Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page is part of the WikiProject on user warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in.


Shortcut:
WT:UTM
Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
About archives

If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject Frequently Asked Questions to see if it is answered there.

Contents

[edit] Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] CAT

On User talk:Thegone the template {{Uw-lblock}} had added the page to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, this seems like a bad idea. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54 10 February 2008 (GMT).

[edit] Usage documentation

Is there a page that discusses which template to use for various cases, such as {{uw-test1}} vs {{uw-vandalism1}}, and when are the 4im ones appropriate? Should there be a link to that page either on the documentation pages for the individual templates and/or on the category page?

[edit] New (and not-so-new) uw templates

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but before I took my break I had been running an API query looking for new uw-* templates, and posting any interesting results. Should I continue, and if so should I post here or at WT:UW?

Anyway, new templates this time around are:

I would like to TFD {{Uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} per previous discussion, TFD {{Uw-confuser}} as a special-case dup of {{Uw-username}}, TFD {{Uw-ifu3im}} for not making sense, TFD {{Uw-remove1}} for being a dup of {{Uw-delete1}}, CSD G4 {{Uw-vand5}} as a recreation of {{fwarn}}, RFD {{Uw-blp0}} as being a generally useless redirect, and move {{Uw-welcometest}} to a non-uw name. Also, I don't know whether we should redirect {{uw-drmmt}} to {{uw-tdel1}} or get rid of the uw-tdel series. But I would like consensus here before taking any of these actions, so please reply to let me know what you think. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you back here Anomie! I've boldly redirected remove1 for the time being. Most of your other suggestions look good to me. I'm on the fence about the uw-tdel series, but my inclination is that it's not a bad idea to have such a series.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, I appreciate it! Maybe I'll follow your lead and create {{uw-remove2/3/4/4im}} as similar redirects. Anomie⚔ 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done many of these. Do we support the rest? Specifically:

Anomie⚔ 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB request

If anyone has access to AWB or some similar permission to make automated edits, we have 234 talk pages on uw-* templates that previous discussion determined should be redirected here. I've made a list in my sandbox (plain text or wikilinked), all someone needs to do is run through and create the redirect for each page. I'd throw together a script to do it myself, but I gather that's not recommended. If no one here wants to do it, let me know and I'll take it to WP:BOTREQ. Anomie⚔ 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just plow through it by hand. Anomie⚔ 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Level 4 warnings: An idea

(Forgive me if this has already been discussed.)

The Problem: Often, when a user vandalizes after a final, level 4 warning, they are simply given another warning, rather than reported to WP:AIV for blocking. While sometimes this might be appropriate (for example if there is a long period of constructive, vandalism-free editing between the last level 4 warning and their new vandalism), too often the better thing to do would have been to go to WP:AIV. See User_talk:125.236.44.53 for a recent example.

Proposed Solution: Amend {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} such that it also adds some invisible text at the end of the template message that suggests to the next person coming along to warn the user that going to WP:AIV might be a better course of action. It could look something maybe like this:

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits{{#if:|, such as 
 the one you made to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. <br/> Any further [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] '''will''' result in your being 
 [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> 
 <!-- 
 
 NOTE: This user has already received a  FINAL WARNING for final vandalism. If you are about to leave another vandalism warning,
 
 PLEASE CONSIDER REPORTING THIS USER TO ADMINISTRATION INTERVENTION AGAINST VANDALISM INSTEAD. To do this, go to: 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIV
 
 and follow the instructions there.
  -->
 (((Signature and time stamp))

The above needs work to look prettier, but hopefully you-all see what I'm getting at. Thoughts? Yilloslime (t) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a nice idea, but I think the consensus in the past has been to avoid gratuitously letting vandals know about WP:AIV. They may not see the comment in the rendered page, but if they hit the "last change" link in the message waiting announcement, they'll see it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea for 2 reasons:
  1. As mentioned above its a bad idea to let the vandals know about WP:AIV. In general, if they've been told to stop, they should. If they don't, then they should not be upset for being blocked.
  2. As a bigger issue, there are already too many reports at WP:AIV that administrators have to decline for being inappropriate, for example where a user's last level 4 warning is a month old, and they have not edited in between. This would only increase the number of inappropriate AIV reports without substantially decreasing the amount of vandalism done to the encyclopedia.
Just my $0.02... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{uw-sanctions}}

I've attempted to revise {{uw-sanctions}}, both to add the 9/11 sanctions and to make it a better fit with the UW style. Ideally, this will serve as a meta-template (if not a replacement) for {{uw-balkans2}} and {{uw-9/112}}; {{uw-balkans}} and {{uw-9/11}}, IMO, should be deleted as mentioned above. Thoughts? Anomie⚔ 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New 3RR logo

I saw someone create a new 3RR logo at , do we want to integrate it into our existing warning scheme and blocking templates? MBisanz talk 08:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The icons we currently use indicate the severity of the warning: " Hi, here's some information for you", " Pay attention, or you may be blocked", and " If you don't stop immediately, you will be blocked". Adding this icon would just be decoration, IMO. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't see the new icon doing much other than making people wonder what it means. 1 != 2 14:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it mean "made from polyvinyl chloride"?--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
True, our aim is to use standardized warnings, just figured I'd drop a resource here since it looked unused anywhere when I found it. MBisanz talk 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it means you can recycle the warning. 1 != 2 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh. MBisanz talk 01:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording for {{Uw-italicize}}

The current text for this warning begins:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content about books, films, albums, magazines, or TV series, you must italicize them by adding two single apostrophes ('' '').

The problem is that "them" does not have a correct stated antecedent—by the structure of the sentence, it would be "content about books...", but that's not what we want them to italicize, nor do we even want them to italicize "books..." but rather the titles of the books.

Suggested rewording:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add the title of a book, film, album, magazine, or TV series to an article, it should be italicized by adding two single apostrophes on either side ('' '').

I figure that if we're providing a standardized pedantic comment, it should not itself be ripe for pedantic commentary... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, go ahead and make the change. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tend to temper WP:BOLD with WP:DONTSCREWUPTEMPLATESWITHOUTCHECKING, so I thought I'd noise it around at least a little bit first. It does say it was "carefully designed," after all. I'll consider your exhortation to be "consensus". :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, WP:DONTSCREWUPTEMPLATESWITHOUTCHECKING is always a good one to follow. ;) As for the "carefully designed", there is always room for improvement. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New/updated uw templates for May 18 to May 25

I'll list here any new uw-* templates, as well as any notable changes to existing templates in the past week.

Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TFDed {{uw-layout}}, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26#Template:uw-layout. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
TFDed {{Uw-ifu3im}}, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26#Template:uw-ifu3im. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Consensus

These are actions I would like to take, but first I would like consensus here to make sure I'm not off-base. Silent agreement doesn't encourage me, so please speak up ;) Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uw-unsourced2

Would like to get rid of the invitation to contact "me" for assistance, especially given this is a level2 template. Bwrs (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability notice?

Would one for people who have created articles with no apparent claim to notability be a good idea? I don't see anything here that fits this role. Richard001 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Notability Peter Deer (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the inquiry was for a user warning, not an article marker. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes you're right. On that note, however, I think just a "hey stop making pages about your dumb garage band" should suffice. Peter Deer (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
{{uw-create1/2/3/4/4im}} seems to fit. Anomie⚔ 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
At least in the lower stages. Peter Deer (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who should use these?

Sorry I'm sure info is around somewhere but I can't find it...

Should only sysops etc. add these to user talk pages? I'd assume with the levels etc contributing to possible blocks it should be done 'officially' but that leaves me wondering if I revert vandalism and don't / can't leave warning then does a non official doing the revert (and not warning) mean that the user escapes attention? -Hunting dog (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of ones saying things like "You have been blocked for a period of ___ hours" the warning templates are there to be used responsibly. See this page for more information. Peter Deer (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can add the warnings; if a user transgresses beyond a 'final warning' you can report them to a sysop at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, depending on the incident in question. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between uw-vandalism4im and uw-bv

Is there really any difference between {{uw-vandalism4im}} and {{uw-bv}}? Uw-bv seems rather redundant to vandalism4im. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one is meant for sheer vandalism accounts and the other would be for 'evil hand' accounts. The first one basically says 'Okay, you're here to pee in our pool and we're not going to take it any more' and the second says 'Hey, look, stop messing around or you're going to get sat on, okay?'. HalfShadow 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] are there warnings/notices for these? Should there be?

  1. Changing the article's correct English grammar and spelling to incorrect ones.(NOT common wealth and American problem)
  2. Using lack of information as an argument to illogically claim something does not exist/is not real/not specific/etc.(say, like editing an article stating the Panda is not a common animal since a book called common animals does not contain panda, or a story is not canon in a meta-series since it is not included in the official guidebook, etc.)

Should there be a notice for people who try to help but English is poor enough to not being able to identify correct English? The second one should be more educational in teaching the users some actual logic. MythSearchertalk 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the first one, there's {{uw-mos}}, that has a link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page. HalfShadow 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self references

Is there a message template for users that deliberately self-publish information on their homepage in order to use this as a "reference" in Wikipedia articles? (e.g. here) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this happen often enough that it's worth templating? :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary user page categorization embedded in spam block templates

While I think I understand the philosophy behind the temporary user page category and why we use it with other vandal blocks, I don't think we want to do this with spammers.

We use the information on a spammer's talk page to track a spammer across multiple IPs and sock accounts. This is really vital for keeping track of spam and prioritize which spammers to concentrate on. The hard-core spammers -- those that go through multiple warnings and then get blocked -- will almost always come back with a new IP or user name and with more domains to spam.

Code such as {{{category|[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}} in our block templates places the associated talk pages into the temporary user page category, setting them up to be deleted a few months later.

As someone very involved with tracking and removing spam, I strongly recommend not using code like this in our spam-related templates. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137#Talk pages for indef users and Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. I can't make out any sort of actual consensus in all that, but it seems to be something that people want to discuss. Anomie⚔ 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer -- I'll follow up at Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I started a new sub-section of that discussion at Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Please don't tag spammers' talk pages as temporary. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it from {{uw-spamublock}}. If there is some consensus to replace it, that's fine, but clearly it should not be there by default. --MCB (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uw-canvass

Uw-canvass strikes me as really oddly written and potentially very confusing to newcomers — hell, it confused me for a moment. I am considering rewriting it totally for clarity and context. Thoughts? tgies (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Discussion on new wording should probably occur at Template Talk:Uw-canvass. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You'll find that that presently redirects here. Should it?
I'll submit a draft rewrite in a few hours; I have some "real life" matters to attend to. tgies (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Instead of having 461 talk pages that very few people will bother to watch, we have one talk page that everyone interested can easily watch.
I agree that the wording there could be improved; for a single-level warning on a behavioral issue, it's currently unnecessarily WP:BITEy. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've drafted a rewrite. Thoughts? tgies (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not bad, I hope you don't mind that I've made some minor technical adjustments. Content-wise, I'm not so sure about the list in the middle of the template; is there a way to do it in prose and remain clear? Maybe something like "Although friendly notices are allowed, they must reflect a neutral point of view and be limited and nonpartisan in distribution." for a first sentence? I can think of a good way to incorporate the rest this morning, though. Anomie⚔ 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit it as you see fit. I've taken your suggestion and rewritten a bit to eliminate the list (and changed the en dashes back to em dashes and eliminated the spaces around them per WP:STYLE#Em dashes). I tried to incorporate the "don'ts" from the list as well. How's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgies (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I only had two minor changes: a bit more straightforward wording and removing the bold on the links (linking, IMO, highlights that enough). Otherwise it looks great. Anomie⚔ 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Heck, I can't believe I forgot to sign that. Thanks for cleaning up after me :D
Your changes to the template look good. If nobody else has anything to say about it within the next few hours, I'll go ahead and replace the existing one. tgies (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Have replaced uw-canvass with the rewrite. tgies (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tmbox

With the invention of {{tmbox}} would we want to begin converting our talk namespace templates to the standard format? MBisanz talk 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A good start would be to make a list of templates that need conversion. OTOH, if the {{ambox}} conversion is any indicator there will be plenty of volunteers going through and changing every template they can find once they decide to officially roll it out. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)