Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Spamublock: notalk not working?[edit]

I recently substed {{spamublock|indef=yes|sig=yes|notalk=yes}}, per doc, but the resulting text still talked about "... you can add {{unblock-spamun}} to your UTP" etc. Shouldn't it change to something about e-mailing a WMF e-mail address? It Is Me Here t / c 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks broken to me. Unless I'm missing something it appears to not even have a switch for the notalk argument. Protonk (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone who would be willing to fix this? It Is Me Here t / c 13:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect test5 to uw-block[edit]

This was proposed by Callanecc, and others, over a year ago but received no feedback.

{{test5}} is antiquated and inconsistent with WP:FRIENDLYBLOCKS, which inform the user how to make an unblock request. {{uw-block}} also allows more customization, options for duration, etc, that would still output a message in accordance with standards outlined by WikiProject User Warnings. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 17:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds good to me, I would have done it then but forgot about it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Boldly Yes check.svg DoneMusikAnimal talk 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked proxy template[edit]

I've written a new version of Template:Blocked proxy in my userspace with the intention of making the information a bit clearer for people receiving the message. Would others please have a look and let me know what you think? I'm also thinking that Template:Anonymous proxy could be redirected to Template:Blocked proxy as they seems to be doing the same job. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Callanecc. More informative, and again let's the user know how to make an unblock request. — MusikAnimal talk 01:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's much better. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


This template takes the pagename of the attack page as a parameter, but the pagename doesn't actually display as part of the notice. This is relevant because some users might have created multiple pages and not all of them might be attack pages. (I was recently dealing with an editor who had created several pages worthy of speedy deletion, where some were just non-notable and others were attack pages.)

I realize that in some cases, we might not want to include the pagename in the notice. (For example, we might not want to repeat the name of a page titled Joe Smith Is An Idiot in the notice.) But many attack pages have harmless names, and it would be useful to be able to have the option to include the pagename in the notice since it is already being taken as a parameter anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Currently, Template:Uw-inline-el says that external links should only appear in the "External Links" section of the article. Shouldn't it also mention that external links can be used as references and include a link to WP:REFBEGIN? --Ahecht (TALK
) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ahecht: When an online URL is given as the source for some text in an article, it is not an external link but a reference. Different rules apply, see WP:EL and WP:CITE. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the distinction, but these templates aren't designed for us regulars. A new user has just been told that they need to back up the content in the main part of the article with external links to reliable sources, and then gets this template telling him never to use external links in the main part of the article (and many times the users will add a reference in the form of an external link). I am suggesting something like the text below:

Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. If you are trying to add citations to the article, please see the referencing guide. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

--Ahecht (TALK
) 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bite-y template[edit]

I'm concerned with the way that warning templates for newcomers backfire and lead to flaming wars, which often end with the new editor blocked or banned in matter of minutes. The revert notice is a particular offender, as it gives more emphasis on threatening with a block than in explaining the proper way for dispute resolution. I've made some bold edits that have been reverted, so let's discuss how to make it less bite-y. Diego (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

First, you drastically changed the template without discussion. This is a very heavily used template and any drastic changes must be discussed to gain consensus. Second, you broke it. Its intro had the information icon followed by Uw-3rr, your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war., "Uw-3rr" at the beginning means something was broken because "Uw-3rr" is not legible text but just the name of the template. So if you want to discuss changing this important template please open an RfC and wait for the input of other editors. And no talkbacks please. I watch this page. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We're discussing the template now; if you have something against the content changes I made, we can ask for a third opinion, and escalate gradually as needed. The text Uw-3rr doesn't mean the template is broken; that part is substituted by the title of the page where the template is located, which in this case will be the name of the editor to whom the template is addressed, just like in the {{welcome}} template; in this case you would read it as Dr.K., your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.. And I think the information icon is much less agressive than the current red stop signal, so it will better achieve the purpose of the template, which is to have the tagged editor behave in a proper way, not angering them. Diego (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The text Uw-3rr doesn't mean the template is broken... No you are wrong. Look at the template now. It doesn't have that at the introduction explicitly, as in your edit. If you will not open an RfC, I will open one but I have to leave soon so it may be some time later. I saw your added comment after the edit conflict and I think that the icon as it stands is ok, because there is also an edit-warring template for newbies which is less bitey. The uw-3rr template is not the first you can use with a newbie. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The uw-3rr template is not the first you can use with a newbie. Tell that to those users who are doing precisely that...
No you are wrong. Look at the template now. It doesn't have that at the introduction explicitly, as in your edit. Uh, I don't follow you... I'm not sure if you understand how variables work in templates, or simply if I'm unable to get what you want to tell me? The text "Uw-3rr" is not fixed text, and it wouldn't appear at all when the template is used at the talk page of an user, the name of that user would appear instead. In any case, addressing the user by name is just a small detail, we don't have to use it if you don't want it.
Would you agree at least to reverse the order of the paragraphs, so that the first thing that the template says is how to engage in dispute resolution? Diego (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, which one is the template that should be used for newcomers that are edit warring? Diego (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've found it. Still, that shouldn't prevent us from making the other templates less bitey; we cannot be sure that editors will use the softer vension when it's the adequate one. Diego (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would support switching the order of the paragraphs to talk about dispute resolution first. To avoid "Uw-3rr" from showing up when the template is viewed directly, you could use {{safesubst:<noinclude />talkspace detect|user={{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}|default='''EXAMPLE'''|other='''EXAMPLE'''}}, --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: I hadn't seen that you had added {{BASEPAGENAME}} so I thought you broke the syntax of the existing template. You could simply have told me that. In any case, I think that personalising the template is not a good idea. I think it is slightly better to not include any names. Since the idea is not to offend newbies why not make a uw-3RR soft template for newbies instead? I have to leave now, I'll be back later. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the changes without looking what they were? I'm trying to make this template newbie friendly, as this is the one being used on newbies. If you could guarantee that this template you propose would be the only one used on new editors, this change would not be needed, by I don't see how you're going to enforce that. Diego (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the changes without looking what they were? Is this what you understood from what I told you? Does missing the detail that you added the basename template equal that "I didn't look what they were?" This is getting ridiculous. And please WP:AVOIDYOU. Last time I checked this was a wiki. Don't make this personal. Wait for others to offer their opinions and don't personalise this like you've been doing. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't surprise Diego but I oppose this change. WP:3RR is a bright line for everyone, including new editors and the red hand helps to make it clear that this is something that should be read. Also, we already have a uw-ewsoft template. --NeilN talk to me 00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and there's Template:uw-ew and Template:uw-ewsoft that already exist to address the concerns raised. The text for uw-3rr is appropriate for the scope of the template's purpose. Just as uw-vand4 would be "bitey" in the wrong circumstances, that doesn't mean uw-vand4 needs to be adjusted to be a copy of uw-vand1, as they serve different purposes for different circumstances. Each template has a purpose, using it for the wrong purpose would be an issue with the editor, not with the template. - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with NeilN, Dr.K. and Aoidh. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh, Dougweller, you're not addressing the points I've raised - primarily that you can't stop editors from using uw-3rr when it's not the right one, even if in an ideal world it would be the recommended behavior. This template is different from uw-vand, as it's a single-issue warning, as opposed to the vandalism ones that have multiple levels. Also, automated tools like TW use uw-3rr by default rather than uw-ewsoft, so it makes sense to ensure that it's at least adequate for anyone even if it's not the best option for all. Diego (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

New ideas (e.g. vandalism)[edit]

  • 2.Information icon Please refrain from making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
  • 3.Italian traffic signs - altri pericoli.svg Please discontinue your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, we will block you from editing.
  • 4. Vienna Convention road sign B2a.svg Last warning: You may be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
  • 4im. Vienna Convention road sign B2a.svg This is your only warning: You may be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Try it. -- (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the above is intended as sarcasm. Diego (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


The warning states: on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.
This needs to be updated to show the correct icon that currently appears above the edit window. -- -- -- 02:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see my reply at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Update needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)