Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Conversation in article talk space[edit]

I propose that references to Article in the documentation for {{uw-chat1}} etc should be to Talk:Article, eg:

What to type What it makes
{{subst:uw-chat1|Talk:Article}} Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Article are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

This gives "... talk pages such as Talk:Article ...", which makes more sense than "... talk pages such as Article ...", because the latter does not link to a talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There are others that should also have a similar change, for the same reason, eg:

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I just created a new uw template[edit]

I just created Template:Uw-1rr because I couldn't find a general template I could use with 1RR-restricted reversions. (I based it off of Template:Uw-3rr.) The thing is, I'm not sure I went about creating it the right way. Is there an official process for this kind of stuff? Does it need to be approved or anything like that? I've never created a template for Wikipedia before. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything technically wrong with your new template. But I am puzzled as to its proper use. It mentions:
while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule.
I don't recall ever encountering the WP:1RR rule. Even reading that guideline sheds little light. Then there is the much more mysterious WP:0RR (zero revert rule). Frankly, both of these smack of entrapment. Maybe you can explain the logic behind all of this? —EncMstr (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@EncMstr: The 1RR rule is mainly used in articles under ArbCom sanctions, such as, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict (see WP:ARBPIA). As for the sentence you quoted, that's a modified version of what {{uw-3rr}} says (one revert instead of three). The reason I decided to keep it is because someone can continue to revert other people (aka edit-war) and only revert after the 24 hours have expired, which means it wouldn't be a 1RR violation. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Some new form messages for NPP[edit]

Hello all. I've started to develop some new form messages for new editors, that I hope will be more friendly and informal than the default Twinkle messages. They're listed on my user subpage. I'd be really keen to hear what people think about them and if they have any suggestions for improvements.

I'm not proposing to submit these as official templates (not for the foreseeable future, anyway), but I hope that some people might find them useful. Blythwood (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere I like the tone of these messages, a more friendly way than the "official" templates of reaching out to the good-faith and reasonably literate new editors whom we want to encourage. I shall certainly be plagiarising them: Noyster (talk), 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Uw-thumb1 .. uw-thumb4[edit]

I question the creation/addition of these templates:

  • The use of thumb may contradict WP:INFOBOXIMAGE, but it's a big step to interpret its use as deliberately disruptive.
  • Uploading an image on Commons, using the UploadWizard, the uploader is presented with a link to copy & paste which includes the thumb parameter.
  • Is there consensus for this being a 4-step violation?

In short, this series of cautions presumes, without any basis in policy, that an occasional contributor of images, following the guidance given on commons, is deserving of a block after their 4th upload & use of that image. I propose removing the templates from this page & nominating for deletion.

ping Zackmann08 as author Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The thumb syntax is incorrect for infoboxes, producing the wrong visual result, so it is disruptive if they keep doing it after being told that and informed of the correct way to add images to infoboxes. If they ignore or fail to learn from polite requests to use the correct syntax, that seems to be a WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT type of issue, which can often result in a block. It's not a case of deserving a block after 4th use of an image, but after ignoring or failing to respond to requests to use the correct syntax. Innocent mistakes are fine, failing to learn from them is not. Murph9000 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Murph9000, checking my upload history on commons I see my last upload before today was over 7 years ago. Do you really think I should be required to know that the code snippet given to me authoritatively by commons is wrong? I still don't see anywhere that it was agreed this error is a 4-steps-to-the-exit offence. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Cabayi: The syntax is wrong, repeatedly using it is disruptive (as it does not produce the correct visual result and requires other editors to fix the mistake). Do you really think it is reasonable for someone to ignore recent polite requests to use the correct syntax? No reasonable editor should be going past level 1 or level 2 of this in a short timescale, and those that keep doing it are disruptive editors. It is extremely useful to have a standard template to inform people of the problem and educate them in the correct way of doing it. People who persist in this will be receiving up to level 4 warnings whether or not this template exists, but this at least gives them a specific standard message with good advice. There is clear consensus to support blocking people who persist in incompetent or disruptive editing after polite and fair warnings and education about it. If Commons is giving out bad advice, that should be fixed. I do think you should be required to know that the advice given by Commons is incorrect if you have recently received a polite message about it which both informs you of the problem and includes the correct advice. Murph9000 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Murph9000, none of the 4 warnings mentions that commons has it wrong. Given that most folks think of Wikipedia as one coherent whole, not as a bunch of bickering fiefdoms, it seems more likely they'd also assume the advice they're receiving TODAY at commons is more up-to-date than the advice they received here on enwiki last week.
    Rather than marching users towards the exit for making the wrong choice from conflicting instructions, and pointlessly alienating them, wouldn't it make more sense to have a bot silently fix the error? Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Template creator) - @Cabayi: Thanks for bringing this up. I obviously disagree as the template creator. My main note is that I do NOT think that someone who has the occasion miss-edit is worthy of a block, but repeated offenders may be. To be more specific... If you have a user who makes this mistake once, then a month or two later makes it again, the again a month later, etc.. That is not someone I think is worthy of blocking. The editor this template is intended to "target" (for lack of a better word) is the editor who makes these same edits day after day. At which point they really are becoming disruptive. It is meant for the editor who has been warned about this issue multiple times and has flat out ignored it. Editors who simply make the mistake, no problem!!! AGF and just let them know "Hey, here's what you did wrong". But the editor who just continues to ignore the correction and do it wrong day after day... They deserve the warning and eventual block if they continue to make the disruptive edits. Hope that makes sense. Looking forward to hearing other opinions. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)