Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
ย 
(18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 46:
{{clear}}
 
== Uw-error templates ==
== "[[:Template:Uw-or]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-or&redirect=no Template:Uw-or]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 29#Template:Uw-or}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:CyberTheTiger|<span style="color: brown"> '''Cyber'''</span><span style="color: black"> '''the'''</span><span style="color: orange"> '''tiger'''</span>๐Ÿฏ]] ([[User talk:CyberTheTiger|'''talk''']]) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
 
I feel that these templates should be moved to Uw-incorrect because it makes more sense. Uw-error is ambiguous and people could think it refers to other templates (eg. the vandalism Template). Uw-incorrect currently redirects there [[User:CyberTheTiger|<span style="color: brown"> '''Cyber'''</span><span style="color: black"> '''the'''</span><span style="color: orange"> '''tiger'''</span>๐Ÿฏ]] ([[User talk:CyberTheTiger|'''talk''']]) 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2025 ==
 
== Uw-citevar ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-npov1|answered=yes}}
I'm thinking we should add a parameter for edits that are '''obviously''' not neutral instead of edits that merely '''seem''' to not be neutral. Something that would change the wording slightly. E.g. "Your edit to X was not neutral in nature" vs. "your edit to X was reverted because it did not seem neutral". Thoughts? <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:monospace;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|ยป]] [[User:Gommeh|<span style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh (he/him)</span>]]</span></span> 17:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[File:X mark.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]ย '''Not done for now''': please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> This is not an uncontroversial edit request. Level 1 notifications nearly always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. โ€“ [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
 
Announcing single-level notice {{t|uw-citevar}}, to advise a user about [[WP:CITEVAR]] issues. I will notify RedWarn and Twinkle. Please make any needed improvements. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
== Template:Uw-chat ==
 
== Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2025 ==
The wording on this is somewhat outdated with today's Internet ("chat rooms" and "forums" are very 1990s/2000s) and with the reasons people make junk edits to talk page.
 
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-subtle1|answered=yes}}
Suggest adding verbiage that talk pages are not a search engine and not ChatGPT. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Change "<nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]</nowiki>" to "<nowiki>[[Help:Introduction|welcome page]]</nowiki>" [[User:Jako96|Jako96]] ([[User talk:Jako96|talk]]) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{complete2}} per [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] โ€“ redirect from a page move. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;โ€“&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|''welcome!'']]&nbsp;โ€“&nbsp;<small>02:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
 
== Lead wranglers ==
:Usually if I'm removing comments for UW-chat reasons, and it's not blatant nonsense, it's not because people are using them as a search engine or ChatGPT, it's because people are making comments unrelated to improving the article. "Man, I love Star Wars! But what happened to Luke's lightsaber after Cloud City?" or such. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
 
I not infrequently run across editors who fall into an editing style that I am gong to call, "lead wranglers". By this I mean, those editors, usually fairly new, whose edits are made mostly to the lead of various articles, with no clear benefit, but hard to attack as clearly violating some guideline. (Probably [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] comes closest.) These editors may be of good faith and they may be seriously trying to improve wording, grammar, or style, although rarely citations or content; their edits are pretty much always low-effort edits of uncertain value. Maybe they are improvements, maybe not, but they generally don't involve, say, significant effort to chase down a reliable source and generate a needed citation; rather, they are the low-hanging fruit of non-objectionable word diddling or just questionable changes in wording or style. At some level, maybe we have all been guilty of this on some occasion, but if I am not mistaken, there is a cohort of editors who do this to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. They just diddle the lead, leaving it no worse, maybe, but whether it is better, is doubtful, and anyone's guess.
== Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: [[Template:Uw4im]] ==
 
One, or two, or a handful of such edits would probably fly under the radar and not matter, especially as there may not be a particular policy or guideline violation to point to (and template their talk page with). But at some point, one has to question whether they are really [[WP:HERE|here]] to improve the encyclopedia, or just getting off on messing with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with the least effort they can get away with, by continually messing with the top of the page. I view such edits as unhelpful, and potentially [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]].
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw4im|answered=y}}
Switch to [[Semantic markup|semantic markup]]: {{tag|b|o|link=y}} &rarr; {{tag|strong|o|link=y}}
 
First of all, I am interested in your feedback: whether you have noticed anything like what I am describing, and how you have dealt with it. Secondly, I am considering creating a new [[WP:WARN|advice template]] for this situation, to be called {{t|uw-lead wrangler}}, at least until someone comes up with a better name. The point of having a template is to record the event on the user talk page when warranted. Ideally, by making the editor aware, they would change their ways and improve as an editor, and that would be the best outcome. But in the worst case, it would provide a record that might be of value later to an admin looking at the user's history. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 11:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{string diff|'''only warning'''|<nowiki>{{strong|only warning}}</nowiki>}}
 
== Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2025 ==
{{string diff|'''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''|<nowiki>{{strong|[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice}}</nowiki>}}
 
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-test3|answered=yes}}
Cf. [[MOS:NOBOLD]]
Please change the <nowiki>[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] icon to [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] </nowiki>to match with the other uw-3 templates. [[User:Yerlo|Yerlo]] ([[User talk:Yerlo|talk]]) 22:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}. I checked four or five level 3 templates, and they all use the Nuvola image. โ€“ [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== Template-protected edit request on 27 August 2025 ==
The text appears the same (in bold), but this carries additional semantic meaning, e.g. a screen reader may use a different voice for 'strong' text.
 
{{TPER|Tm:uw-biog3|Tm:uw-npa3|answered=y}}
โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 20:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC) '''edited 20:09'''
These templates should also have their icons changed from File:Ambox warning pn.svg to File:Nuvola apps important.svg to match the base template ({{donetlx|uw3}}) and the other uw-3 templates. [[User:IznoYerlo|IznoYerlo]] ([[User talk:IznoYerlo|talk]]) 2221:2947, 27 JuneAugust 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Thanks for catching these. โ€“ [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: [[Template:Uw-delete4im]] ==
 
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-delete4im|answered=y}}
Add context:
 
{{string diff|<nowiki>{{{reason|remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia}}}</nowiki>|<nowiki>{{{reason|remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]}}}</nowiki>}}
 
I'm suggesting this because I had an unfortunate situation earlier where I used this template and [[Special:permalink/1296237513#c-SSMnSSM-20250618191500-Tuvan_throat-singing_and_Tuvan_language_pages_edits|the user thought I was forbidding them from editing the page]] ({{tqqi|Why I can't edit those pages?}}). In retrospect, I should have used {{tl|Uw-delete4}} instead, which already includes this verbiage.
 
โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 20:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
: {{done}} [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
 
== Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: uw-delete series ==
 
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-delete4im|answered=y}}
Add link to [[WP:Content removal]] on {{tl|Uw-delete4im}}:
 
{{stringdiff|remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia|[[WP:Content removal|remove or blank page contents or templates]] from Wikipedia}}
 
Same for all the other uw-delete templates:
 
{{tl|uw-delete4}}
 
{{stringdiff|remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]|[[WP:Content removal|remove or blank page content or templates]] from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]}}
 
{{tl|uw-delete3}}
 
{{stringdiff|blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation|[[WP:Content removal|blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials]] from Wikipedia without adequate explanation}}
 
{{tl|uw-delete2}}
 
{{stringdiff|Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].|Please do not [[WP:Content removal|remove content or templates]] from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].}}
 
{{tl|uw-delete1}} already has this link.
 
โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 21:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[File:X mark.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]ย '''Not done for now''': please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit template-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 00:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, I thought this would be totally uncontroversial since it's just adding a link and {{tl|uw-delete1}} already includes it. No? โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 00:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I think there may be an argument that editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature. It's arguably linking an easily understandable phrase. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqbm|linking an easily understandable phrase}} My rationale for linking it isn't "this could be misunderstood", it's "we have a page that provides more details about this". โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tqbm|editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature.}} Note that {{tl|Uw-delete4im}} is an "only warning" so editors wouldn't have received a level 1 warning. โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 00:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure why anyone would be delivering an "only warning" if an editor hadn't been warned about the same behavior in the past. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::An "{{em|only}} warning" means they only get one warning. Are you thinking of a {{em|final}} warning?
::::::If it helps, I issued an only warning on the 18th because a user out of the blue removed a large chunk of the article [[Tuvan throat singing]], marked it as "minor", didn't write adequate edit summaries, and seemed to be specifically erasing the contributions of Mongolians.
::::::โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No, I'm not. I don't think editors typically issue only warnings to editors who have never received warnings previously, unless whatever they did to merit the warning is so incredibly blatant and unambiguous that it's simply impossible to believe the editor didn't know it would be considered problematic.
:::::::In the case you described, if they had no prior warnings on their Talk page, I'd probably still give them a level 3 or 4 for a first-time offense. Either one is significant enough to result in a block if they continue their behavior. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::OK, I see. โ€” [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 17:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} Consensus to me is not obvious here, but I'm honestly not really convinced about not adding this link based on it possibly being the case a user has gotten the 1st version. I regularly issue first-time warnings between 1 and 4 and I think it's fair to provide editors (GF or BF) the opportunity to understand what they're doing in our context. Boldly added. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
 
== Edit request 20 June 2025 ==
 
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
 
I just saw that [[User:CyberTheTiger]] had accidentaly removed the uw-blank warning templates after they added the deleted multi-level edit warring templates, summary saying that it accidentally pasted it. Can someone bring back the uw-blank warnings to the [[Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates]] page for consistency? Thanks.
 
Sorry, i cannot post the differences due to some problems in text rendering. [[Special:Contributions/92.53.21.142|92.53.21.142]] ([[User talk:92.53.21.142|talk]]) 16:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
 
:{{done}} [[User:Thepharoah17|Thepharoah17]] ([[User talk:Thepharoah17|talk]]) 19:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
 
== uw-disruptive4im ==
 
Hello. I wanted to tell you guys that uw-disruptive4im should be created. The reason was to notify the users the only warning if they disrupt Wikipedia again. For an example, {{code|{{subst:uw-disruptive4im}}}} would produce:
 
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disrupt]] Wikipedia again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''.
 
This template will be useful to warn these users continuously with disruptive editing, and it will be the only warning before the user gets blocked, similar to other 4im templates. [[Special:Contributions/92.53.21.142|92.53.21.142]] ([[User talk:92.53.21.142|talk]]) 22:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
 
:I don't really see the need. [[:Template:uw-disruptive4]] is already a redirect to [[:Template:uw-generic4]] which basically says the same thing you've proposed here. Put another way, if we were going to create such a template, I think a redirect would suffice anyway. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)