Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 →

Contents

Shortcuts for RFC-related templates

Khukri had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

Template lowercase rfc- prefix short rfc- prefix Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional
{{ArticleConcern}} {{articleconcern}} {{rfc-articleconcern}} {{artc}} {{rfc-arc}} article name (req), nature of concern (opt)
{{ArticleDiscussion}} {{articlediscussion}} {{rfc-articlediscussion}} {{artd}} {{rfc-ard}} article name (req)
{{ArticleResult}} {{articleresult}} {{rfc-articleresult}} {{artr}} {{rfc-arr}} article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt)
{{ConductConcern}} {{conductconcern}} {{rfc-conductconcern}} {{ucc}} {{rfc-ucc}} nature of concern (opt)
{{ConductDiscussion}} {{conductdiscussion}} {{rfc-conductdiscussion}} {{ucd}} {{rfc-ucd}} conduct issue (opt)
{{ConductNotice}} {{conductnotice}} {{rfc-conductnotice}} {{ucn}} {{rfc-ucn}} RFC/USER subject's name (req)
{{ConductResult}} {{conductresult}} {{rfc-conductresult}} {{ucres}} {{rfc-ucr}} outcome of RFC (opt)
{{UsernameConcern}} {{usernameconcern}} {{rfc-usernameconcern}} {{uncon}} {{rfc-unc}} nature of objection (opt)
{{UsernameDiscussion}} {{usernamediscussion}} {{rfc-usernamediscussion}} {{und}} {{rfc-und}} name issue in discussion (opt)
{{UsernameNotice}} {{usernamenotice}} {{rfc-usernamenotice}} {{un}} {{rfc-unn}} RFC/NAME subject's name (req)
{{UsernameAllowed}} {{usernameallowed}} {{rfc-usernameallowed}} {{una}} {{rfc-una}} archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt)
{{UsernameBlocked}} {{usernameblocked}} {{rfc-usernameblocked}} {{unb}} {{rfc-unb}} reason for block (opt)

All of these templates need to be substituted: please use {{subst:template}}, not just {{template}}. All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Replaced hardcoded table with template created by Gracenotes; updates automagically. -- Ben 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

New template

I felt the need for a new template, so I've created {{DJR}}. This still needs some work and perhaps a better name though, so I'm leaving it here for suggestions before I add it to UTM. Thanks in advance for your comments, Dar-Ape 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DJR may be hard to remember, maybe something like {{pleasewarn}}. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How about "Template:Uw-warn"? GracenotesT § 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, I have moved it to {{uw-warn}}. Dar-Ape 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste page moves

{{uw-move1}} and its sisters are for users who move pages unnecessarily. Is there a template for people who do cut-and-paste page moves rather than using the "move" button (whether because their accounts are too new to move a page or because it takes admin powers to delete an existing redirect)? I encounter this frequently and it's a pain in the butt to fix after the fact. —Angr 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there may be times when said editors have the move button but don't know about WP:RM. (Gracenotes opens his closet to reveal Coca tea, if anyone's interested) GracenotesT § 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, that's something the template should inform them of. Granted, a template like this could only be used after the user has already made the cut-and-paste page move, but it may stop them from doing it again. —Angr 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Centralized discussion about parameters

Please check out Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Parameters for user warning templates if you have the time. Thanks! GracenotesT § 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Test-self

I like the new system, good job :) The only thing I've noticed missing so far is {{test-self}}(?)

And I hope the WP:UW project moves on to cleanup the welcome templates next! --Quiddity 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Test-self really needs to be added here... I find that it comes up quite a bit, and several times now I've looked for it. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mainly because the harmonisation isn't finished yet. The template hasn't disappeared and most probably isn't likely to. Khukri 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-biog1}} vs {{uw-defamatory1}}

The "biog" series has now been generalized to apply to controversial statements in any article, not just biographical articles. Maybe I am missing something (and I probably am), but the biog series and the defamatory series now seem to serve pretty much the same purpose. Can anyone clarify why we need both?--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Level 0

I've just had a scenario where I've wanted to use a "level 0" message - that is initiate a discussion with the user and ask them to help without telling them off for doing something wrong! The case involved unsourced info that had been inserted and I just wanted to ask the user if they had a source but felt {{uw-unsourced1}} was too strong. Would it be useful to have a new series of templates for these situations? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Try {{subst:ArticleConcern}} (aka {{subst:rfc-arc}}), with an optional parameter to insert your exact concern, like {{subst:rfc-arc|article-name|The info you inserted into this article doesn't cite a source. Do you have a source for this info, and if so, what is it, please?}}
I hope that helps! -- Ben 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I think {{ArticleConcern}} is still a bit too strong for what I was looking for, but your prompt led to a search when I eventually found {{Needsource}} which was just what I was looking for.
On a related point, there are a lot of other templates out there - any plans to move them in here so there is a single directory? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Long names

Why do these have such long names? uw-vandalism2 takes a lot longer to type than test2. --AW 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be descriptive, so that when you look at a list of template names you have an idea of what each one is for; and conversely, when you want to post a template on a user page, the topic you want to address tells you the template name you want to type. A name like "test" doesn't help with either of those. -- Ben 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Some shortcuts have created, for example you can use {{uw-vN}} rather than {{uw-vandalismN}}. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on Oliver's comment, the four most common - test, vandalism, spam and delete - all have one letter shortcuts (i.e. t, v, s and d). So, for example, you can use {{subst:uw-v2}} for vandalism2.--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Or you could use {{uw-b1}} for the deletion series. I had this complaint too, so redirects were created by me and others. Category:Redirects from warning template keeps track of 'em, and tag a redirect page with {{r from warning template}} if you want to create one. GracenotesT § 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Could these short names be added to the project page (or even replace the long ones there now)? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, i didn't know there were short ones. Are there replacements for the {{anon vandal}} and {{blatant vandal}}? I like those ones, since they encourage being a good editor --AW 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

@AndrewRT - perhaps the shortcuts could be added, but I don't think they should replace the 'full' version - part of the point of the new templates was to make the purpose of the template clear from the name. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a compromise. Let's add different versions of WP:UTM that have shortcuts, or have the "subst:" prefix. For example,

|-
! Vandalism
| {{tltt|uw-vandalism1|Your unhelpful edit has been removed.}}
| {{tltt|uw-vandalism2|Please don't add unhelpful info.}}
| {{tltt|uw-vandalism3|Please stop vandalizing}}
| {{tltt|uw-vandalism4|Final warning, stop vandalizing now}}
| {{tltt|uw-vandalism4im|Only warning for severe vandalism}}

would become

|-
! Vandalism
| {{tltt{{#if:{{{sb|}}}s}}|{{#if:{{{s|}}}|uw-v1|uw-vandalism1}}|Your unhelpful edit has been removed.}}
| {{tltt{{#if:{{{sb|}}}s}}|{{#if:{{{s|}}}|uw-v2|uw-vandalism2}}|Please don't add unhelpful info.}}
| {{tltt{{#if:{{{sb|}}}s}}|{{#if:{{{s|}}}|uw-v3|uw-vandalism3}}|Please stop vandalizing}}
| {{tltt{{#if:{{{sb|}}}s}}|{{#if:{{{s|}}}|uw-v4|uw-vandalism4}}|Final warning, stop vandalizing now}}
| {{tltt{{#if:{{{sb|}}}s}}|{{#if:{{{s|}}}|uw-v4im|uw-vandalism4im}}|Only warning for severe vandalism}}

So {{WP:UTM}} would be normal, but {{WP:UTM|s}} would call a shortcut. (Gracenotes)

Of even better:

|-
! Vandalism
| {{tltt{{{sb|}}}|uw-{{#if:{{{s|}}}|v1|vandalism1}}|Your unhelpful edit has been removed.}}
| {{tltt{{{sb|}}}|uw-{{#if:{{{s|}}}|v2|vandalism2}}|Please don't add unhelpful info.}}
| {{tltt{{{sb|}}}|uw-{{#if:{{{s|}}}|v3|vandalism3}}|Please stop vandalizing}}
| {{tltt{{{sb|}}}|uw-{{#if:{{{s|}}}|v4|vandalism4}}|Final warning, stop vandalizing now}}
| {{tltt{{{sb|}}}|uw-{{#if:{{{s|}}}|v4im|vandalism4im}}|Only warning for severe vandalism}}

Simpler. Setting sb=s will produce subst stuff. GracenotesT § 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New warning templates for people who use article pages to post personal graffiti?

Especially during school hours, much vandalism involves people who randomly insert personal messages, their names, or their friends' names, into articles. This is junk like "Joe was here" or "Podunk High School is the best." I would call it personal graffiti. These are generally not "Editing tests," they aren't exactly "unhelpful or unconstructive information", usually they can't be called "joke edits," they aren't spam or defamation, it's a stretch to call them autobiographical or "nonneutral POV," and since they aren't posting on talk pages it makes no sense to say "talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic." With all the focused templates that have been created recently, could someone create a series for personal graffiti?--orlady 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, vandalism is vandalism. It seems like the vandalism templates will work just fine. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Little question

Hi, I was wondering if the templates that say "You have been blocked for so long because blah blah..." could be used by non-administrator users? What is the limit of what a non-admin Wikipedian can use? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, anyone can use them [the templates] but they will not have any real force. Blocking and leaving a template message are two separate actions. I (I'm not an admin) could use Template:uw-block on a talk page, but the user would't actually be blocked. As it is lying to the users though, I believe it is discouraged. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks! I thought (when I say thought I mean like completely daydream) that maybe doing this will do a request for blocking to an admin or something. Thanks for such a rapid answer! :) Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

However, if an admin has blocked someone and did not give a block message, a non-admin is welcome to put a block note. JoshuaZ 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The best way to request a block, at least for continued vandalism, is to report at WP:AIV (after the user continues after being given a final warning). Hopefully then an Admin will block and leave the template. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did we change?

Howdy, I asked this question on the Template talk:test page, but I figured it might get to more people if I asked it here. I'm sure if I went back in the archives and searched for it I could find the answer, but I'm kinda lazy.

Why did we change from the {{test1}} etc templates to {{uw-test}} set of templates? GofG ||| Contribs 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main aim of the exercise was to introduce a uniform set of user warning templates, so that they all look and behave the same way. Really, the whole old system needed a good clear out and tidy up. By the way, you might find that the {{uw-vandalism}} set is a better replacement for the {{test}} ones. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

Is there a warning for users with disruptive sigs, like this: Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) as it really screws up the format of the text (at least in my browser). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh. In this case, I would definitely use a personal message, not a template (which, by the way, doesn't exist). I wouldn't call it disruptive based on the sig alone; perhaps the user merely wants a sig that looks good. (It really depends, so a template might not be best.) GracenotesT § 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't screw up anything in my browser. --WikiSlasher 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to brighten everyone's mood, the whole font tag is being deprecated in HTML, and may not be supported in future versions, which seems likely to make a whole lot of older-HTML-coded pages incompatible. -- Ben 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this apply just to MediaWiki or the entire web? --WikiSlasher 11:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It would apply to the whole web, but I can't imagine it's going anywhere anytime soon. —METS501 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I've been meaning to change the font tag to a span for some time (in my sig), but space is a concern :( Anyway, back to the topic... GracenotesT § 22:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The font tag is already considered deprecated by the W3C ([1]), but the W3C states that user agents (like browsers) should continue to support deprecated tags ([2]). So although it's considered out of date to use it, support for it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything that needs to be warned about here? I don't see how it could do harm. Mr.Z-man what exactly is it doing to your browser? SubSeven 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there is a policy about disruptive signatures. What it does is it messes with the line spacing, compacting the lines together. It doesn't really make it hard to read, its just distracting Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, yes, it is technically a violation of policy. I guess drop him a friendly message then. Doubtful that there will be a template for disruptive sigs. SubSeven 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues with uw-own3 template

Just went to apply this to a user page adding in the article name and additional text, and noticed a minor error in formatting. When doing this, the words ownership and such on line one join together and own becomes apart of the link to WP:OWN. Obviously this is unexpected, so if someone could look and fix this template up it would be apprecicated. thewinchester 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

shortcuts

I just tried to use {{uw-b1}} for a blp warning, but that redirects to {{uw-delete1}}. Why? The common warnings seem to have obvious one-letter variants, uw-t1, uw-v2, uw-d3, s for spam, i for images, e for errors. The most common warning without an obvious one-letter redirect is uw-biog. Perhaps u for user-page related vandalism, too. Gimmetrow 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's because the "old" version of delete1 was {{blank}}. So, someone typing b1 might be expecting the "blank" template. However, your point is well taken (at least by me), and I think we should change the redirect to delete1. I was thinking maybe we should wait until we are fairly confident people have adjusted to the new system. However, it might be best to do it now before anyone gets too comfortable with b1 redirecting to delete1. Anyone else?--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fine print used for the grid of warnings is hard to read

I find the type used for some of the template names is almost illegibly small when monospace fonts are used with my browser and the default Monobook skin (set in Special:Preferences). The monospace fonts are serif fonts which are hard to read in small sizes.

Since there's a need to keep these small, I suggest not using monospace fonts but rather sans-serif fonts such as Arial. Here's an example:

{{tltt}}'s monospace serif fonts work well at normal sizes:

{{tltt}}'s monospace serif fonts become hard to read in smaller sizes

I'm not a Wikitext-typography-html-Wikipedia "skins" guru, so I'm not sure everyone's browser will display the example above the way I intended, but what I think you should see is an example of how a sans-serif font like Arial can improve the legibility of small font sizes.

This is less of a problem with some of the other skins I tried, but since monobook is the default, it's what most editors will see in the templates grid. --A. B. (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning for discussion on article

I don't see any template to use to let a user know that their discussion edit belongs on the talk page. Please point me to it and let's add it to this page. WilliamKF 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may use {{talkinarticle}} for the moment, but there is a fair chance this will be modified in the coming weeks. See WP:UW/Overview Regards Khukri 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

subst=subst: or includeonly hack

Should the templates, as now use the subst=subst: trick, or should it only using <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>, also, then, should the parameter 1 and 2 be changed to {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|article... [[{{{1}}}]]|...}} and {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|...}} to ensure that it always only outputs clean text, and no forgotten variables and defaults. →AzaToth 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The subst parameter is preferable, since the template will not break when not substituted. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it won't work as you want to, for example:
{{subst:Uw-vandalism1|subst=subst:}}

results in

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to [[:, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],]], have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed as they could be considered to be vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

→AzaToth 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally all that stuff you put on the top of the page looks like a cross between scrambled eggs and spaghetti, can anyone non-neanderthal like myself please respond. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, because the substitution of the parserfunction is only necessary if you're using the article parameter. If you don't want to specify an article, the subst=subst: code is unnecessary and in fact breaks the template.
But I would argue that the subst: part is unnecessary. Why does it matter if the user sees "{{#if:Wikipedia|, such as those you made to [[:Wikipedia]],}}" if they choose to edit their talk page, rather than just "Wikipedia"? The subst: will break the template if used as described above, and is a pain in the ass to type out every time you want to use a template (if you do warning templates by hand), I propose getting rid of it. Λυδαcιτγ 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've read this several times, and I still don't understand what "subst=subst: " does. I understand plain old template subsitution, but this "subst=subst: " thing baffles me. There's no explanation of it at Wikipedia:Template substitution, and I don't understand anything at meta:ParserFunctions. I doubt I'm alone in my bafflement — can someone who understands template syntax explain this double-substitution (or whatever it is) to us mortals, please? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The function of "subst=subst:" is to make the template code prettier. ParserFunctions normally remain in the template code after the template is substituted. The ParserFunctions in this case are the two #if functions in {{uw-vandalism1}}. The first adds "such as those you made to articlename," to the second sentence if there was an article supplied. The second adds "thank you" to the end of the message if there was no additional message supplied.
So normally the template would come out on the user's page with code like this: {{#if:articlename|, such as those you made to [[:articlename]],}}. But if you put subst: at the start of the PF, it just shows , such as those you made to articlename,. Note that these two variations look exactly the same in viewing the page, and are only different when the page is edited.
But if you put in subst: into the original template, it will substitute the ParserFunction in the original template. It won't be a ParserFunction anymore. So you have to make the PF subst at runtime - i.e., when it is put onto the user's talk page. To do this, you either: 1) put includeonly tags around the subst:; 2) put a variable in, which you change to "subst:" at runtime. In this case, the variable is {{{subst}}}, so the code ends up being "subst=subst:".
The includeonly tag makes template usage simpler, since you don't have to type in "subst=subst:". But, for a reason which I don't remember, it makes substituting the template mandatory - if you forget to substitute, the template will break (that's what PathosChild was objecting to above). So PathosChild wants to leave the template as-is, with the {{{subst}}} variable.
I say that we shouldn't use includeonly or {{{subst}}}. You can see what this looks like at User:Audacity/Dirtbox. This substitutes User:Audacity/Sandbox, which has the current template on top, and the current template minus {{{subst}}} on the bottom. The results are identical, but if you edit the page you can see the code. In my opinion, the possible confusion of the vandal/tester/joker/spammer/etc. if he chooses to click "edit this page" is worth the simplicity and conciseness of taking out the {{{subst}}}. Λυδαcιτγ 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Audacity: that makes things clearer. As a user of these templates, I prefer the version that doesn't require me to remember to type "subst=subst:" at the end. It's easy to remember one "subst:" at the beginning, but speaking as an editor who doesn't know template syntax, I'd just as soon write out the entire message as remember that extra formatting. I'm an admin, and don't know the syntax — I'm sure there are lots of other editors who use templates without understanding their syntax either. I think that a template should be designed more for ease of use than for attractiveness on the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, unless someone objects I'll make the change later tonight. Λυδαcιτγ 04:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose it won't do any harm to leave the {{{subst}}} variable in there. But I changed subst=subst: to an optional feature in Template:WarningsUsage and Template:Templatesnotice. Λυδαcιτγ 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you guys. I just found out that the last few hundred tags I've posted are all wrong because I did not include SUBST: at the beginning. Now it looks like the issue is a whole lot more complicated. Please, please PLEASE keep it simple enough so that well-intentioned editors don't goof up. I used the cut-and-paste method, which turns out is a bad idea (not my fault). I still don't see what the difference is - the user gets a warning one way or the other. Cbdorsett 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the colourful spelling?

If WP is default to "American" spelling unless the article content is Britian-centric, why does {{uw-vandalism4im}} say vandalise instead of vandalize? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the 1000 posts in the archive about this :-) The WP standard is actually to not change it: whoever creates the page controls the spelling. —METS501 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Shall we just change them to American spelling and get this over n bloody done with? I'm beginning to think it's more hassle than it's worth. Khukri 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry I didn't check the archives first. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, we leave it Britlish. Wikipedia defaults to the version first used. If some Yank gets it wrong, then someone else should very tactfully change it and not make a big deal of it. It's hard to keep track of two spelling standards and if you edit on Wikipedia long enough, you end up editing in some sort of weird BritYanklish regardless of the form you learned in school. Likewise, Yanks shouldn't make a big deal of this stuff either. Editing Wikipedia (or would that be Wikipaedia?) has ruined my spelling in this way. Just, please, keep the Scots away.[3][4] --A. B. (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't, I agree but I've lost count with the amount of times I've reverted them. Ignoring what the guidelines say about author and subject matter/context etc, I've read that Wikipedia is American therefore the spelling should be American. WP:VAND uses American English therefore should the templates should be the same. More Americans use Wikipedia than Brits, to name a few arguments. I started the vandalism templates, except 4im which was Lucas and he's French so doesn't count, désolé mon pot. Even though I write what little article editing I do in British English, I think on these ones I'm willing to let them go, just to stop these little edit wars that arise. Khukri 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a little tag that a bot can place, saying that the spelling standard for a particular page is American or British? It could be placed as soon as the first trigger word shows up, and edited manually for pages about the respective geographical regions. Of course, the whole thing ignores Canadian, Aussie, South African and Kiwi spelling. Don't know what to suggest about that. The tag could read something like, "Editors please note: the spelling for this page should conform to {American|British} usage. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)". Cbdorsett 11:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

uw-vandalism2 not working right?

I tried to use

{{subst:uw-vandalism2|Quantum Mechanics|The change is question is located [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&curid=25202&diff=112065181&oldid=111775798 here].}}

on User Talk:151.196.130.92, but it doesn't seem to have picked up the second parameter. Can anyone take a look at this, please? Jouster 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Try {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Quantum Mechanics|2=The change is question is located [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&curid=25202&diff=112065181&oldid=111775798 here].}} →AzaToth 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Works great, thanks! Any particularly-obvious reason my way didn't work? Jouster 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There are two types of parameters with templates: named and numbered. Named templates are assigned by saying "parameter=value". For example, if you have anamed parameter called "person", you could say {{templatename|person=John}}. Or, you could have a numbered parameter. Numbered parameters are implicit, meaning that you can just say {{templatenamep|John}}, and parameter 1 would be assigned the value of "John". With this parameter:
  • The change is question is located [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&curid=25202&diff=112065181&oldid=111775798 here]
MediaWiki software is assuming not that you have a numerical parameter with that value, but a named parameter called "The change is question is located [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title", and that its value is "Quantum_mechanics&curid=25202&diff=112065181&oldid=111775798 here]". That's because of the equal sign. You have to explicitly tell the software that you want a numbered parameter "2" to have a specific value by using "2=value". Hope this helps. GracenotesT § 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perfectly clear, and also explains why the tinyurl worked (right up until I hit the banned sites list, that is). Thanks for taking the time to explain! Jouster  (whisper) 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there a template message that pertains to users blanking vandal warnings on their talk page? "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, it was decided that this isn't actually vandalism. This is still a continuing debate however, it may change. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also see WP:UW/FAQ, although as Mr.Z-man mentioned, WP:CCC. GracenotesT § 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

attack articles warning?

Since this seems to be the place to suggest new templates, I would like to suggest a template warning against creating attack articles. I think uw-npa doesn't really cover it, since that seems focused on attacks on other editors, as opposed to schoolkids who create mean articles about each other. I'm not really technical enough to create a template... Natalie 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Attack}} and {{Attackpg-warn}} currently exist. Khukri's suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview was to redirect these to NPA2 and V2, respectively. As I consider this, I don't think we need both, but we may want to keep one as a one off warning. I personally like "Attack", which is the warning template suggested when you use the {{db-attack}} to speedy tag an attack page.--Kubigula (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There's also {{attack-warn}} at present, whose only failing seems to be that it doesn't presently take the page name as argument. -- nae'blis 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a one off warning for creating attack pages, similar to the one off warnings for creating nonsense pages, nn bios, etc. Would someone be willing to add this to the grid of warnings on this page? Natalie 02:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Which one of the above do you like? As an aside, we do also have the {{uw-create}} series, which would probably suffice for most inappropriate page creation situations. I guess the question is whether attack pages are a sufficiently noxious problem to require a specific warning. My inclination is to say that are.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That's my inclination as well, and if we're supposed to warn users more than once, it gets tedious/obvious that you're templating to have {{subst:attack|Joe Blow}} {{subst:attack|Jack Offler}} {{subst:attack|Mary Sue}} on the talk page of a recalcitrant, but new, user. -- nae'blis 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) I also agree that attack pages should have at least one warning of their own, because it is a different kind of problem than other inappropriate pages (for example, creating a page that already exists at a different title, creating a page that contains a personal essay or similar). The difference, IMO, is that at attack page is deliberately being disruptive, whereas a lot of other page creations are simple mistakes or misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is for. I don't really care if their is an escalating level of warnings for creating attack pages or not. If there's just one warning, than editors can use standard vandalism warnings after that. If their are escalating warnings, I don't see it being much more tedious than any of the escalating warnings.

Another possibility would be a slight rephrase of the npa series. Currently, at least on the templates says "comment on content, not on contributors" or similar, which is of course perfectly appropriate when someone has made a personal attack on another editor. But when the personal attack is in the form of a page, or their userpage, it doesn't quite fit. Perhaps the wording of the npa series could just be tweaked a bit to apply to all personal attacks? Natalie 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm against a single issue template, but what about re-wording defamatory to reflect content and articles? Khukri 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty good compromise. -- nae'blis 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This actually comes full circle to a (widely ignored) point I made somewhere above. We expanded {{uw-biog}} to cover controversial/libellous statements made in any article, not just biographical articles. So, the defamatory series seems to have no point anymore.
We are now up to at least four options: (1) single issue attack page template; (2) tweak "NPA" to cover attack pages; (3) tweak "Defamatory" to cover attack pages; (4) re-tweak "Biog" to cover attack pages. I think I like option 4 - that way we don't need to add a template and we can get rid of the defamatory series (unless someone sees a purpose for that series).--Kubigula (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Any of those options sounds fine. And I agree that any option other than no. 3 would essentially deprecate the "defamatory" series. Natalie 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview page

Guys, I've started a discussion at WP:UW here so I can rattle off the remainder of the templates on the overview page, finish the single issue templates, and wrap everything up. It's primarily about the redirects and the eventual fate of the project. But I'd appreciate all of you regulars and visitors here to add your thoughts and input please. Cheers Khukri 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio warnings

How about copyvio warnings? I'd really like to see {{nothanks}} and {{nothanks-sd}} (and other nothanks-* templates) integrated here, and also something that includes an after-the-fact notice of deletion (in vein of {{nn-warn-deletion}}). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too -- that's exactly what I came to WP:WARN looking for. Unfortunately I didn't check this talk page before making up my own message. Are confident users welcome to add existing templates to WP:WARN, or should we leave it to experienced wikipedians/admins? - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for something too. {{nothanks}} doesn't quite cut it though: it implies the whole article is a copyright violation. Something appropriate when reverting the addition of copyrighted content would be useful. —EncMstr 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Auto Archiving

Since Werdnabot is down indefinitely, I have requested that MiszaBot II archive this page when sections get 7 days old. I also requested that the bot automatically start a new archive after the archive reaches the size of 100K. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking batman. Khukri 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates not featured on this page

I encountered the following uw templates that aren't featured on this page, nor are any redirects:

Perhaps they should be incorporated in some way. Oliphaunt 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things

I'm going to swap round the redirect the above template {{uw-AIV}} to {{uw-aiv}} keep it the same as the others so there are no capitals.

Also I'm going to create a {{uw-vblock}}, {{uw-dblock}} for user:Viridae that was brought up on the straw poll on WP:UW . Khukri 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template broken

For those who don't have all the templates in their watchlists seems like test1 is broken see Template talk:Uw-test1. I know bugga all about the coding so if someone would step to the fore... Cheers Khukri 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-test1|subst=subst:}} does break the template. I'll check it further later. -- lucasbfr talk 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, all templates (tested error, vand, test and creation) share the same issue. Oh God... I'll try to find what caused the problem (I thought it was a new issue but it seems to be around for a while) -- lucasbfr talk 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The #if: statement is not working with the {{{subst|}}}. I don't know wiki syntax enough to see how to fix it. If some wiki guru could give a hand that would be great! I copied the test1 template to User:Lucasbfr/Sandbox if someone wants to perform some tests. -- lucasbfr talk 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm at work so can't use IRC, but see if Misza13 is around, he's fairly handy at this sort of stuff, I think Gracenote is asleep at the mo. Khukri 10:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Same no IRC here. I'll poke the vilage pump. I just discovered I might have given some broken warnings lately myself. -- lucasbfr talk 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok seems the bug is on Media wiki and there is not much we can do... Let's stop advertising the subst=subst: trick perhaps? -- lucasbfr talk 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

{Un-indent) is there anything we need to do to the templates? Khukri 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've none this for a long time, and figured out the subst=subst: only works when the page parameter is used. If used, the template works fine. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the templates help text (on Template:Singlenotice/inner and Template:Templatesnotice/inner) to reflect the bug. -- lucasbfr talk 09:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an old bug, see bugzilla:5678 →AzaToth 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

mention of templates in uw-deleteN

Should this series of templates warn people not to delete content or templates? Doesn't this just put ideas into vandals' heads? (ie we shouldn't mention blanking templates to people who've only thought of blanking article content, per WP:BEANS). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... Do you have a specific example? I was thinking (not that I would dare thinking too much today) that we have {{uw-afd1}} and {{uw-speedy1}} for the few templates that shouldn't normally be removed. For the other templates, if it's clearly vandalism, I personally use the usual templates. -- lucasbfr talk 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There's also the maintenance series, which is a good catchall category for other templates. Natalie 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made myself clear. The problem I thought of (and I admit I haven't seen an example) is where someone deletes content from an article, gets one of these warnings, and gets the idea to edit, blank or otherwise vandalise a template because that is mentioned in the warning text. Possibly I'm assuming more knowledge of how WP works than most blanking-vandals have, but the risk is higher because nonsense would then be included in any page which includes the vandalised template in un'subst'ed form. I just thought that removing the 'or templates' from the warning text would be good. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think most vandals don't have the slightest idea on how templates work to be honest. I would personally fall back on a high level of uw-vand, I think, since if someone edits a template he obviously has a good idea on how WP works (there is most of the time no link to templates). -- lucasbfr talk 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. I can't remember how long I edited until I edited a template, but it was definitely a few months. I'd wager that most newbie vandals wouldn't know how to find templates, and those who do probably already know where they are and that vandalising a template can do a lot of damage. Natalie 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's quite a common occurence in fact, hence the reason most of the templates are semi protected. The other common trick is the vandal in return posts the same warning on the orginal issuers page. If you'd issued for example a npov warning and it was a logged in edit who messed with the template, you would increment the level by one or two and give a vandalism warning. If they gave you a warning back again increment the level and leave a uw-tpv warning. There is a warning I saw a couple of months back but can't find it at the mo which was specfically for the false issuing of templates. Ho hum I digress. Khukri 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shoudn't the uw-legal template be a single template?

I am quite puzzled by the {{uw-legal1}}, {{uw-legal2}}, {{uw-legal3}} templates to be honest. If I am correct the usual practice is that legal threats are a big no no in the Wikipedia community and that indef blocks are issued quite easily on these. I don't see the point in having 3 levels for these since a single offence can get you banned. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno where they came from but shows you how much attention I pay. You are 100% right, this was one of two warning I had in mind from the early days as one strike n then you're out warning, {{uw-threat}} and {{uw-pinfo}}. You wanna do it or shall I? As was pointed out with copyvio this cannot be incremental. Khukri 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I created {{Uw-legal}}. I am going to bring the others to TfD later in the day. -- lucasbfr talk 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please come by and voice your opinion there :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot Substing of Templates

Hey guys! I just found out something very interesting today. Our new warning system is not substed by any bot! So, I've submitted a bot request here. A user suggested that I alert you guys to this (even though you all are probably quite happy about it). --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Question - uw for removing warnings?

Hi all,

Is there a warning for users who remove warnings from their own talk pages? Thanks,

--Searles2sels (PJ) 18:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because there isn't consensus as to whether or not this constitutes vandalism. There are a few conversations about this above. Natalie 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the fast reply. --Searles2sels (PJ) 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You can find more information about this on the FAQ if you want :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a very clear consensus over several discussions on AN and ANI that removing warnings from your userpage does not constitute vandalism and that no action will be taken against a user for doing so. The comment that warnings are not supposed to be badges of shame gets used a lot as well. Its not specifically written down anywhere maybe would should add something.
Users who hav received warnings are free to remove them from their talk pages at any time. Such removal should be taken to mean that the user has read and understood the warning. Warnings are not intended as a badge of shame and remain in the page history. If necessary, a diff to the page history can be used to demonstrate that an appropriate warning has been issued.
?OK --Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about dedicating space on the front page for solely this issue. As time goes by hopefully it will pass into common knowledge that it isn't offence to remove warnings. For that reason User:Gracenotes has started a FAQ about these very issues and in my opinion we should just raise the prominence of this FAQ. A header along the lines of Before using these templates or asking question, please take 5 minutes to read through the guide/FAQ would I think suffice. It's my plan once the single issue templates are finished within WP:UW, to take the FAQ, the front page from that project and create the "Idiots guide to warning templates", which should be the final word on all these type of problems, without the need for focusing on a single issue. I know this subject is a pain, we've been fielding this type of question now for months, but hopefully with the end of WP:UW in sight, we shouldn't have to worry for too much longer. Cheers Khukri 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Its only a small para and there doesn't seem to be a place for people to look this up. A brief note on WP:WARN seems the ideal place to put it. There is absolutely a need for this.Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just give it a couple of weeks until I/we can get the front page of this project sorted out after it's merged with WP:UW. There are some 400 odd templates in total and if we start putting exceptions on how the legal, pinfo, wr, to name a few work or don't work then this already full page will become a nightmare. Give us a couple of weeks and hopefully, we'll be able to put a more intuitive frontpage/instruction/FAQ into place. This warning removal problem's been around for a number of months now and won't change in a couple more weeks. Cheers Khukri 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> OK. --Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Just for info User:Carnildo has put {{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, {{uw-tpv3}} up for TfD. Khukri 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Erf... I would never have thought some people would use it as a "don't remove warnings" message... -- lucasbfr talk 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Me neither, but as per your TfD comment if there is the potential that it could be misconstrude then I think we should reword it to remove the ambiguity. Khukri 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The templates are fine as they are right now - however, they can be reworded to be a bit more clear that it's unnecessary to proofread discussion pages and annoys other users. --Sigma 7 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

English styles

Should the user warnings about changing English styles ({{lang0}}, {{lang1}}, {{lang2}}, {{lang3}}, {{lang4}}, and {{lang5}}) be included here. If so, should they be renamed with the uw prefix. Also there are six, should 1 or 2 of them be deleted? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming up soon to a wikiproject near you. The lang, date, royalty will all be replaced by a boilerplate the uw-mos (manual of style) warning. But usually this type of offence is a one of, as editors do not fully understand what is acceptable when changing format within an article. For this reason there will also be a one off warning {{uw-lang}}, {{uw-date}}, {{uw-royalty}} which will be the first warning issued, just as a polite reminder or pointer on how the format of these articles is/was decided. After that if they choose to ignore the reminder then it would be {{uw-mos2}} or {{uw-mos3}} depending on severity. Why I hear you ask then do we have a {{uw-mos1}} agf level warning. This is because new editors sometimes come in and don't know formatting, bulleting or general layout/syntax that is expected in an article and this shows the editor where they can look to find this info. Khukri 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

uw-test3 & page blanking

Is there a version of {{uw-test3}} that's appropriate for page blanking? I don't want to use a standard vandalism warning as the user self-reverted... JulesH 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}} or {{uw-delete3}}? If its a one off and was reverted there may be no need for a warning at all.... WjBscribe 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was reverted, but it's not a one-off. In the end I used {{test2}}, which seemed most appropriate. JulesH 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would you use a warning that says Please do not add nonsense.... for someone removing content? The uw-delete series as WJBscribe wrote above are for this type of vandalism. Khukri 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is uw-selfrevert 'live' yet?

And moreover, can I make a redirect for Template:uw-selftest ? I feel so retro still using {{subst:selftest|YourMom}} Shenme 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is live but nope you can't redirect it yet. I'll be looking at that this week depending on the result here. Cheers Khukri 09:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I 'think' you misunderstood (but I might be misunderstanding :-) ). There is currently a Template:uw-selfrevert. But what I was wanting 'also' was a redirect from Template:uw-selftest to there. I understand there is discussion over possibly redirecting all the old names, like 'selftest', to new names. Rather, I'm just lazy and don't want to type the extra two characters, or think of that hard word 'revert'. Shenme 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack templates

Are {{attack}} and {{uw-racism}} really necessary with the {{uw-npa}} series? Attack isn't even listed on this page. Are there that many instances of racism that we need a template for it? Also, why do we have npa and uw-npa? Were {{npa2}}, {{npa3}}, and {{npa4}} supposed to be deleted when the uw templates were created? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

At [{WP:UW]], we're currently discussing redirecting the old templates. I agree with you on the racism template. I was thinking the same thing today. The attack template and the old npa are all old, and we haven't decided what to do with them yet. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been discussion of the attack template before and whether one of the new series can be modified to cover attack page creation situations. Currently NPA is geared towards attacks on other editors rather than at attack pages. I've been ambivalent, but I think maybe keeping {{attack}} as a single issue template is the best solution.--Kubigula (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is probably not the right place to ask, but I just randomly opened this page, and since it discuss the user warning templates, I'll ask here. I'm working mainly on Tokyo Mew Mew articles, in which the names from Tokyopop's English translation are used. I regularly have to revert edits that change the names to those used in fansubs or on fansites - even though there is a note about the names inserted into every article. Some users even do it in such way that the links to the characters' articles get broken, and they don't seem to care about this. Is there any template message that would tell the user that they should use certain translation of the names in the articles? 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 04:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to ask this same question here: Wikipedia:Help desk. Someone will have a decent answer for you. Kukini hablame aqui 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings running together

Lately I've noticed a few instances where my warnings, separated by a blank line in the source, are displayed without any separation and just run together. For example, the warnings at the end of [5]. Has anyone else seen this? (it probably depends on your browser, resolution, etc.) Since I just started seeing this, I suspect it has to do with the new {{{icon}}} change (like here). Switching the layout to a numbered list instead of newlines fixes the problem, but in practice a lot of people don't use that. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it sometimes using the subst:warn type when combined with article name option. When that happens to me, I edit the whole talkpage and use equal signs to create subheaders. Ronbo76 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Kukini noticed a similar problem on {{uw-delete3}} which was picked up by User:SMcCandlish add a <cr> after the sprotect and see if that get's rid of your problem i.e. example. Khukri 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm thanks, but I don't think that solves the problem. For example, test6 followed by uw-delete3's still run together: example. What is the reason for the {{{icon}}} change, anyway... I'm unfamiliar with what it does. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Some editors do not like the icons on the new uw- series of templates, and to get concensus so we can finish of the single issue templates, I/we added the optional icon parser. If you read here it explains what is coming up and why the icon was added, also there is some history within both talk pages behind this subject.
HELP could one of the scripting guru's Gracenotes / Aza etc please have a look at this problem for me, I don't want to have to revert all the icon changes. If someone can explain the problem, in thickos terminology, I'll run a find replace through them all. Cheers Khukri 09:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see, thanks for the info. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this still a problem I've not seen it but .... Khukri 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It isn't seen often because it only happens after certain templates. For example, a {{test6}} followed by any warning will run together. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a workaround to this is to leave two blank lines between warnings instead of one. This is what I have started doing. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stronger level twos

The people seem to want stronger level two warnings. I agree that there is room for strengthening. So, I went ahead and changed the "could be considered vandalism" to "appear to be vandalism". Personally, I think that's about the right nuance for a level 2 warning. Other thoughts?--Kubigula (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the change. --Kukini hablame aqui 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As I mull this some more, I think I'd like to strengthen {{uw-vandalism2}} a bit more, along the lines of {{test2}}. We already described the person's edit as unhelpful and unconstructive in V1, so I think we should make it stronger and ask them not to add nonsense in V2. The other level two warnings look good (to me). Any objections?--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
As gracenotes wrote on WP:UW I think with these warning we can afford to step away slightly from the good faith guidelines on the more common warnings as you've already done. I like the changes, and would you do {{uw-test2}} as well please? Cheers Khukri 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - done. I would still support changing "unhelpful and unconstructive information" to "nonsense" on V2. However, this is a fairly big change, so I will not do so unless others agree.--Kubigula (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think personally that nonsense is more suited to T2 than to V2. I personally use T2 for gibberish and V2 for the other types of vandalism (insults and "poop vandalism" mainly). -- lucasbfr talk 09:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Icons

-->

Should we replace the icons on the final and only warnings to better match the other icons used? Also what about increasing the size of the icons for every warning from smallest (vandalism 1) to largest (vandlaism 4)? Larger icons for the final warnings should help emphasize the severity of the issue. -- Hdt83 | Talk 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that that's a little too subtle. After all, it's really the words that count and maybe a warning image. bibliomaniac15 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Usefulness of icons in warnings: another aspect, where I also ask about increasing icon size by seriousness of the warning. I don't know about 'subtle'. The icons are non-verbal, which helps a lot if the vandal is not an English reader. They are more likely to understand the icons than the changing text. Shenme 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, many people don't read instructions carefully or if the text is long they may just "skip over it". A larger icon helps people by showing them that they did something wrong and needs to stop. -- Hdt83 | Talk 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I can think of with larger icons is that generally, the more severe the warning, the less text there is. The level 1 templates give a detailed explanation as to why the user is receiving the warning, but the level 4 templates just say: Stop or be blocked. If the level 4 template icons get too big, they will dominate the text. Or, if the level 1 icons get too small, they will be less prominent. And the text should be more important than the look. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you replaced the image on block 1 & 2, but the reason behind the original harmonisation was to try and keep things the same. I have no problems with the image at all, but if it is going to be changed then you need to change the other 30 or so level4 templates to the same image. On the image size, if you read through the histories (there is a fair bit of it though ;) ) the images were discussed at length. My thoughts and that of many of the other project members was that with the most commonly issued level 4 warnings i.e. vandalism, delete etc, was that could you put a flashing neon sign on them, and they would more as likely get ignored. IMHO there are three types of vandal, the newbie vandal who stops after one warning, those that like to push the limit and see how far they can go and stop when they get to 4, and those that just don't care. As Z-man stated above the level 4 warning is short and sweet, if there can be anyway that the community's intentions and message with this warning can be misconstrude, that could be changed by adding a larger icon, then I'd like to see it. There are alot of editors who do not like the images at the moment, for now I'd like to keep them reasonably discrete and then maybe re-examine the issue in a couple of months once the last part of WP:UW has finished and the waters have calmed a bit. Khukri 09:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, don't worry, I am not going to change the icon sizes or anything. Maybe icons on the lv4 templates but thats all unless anybody objects. -- Hdt83 | Talk 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my deepest apologies I missed your message and reverted the occurrences I found for the previous version, for consistency reasond. Personally I don't like at all the "3D" look and feel of this icon, but if there is a consensus to change it, no problem. -- lucasbfr talk 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

uw-english in other languages

Maybe uw-english should have a parameter to specify what language the message to be, that way a non-English speaker will know what we're saying. If they're not writing in English, they probably don't know it, so it makes no sense for it to be in English. I've put some basic text below for Spanish and Italian. Feel free to fix/add more languages --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Spanish:Por favor hablas ingles a il Wikipedia ingles. Gracias.
  • Italian:Boun giorno. Grazie per il tuo contibuto, ma per favor parli in inglese solo a il Wikipedia inglese.
This is only useful if the editor repairing the article knows what language it is they wrote in. Many Americans can recognize Spanish or French, but I know I would likely confuse Portuguese and Spanish (very similar), Russian and Bulgarian (both Cyrillic), etc. Maybe instead we could have the translations on a single page and a link within the warning. That also gives the advantage of new translations not requiring any template mods. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
How would they know to click the link to that page? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know, I was just throwing an idea out there. ;) Maybe small text along the bottom with bullets between with the 2 letter language abbreviations used elsewhere? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The test1 wording on fr.wikipedia is:
Vous avez découvert combien il est facile de modifier Wikipédia. Votre modification a été annulée en raison de son caractère non constructif. Merci de ne pas réitérer ce genre de contribution. Visitez la page d’aide afin d’en apprendre plus ou le bac à sable afin de faire des tests.
Should we have a set of foreign language warnings just in case someone recognises the language used? WjBscribe 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Having the test1 wording wouldn't help. We want to tell them to use English, not to not vandalise in French. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Merci de votre contribution, mais merci de bien vouloir écrire en anglais sur le Wikipedia anglophone. if you want a French message :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
See here. Someone made a great template. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)