Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Active discussions

Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2021Edit

Currently, the user level warning series on Template:Uw-agf1 does not show that escalation to Level 4 is possible, which uses Template:Uw-npa4. I propose that it be documented by adding |escalate=yes|escalate_to=npa to the documentation template. Thanks in advance Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done Izno (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2021Edit

On {{Uw-uhblock-double}}, the "{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}" should be replaced with "{{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}" because other username block templates like "{{Uw-ublock-double}}" have this unblock request templates for users who have been blocked for having an inappropriate username. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: I don't see an easy way to integrate that to the template. I've created Template:Uw-uhblock-double/sandbox, please consider making your desired changes there first. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2021Edit

Replace the word "removed" with "reverted", as removed implies revision deletion, which is incorrect, and the correct term would be "reverted". Steve M (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To Steve M:   done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2021Edit

There is a space missing before the last sentence of the second paragraph, "edit.Please"... Adolphus79 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done Izno (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Conversion of {{uw-badlistentry}} into template seriesEdit

With all the recent TikTok non-notable vandalism waves, I think that just a reminder is not enough. We could convert the template into a template series, or just create a level 2 warning like what happened with {{uw-editsummary2}}. What I'm thinking is a stronger wording that would let them know that adding non-notable entries to lists can and will result in blocks if continued. There aren't many cases of the same IP/editor re-adding themselves to the page, but stronger wording might prevent other people from doing it.

Also, aside from a new UW template, perhaps an editnotice can do the job, just like how BLP articles have the editnotices? These are just my thoughts, if you have any other ideas, feel free to let me know ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 09:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

COI tag removalEdit

Is there an existing user warning template for users removing COI or UPE tags on articles without fixing the problem? Aspening (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Aspening, There's the generic Template:Uw-tdel series, but I don't think there's anything specifically for COI/UPE. Adam9007 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Those should work fine. Aspening (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 February 2021Edit

Add {{{sig|~~<noinclude/>~~}}} after the {{{2}}} parameter. JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@JsfasdF252: Wouldn't this contradict the guidelines here? Tools such as Twinkle assume that the standard warning templates do not include a signature. -- John of Reading (talk) [not a template editor or admin] 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the template include the signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JsfasdF252 (talkcontribs) 23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@JsfasdF252: For {{Uw-disruptive2}} to behave differently to all other warning templates would make things harder for everyone, as anyone placing a warning would have to be aware of which templates added a signature and which didn't. Changing all the templates to add a signature by default would need much wider discussion, as the design guideline has been in place for over a decade. All the regular editors using these templates know how they behave, or use tools that have been coded to work with the current design of the templates. Editors know they can write their own message following the templated message: {{subst:uw-xyz}} More messages and templates here. ~~~~
  Not done: per above — JJMC89(T·C) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


New template {{Uw-medrs}} is released and available for use. I've added it to Category:Standardised user warning templates for now; please remove the category if you find it inappropriate. It has consensus from WP:MED, although it's not yet clear whether this will evolve into a set of multi-level templates or not. For now, it has no numeric suffix, with the assumption that it is single-level, so I've added it to {{Single notice links}}. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Idea for new single-issue notice: {{uw-notsocialnetwork}}Edit

Already exists at {{uw-socialnetwork}} Aasim (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

This warning would be a single issue warning with this message:

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions; however, it seems as if you are engaging in too much off-topic discussion or edits to your user page. It is great that you would like to make friends here, but I would like you to consider chatting or personalizing your user page somewhere else as unfortunately, Wikipedia is not intended as a social networking space.

Why does this matter?
Every time you make an edit it has to be reviewed by volunteers on the site. When there are too many off topic edits being made, it could potentially stop these patrollers from spotting vandalism or other bad edits. For this reason, we have to revoke the editing privileges of users who persistently post comments not pertaining to Wikipedia or make too many edits to their user pages.
What are some alternatives to chatting on Wikipedia?
If you wish to continue chatting with other Wikipedians, there are a few places where you can talk more generally:
What are some alternatives to customizing user pages on Wikipedia?
If your primary focus is not editing articles but designing your own user page or blog, there are a few sites where you can do this without restrictions:

We hope that you understand why we do not allow general discussion on Wikipedia. Please feel free to leave any questions on my talk page. Thank you.

We already have the {{uw-chat}} series but it is too specific to just misusing talk pages. This template would cover everything a social network user might do on the site under a blanket umbrella. Aasim (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a few comments about this warning, so I'll break it down into bullet points.
  • This is unbelievably too big of a warning for such a mundane reason. This isn't a copyright violation or a conflict of interest notice.
  • Why is there a mention of a block on a single-issue warning for a warning on WP:NOTSOCIAL? This feels like a threat to a user, who I expect might not have known about that policy in the first place. This doesn't assume the good faith in new users, and I'd even call this a bit more stern than {{uw-disruptive1}}.
  • "it could potentially stop these patrollers from spotting vandalism or other bad edits.": This assumes that the editing is being done on mainspace pages (since those are the pages which have constant patrollers), which would require {{uw-talkinarticle}}, not this. I'm fairly sure that almost all counter-vandalism editors rarely see a userspace edit run through their filters.
  • Making too many edits to [your own] user pages is a blockable offense? As far as I'm aware, the only thing disallowed is only editing in user space, not making too many edits on it. This needs to be worded differently or removed.
  • If someone wanted to talk, they would seek out the appropriate place for it. Handholding them to other places isn't needed. Just link to WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD and let them figure out the rest.
  • The entire section for "alternatives to customizing user pages" isn't needed. It comes of as promotional and spammy, as a counter-vandalism editor myself. Just tell a short excerpt of WP:UPG or just link to it rather than list whatever social network exists.
  • {{uw-socialnetwork}} already exists, and {{uw-chat}} can be easily modified to change content depending on the namespace of the related page. Is the benefit of implementing this template much higher than just modifying the old ones?
Chlod (say hi!) 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Well... there's my answer. We already have a template, so closing. Aasim (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (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.
Return to the project page "Template index/User talk namespace".