Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Using AFC

Various policies and guidelines tell conflicted or paid editors to use WP:AFC.

On {{uw-coi}}, shouldn't:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;

say something like:

other than in the Draft namespace (where you should declare your CoI), avoid avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;

(which could be split over two bullet points)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I prefer it as it is. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference; it's a matter of giving (new) users correct and relevant information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Uw-block edit request for dark mode compatibility

Please merge changes at Template:Uw-block/sandbox so future substitutions are dark mode compatible. You can also check testcases (Template:Uw-block/testcases). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2024

Currently, {{uw-editsummary2}} uses File:Information.svg with the empty argument |link=, preventing it from linking to its information page. According to Help:Pictures § Links, since the file's CC BY-SA license requires attribution, the image should link to its information page. Therefore, I think it should be changed from:

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon|link=]]

to:

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]

jlwoodwa (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed {{uw-editsummary}} also had this issue, I have fixed it as described above. {{uw-editsummary2}} still needs this fix. Tollens (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the license fix. It's unfortunate that it's necessary, though — from a usability standpoint, it's not very helpful to have a link to an icon file page in a notice. Sdkb ^talk 21:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these links are annoying as a user, I've clicked them by accident before and it is very confusing to get suddenly sent to the media viewer. It would be great if a CC0 icon set could be found or created to replace the ones often used for these templates, since it wouldn't require any attribution whatsoever. I'm sure such icons probably exist but am also nearly certain that changing these very commonly-used icons would make a non-zero amount of people unreasonably upset. Tollens (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the information icon currently displayed on the side of the closed edit request template in this section, for instance, is public domain (File:Information icon4.svg). Tollens (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminder template for undue detail per WP:BALANCE?

It's possible that a majority of edits I have to routinely revert are that aren't covered by a template are substantial additions of sourced, verifiable, but deleterious material that is some combination of tangential, excessively detailed, redundant, or otherwise irreparably undue as to unbalance the coverage or coherence of the article. {{uw-fringe1}} is the closest, but is obviously not appropriate in most cases described above. Perhaps the template can standardize the common suggestions to move the content to a more specific article, more briefly summarize it in context, or compare with how analogous content is treated across several related articles Remsense ‥ 论 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Templates Lang1 through Lang4

{{lang1}}, {{lang2}}, {{lang3}} and {{lang4}}, which are redirects to different user warning templates, have been nominated for discussion or deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19#Template:Lang1. Please leave any comments you have there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New template?

Is there any way we can create a template regarding people who comment on closed discussions? Because I ran into that problem a couple weeks ago and had to use a generic level 2 disruptive editing template and append a message onto it; when I think a level 2 template specifically for commenting on closed/archived discussions would have been a lot more appropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this happening often enough that there's really a need for a template? It seems to me you could just leave a message saying something to the effect of, "Please don't comment on discussions once they have been closed/archived. Thanks!" DonIago (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll get back to you on it. That particular editor had done so twice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: new uncited-content template

It used to be popularly understood, even by non-editors, that a {{cn}} tag meant the tagger thought the statement was unverifiable, not just uncited.

I'd like to propose this draft new template. I've noticed an increasing number of editors are deleting content they think is accurate and verifiable. They wrongly think all uncited content must be removed, not just WP:BLP content. This is not what policy says.

New editors often add uncited content. When uncited content mostly got cited or tagged, editor numbers were growing exponentially. When it mostly gets deleted, editors numbers decline or just about stay steady.[1] More fixing and tagging of uncited content could significantly increase editor retention.

My goal is to give recipients information about what policy is, and why, and what the alternatives to deletion are.

Crit and suggestions very welcome! HLHJ (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting templating the regulars, or is this only intended to be used when it's newer editors who are removing unsourced content? DonIago (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly new editors and even IPs I've seen removing unsourced content (I once saw an IP which reverted very solid unsourced content on Japanese furniture by an admin living in Japan; I confidently restored it). If a regular wrote or behaved in a way that convinced me they believed they needed to remove content they thought was unsourced but otherwise fine, then I suppose an informational template would be actually informative, and hope it would therefore not be resented. I'd be slower to assume ignorance in the case of an experienced editor, but I'm still finding corners of the wiki where I am ignorant, so I'm not offended when people tell me stuff I might not know. The rvv stuff is a bit obvious, but I think it's needed as a counterbalance. I can't promise no-one will ever misuse this template, but I can hope... HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan. Speaking from experience, I think editors who are willing to remove unsourced content already face a great deal of pressure if/when they do so on a regular basis, and I think templating newer editors who are presumably operating in good faith in this manner is just going to lead to more editors who are afraid to touch unsourced content lest they get sanctioned for doing so. If we could guarantee this template would only be used in cases of egregious overreach I might feel differently, but there's no such guarantee of that. As such, I think while it might be understandable to advise editors in cases where one feels they're unnecessarily removing unsourced content, I don't think we should routinize and depersonalize the process.

I guess my other question is in regards to when this template is intended to be used. I feel there's a difference between newly added unsourced content where the adding editor can be identified, and unsourced "stable" content. If an editor is removing uncontroversial "stable" content for lacking sources, then I would agree that there were probably better options available, such as tagging it. If an editor is focusing on newly added content though (as I do), then I have much less of an issue with it being removed if the editor who added it is being asked to provide a source in the process; indeed, I think this is one of the primary ways that many editors become familiar with the general need to source content when adding it.

TL;DR I'm not comfortable with the template presently, but might support a version clearly intended to be used only in cases of egregious removals of unsourced content in cases where the unsourced content had also been in the article for a significant amount of time. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)