Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Add templates for poorly sourced content?

I was thinking about some warning templates for poorly sourced content. I did not think {{uw-unsourced1}} (and above) or {{uw-disruptive1}} (and above) was not as suitable for specifically telling about poorly sourced content, so I was trying to build up some draft templates at User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates. I am still not sure exactly the sentences to put in for those uw-poorlysourced templates, but I do know that there should be information specific to poorly sourced content. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have is a start, but my suggestion would be taking the unsourced templates verbatim and simply updating them to reflect the fact that the content added is poorly (maybe include unreliably?) sourced rather than entirely lacking in sources. A link to WP:RS should certainly be included, at least on the lower-level notices. Happy to help out with this though my time is somewhat limited for the next week or so. DonIago (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Doniago, feel free to edit in that part of the userspace, if you wish. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have changed much of my templates, thanks to your advice. If you are satisfied with my User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates page, then you may convert these templates into each separate Uw-poorlysourced template. If not, you may like to reword each template to suit your feeling of general new-user/IP understanding. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and even Help:Referencing for beginners is far too much information to passing along in a level 1 warning. You can't expect newcomers to read walls upon walls of text (WP:TLDR), when in most cases they just didn't know how to add references, or that they needed to. There are many templates that need to be simplified, but for this one we have a nice place to send newbies: WP:INTREF. For inline citations, send them to WP:INTREF2 (we could come up with better shortcuts), and for reliable sources we have WP:INTREF4. The other major advantage here is this guide includes demonstrations on how to do these things using VisualEditor, which can make adding references substantially easier. I've been working with some other folks on these simplified Intro guides, and eventually we hope to send all links about referencing to Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor, but we can't do that yet because VisualEdtior is not an option for anonymous users on desktop yet. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note also there is the general notice {{uw-refimprove}}, although it suffers from the same problem of linking to overly bloated policy and guideline pages. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3 and User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4 now by the way. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think there should be Uw-poorlysourced1 to Uw-poorlysourced4 templates? The drafts that I had prepared before this specific discussion are User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2, User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3 and User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Supports

1. Support - as nominator. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

uw-editsummary for mobile users?

{{uw-editsummary}} has a screenshot which is not applicable to the mobile users. Is there a similar template for mobile users? utcursch | talk 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No template for misrepresenting sources?

There are templates about OR and POV that tell users to use sources, but almost daily I revert users, mostly IPs or new users, who either change the content keeping the same source, or who do insert a source but in articles where there already is one main source to follow (mainly lists where the consensus is that all data builds on main source). It would be very useful to have a template for not using sources correctly. These edits are not intended as vandalism, and templates telling them to "use sources" would little sense. Given how common this is, I'd hope to see a new template. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Uw-preview}}

Change:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

To:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Comment

Adding a visual aid will help editors understand the issue better, especially new and first time users. This same idea is used for the "Not using edit summary" template ({{uw:editsummary}}). - ^theWOLFchild 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that you would want a visual aid to help editors understand the issue better. However, the semi-protection request seems to be not appropriate in this case, because you are autoconfirmed and can edit semi-protected articles. But you are right about the fact that you are wanting to give a consensus on the change you wanted to do, so I credit that you are trying to give a consensus to what you wanted to do. :) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it is (mostly) an improvement. But deduplicate It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving, probably the one above the image. I like that it provides a link to the help desk since this template (probably) is mostly to low experience editors. —EncMstr (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought template editor privileges were needed to change a template, that's why I posted the edit request. The duplicate wording was by mistake, I have fixed it now. I really don't see this as controversial and if I can make the change myself, then I'll just go ahead and do that. - ^theWOLFchild 09:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, only templates with the pink lock require template editor or admin privileges. Some templates are not protected at all and can be edited by anyone, including IPs. The templates {{Uw-editsummary}} and {{Uw-preview}} are semi-protected, just like any other article that is semi-protected. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I need to always show preview too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

uw-unsourced templates should suggest article talk page, not user talk page

Hi - the template {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} should ask people to leave a question at the article talk page, i think.... 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

I agree completely. In fact I think this should apply to most of the templates. Jeh (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, on both counts. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternately I think it should be more clear that questions relating to article content are best left at the article's Talk page while more 'general-purpose' questions might be best directed to the editor who left the comment. But I certainly get enough talkback due to templating editors that a significant amount of the time I end up recommending that if they disagree with my feelings they can raise the matter at the article's Talk page. In an ideal world it would be nifty if you could be auto-pinged if someone followed up on a Talk page notice you'd left by starting a discussion at the related article, but I realize that's wishful thinking. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am getting auto-pings whenever someone mentions my username in a discussion somewhere. I don't think I did anything to activate this functionality; it began spontaneously around August 2015 according to the log at Special:Notifications. However, there are controls for the kinds of notices on the Notifications tab of your preferences. On the topic of article talk vs. user talk, I completely agree that article specific discussion should occur on the article's talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If your username is mentioned (correctly) then you get pinged, but that only works if they mention your username. DonIago (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)