Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace
 | Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is permanently protected from editing because it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit semi-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor, extended-confirmed editor or autoconfirmed editor to make the requested edit.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing Template index/User talk namespace and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject 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. |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one. |
|
Archives
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5. |
Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2025: uw-delete series
 | This edit request to Template:Uw-delete4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add link to WP:Content removal on {{Uw-delete4im}}:
| − | 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:
{{uw-delete4}}
| − | 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]] |
{{uw-delete3}}
| − | 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 |
{{uw-delete2}}
| − | 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]]. |
{{uw-delete1}} already has this link.
— W.andrea (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}}template. DonIago (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)- Oh, I thought this would be totally uncontroversial since it's just adding a link and {{uw-delete1}} already includes it. No? — 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. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
My rationale for linking it isn't "this could be misunderstood", it's "we have a page that provides more details about this". — W.andrea (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)linking an easily understandable phrase
Note that {{Uw-delete4im}} is an "only warning" so editors wouldn't have received a level 1 warning. — W.andrea (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)editors receiving beyond a Level 1 warning for this shouldn't need a link of this nature.
- 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. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- An "only warning" means they only get one warning. Are you thinking of a 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.
- — 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. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I see. — W.andrea (talk) 17:38, 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. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 21 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. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought this would be totally uncontroversial since it's just adding a link and {{uw-delete1}} already includes it. No? — W.andrea (talk) 00:41, 19 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. Izno (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Requesting for Template:Mehasana
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.
Dear Sir,
I am requesting you to create the Template for Mahesana district. I already created, but need your help to make it meaningful.
Thank you,
~ Rahulkrsah (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Uw-error templates
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 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Uw-citevar
Announcing single-level notice {{uw-citevar}}, to advise a user about WP:CITEVAR issues. I will notify RedWarn and Twinkle. Please make any needed improvements. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2025
| | This edit request to Template:Uw-subtle1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "[[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]" to "[[Help:Introduction|welcome page]]" Jako96 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Completed per WP:NOTBROKEN – redirect from a page move. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Lead wranglers
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.
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 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 disruptive.
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 advice template for this situation, to be called {{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. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)