Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Add templates for poorly sourced content?[edit]

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)

Is there really no 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages?![edit]

As per the title – Is there really no 'user warning' template for editing other people's User pages (in violation of WP:NOBAN)?! An IP just edited my User page, and I was surprised that I couldn't find a 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages to put at the IP's Talk page... So, should a template for this be created? (Or is there already one, and I just missed it?) P.S. The message I left at the IP's Talk page can be found here if anyone is interested in using that as the basis for a new 'uw' template... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, since the IP edits made a pig's ear of the top of your user page, the "userpage vandalism" warning {{uw-upv}} could have been appropriate: Noyster (talk), 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, yeah, that one was listed over on the right-side of the WP:UWT page. I just missed it. Thanks! --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall: It depends upon what they actually did, but there's plenty of choice. Considering only the level 1 templates, we have: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} {{subst:uw-test1}} {{subst:uw-delete1}} {{subst:uw-notcensored1}} {{subst:uw-harass1}} {{subst:uw-npa1}} {{subst:uw-defamatory1}} most of which continue to level 2 and beyond. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was looking for a 'uw' template specific to mucking about with Userpages – and {{uw-upv}} would have been the best one for that specifically. (P.S. As an aside, I've subsequently figured out who was behind the edits to my Userpage, and I'm pretty sure they were deliberate and not accidental...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

uw-editsummary for mobile users?[edit]

{{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?[edit]

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)