Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Template index

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramaksoud2000 (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 9 November 2013 (→‎Edit Request: Dispute resolution opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

uw-vandalism1 warning

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Template:uw-vandalism1 - new wording, I think Template:uw-vandalism1 should stick to the "I reverted" language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree we should stick to the "I undid" language. James asked what harm there was in using the "was reverted" kind of language, and the answer is that we know it makes the warning less effective. This was very heavily discussed before implementing, at this 30 day RFC. Prior to the RFC, we ran randomized, controlled tests of versions that used active voice and where the user introduced themselves, against versions that used passive voice. We ended up proposing the current "I reverted" language because it was more effective at driving away vandals and introducing the rules. Considering that, using TW and Huggle, it is far more common to revert and warn simultaneously, the gains we got in making the warnings more effective are worth the comparatively small annoyance of needing to use a separate template like {{uw-vandalism0}} in an edge case. Plus, and this part is just my personal opinion as a writer, using passive voice is bad grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When passive voice is needed, I personally prefer to use {{uw-test2}} instead of {{uw-vandalism0}} as it still assumes good faith but puts the warning at level 2 in case it really is a bad faith vandal we are dealing with. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe template:uw-disruptive1 needs a active voice makeover. Dreth Phantomhive [talk to me] 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uw-ublock}}

Sending completely new users to Special:ListUsers comes across as slightly intimidating, in my opinion. How about the template proposing them to check availability of another username at the SUL Info? — Yerpo Eh? 13:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, especially since every account is global now so even if there is only a local account you still can't create the global account. However I think a wikilink is probably better than an external link (tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I didn't know that it's possible to link to the toolserver like that, thanks. — Yerpo Eh? 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uw-block discussion

on AN NE Ent 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-unsourced templates are counterproductive to the encyclopedia

The uw-unsourced templates seem pretty WP:BITEish. Aside from their language, which misinterprets WP:V as "every piece of information must have a citation" and not "please cite reliable sources when a statement if a statement is likely to be challenge", it's hard for me to see them as more than impersonal responses to the contributions of newbies. If an experienced editor added a piece of information another editor interpreted as controversial, the editors would likely discuss the issue with specific language on the talk page. Slapping a uw-unsourced template on a newbie's talk page seems like an impersonal way to shut what could have been a productive conversation down. Is there any reason to keep these templates around? It seems far too easy for a protective editor to use them to push newcomers away from their article. (I've noticed this issue has been raised a couple of months ago couple of months ago, which primarily focused on the misinterpretation of WP:V and not the inappropriateness of having an "unsourced information" template at all.) --Lunar Jesters (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of it is to be used when the information they added did need a citation. If editors use it when they shouldn't, that should be addressed with that editor. If the wording implies every piece of information needs a citation, it should just be updated to fix that rather than removing the templates altogether. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't think of any situation where a template would be more appropriate than addressing the specific piece of information. As a hypothetical example, "Thanks for contributing to the coffee article. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that suggests coffee can cause pancreatic cancer. I've tried to verify the fact you added, but I couldn't find anything on Google or Google Books. Could you point me in the direction of where you learned that coffee causes pancreatic cancer?" This sort of personalized response seems much more likely to lead editors to learn about Wikipedia policies and continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. An impersonal template is more likely to put editors on the defensive and make them leave Wikipedia in frustration. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-inline-el

Hi,

I've come across {{uw-inline-el}}, which I think is suitable for adding to this project (at least after the bit of tidying myself and Scott Martin have done. Are there any hoops I should jump through before I add {{single notice}} to the template and add it to the list at {{single notice links}}?

While we're on the subject, would it make more sense for this to be moved to {{uw-inline-el1}}, possibly with higher levels of its own or possibly with higher levels redirecting to the uw-spam series?

—me_and 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hoops, add freely.
I'd avoid making it into a series, unless strongly needed, as the proliferation of templates is an ongoing problem. Simplify, when possible! –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uw-redlink

There used to be a useful warning template for ignorant removals of redlinks, but I see it was changed years ago and later deleted (years ago). I find myself composing a redlink removal warning frequently, so I would personally like to have it in Twinkle's choice of single issue notices. I have composed (recomposed?) such a template {{uw-redlink}}, but I am not sure of the process to incorporate it into TW. I would appreciate comments on the validity of such a user warning template as well as making it available in Twinkle. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm not sure how/where templates get added to Twinkle, but asking at WT:TW is the best bet - I see a few similar requests in the archives there. –Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging templates in the source code

There's recently been some back-and forth in {{uw-vandalism1}} over whether to include the <!--Template:uw-vandalism1-->:

  • Codename Lisa removed the comment as it "provoked a hostile response"; even though the template expands to something that assumes good faith and doesn't mention vandalism, I can understand an editor seeing the comment and objecting to the accusation of vandalism.
  • Jackmcbarn restored the comment as it's useful to know which template left the message.
  • Codename Lisa swapped Template:uw-vandalism1 for oldid=580227252, saying it "serves the same purpose but doesn't have that bad effect".

I don't understand the meaning of the oldid string; is it intended to just be an arbitrary string that someone could search for if they needed to? Or can it be used in some way I don't understand to reference the actual template?

In any case, I suspect this would (a) benefit from some wider discussion (or at least awareness), and (b) whatever conclusion is reached should probably be applied across the user warning templates, in the name of consistency.

For my part, I entirely understand Codename Lisa's objection to having the template name in the comments, but I do think we need some way of referencing the template in question.

—me_and 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Oldid can be used to refer to the template even without knowing the template name. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=580227252. You will see what I mean. I though by including this id, elite editors who actually need to know where the template has come from can find out, while the reader don't take offense. People who do know about this little trick are already WP:DTTR-eligible.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find the comment which gives the subst'ed template's name quite helpful, and the obscure |oldid= certainly doesn't have the same immediacy. As to the root complaint: I find it hard to believe that a comment in the source code "provoked a hostile response". Examples? If the message was used with reason, what's to be hostile about? If the message was unjustified, apologise. IMO the original comment should stay/be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Michael. Politeness involves being gentle and delicate. Your heavy-handed treatment of either I am right or I am not is in conflict with this tenet and the purpose of this template. When it is a matter of straight talk, send a {{Uw-vandalism2}}. With this template, the purpose is to say "your edit was bad" without even mentioning "vandalism".
Wikipedia's founding policy is Wikipedia:Civility not Wikipedia:Insert HTML comment because some people find it useful. It is the second that gets sacrificed for the first, not the other way around.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is solution without a problem. There is no reason to hide the source template name. I have been around a long time and done a fair number of edits and use that information on a regular basis to determine what response to take to something another editor is done. I'm not an elite editor and have no idea what that is. So please just leave that in there. Don't make the job harder for everyone other then the mythical elite editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree, in that I can't recall this ever being a problem before. At the same time, I do recognize Codename Lisa's point insofar as the level one template is specifically designed to not use the word "vandalism". I don't think we really anticipated that the recipient would read the code. What if we changed the comment to refer to the short form, "uw-v1"?--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Vegaswikian that there is no evidence that this is an actual problem, but I think that Mojo Hand's solution preserves the useful feature of the commetn while avoiding any possible offense. DES (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden line is to help idenify the template name, which is not carried over in the subst action. I believe. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the option suggested by Mojo Hand works for me if we really need to make a change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys.
I love compromises and Mojo Hand's suggestion works for me. However, someone please tell me why is this comment is so important that you guys feel you can overlook hurting someone's feelings. In other words, I have been manually stripping this comment from my messages a lot lately; what harm did I do?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ypu make it harder for someone later reviewing the talk page to determine just what template was used in a particular instance, and almost impossible to do a search to see where the template is begin used, which various people do to spot check if it is being used appropriately. DES (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right (and ec) - I personally find the comments to be a useful shorthand to confirm what levels and types of messages have been sent to the user without having to read the full language of each message. I also believe some scripts use the comments in their process, though I'm not positive about that.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree Mojo Hand option is best, if we actually need to change anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have looked at the talk page before reverting. I've restored the comment because there are AV bots and scripts that depend on that HTML comment. Whatever the consensus here is, make sure you notify all the people who use those tools and their developers about the change BEFORE you make it. Legoktm (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Small problem: I do not know any of them and – no offense intended but – the guys here have so far given a weasel wordy "some script" answer. So, even if you put a gun to my head and say "call them or I'll shoot", I can't. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle, ClueBot, WAVE, and probably others. You also can't just change one template, you need to change ALL of them. I disagree that a consensus has been reached, I only found this when my script stopped working, and I don't see anything wrong with the current wording. I'll leave my full thoughts below. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your script stopped working? How could it stop working when there are still millions of substitutions of this template out there with the disputed HTML comment in place?
Legoktm, what did your script do?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My script looked for the string "uw-vandalism1", so it kept flagging users who were receiving level 2 warnings without level 1 ones, even though they were warned properly. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, am I correct to assume you have permission to edit the said script? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should I broadcast a notice in WP:AN and WP:VP? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully understand Codename Lisa's points, and I agree that it would be better to avoid the word "vandalism". However, considering that tools such as Huggle depend on such tags to correctly identify what warnings have been issued to editors, and that it is not at all clear to me that any attempt has been made to ensure that the maintainers of such tools have been consulted, nor even informed, of this change, changing the template now is likely to cause considerable problems. Also, the problem that Codename Lisa mentions is very unlikely to be common, as most new editors will not search through the code and find the offending text. That being so, the balance of benefit has to be in keeping the status quo, at least until more has been done to avoid the problems the change will cause. Also, contrary to Codename Lisa's latest edit summary, I do not see consensus for the change in this discussion. I do see some support for the idea of the change, but I also see both comments that oppose it, and comments that indicate that, while the idea is a good one, there are disadvantages in rushing ahead. Edit-warring to keep the change in is not constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this is a good change. The template is named "uw-vandalism1", so there is no reason to not include that. If a user gets offended, that's unfortunate, but it means people should stop using templated (or this specific one at least) notices for non-vandals/good-faith editors. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just fully protected the article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good move. I just looked at the edit comments there and they are misleading. Contrary to the claims, there is no consensus here to change anything. From this discussion, I think there is one editor in favor of changing and everyone else opposed. That is no place near a consensus to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't consider myself to be opposed to change; I can see how there could be a problem with using the word "vandal" even in a comment (although I'd still like to see the "hostile response" Codename Lisa referred to). I do think any change needs to have thought and discussion, though – the wide use of this script by automated tools means we can't just dive in and start changing things without at least attempting to understand and mitigate the knock-on impact of such changes. —me_and 10:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also was not strongly opposed to any change, although I wasn't convinced of the need for it either. DES (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion of the template name in a wikitext comment is the usual practice for all warning templates, and does not seem accusatory or otherwise problematic. Also, it appears that semi-automated tools such as Huggle rely upon the comment to identify previous warnings issued. This itself is not without difficulties: an editor might have removed prior warnings. Does Huggle consult previous revisions of talk pages? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, it doesn't. That's an edge case though, most vandals don't remove warnings from their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Request to remove the |link= from Template:Uw-vandalism1 because File:Information.svg requires attribution with its license. I had done this before the edit war that it is now fullly protected from and it was only very recently that it was randomly unlinked by User:DavidLeighEllis. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where do you see that it is licensed {{PD-ineligible}}? The image used within Template:Uw-vandalism1 is File:Information.svg (as stated by Ramaksoud2000), which has the license template {{GFDL|migration=relicense}}, i.e. GFDL 1.2 with CC BY-SA 3.0); there is a similarly-named image on commons, which has the license template {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, i.e. CC BY-SA 2.5. CC BY-SA 2.5 is identical to CC BY-SA 3.0 except for the heading ("Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)" or "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)"), and one paragraph at the bottom ("A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however.") which is not present in 3.0. All of these licenses require attribution. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, RedRose64. How do you do?
I know how the file is tagged. I disagree with the tag. This logo is certainly no more complex than Windows Vista's logo, which – after two deletion requests on Commons – is considered {{PD-textlogo}}. The icon in question is essentially an "i" on a filled circle; neither typeface nor simple shapes like circle are copyright-protected in U.S. laws and the shine effect is certainly not original enough. For more information, see Commons:TOO. If you are not convinced, perhaps we should request input from other experienced editors like User:Masem, User:Stefan2 and User:Magog the Ogre or take it to license review page.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you believe that the license is incorrect and are willing to argue it, you are free to try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg. However, right now, the license requires attribution, and the good folks in Commons are pretty well versed in copyright. It can either be PD and not require attribution or CC and require attribution. Not both. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Ramaksoud2000 and Redrose64 here – either it gets tagged as public domain or it gets attribution; since the former hasn't happened, the latter should. —me_and 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I could equally argue that "since the former hasn't happened, the former should." At least, my argument has the merit of being supported by laws. However, changing the license while this discussion is in progress is a gross disruptive editing, which you are apparently expecting me to do. I am afraid I am unwilling to engage in disruptive editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you do anything. Do not put words into my mouth. I am saying that if you believe your position is correct and can argue it, have a discussion in Commons about it. Hence the "try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg." How would it be disruptive to have a discussion? The consensus here seems to be that the current license must be changed before we start acting on the change and to change it, you must discuss it in Commons. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@codename Lisa: You couldn't do it even if you did agree since it is fully protected to stop the edit war that you were participating in. It doesn't look like you two are going to agree on this so I would suggest some form of WP:DR to form a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution opened Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages.2FUser_talk_namespace.23Edit_Request Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. As the template is currently protected to stop edit warring, any substantive change made during this period should demonstrably be the result of consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace&oldid=580935597"