Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Proposed edit

@Star Mississippi @Liz @Justlettersandnumbers I'm proposing that the level 3 template gets edited so that the sentence doesn't just say "Please stop", that the warning is part of the same sentence, because as it is right now I feel that it's too hard of a tone of voice, so I'm proposing to edit it to make the tone of voice softer. To say something like "Please stop [doing your action]. If you continue to do so...". (I can't edit it since it's protected) Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Whichi template @CyberTheTiger? I'd say get consensus and then a template editor will take care of it for you. cc @Justlettersandnumbers (Liz doesn't use pings, CTT) Star Mississippi 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This one:

{{subst:uw3}} Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this, currently "Please stop." sounds very vague, it reads like asking the recipient to stop everything. Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've seen this particular template. Are editors using this without providing any additional context? Every level 3 warning I've ever issued provided more detail than a generic, "Please stop." DonIago (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

but it continues after that. What I want is to move the part after "if you continue to..." to the lead sentence as I feel that this would soften the tone. We don't need as hard of the tone as it is now. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that level 3 warnings are only supposed to be used in cases where an editor has already exhausted good faith (either through blatant disruption or by failing to heed lower level warnings), I don't really have a problem with it being hard. This warning should be used for effect, as an editor who continues to act in ignorance of it can indeed be blocked. Level 4 warnings are an option but not a requirement prior to an editor being blocked. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

but, for example, an editor gave me a level 3 warning for the Manual of Style even though I was very unfamiliar with the rules for bluelinking (see this discussion for example.) The level 1 warning there was completely a good faith edit; I had put what turned out to be an invalid justification. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I generally will not escalate the warning level for unrelated forms of disruption (e.g. someone once adds unsourced content, then refactors an unrelated Talk page discussion). I'd hope admins wouldn't issue blocks in cases where an editor is receiving escalating warnings for unrelated issues, unless the quantity of warnings itself becomes noteworthy. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

While I support better detail in the lead sentence for the notification - at the same time I'd have to say a lvl3 notification should have a pretty firm tone. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that Template:Uw3 is not listed at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace, I would say that it's not intended for direct use. It is, in fact a core template, around which specific-issue templates such as {{subst:Uw-vandalism3}} have been built. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 February 2025

Change from "Please stop." (as a single sentence) to "Please stop [doing your action]." My intention is to have a softer tone of voice. See this discussion that I started, and this thing I had with Waxworker. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that discussion shows a clear consensus for change. In fact there was quite a mixed response to your suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. As it says in the first sentence under § Usage, This is a meta template, meaning it should never be placed directly on a user talk page. It's clear from the pagename (albeit not from the doc) that it is intended to be an incubator or model for level 3 templates. By definition as a level 3, its tone should not be softer. It has a copy-pastable core from which one could save time creating a new, level 3 template, so is worth keeping on that basis. Instead of changing the template, why not just trash the documentation and rewrite it to make that clearer? Also would not oppose a modification (like enclosing it in <noinclude>s) that cause it to emit nothing, in case a user inadvertently places it on a user talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Changes to talk page formatting

Twice in two days I've tried to add warnings to IP user talk pages and the formatting comes up visual, and the template doesn't unfold the way it used to. My signature is written in the visual space before it's even posted, and the final product just shows the text form the "what to type" column on this page. Does this happen with anyone else? I would like to try to not post extra corrections on user's talk pages but changing the habits of thousands of wikipedians seems harder than getting an admin to change it back to teh way it used to be. Please discuss. Kire1975 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Uw-create templates

Template:Uw-create 1–4im state, in various ways, "A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages", with a wikilink to Wikipedia:List of policies. That is less than useful for an editor trying to figure out what they did wrong. I can't think of another page to link to since there are so many PAGs that relate to the creation of pages. I wanted to bring this here before nominating the templates for deletion in case anyone has any ideas. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess my feeling on it is that, while it is vague, an editor who cares to know which PAG are of particular concern can always ask the editor leaving the warning for more information? DonIago (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone subscribes to threads or watches editors' talk pages after they've tagged them, nor do new editors always know about pinging. Given it's so vague, editors should just explain up front why the editors' page creations are bad, not leave them guessing. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to the editors who created and use this warning, then. It's not one that I believe I've ever used myself. DonIago (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with voorts here; elucidating a reason for placing it is a must. If it is too much added effort for an editor to add a reason to justify its placement, then the template should not be placed, as a vague and mysterious warning does more harm than good. As far as leaving it to the editors who created it, maybe we should look instead at the occasions where it has actually been placed and examine some of them to see what can be learned. If worthwhile, one could poll (randomly?) some of the recent placers of the template, to see what they think, and find out what would be lost by not having them. (Maybe ping a few here?) Feedback from WP:AFC folks might help, too, although they have their own, well-worn paths for decling/rejecting and not sure they need any of these templates. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The links in that template are indeed inadequate to help a struggling user, and we don't want to spray them with a policy list. What I would suggest, is add a link to Help:Your first article. This page really walks a user through the whole process of new article creation, and links to every needed policy or guideline, at just the point in the narrative where they might need to look at it, in case the help page explanation itself isn't enough.

I have another objection to the template wording: it says, "...so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already)". That is not a likely outcome for a page that "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages". Much more likely is that it gets moved to Draft. The template needs to decide where it stands: if the template is geared solely at hopeless cases, of the type that have been (or would be) rejected (not declined) by WP:AFC, then the wording can stay, but additional wording is needed to clarify. If the template is geared towards all articles that are non-compliant with new article standards, including ones that would get declined at WP:AFC, then the wording about "...will be removed shortly" itself needs to be removed, and mention of draftification as the most likely outcome should be added in its place. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: In this edit, nobody was notified, because there are more than 50. See WP:MENTION. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(Whew; thank goodness for that!)

In the meantime, seven editors have placed the template five or more times, and one over twenty times. We could learn something from their experience. Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I've used the template before, but I didn't notice that it links to WP:PAG, not an actual page. I started this discussion because I was about to use the template, but then noticed that. I think linking to Help:Your first article is potentially a good idea, but some editors may use this template for people creating inappropriate pages in non-article space, which would make that link unhelpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's find out. See § User experience poll below. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User experience poll

Hello, @RickinBaltimore, Largoplazo, Unbroken Chain, Cunard, and Materialscientist: you appear to be among the active users who have placed the user warning template {{uw-create1}} on User talk pages several times. Could you help this discussion by commenting on your experience with this template? What is your intent when you use it? Is it about giving a user a heads-up about a specific page you have in mind that might deserve Afd, or a more general warning about what pages to create or where, or something else? Do you use it mainly for mainspace articles, or other namespaces? Does it serve its purpose well (what is its purpose, in your opinion?) and could it be improved? What else should we know about this template? Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Link edit to Uw-blockindef

Currently, Template:Uw-blockindef has the text "blocked indefinitely" with two links next to each other. Could/should this be changed to "blocked indefinitely" (one link, per MOS:SOB)? I am bad at usernames (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

They go to different targets. The overarching blocking policy for the first one, and the specific indef section for the second. Might be useful in that context for the blockee? --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree that SEAOFBLUE is a problem, and it should be one link. Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2025

Remove sentence about getting blocked, most other level 2 warnings leave it out Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Uw-controversial – vague, arbitrary, useless?

 Courtesy link: Template:Uw-controversial

I find this template troubling, to the point where I question the value of having it. The wording seems arbitrary:

[O]ne of your edits may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted.

Controversial edit? What the heck is that? One might think that perhaps it is related to our contentious topics procedures—but no. Reading between the lines, what I hear from this message, is:

I didn't like your edit, so I reverted it. If I knew about guidelines and stuff, I woulda linked one, but, well, you know... So I'm just dropping this template before you revert back, to make it look kinda official, and more like you did something wrong and I called you out on it. (Ha, ha, gotcha!)

Later in the message, it talks about correct information which is an entirely different animal than 'controversial', afaic; maybe what they wanted was {{uw-unsourced1}}, or {{uw-hoax}}, or who knows, really.

There is nothing in the documentation like a When to use section, or maybe better, a When not to use section. Maybe it's just a matter of fixing the documentation to explain what it's really for and when to use it, but as it stands now, it seems entirely arbitrary and subject to unfair or annoying templating and abuse. Personally, I can't imagine using it, because I have no idea what it is about, and it seems to be saying, "I just didn't like it". If you were going to add a policy or guideline link to clarify the message, which one would you pick? If you can't decide, that's a red flag. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Updating uw-Upeblock

Template:Uw-upeblocks that rely on private evidence can be appealed to Arbcom instead of just onwiki, but the template makes no note of this; in some cases, it might be more ideal than appealing onwiki. Is there any objection to me adding a sentence such as "If this block is based on offwiki evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at en-arbcom at wikimedia.org" or whatever? Ping some editors involved in this area for opinions (@Spicy @Joe Roe @331dot). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a reason not to do as you propose. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that we discussed this somewhere and there was a concern (perhaps from Barkeep49?) that being too up-front with the ArbCom appeal option would unduly increase their appeals workload. Can't find it now though. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possible I said that, though I have generally been less concerned about ArbCom handling blocks than many other arbs (I was an impediment for a bit to the current devolution of CU blocks). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Change "Jimbo" to "Example" in the NPOV warning template. RaschenTechner (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

RaschenTechner, why do you think that would be an improvement? Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Because "Example" is usually used and the warned user should not be under the false impression that Jimbo Wales is warning them directly. RaschenTechner (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)