, there's hardly a need to describe it further in a short message. It's enough that it reads "blocked", not "banned" that most Internet users are used to, and wikilinked so that they can learn what it means if they're not sure.
You know, I'm a huge fan of MoS since my very early days at WP, and one of the major points of MoS is to avoid the redundancy. It's just a miracle (that I've noticed myself after I've done it myself several times) how articles can become much clearer if MoS is carefully and consistently implemented. And I do believe that it applies to any other WP text as well.
As Anton Chekhov had put it in 1889, "brevity is the sister of talent", and it's even more so in our century of SMS.
Furthermore, it had been noticed by psychologists and linguists that the emphasis in a sentence goes on its last word, so for L3 warning it would better be not "editing", but "blocked". — Mike Novikoff 03:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be very similar to the wording of {{uw-vandalism3}}, so that is not merely a default message. How could it be rewritten? (I support keeping "blocked from editing", but am not sure how to change the first sentence) Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
They are similar because {{uw-vandalism3}} is a wrapper for {{uw3}}, it just calls the latter while replacing harm Wikipedia with [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia (the |reason= parameter), so the change would affect both templates at once. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please come to a consensus and propose a specific wording change before using the edit-protected template. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's wait for more comments until the topic is archived. Though I must say that I'm a bit confused and disappointed by the lack of support on such a simple and obvious matter. Are people who develop MoS and those who fight vandals so completely different? I guess I should ping EEng as well, he might lighten this discussion up, if nothing else. :-) — Mike Novikoff 04:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I would support this edit (and am a template editor :-). The wording is annoyingly repetitive, and it's clear in the context that "blocked" means "blocked from editing", not "interfered with on the way to the grocery store" or "not allowed to call me on the phone" or "turned into a cube of stone" or any other possible meaning of "blocked", so the additional verbiage at the end is pointless blather (especially since we link directly to the blocking policy with that word, in case there could be any doubt). PS: Another possibility is to change the first sentence to say "disruption" or "disruptive behavior" or "disruptive activities" or whatever, instead of "disruptive editing".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC); revised 15:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should change it to actually say that continued disruption by the recipient will result in him/her being turned into a cube of stone. EEng 21:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
So as to astonish them somewhat, I guess :-) — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-bdp" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Uw-bdp. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move for Template:Uw-nyi

I have opened a move request from Template talk:Uw-nyi to an as-yet-undetermined title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Howdy again! I have prepared a navigation box for navigating between the various multi-level standardized user warnings at Draft:Template:Multi notice links, similar to the existing {{Single notice links}}. Feel free to share your thoughts about this idea and its formatting. I'm not sure yet how to add odd/even row shading. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-innapropiate1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Uw-innapropiate1. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-contact

Template:Uw-contact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-inappropriateX

Template:Uw-inappropriate1, Template:Uw-inappropriate2, and Template:Uw-inappropriate3 have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Templatesnotice/inner

Hi @Andrybak:. I noticed your edits to Template:Templatesnotice/inner, removing the explanation that the documentation is transcluded from a template and adding a VTE bar. While the explanation may be more conspicuous than elegant, its purpose is, and apologies for repeating, to explain that the documentation is transcluded from a template, which the ordinary VTE bar does not. Sometimes, a user has thought he or she is editing the documentation for a specific UW template series without realizing it is the documentation for all of the multilevel UW templates. Is there a way to better balance the conciseness of your change with the need for some more explanation? --Bsherr (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, I didn't think through my original edit, the navbar is not needed at all. I have fixed the link box generated by Template:Templatesnotice, so now the regular link box of {{Documentation}} will inform the reader where the documentation is coming from. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay for now. Thanks. I've had my eye on substituting Template:Templatesnotice/inner, but we can make any needed changes from that later. --Bsherr (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wording changes for uw-delete1

In my work, I often encounter newbie edits that delete or modify some well-settled content because the editors disagree with it. They provide an explanation in the edit summary, but it is usually inadequate or requires discussion. The template:uw-delete1 wording is wrong/misleading for those situations. I end up having to manually revise the text in order to make it relevant to the context, like here.

I wonder if the wording can be tweaked so that it can be made relevant for these cases? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Because a user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it, we don't have user warnings for accidental misinformation. Rather, per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental, If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it. However, it looks like example you provided is actually a Wikipedia:Verifiability issue, and it would be perfectly acceptable to warn a user about an unsourced change using Template:Uw-unsourced1, etc. --Bsherr (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-infobox

Template:Uw-infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-bizlist

Template:Uw-bizlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-poorlysourcedX

Template:Uw-poorlysourced1, Template:Uw-poorlysourced2, Template:Uw-poorlysourced3, and Template:Uw-poorlysourced4 have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-crystal-album

Template:Uw-crystal-album has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Request at Template talk:Uw-unsourced4

There is a request at Template talk:Uw-unsourced4 that editors here might want to address. I'm happy to modify the template if there is consensus to do so, but it seems like someone may have designed the wording in this sequence with a purpose or a pattern, so I didn't want to mess with it on my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it below. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request 24 April 2020

It should mention "poorly-sourced" content as well, like the lower-tier versions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:uw-tdel3

{{uw-tdel3}} begins "Please stop your disruptive editing" but ends "This may be considered disruptive editing" This is ambiguous, and likely to be confusing to the recipients of such template messages. How shall we improve it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just removed it, level messages are pulled from a base template and there's no point in adding conflicting extra text when the simple message does the job. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Mysterious, confusing page

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Compliment before criticism
 – --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

How to handle editors chronically misusing the warning templates?

I've occasionally come across editors who have been chronically misapplying the warning templates, giving level 4-im warnings after only minor infractions, and who are not heeding advice from others to escalate more gradually. An example of one such editor, who has veritable flood of such notices on their user page, and has explicitly rejected them: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. How do we deal with this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that an editor who is repeatedly misapplying warning templates after repeated requests to stop doing so should be brought to WP:ANI, and potentially blocked until such time as they show an understanding of the appropriate use of said templates. DonIago (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel like going through the drama I'm sure that will entail, so I'll have to leave it to others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed template

@Bsherr: Regarding this edit of yours, the template you removed was part of an accidental mass-rollback/deletion by JzG the other day. He should be cleaning up after himself shortly. - {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Will be pleased to restore it once it is back, or any other editor should feel free to do so. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-ew

Template:Uw-ew has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-3rr. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion it did seem like there was some mention of the template wordings being a little too similar. I was thinking perhaps a rearrangement of the 3rr template would make it more explicit that the warning is about potentially violating 3rr specifically. Perhaps something like:

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of violating the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing. Keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Basically, I switched the two paragraphs around, shifted the mention of 3RR to the very first sentence and bolded it, and moved back the mention that you may be blocked for edit warring. Any thoughts? bibliomaniac15 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

uw-move4

{{uw-move4}} says

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page maliciously.

This seems a little overkill and isn't really in line with levels 1-3. A level 4 warning should still be available for someone who's being disruptive but without any malicious intent. Therefore I'd suggest simply changing "maliciously" to "disruptively" in the warning. This would seem to be in the spirit of other level 4 warnings too – not necessarily a judgement on motive, just a statement of the action. Thoughts? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to assign motivations. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Done on Template:Uw-move4 and Template:Uw-move4im. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oops, thanks . I had forgotten to follow up on this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

I notice there isn't any particular template for warning editors who may be here as a result of canvassing (i.e. not the editor who actually canvassed, but those who come here based on that suggestion). There is a talk page header template, and a template for outright warnings about WP:SOCK, but the latter one is inappropriate for this (especially if it involves some IP editors) and the second one can be missed and is more likely to be noticed by experienced Wikipedians than by people who come here as part of some form of off-site recruitement. It's also only a passive warning and I think a more active warning might be appropriate in same cases. I started work on something at User:RandomCanadian/sandbox3; but I ask here first if somebody would object to that being moved to something like Template:uw-agf-canvass? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry states A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Have we any other relevant policy or guideline? I'm not aware of any policies that act on editors who are the recipients of canvassing other than for meatpuppetry. If that's so, I think the scope of the warning might be broader than our policies and guidelines as written. --Bsherr (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, there already is {{Recruiting}} (which is the talk page header I was referring to). I don't think that making this into an appropriate talk page warning would be outside the scope of policies... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that Template:Recruiting is used proactively, while user warnings are used reactively. For a good user warning, we need a clear statement identifying the conduct at issue and explaining why it contravenes policy. Simply identifying the meatpuppetry policy as something the user should review may be okay for a proactive template message, but in my opinion, isn't clear enough for a reactive user warning. (On the other hand, saying "disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote" is that kind of clear statement, but we already have Template:Uw-notvote, so, to that issue, the proposed new warning would be redundant.) I think the problem is that we have a clear proscription against canvassing, but we don't have one against being canvassed; instead, we just emphasize to those users that they are bound by our relevant policies. If a user who has been canvassed contributes a view that doesn't conform to a particular policy, it would be better to point out that policy specifically. Or, if it is purely a sock/meat-puppetry issue, Template:Uw-agf-sock already covers it. (I think Template:Recruiting could use some work too. While I don't completely discount its precedential value, new user warnings usually get more scrutiny, and Template:Recruiting doesn't even have a talk page yet.) --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Template:Uw-copyright-remove only mentions Template:Copyvio/core? I've just used it for someone removing a Template:Copyvio-revdel, and if there's no objection, would like to broaden that wording to "removing copyright notices" rather than specifically the core template. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyright problems don't explicitly prohibit removal of Template:Copyvio-revdel. Perhaps they should. It's a good idea, I think. But I think we ought to have the revision to the policy and process pages before the UW template. --Bsherr (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Template:Copyvio-revdel says on the template "Note to others: Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it". I appreciate we may not have that written on a policy document in WP namespace, but at the same time, I'd have thought it sort of goes without saying. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
User warning templates always contain links back to the relevant policy and guideline pages, so if those pages don't say anything explicitly about the conduct at issue, it's problematic. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr: I'll start a conversation on Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, as that seems to be the most relevant policy. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Great, and I'll be pleased to contribute. --Bsherr (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Detecting multiple IP activity

I have been wondering about Template:Uw-multipleIPs which I have seen in user talk space - what are the technical capabilities which allow multiple IP activity to be detected, and who has these capabilities? Thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CheckUser. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisting of Template:Uw-ewsoft and Template:Uw-3rr-alt at TfD

These templates above were deleted following a TfD on 7 May 2020. The outcome of that TfD was then appealed to deletion review on 11 May 2020, which decided to relist the templates for further discussion at TfD: please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#Template:Uw-ewsoft for the new entry. Part of the reason why the discussion is being relisted is because many editors felt that the editors who normally use the templates were given inadequate notification prior to deletion. I'm leaving this message to invite more participation so that the consensus is hopefully clearer. Mz7 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2020

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: No consensus to move any of these, and I was not able to glean a sensible way forward by interpreting editors' comments. Perhaps nominate separately if doing this again. "Pnt" was definitely unpopular, and it was generally felt that it is not a good idea to swap names of well used templates that editors may have become familiar with using. @King of Hearts: you opposed and supported simultaneously which also didn't help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

– To clarify how these warnings are different from each other. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Interstellarity (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose pnt because it's not obvious what it means, and the third one because it makes it less clear what it means. Support #1. buidhe 02:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
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.

Suggestion

Should there be a warning template for encouraging others to vandalize pages? - Sumanuil (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, to start, that would need to be something explicitly prohibited by policy, since we generally ground our user warning templates in links to relevant policy and guideline pages. I'm not aware that we have that for this issue. I'm not suggesting that it would not be behavior that would result in a block, but a personalized communication might be better than a template unless there is something specific to point to. --Bsherr (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Please add {{documentation}} inside of the <noinclude>...</noinclude> of this template so I can add documentation for this template and more easily create a template sandbox. Aasim 03:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor Awesome Aasim:  done, and thank you for working on this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have Template:Uw-unsourced4 give a similar warning to the other templates

Using Twinkle to give a level 4 warning I expected to get a warning saying something about " If you continue to add unsourced or improperly cited content" which is almost what level 3 says (it says poorly sourced}. Instead I got "If you continue to add unsourced content" which I only discovered when the editor I warned complained, which was not good. The 4 templates need to all say "poorly sourced" as well as "unsourced". 2 says "Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source as does Level 1.

I can't see a good reason why they shouldn't all point to the same issue with the same wording. I think I prefer the Twinkle version. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed we had a Template:Uw-unsourced4. I see there was a redirect created to uw-generic4, and then this template was created. Is the template consistent with the blocking policy? Given that this is not a BLP situation, and assuming discretionary sanctions are not applicable to the topic, do we block users for adding unsourced information without, for example, an AN/I discussion? --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, editors can and have been blocked for repeatedly adding unsourced information despite multiple warnings to stop doing so. I can probably find examples if necessary, though I suspect the ones I could find easily would be IPs. DonIago (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I know it's in the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Can we just restore the redirect to Template:Uw-generic4 instead? --Bsherr (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-generic4im

Template:Uw-generic4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to standardize the redirects warnings with other warnings

Currently, this level one warning mentions "malicious", and disruptive. That is too inconsistent with the other templates. Also, all the other templates should remove the word "malicious", clearly this is unnecessary. Make these templates standard with the other warnings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvidiafan58 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RFCs aren't generally a good idea for questions which aren't a continuing question. --Izno (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I customize what it says

Is there a way to change the text of what it says rather than the default message? User3749 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the template to which you refer. (This is the talk page for many user warning templates, so I don't know which one you mean.) For most of these templates, you cannot change the existing wording, but you can add additional wording. For example, {{subst:Uw-generic4|Article|Additional text}}. --Bsherr (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've had my attention drawn to the Help:Referencing_for_beginners page, which is a significant improvement over the Wikipedia:Inline_citation page that is currently linked to by the various BLP and source warning templates (e.g. uw-biog1). I think linking to simpler articles would help us get more new editors on board with how to reference (and I think the general principle of linking to the help guides for new users rather than the policy pages is a good one that we should aim for). Due to the high usage of these templates I haven't been bold, but would welcome thoughts. Best, Darren-M talk 23:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I second this proposal. We discussed this on IRC yesterday. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not being realistic if it expects users to know the policies of Wikipedia before making an edit. The policy pages are incredibly long and it's unreasonable to expect them to be read if a user just wants to add a sentence or few. I do not believe Wikipedia expects users to know this policy - that's why we have a generous warning system which points the user to the right place. Yet, users are linked to multiple incredibly long articles which are simply off-putting to users. Many users may attempt, in good faith, to familiarise themselves with the policies but get confused (understandably!) and either abandon their edit, or reinstate their flawed one. In the latter case, they'll just get spammed with angry talk messages and end up on WP:AIV, or give up before it reaches that point.
Wikipedia must do better in this regard if we wish to welcome new users to the encyclopedia. Pages do exist which explain the guidelines in a more friendly way. In fact, too many of these exist, and we use each inconsistently. I support a separate coloured box at the top of frequently linked-to pages, such as WP:CITE, WP:RS, etc., along the lines of what Darren proposed on IRC: "Does this page look scary to you? Go here instead", which links to a simpler page, like Help:Referencing for beginners or Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/2.
We need to shorten long, complex policy into a simple bundle which can address most of the common violations done by new users. I've found far more success with "hey, really appreciate your edits, but they need to be sourced. feel free to add in a reliable source and you'll be good. thanks for your contributions :)" vs the generic Huggle message. Users don't want to read 50 paragraphs (* 3 pages) just to make a few sentence edit. Let's not make it harder for them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely 100% agree with this, both with the specifics and with the more general need to have a simplified version (and only one simplified version, not 10 not-actually-that-simple simplified versions) of the major policy pages. @Darren-M and ProcrastinatingReader: you may be interested in checking out my recent proposal to do something like that for WP:Vandalism. For templates, I'd love to see one like you propose, PC. I'll try creating one (I think green might be a good color for it) and get back to you. For a list of pages where it might be useful, see here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I'm definitely in favour of us adding banners to policy/help pages. But a callout is that I've recently started editing on mobile a little, and some of our articles (and WP pages) can have 3 or 4 screen-lengths of templates before you even reach the introduction. If we do add banners to pages we need to make sure that they're displayed all the way at the top on any mobile viewing, and that they don't damage the mobile experience for users who nonetheless want to read the full page.
As a heads up, my interim solution on a couple of pages e.g. WP:RS was to include similar language inside the existing nutshell templates, but this is still a bit hacky and not great. Cheers, Darren-M talk 09:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Amend link from WP:CITENEED to WP:REFBEGIN per the above discussion. If agreeable, this amendment should be made to Uw-biog1, Uw-biog2, Uw-biog3, Uw-biog4, and Uw-biog4im. This mirrors a similar approach that is already being taken with the Uw-unsourced templates. Best, Darren-M talk 12:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I cannot find either link in the template as described. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Primefac,
Thanks for your reply. Uw-Biog1 displays: Hello, I'm Example. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!
That link should be amended to point to WP:REFBEGIN instead.
Thanks, Darren-M talk 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Add in new template: Template:Uw-citationoverkill

Hi Fellows,

Would there be consensus to add in a new template Template:Uw-citationoverkill I created that would allow users to warn others against Citation Overkill? I would add it to this list.

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Was this created in response to some problem, or as a result of a discussion. I was just thinking that too many citations is not a problem we often suffer on Wikipedia! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually got inspired to create this b/c of this article: Necib Karakaya see the lead section.P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyways the essay above was obviously created in response to another incident of this happening! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I sometimes see redundant citations being removed, and I often wonder where if the editor actually read all the cited sources to determine if one was truly redundant. Sometimes the remaining sources will not contain information that was in the deleted citation. In most cases having 2 or 3 citations is a good thing, assuming all the sources are of good quality and reliability. Further, multiple sources are good for WP:MINE purposes, enabling future editors to expand content without necessarily having to search for new sources. If an editor consistently adds redundant sources, it's probably better to address the person directly on the issue, rather than with a templated note. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Making uw-defamatory2 as the only warning of its class

I propose that, perhaps with some enhancements, this straight-forward user warning template should be the only warning of its class, like uw-point, for example. I don't think we should have escalating warnings for defamation, which is a very serious matter for the project, and should be treated accordingly. I ,at least, use this template as a first and only warning. I realize there's different degrees of defamatory edits, but I still think we should streamline them into one, single template, the basis of which should be uw-defamatory2. It really says it all. Thoughts? El_C 22:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I overlooked uw-defamatory4im — that could also work as singular defamation warning template. El_C 22:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I agree with taking a more streamlined approach to it (and where possible having a one-size fits all template), but the WP:LIBEL page is pretty useless and doesn't even really define what we're trying to avoid. Could we instead define this in-line and how to avoid committing it e.g. NPOV, reliable sources.
Thinking something like... "Your recent edit to X appears to be include false information that could damage an individual or company's reputation (see WP:LIBEL). All edits to living individuals, particularly contentious ones, must be backed up by a reliable source and be written with a neutral point of view. You may be blocked without warning if you fail to follow this."
Thoughts? Best, Darren-M talk 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that in line with the above section about BLP warnings, I've linked to more user-friendly help guides here rather than the formal policy pages. Darren-M talk 23:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Darren. I think your proposal is in the right direction, especially the firmness of the last sentence. As an individual admin I already limit myself to one and only warning when it comes to defamation on Wikipedia, because the risk it poses to the project, but I think this is something that should be happening project-wide, as a matter of policy. El_C 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that with regards to uw-blp, I usually warn with it for BLP violations that fall short of actual defamation. I don't mind having that template having escalation components so much, but as for actual instances of defamation, these pose a much greater risk to the project, so they should be treated accordingly (is my thinking). El_C 23:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-blank1

Template:Uw-blank1 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-delete1. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-blank2

Template:Uw-blank2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-delete2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Please noinclude the TFD notice. It's been subst'd onto several user talk pages already. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion of Changing the Stop Icon on the Uw:legal Template

I believe the stop icon on this user warning template can be changed into the warning icon as shown here: Warning icon Because I feel like this icon is more appropriate. JoshGaming2003 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I used the sandbox to change the icon. JoshGaming2003 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

On my user talk page when that user warning comes up, I would change that symbol. And only on my user talk page. Not anybody else’s. JoshGaming2003 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Uw-paid1

Replace 'is an especially egregious type of COI' with 'is an especially serious type of COI', to improve readability. Best, Darren-M talk 12:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Not an especially egregious request. Done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Uw-attempt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 5#Template:Uw-attempt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Please add |link= to the image code so it cannot be clicked (it isn't supposed to be clickable). Same for all uw templates. 95.49.81.129 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Unless the image is in the public domain, it must remain possible to reach the description page. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Link for a bit more info. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Please apply Special:Diff/965642294/965805747 to use parameter |category= of {{Block notice}} in documentation. Delegating categorization to Template:Block notice includes builtin proper handling of /sandbox subpages through Template:Sandbox other. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

Please remove the categorization from template's page per WP:CAT#T. It has been added to /doc. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Trialpears (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggest change to wording of Template:Uw-spamublock

I'm finding that the wording "...which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person..." is confusing people. For example, this spammer seems to have interpreted as meaning that it was okay to use the name of her company as long as no one else was using her ID. That's just one example - it also seems to confuse article patrollers and reviewers. Could we change it and remove the bit about accounts being for just one person? Deb (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

To me, the explanation of username policy in the {{subst:uw-spamublock}} template is correct. Saying that, the wording "as an account must be for just one person”, although correct, is perhaps unnecessary here and could confuse some as the preceding text "your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy” is sufficient. I support removal of the trailing text, as long as admins know the exception to WP:ORGNAME found at the 4th bullet point of WP:ISU and use the correct template (or otherwise provide their own rationale) when blocking. N.J.A. | talk 12:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sending users to most appropriate sandbox

At Template:Uw-test1/sandbox, I've set things up so that IP users are directed to Wikipedia:Sandbox, but registered users are directed to their personal sandbox (misplaced instances of the warning will also be directed to the shared sandbox). This will direct logged in users to a more appropriate place to test edits where they won't get immediately overridden. Does that sound good to everyone for the uw-test series and other talk warnings that reference the sandbox? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Makes sense. Support. Darren-M talk 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

In each of these templates, please replace the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] with {{safesubst:<noinclude/>IP-talk|the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]|your [[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/sandbox|sandbox]]|the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]}} (example), per above. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: A few of these aren't template-protected, but I figured I should include them in this request regardless, since they're part of the same proposed mass-change. Also, there are some additional very low-use user warnings that reference the sandbox listed here that I didn't bother including in this request (many don't really need to be linking to the sandbox). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Template:Uw-tpv-2 doesn't exist, were you thinking of a different template? Danski454 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've changed the link to Template:Uw-tpv2, as I assume you were thinking of that. Danski454 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes; thanks for fixing that! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: Given your recent roasting over the coals elsewhere related to sandboxes, please establish a more affirmative consensus for this change. Izno (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Izno, is "roasting over the coals" really how you want to characterize this thread? An editor was curious about the sandboxes, I explained/linked to the discussion that led to them, and some editors brought up ideas for how to implement them in a way that'll automate cleanup. That'll probably lead to some tweaks, but so far the original implementation remains in place. I took away from the thread that draftspace is more closely monitored than I had thought, but I don't feel very roasted.
In any case, this request is very different from that, as it's not creating any sort of new sandbox system, but rather just making better use of the types of sandboxes that already exist. It affects a bunch of pages, but changes only one link in a way that doesn't alter its meaning, so it seems like a small enough tweak that it can be vetted here. Do you really want me to bring this all the way to the Village Pump? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done Let me know if I've missed anything, Sdkb! Sceptre (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Unattributed creative commons copy notice

I think Template:Uw-unattribcc should be added to Twinkle as a single issue notice; copying from creative commons material is different than the other copyright warnings, so having a notice for it will make work at copypatrol a lot easier. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 14:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

For Twinkle feature requests, see the banners at the top of Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. --Bsherr (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

New User Warning

I suggest this as a potential user warning as I fairly frequently come across situations where I need it. A more specific version of uw_vandalism, I think we should a warning for reverting an anti-vandal bot, like Cluebot NG, RscprinterBot, and the other active bots at . Vandals often vandalise by reverting the bot that reverted their original vandalism, which gets the tag "Reverting anti-vandal bot". Here's a suggestion of what level 1 of that could look like.

Information icon Hi, I'm Example. Please refrain from reverting Anti-Vandal bots. These bots are programmed to identify vandalism and, although not perfect, have correctly reverted your unconstructive editing. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Just a thought, this may seem a bit catty for a level 1 warning, so it's a bit of a work in progress. (Perhaps it could specify the bot you reverted?) If anyone else agrees that this should be a user warning, please @me below. :) Thanks, WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 10:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiMacaroons, I'm not super keen for us to add to the list of templates without good cause. Cluebot already puts a warning on talk, I think having a specific template to follow up with if the edit is reverted is then probably overkill.
However - if we do decide to add this as a template, I think this would be a good opportunity to make our language simpler. e.g. swap 'Please from from reverting' to 'Please do not revert', and swap 'Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges' to 'Repeated vandalism may mean you are blocked from editing'. Darren-M talk 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Darren-M, good points. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 16:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

update Uw-archive

This template needs to be recoded to dynamically update its quote of the guidelines, or at the very least, an editor note needs to be inserted at the appropriate spot in those guidelines to remind editors to update this template whenever the relevant guideline is modified.

The bigger problem is that the template currently copies the article talk page length guideline. As you can see in the guidelines, the user talk page guidelines were semi-recently spun off into its own section.

It's therefore possible to question having this template at all. I'm herewith inviting a discussion before making any changes.

  • {{Uw-archive}} and its documentation
  • WP:TALKCOND <- template currently uses this as justification
  • WP:OWNTALK <- template should use this as justification (which might arguably result in not using the template at all)

This might also be relevant. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have escalated the issue (since no less than two out of the four related templates are up for deletion). If you have something to say, look here first: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:Uw-archive Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Per that discussion, I'm updating the template. CapnZapp (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown

Recent changes in internal OTRS policy have made asking for official identification (typically driver's license or passport) not advisable as a means of confirming someone's identity. Yet some people, upon seeing the current block message, will still send in official identification when not asked to do so. There has been some discussion on the OTRS mailing list about having a more explicit warning in the template to not send official identification, which I have implemented at User:Sam-2727/Block-Test, using the wording of a suggestion by Nosebagbear. Are there any objections or proposed modifications to this? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Darren-M talk 16:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(Obviously) support. See if it can help. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been open for a bit with no further comment, so I'm going to move forward with the change. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility improvements

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text stating accordingly, Template:Tltss, which is used on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace to produce a tooltip when one hovers over any example template call, is inaccessible (see WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.13). I'd therefore like to phase out its use on that page. So, does anyone here have anecdotal evidence that these tooltips have been useful to users? The alternative I'd propose is to add the information in WP:UWLEVELS as legends underneath the column headings "Level 1", "Level 2", etc. That information plus the row heading "description" for each row, roughly equates to the information in the tooltip. --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bug in Template:Uw-block via Template:User talk other

The August 9 edit on Template:Uw-block has messed up the template. Look at this where the switch code from Template:User talk other was posted. --Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated {{user talk other}} to cleanly subst. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
JJMC89, it's more broken now: Special:Diff/973219300 Special:Diff/973219390 --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Forgot to exclude the HTML comments the first time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

bug in Template:Uw-sblock

All of the usages in user subpages that are not /sandbox are resulting in that subpage falling into Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace; this is a result from one of the 3 edits this month. Before I rollback to the last stable version, could someone attempt a fix? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you give an example of use in the user namespace? Uw-block templates are supposed to be used in the user talk namespace only. --Bsherr (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Active block warners keep aubpages with "samples" for easy reference, so User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, User:Deepfriedokra/atb, User:Moonriddengirl/cblock-i, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-sockblock, User:Zeke Essiestudy/Indefnotalk; yet none of the other usertalk templates on those subpages are giving the error when located on those pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: Okay, I follow now. The change was in Template:Uw-block, not Template:Uw-sblock. Adding to each transclusion the parameter |demospace=user talk (i.e. demonstrate as if in the user talk namespace) will bypass the error message. --Bsherr (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr:Sorry, now I understand: the problem with your solution is that it requires contacting many, many users who may not want their user subpages edited (often in multiple places, since we would also have to apply your fix to every transclusion of the many templates that redirect to Template:Uw-block). I would prefer that the template code be adjusted (or reverted to the last stable version) rather than having to go down this road. It does not appear the sandbox testing detected the breaking edits. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Without having determined the reason for their inclusion, there are user subpages belonging to only ten users in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace presently, 8 of whom have been active in the last couple days, one within the last couple months, and one whom is blocked. The magnitude doesn't seem so bad to me, at least. The error message for use in the wrong namespace is a useful feature. If the issue is just with the categorization, I suppose an alternative would be to disable or set conditions for the categorization and leave the error message. But I think fixing these errant transclusions or courtesy blanking might still be the better choice. --Bsherr (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning about removing RfD templates?

I wanted to tag someone who removed a deletion notice from a Redirect page... but there isn't an exact template for that contingency (the closest would be the warning about removing AfD templates). Do we perhaps need a new template for this scenario? Muzilon (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply write a personalized warning. You do not need to use a template for everything. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
An alternative is to use {{uw-tdel1}}, and to add a short note to it about removing deletion tags. I know I'm not always loquacious when I need to be, and warnings are usually more to the point anyway. BilCat (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: re this edit, if I remember my thinking correctly, the reason I suggested [[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/sandbox|sandbox]] (which I recently fixed to [[{{safesubst:<noinclude/>SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/sandbox|sandbox]]) instead of [[Special:MyPage/sandbox|sandbox]] is that the former will link to the recipient's sandbox specifically, whereas Special:MyPage/sandbox will link to the deliverer's sandbox for the deliverer. It's been slightly useful to see e.g. whether someone I'm warning has ever made use of their sandbox. We have to weigh that against what you pointed out about archiving/renaming, though. Whatever we decide, we should standardize it at all of the warning templates, per the list from July. Perhaps we should turn that chunk of code into a small template itself, since right now it's copied and pasted to all the places I identified, which is a WET way to do things. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: As I think about this a bit more, with your addition of safesubst, it's only renaming that would be a problem, not archiving, since the correct link will get baked in by the subst now. And I don't think many vandals will be granted a rename either, so I've now reverted myself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn, sounds good. {{Sandbox link}} is now available for the chunk of code if we want to use it. I'll fix up the other templates soon for the substing issue if no one else gets around to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Update: I've gone through and fixed the remaining templates, replacing the code with {{Sandbox link}} (which is identifcal, except for the subst oversight fix). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-disruptive" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Uw-disruptive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 13#Template:Uw-disruptive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim 03:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

New template for misuse of grammar tools?

Hi, I'm coming across edits that have been assisted by suggestions from tools such as Grammarly. Sometimes the user does not have the English-language skills to filter these suggestions, but accepts them blindly (eg changing "in voiced pauses and in transcripts un-voiced pauses" to "invoiced ..." and hence adversely changing the meaning of the text; or changing the language from British English to American English and v.v.), and there may be the case of an editor being advised against such inexperienced misuse and ignoring that advice.

Is there any chance of a single-level or multi-level talk page notice to address such issues? Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It might have to be couched in tentative terms, such as "it appears that you may be ..." (?) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I just don't see a template being well received in this situation. We have Template:uw-engvar for one of the examples you give. But we don't really have templates for mere careless editing. For egregious cases, Template:uw-subtle1, with further explanation, might work. But otherwise, I think this requires a personal message. --Bsherr (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I take your points. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

ALL CAPS template proposal, revisited

This is mainly about the scenario where we sometimes have users add content or use edit summaries in ALL CAPS. Last time I proposed such a template (about a month and a half ago) it ended up not being created because, well, ToBeFree pointed out that this is usually accompanied by other disruptive behavior. But I still think that such a template would be useful, either as a single issue notice or as a series, because new editors are not aware of the bold/italics/underline features on talk pages and our manual of style on ALL CAPS. With this in mind, I bodged together a draft user warning series in my user space:

We can either have this as a single issue template (in which case we would only use the first template), as a template that goes up to level 4, or something in-between. I think maybe up to level 3 would be good, then {{uw-npa4}} or {{uw-mos4}} would be appropriate. Thoughts? It has been almost a year since I last proposed this, but I did not have any drafts or any of that to guide me. Aasim (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Care to show us the policy that forbids the use of all caps? I don't see how an escalating series of warnings for something that is nothing more than an aesthetic annoyance is useful, or even desirable. Non-disruptive behavior that happens to be ALL CAPS is just that: non disruptive. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
We have two guidelines that suggest not using all caps: MOS:CAPS and WP:SHOUTING. Also it is generally considered shouting to use text in all caps as that is how the Internet seems to be. Maybe we only need one template for this purpose: “Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Just a reminder that it usually is not a good idea to leave posts in ALL CAPS as it is considered shouting and uncivil. This could be a mistake, though. Make sure to check your caps lock key before you continue editing.” That would be a good gentle reminder for all caps use. Aasim (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Do new editors write in all-caps frequently enough that we need a template, instead of just writing the text? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If it does not happen frequently, then maybe we need a single-issue notice instead. Not everyone writes in ALLCAPS on purpose. Some do so because they are unaware of the bold wikitext formatting, although it is less of a problem because of the VisualEditor. But yes, it still happens, but not as often because of how easy WMF made it to edit pages and add formatting. Aasim (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If it doesn't happen frequently, why not just write a sentence on the user's talk page? I imagine it'd promote a more positive response than templating someone. imo we should be using less warning templates, not more. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Or you know what: a better template: {{trout}} You have been trouted for using ALL CAPS! (Nah just kidding... newbies would be deterred by trouts.) Aasim (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, WP:SHOUTING says it's a good practice not to use all caps or other excessive forms of emphasis. But how do we get from that to the idea that the blocking policy covers this? This issue suggests a single-level warning template to me, if anything; not a series. --Bsherr (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if you provided some diffs showing when you would use this some of us scoffers might understand better. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned about conflating two different issues. All caps in articles is a MOS issue, covered by uw-mosX, unless something more specific really is needed. All caps on talk pages is something else entirely (could be a civility issue, could be a competency issue), and the MOS doesn't really apply to talk page posts. Half of this template is always going to be irrelevant. --Bsherr (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
in articles, it's style and we deal with as such, on edit summaries, I think the problem is usually better ignored. As jpgrdon said above, if it becomes actually disruptive we can deal with it as such. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge {{uw-vand1}} and {{uw-disruptive1}}?

The first-level disruptive and vand template are almost identical, with the "disruptive" one containing info about Wikipedias policies and guidelines; thus, I believe the templates ought to be merged. Thank you for your consideration. Opalzukor (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: If you are talking about just the level 1 templates for each series, that might be a good idea. Disruptive editing has a different meaning than vandalism on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism)), but that distinction isn't really communicated by the level 1 templates because Template:Uw-vandalism1 intentionally doesn't use say "vandalism". The level 1 templates are quite similar, though. --Bsherr (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Indeed, I did. Edited for clarity. Once this reaches consensus here, should I list it at TFD? Opalzukor (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

{{uw-talkinarticle1}}

A few moments ago, I created the page Template:Uw-talkinarticle1. Its only purpose is to serve as a redirect to Template:Uw-talkinarticle. The reason for doing this was because RedWarn defaults to outputtinmg {{uw-talkinarticle1}}. Is there any issue with this? Does this break any bots? Thank you for your time. Opalzukor (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed update to Template:Uw-coi

I would like to insert the following sentence based on the wording of Template:Uw-paid1 at the end of Template:Uw-coi, before the final "Thank you.": "If you believe you do not have a conflict of interest, please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message."

I suggested this at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 32#What comes next for non-responsive editors after a COIN discussion? and would like feedback on the exact wording.

The problem with the existing wording is that it does not prompt the recipient to engage in a discussion and resolve the issue before reference to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

Pinging participants in the earlier discussion @ElKevbo, Smallbones, Barkeep49, DGG, and Pigsonthewing:. TSventon (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No editor has the right to unilaterally prohibit another editor from editing, short of an admin block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I wanted to ask you for feedback as I can remember your pointing out in COI noticeboard discussions that editors had not been asked to reply about their COI before being taken to COIN. The wording "In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message." comes from Template:Uw-paid1 so I don't think it implies that the editor who uses the template has the right to unilaterally prohibit another editor from editing. I would welcome any suggestion to improve the wording. TSventon (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, there's a WMF prohibition on undeclared paid editing, and not on CoI editing; but all the wording in that template tells me is that some editors think they have the right to unilaterally prohibit another editor from editing. If you want better wording, try "In either case, please answer this message before making any further edits to articles." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@TSventon: There's a significant difference between paid editing and conflict of interest editing. Namely, undisclosed paid editing is prohibited per Wikipedia Terms of Use (and thus, violating that rule is a violation of Terms) whereas COI editing is more of something to avoid, but not necessarily restrict. WP:COI states disclosure is only required for paid editors, where as other COI editors should disclose their conflict of interest. Instead of do not, I suggest using avoid instead, or just reword the sentence entirely (like in Pigsonthewing's comment above.) Chlod (say hi!) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"paid editing is prohibited per Wikipedia Terms of Use" It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot to include "undisclosed". Fixed that. Thanks, Pigsonthewing Chlod (say hi!) 16:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, everyone with coi has a duty to disclose. But if its unpaid coi, all that is necessary to say is :"yes, I have a coi, but it's unpaid" and nothing specific need be specified. (some users have then described their family or employment or other relationship, but its not necessary) If its paid, on the other hand, then the details must be given. Editing with a paid coi without disclosure its what's forbidden, but in any case, what is forbidden is editing that article about which they have the coi--they can edit anything else they please that they have no coi about even if they ignore the message, unless they end up being blocked. My only view is that any distinction between should and must here is unsettled, and in any case untenable and an invitation to wikilawering. Possible we should rewrite all policies to remove or qualify the ambiguous word "should" DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
If someone is asked whether they have a conflict of interest and doesn't, what policy or guideline requires them to refrain from editing until they answer? We don't make new policy through user warning templates. --Bsherr (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bsherr: "In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message." is taken from Template:Uw-paid1 so it isn't new. I agree that if someone is asked whether they have a conflict of interest and doesn't, no policy or guideline requires them to refrain from editing until they answer. Is Pigsonthewing's suggestion better: "In either case, please answer this message before making any further edits to articles."? TSventon (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, better still would be "If you have a CoI, please declare it before making any further edits to affected articles."; and drop "If you believe you do not have a conflict of interest, please state that..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing If an editor appears to have a COI I think the template should request a discussion to resolve the issue, which is why I want to add a request for a response even if the recipient believes they do not have a conflict of interest. Then if the problem continues it can be taken to COIN, which "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". TSventon (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you dispute DGG's statement: "they can edit anything else they please that they have no coi about even if they ignore the message" Do you dispute Bsherr's statement: "if someone is asked whether they have a conflict of interest and doesn't, no policy or guideline requires them to refrain from editing until they answer"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing I don't dispute either statement, but if an editor does not reply to the current COI template message it could mean they have no conflict of interest, or that they don't think they have a COI (but still appear to have a COI) or that they have not seen or ignored the message. The current wording is not an effective way of requesting a discussion about an apparent COI. TSventon (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate this suggestion but I worry that this changes a warning template without having adequate support in the underlying policy. We need to have this clarified in the policy first. ElKevbo (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
ElKevbo I don't think adding a request for a reply to uw-coi requires an update to the COI policy, do you think a particular section needs to be clarified? The relevant parts seem to be

Machine-reading friendliness

Dear WikiProject:User talk namespaces,

Templates like UWs are great and being used by many, and we have seen WP:TW and WP:RW highly relying on them. We have seen < !-- Template: uw-vandalism1 -- > in some of the templates but not all. Have you considered enforcing this as part of the standard, so it will make it much more machine reading friendly so counter-vandalism tools, researchers and systems can identify the warnings being issued on some user.

also ping @Ed6767:.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Second this. Having this supported in the standard would be much appreciated. There are many older templates that haven't been modernised for over ten years and this causes lots of issues for developers of tools as outdated templates don't follow the same standards as the newer ones. Ed talk! 01:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Xinbenlv, I agree that all templated messages should have hidden text at the end of them. It's important not just for research, but also as a measure of transparency—people should have some way of knowing that a message delivered to them was a template. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems pretty uncontroversial. I think we should make a list of templates that doesn't have these comments. I'll try to find and list them here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
If only even better, the hidden annotation contains what parameter values were passed in when substituting a template. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xinbenlv: As far I know that's not used in any templates. Do you have any example how that can be implemented? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Support seems sensible to me. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 00:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Totally agree with the proposal. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. I extracted the user templates from the WP:UWT and listed all user templates without a tag. The results are in the collapsible below. Turns out, almost all templates already have those identifiers. The next step is to probably turn it into a standard within the WP:UWDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlod (talk • contribs)
User warnings with no identifiers, and edit request

Exclusively user warnings

All pages from WP:UWT

Template-Protected Edit Request

Please see above for list of pages. COIN-notice is only given to fulfil the template parameters. Please add a comment containing the template name in the format <!--Template:templatename--> to these templates. For example, the {{uw-vandalism1}} template contains the comment <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->). This is to assist counter-vandalism tools and bots in detecting and identifying user warning templates, and there has been consensus above to implement these changes. A tool such as AutoWikiBrowser will definitely come in handy. A plaintext list is provided below that can be easily imported into AWB. Redirects haven't been filtered, so if there are any, please ignore them. Many thanks, Ed talk! 16:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
Template:AFC_submission_draftnew
Template:AntiVandal
Template:Decline_reason_here
Template:Di-no_fair_use_rationale
Template:Di-no_license
Template:Di-no_source
Template:Di-orphaned_fair_use
Template:Di-replaceable_fair_use
Template:Editing_advice
Template:File_copyright_request
Template:Mwarn
Template:Oldcsd
Template:Register
Template:Sdd
Template:Sdd2
Template:Sdd3
Template:Sdd4
Template:SD_warn-needed
Template:Socksuspectnotice
Template:Speedy-Warn
Template:UploaderHints
Template:Uw-cryptic-filename
Template:Uw-nc
Template:Uw-plotsum1
Template:Uw-plotsum2
Template:Uw-sl
Template:W-basic
Template:W-link
Template:W-shout
Template:Warn
Template:Welcome5
Template:Welcomeen-ar
Template:Welcomeen-da
Template:Welcomeen-de
Template:Welcomeen-en
Template:Welcomeen-es
Template:Welcomeen-fa
Template:Welcomeen-fi
Template:Welcomeen-fr
Template:Welcomeen-he
Template:Welcomeen-id
Template:Welcomeen-it
Template:Welcomeen-ja
Template:Welcomeen-ko
Template:Welcomeen-ml
Template:Welcomeen-mr
Template:Welcomeen-nl
Template:Welcomeen-no
Template:Welcomeen-or
Template:Welcomeen-pl
Template:Welcomeen-pt
Template:Welcomeen-ro
Template:Welcomeen-ru
Template:Welcomeen-sq
Template:Welcomeen-sv
Template:Welcomeen-tl
Template:Welcomeen-uk
Template:Welcomeen-ur
Template:Welcomeen-vi
Template:Welcomeen-zh
Template:Welcome_screen
Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia
@ProcrastinatingReader:, sorry about that. I forgot to resolve redirects in the script I used. The list has been updated. Chlod (say hi!) 23:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Implementation in design guidelines

Given the rationale that Xinbenlv said above regarding machine learning friendliness, I'd like to ask for consensus regarding whether or not this should be implemented in design guidelines. As of now, the documentation for Z templates ({{Z number doc}}) indicates that the comment denoting the origin is only often added in. Thus, I would like to enforce the addition of the tracking comment in the design guidelines. As it stands now, all user talk namespace templates are supposed to abide by WP:UWDG. In the WP:UWDG#Template coding guidelines, I'm suggesting the addition of the following:

Extended content

Template signature

User warning templates must contain a comment which includes the name of the given template. The name of the template (including the namespace) should be its sole content. It should be placed at the end of the warning text and after any Z numbers.

For the {{uw-vandalism1}} template, its signature would look like this. 

  <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->

I'll be honest: I've never written on any policies, so I'm open to changes to the provided section and your comments regarding the matter. I also don't know if there's any magic words that can just easily get the name of the template being substituted, so the comment itself can definitely be improved. Hopefully we could get this in soon. --Chlod (say hi!) 04:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv and Chlod: Should I send a request to AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? Opalzukor (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Opalzukor: This one is more on what to add on the actual design guidelines page. If you meant the templates in #Template-Protected Edit Request, then sure thing. Chlod (say hi!) 07:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Xinbenlv and Chlod: Is there any consensus on where the comment should be, or doesn't it matter? Opalzukor (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Opalzukor: Currently there's no consensus. That was the aim of the question above. However, majority of the comments usually appear right after the Z number of said template, which is near the end of the template. If there is no z number, it's usually just placed at the very end. Chlod (say hi!) 15:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Recreating deleted pages

Do we have a warning template for when users, upon their page being deleted, go on to recreate it exactly as it was? I feel like we do somewhere, given how common that behavior is, but I don't see one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is {{Db-repost-notice}} what you're looking for? OK, it's not a mere warning, but if it's recreation of deleted content, I guess that step can be skipped and the material can be nominated for deletion straight off, so such a template would not be needed. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Toccata quarta: Not quite. That implies the first deletion was via XfD. I'm looking for something that also works when they recreate something that was speedily deleted (e.g., by A7) the first time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Change the value for the |maximum = parameter of {{Templatesnotice}} from 4 to 3 and add an |escalate = parameter with the value yes, as the uw-disruptive series ends on the 3rd level. Then apply the same changes to {{uw-disruptive2}} and {{uw-disruptive3}} as well. Thank you.

Vito Genovese 08:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a correct change to me. Whilst 4 exists as a redirect to {{Uw-generic4}}, it doesn't seem to be supported by Twinkle etc, and the link on the doc seems inaccurate, so it would make sense to change it I think? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-subtle2

How about adding "names" into the part which says "(such as numbers or dates)"? 1+1=yes (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1+1=yes (talk • contribs)

Requested move 16 September 2020

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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED. There's some support for creating a meta-template that can handle multiple types of deletion discussions, but no support for moving these before one is ready. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


– I see no reason for this to apply only to AfD and not other XfD venues. I suggest these get renamed and edited accordingly. Adam9007 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, the templates currently mention articles for deletion explicitly; how do you propose to make the templates responsive to the type of XfD? Also, is there really much of a problem with this beyond articles? I'd hope that most editors experienced enough to wade beyond articlespace would know not to remove templates like that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, We could use the more generic 'Deletion discussion' terminology instead. Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm leaning oppose. Sending people to a list of possible deletion discussion types introduces complexity that new users (the people receiving this warning) are going to get confused by.
If you really want XfD removal warning templates, here's a way to do it that won't violate don't repeat yourself: first, add a parameter to the AfD templates over the AfD link, allowing another link to be used in its place. Then, turn Template:Uw-xfd1 etc. into wrapper templates that specify that parameter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, But how would the parameter be incorporated into tools such as Twinkle? It's much easier for the template to say: Please do not remove Deletion discussion notices from pages, or remove other people's comments in Deletion discussions instead. Then there's nothing to specify or worry about. Adam9007 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to prioritize the template being accessible to the people it'll be used on over covering what seems to be a niche circumstance. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions may not look complicated to us, but it will be overwhelming to plenty of new editors. Switching to oppose. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a much better way to do this. As we all probably know, the first parameter of user warning templates is for identifying the page at which the conduct at issue occurred ({{uw-afd1|Christopher Columbus}}). We can use a parser function to specify the relevant deletion discussion page based on the namespace of the page in parameter 1. So "Christopher Columbus" would trigger AfD, while "Template:Christopher Columbus" would trigger TfD. This would cover most, but not all, situations, so we would still need a manual override parameter for, for example, userboxes in the Template namespace that are nonetheless discussed at MfD. Sdkb, does that address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, yes, that would be great if we can get it to work properly! For instances where someone does not specify a page, we'd want it to retain the current behavior, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, If we do that, these'll still need to be moved to Uw-xfd though, so as to accurately reflect what they support. Adam9007 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, hence my support for the move below. --Bsherr (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The problem only occurs with AfDs, not with other XfD venues. – SD0001 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
SD0001, I've just had to revert an IP who kept removing an MfD template from a draft. It's not just AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Move. I think it's a good idea. I don't see why we should keep a narrow scope when a broader one will work just as well and cover more situations. (I take it that support of the move and the concept are one and the same, and that the consensus of this RM discussion will include the appropriate changes to the templates.) --Bsherr (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Since we already have uw-tfdX, uw-cfdX, uw-ffdX, and uw-mfdX—for all except RfD—I am seeing this as a wrapper situation for the other templates. --Bsherr (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, Hmm. I searched for equivalent templates before nominating this move, but couldn't find anything. Evidently I didn't look hard enough. Had I been aware of {{Uw-mfd1}} and the like, I'd have nominated for a merge or maybe proposed they get added to Twinkle as a default instead. Still, it's probably best to have one template covering all XfD venues. Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep temporarily. So I'm thinking about an efficient way to close this out, and I think the best option is to sandbox a metatemplate, then move and create wrappers. Because that would mean we're not immediately moving these templates, I've changed my position. I think LaundryPizza03 is not incorrect that this is more of a merge proposal for all of the existing templates, and probably would have been had Adam9007 been aware of them when the discussion was instituted. --Bsherr (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy close This should be discussed at TfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
LaundryPizza03, No, renaming of templates are only discussion via RM and not TFD. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 18:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Default behavior for uw- series lacking level 4

Template:Templatesnotice/inner includes a switch for {{{max|}}} which makes sure that non-default numerical values for the parameter result in the next higher level uw-vandalism template gets recommended. However, as WP:WARN and WP:WARN2 suggest, uw-generic4 should be the default for those series that lack a level 4 template.

I am therefore considering replacing uw-vandalism4 with uw-generic4 for the case |max = 3. Any objections?

Vito Genovese 00:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

11 days have passed with no objections, so I'm going to proceed with the edit.
Vito Genovese 14:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-mos1 and the Simplified Manual of Style

Would it be reasonable for this template to also contain a link to the Simplified Manual of Style? Surely that would be beneficial to new users (for whom this template is intended), who might be discouraged by the scope and complexity of the main one. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Toccata quarta, I'm not sure why this template really exists at all. If someone makes a minor copy error, just correct it, and if they want to teach the other editor, tag them in the edit summary or at least explain what they did wrong. This template doesn't teach anything by itself.
To more directly address your question, yes, a link to a simplified version of the MoS would be preferable. The Help:Getting started link should also be changed to Help:Introduction or just removed; it does new users no good to link them to a big directory page of competing/overlapping introductions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's useful -- a lot of times, someone will be going ham on multiple articles and revert-warring other people to perform edits which, while they really aren't vandalism per se, violate MoS and aren't remotely constructive. It's not really warranted if someone makes a simple grammar error; to me it's more appropriate if someone gets aggressive and insistent on something that's against MoS. jp×g 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

I think we should change the wording of Template:Uw-delete4 to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without adequate explanation", to make it more obvious that the template is being issued for unexplained content removal. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

In Template:Uw-vandalism2, please remove the cross-wiki link [[ta:Uw-vandalism2]]. It is already included in the Wikidata 219.78.191.200 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing warnings in case of repeated self-reversion cycles

Hi, I've come one or two users who go through repeated cycles of editing, self-reversion or effective manual reversion, and more of the same editing over several articles, to the point of being disruptive (after friendly talk page messages have been ignored). I'm talking about contribution histories that are full of such self-reversions, and I'm not sure if they are in two minds, obsessive, or trying to maintain a #1 pole position on articles.

However, the disruptive templates include text along the lines of "... did not appear constructive and has been reverted", which is not the case. Could an optional parameter be added to the template, defaulting to include this text, but that can be added to exclude it? Or is there another way of handling this without having to manually type out a non-standard notice? Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 26 October 2020

Template:Uw-vandalism3, please remove the cross-wiki link "ta:Uw-vandalism3". It is already included in the Wikidata 116.48.250.251 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected}} Template:Uw-vandalism4, please remove the cross-wiki link "ta:Uw-vandalism4". It is already included in the Wikidata 116.48.250.251 (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected}} Template:Uw-vandalism4im, please remove the cross-wiki link "ta:Uw-vandalism4im". It is already included in the Wikidata 116.48.250.251 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done for all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 31 October 2020_2

Completely rewrite the text to "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am <insert username of user warning the user here> and I saw that one of [[special:contributions/<insert username of warned>|your recent contributions]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. The sandbox is a place to test you edits, and if you have any questions, you can ask at the teahouse. Thanks!" This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 14:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For a more welcoming notice about vandalism there is {{Welcome-vandal}}. I don't feel Uw-vandalism1 should be this cheerful. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ok. This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 11:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requests on 31 October 2020_1

Change the text in the brackets from "such as numbers and dates" to "such as names, numbers and dates". This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel this is necessary, numbers and dates are the main "subtle" vandalism one sees and they are sufficient as an example. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the ones I mainly find are names. This is my userpage[citation needed]and this is my talk page[citation needed] 11:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
To editor This is my userpage:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Also, there are other "subtle" templates, different levels, and those contain similar texts. Change this one and those should be changed as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-English edits

Hello! I was wondering if there's a UW template for non-English edits. I know that there's Template:Uw-english, but it's written to ask people to not leave talk page comments in other languages. I recently saw some article edits ([1] [2] on UCAM Murcia CF) which were not in English, and did not know what warning to use (I ended up using Template:Uw-mos1 with a note asking them to edit in English). I think that either Template:Uw-english could be edited to be more general (not just for talk pages), or there could be a new template for non-English edits on article pages. Any opinions? — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 02:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

​I've created {{Contrib-foreign}} (feel free to change its wording) for the general case, but there are several specific warnings avilable in Category:Non-English user warning templates such as {{Contrib-es1}} – Thjarkur (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks good! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Empty edit request

I propose that we move this template to Template:Uw-eer to standardize the name. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Uw-vandalism1 has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

<noinclude>{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Uw-disruptive1}}</noinclude>

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Opalzukor (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Uw-disruptive1 has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

<noinclude>{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Uw-vandalism1}}</noinclude>

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Opalzukor (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we make Template:uw-talkinarticle a multi-level template?

I've come across multiple editors committing vandalism via talking in the article they wish to discuss multiple times. Because of this, I felt inclined to create {{uw-talkinarticle2}}. Can we reclassify {{uw-talkinarticle}} as a multi-level template via moving it to {{uw-talkinarticle1}}? Thanks for your time. Opalzukor (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, go for it. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 15:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Backgrounds...

Would it be possible to have the background on Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown be blue instead of...yellow-orange? ochre? whatever it currently is. The other softerblock templates tend to be blue, and it would have more of a "this is for your protection" feeling to it instead of "something is wrong". - The Bushranger One ping only 16:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:uw-spoablock is centred

{{subst:uw-spoablock}} seems to float to the centre automatically, while every other block template floats/is fixed to the left side of the page. Is this an error or intentional? Thank you for your time. Opalzukor (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. It should be placed on the user page, not the user talk page. It's a tag, not a message. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_17&oldid=1137457844"