This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Db-notice § Testing for page existence to remove "or" statements. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Template:Uw-defamatory1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The template Template:Uw-login claims "Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting"
This is a gross simplification. Nowhere at WP:SOCKPUPPET is editing while logged out prohibited.
What is "improper" when it comes to multiple accounts is to use them wrong (using them to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt).
If you're at a public computer and want to make a quick edit, nobody forces you to log in first. If that edit is unproblematic, your use of multiple accounts is unproblematic.
The language at WP:SOCKPUPPET can at first blush appear to be clear cut, such as its "in a nutshell" stating "one editor, one account." The language from the nutshell is never repeated by the actual policy language! In actuality, the policy consists of a long list of things not to do. Most of things are things you should not do regardless how how many or few accounts are involved, or in other words, it doesn't really have anything to say on using multiple accounts.
Take the following paragraph as a good example. At first sight, it appears to be strongly saying editing while logged-out is forbidden:
But read the language carefully. When an editor "should" do something, that's a recommendation, not an order. Even innocuous activities might in some cases (my emphasis) be treated as sockuppetry. That "innocous intentions" won't serve as an excuse refers to those cases where the activities are treated as sockpuppetry.
Of course, the real story is that usage of multiple accounts is an indicator of sockpuppetry - one among many. But in of itself it isn't prohibited. You need to do something bad or suspicious for your multiple account usage to land you in hot water.
Please rephrase the template. I realize its usage is to gently warn off people that already lie in the danger zone of sockpuppetry, but nothing about the template itself indicates this. As written, it is a template an editor could conceivably use against any use of multiple accounts, such as the very common "not bothering to log in to do this edit from a new computer". And that usage is mostly irritating.
I would like to see the template be less passive-agressive. Be more specific! "Since your logged-out edits are a bit suss, could you log in please?" or something that tells our fellow editors when using it is appropriate.
When the editor you template is doing things that skirt our rules, then it is appropriate.
When the editor is doing a great job improving our encyclopedia, it is not appropriate.
CapnZapp (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Not a problem I have a lot better to be the only one that I can get to work on and to have a great 2600:4041:3C1:D800:79E4:AB85:D1BD:B15A (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
An offshoot of this discussion raised the issue of language in user-warning templates (particularly level 1 of multi-levels) using wishy-washy language about whether the warning concerns just one of the user's edits, or more than one, with the resulting vague wording trying to cover both cases, which ends up just making it look even more obviously like a template. There isn't a consistent approach among templates about how they handle the sing./pl. issue. One proposal mentioned there was to add a template param (maybe |one=yes
, or |num=singular
?) to tighten up the template language.
Once the warning gets to level 2, by definition we are talking about more than one occurrence, so plural is appropriate for level 2 and higher and we only need to look at the level 1 warnings (or single-level templates, in some cases). These templates grew organically over many years via separate paths, so the inconsistency is hardly surprising, but that doesn't mean we can't fix it fairly easily, if there's consensus to do so.
Here's a breakdown of selected level 1 templates and a sprinkling of single-use templates, with excerpts:
Excerpts from warning templates showing how they approach the "one or more" issue:
|
---|
Singular only:
Plural only:
Singular OR plural:
Number-neutral:
|
Some questions arise from this:
|1=yes
to specify "singular" (or, |multi=yes
, or |num=sing
/ |num=plural
)? Should we strive for the same param default in each case, or case-by-case, with some warning templates defaulting to singular, and others to plural?Thoughts? Thanks to Sdkb for initiating the discussion at Template talk:Db-notice that sparked this. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This series was created by Trey Maturin, as a derivative of uw-test, in connection to very extensive discussions, most of which are linked to at Wikipedia talk:Large language models. The original discussion about this problem was at VPP. There's a Signpost essay about it. The latest incidents which immediately preceded the creation of the new warnings are at ANI. There are also many more routine types of such incidents, whereby LLM-originated drafts are created. From what I've seen based on my speedy deletion tagging, administrators delete them. I've previously been posting repurposed/improvised notifications about LLM misuse on creators' pages, such as seen here: User talk:Tapiwa r.#March 2023. I incorporated the templates into the project. All comments are welcome. —Alalch E. 22:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism– WP:VAND. Only the deliberate addition of misleading or incorrect information is vandalism. XAM2175 (T) 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalismand
avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia. Adding this kind of content can be vandalism in certain circumstances but it is not prima facie vandalism under Wikipedia's definition of the term. - Aoidh (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of something like this.
Extended content
|
---|
I am declining your unblock request. You were blocked for your own conduct, not for the conduct of other users. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. |
Thoughts? 137a (talk • edits) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-delete1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe it would be helpful to add a link to WP:CRV in the warning to give possibly new editors being warned information about correct and incorrect removal of content. "I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why." could be changed to, "I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why." interstatefive 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Template:Uw-unverified1
I've run into a need for something like new template ((uw-unverified1)) a fair bit over the years, including a couple of occasions just in the last few weeks (latest one, here; hand-rolled in several edits). Basically, it's like ((uw-unsourced1)), except it's for the case where they *do* add a source but it doesn't verify the content. What I usually do in this case, is to first ((subst:uw-unsourced1)), and then make a second edit, altering the wording appropriately, and trying to remember what wording I used the last time. Finally got tired of it, and wanted some sort of solution to avoid wasting my time all the time.
I can imagine two approaches: one where we add another param to ((uw-unsourced1)) and then parametrically alter the wording for the "gave-a-source" case, or a new template. The first option seems a bit squirrely, and also isn't really the way things are done here, afaict. So, I ended up splitting it off into a new template, borrowing as much wording from ((uw-unsourced1)) as I could, and tweaking the rest (see diff). I think it could become a two-level multi, possibly defaulting to ((uw-unsourced3)) if we need a 3rd level. Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Current warn template for WP:UN doesn't fit for non-promotional accounts that appear to be in violation of WP:ISU. Does something like this work?
Extended content
|
---|
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Example-bad-username", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because implies your account is shared between multiple individuals, which violates our policies. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. If this is a shared account, everyone involved should create new individual accounts for editing. If this is not a shared account, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. |
– Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there a UW template warning an editor about the probably use of a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT? I couldn't find one. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to give a level 2 disruption warning but couldn't use it because there is no content dispute involved. So it made me wonder why ((Uw-disruptive2)) and 3 have any need to mention content dispute at all? In any such case that I have ever seen, ((uw-ewsoft)) and ((uw-editwar)) have done that job. I have seen many cases of disruptive editing that just manages to avoid being categorised as vandalism.
So my proposal is that we remove the bullet points from ew-d2 and ew-d3, leaving just the current opening and closing paragraphs (making them consistent with ew-d1 and ew-d4).
Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
|details=
could be used to supply the current "content dispute" text when that is relevant but omitted when it is not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-unsourced2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed the Huggle version of this had included the phrase "Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page". This could be a great addition to this warning before it asks the person to add references to the article, as it educated newcomers to go to the talk page for edits that may spark controversy. interstatefive 23:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I've set up Template:Uw-plotsum4 to complete the series after a question I had a while ago. (and I set up plotsum3). The other one I've set up was Template:Uw-paid4im/. Maybe Uw-paid4im isn't super needed, because of the fact that someone who is super obviously getting paid for their edits, but not disclosing that, would probably be blocked immediately due to the fact that undisclosed paid editing violates Wikimedia's Terms of Service. The Silent Ones (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw3 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a (({details|))} parameter between "Please stop." and "If you continue to...". The reason is so that the template can be used for stuff like Template:Uw-disruptive3. It is good to have consistency between messages, and the base uw messages allow for that. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
|reason=
and |page=
with |details=
? Don't really see how a |details=
parameter would add anything to the existing parameters, which already seem to do the job you want to do. Do I need enlightenment? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
|extra=
instead? @Awesome Aasim Izno (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-vandalism1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding Template:Uw-vandalism1, where it says they did not appear constructive.
I suggest changing it to they did not appear to be constructive.
Just a minor clarification to the language being used. Thanks for your consideration, Fork99 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the question made User:Steel1943, (here:[1]) I am making a proposal to create a user warning template for when a user is suspected of sharing accounts.
There is currently no appropriate template for this, with the closest one maybe being ((uw-agf-sock)). This one is very inadequate since it refers to sockpuppetry, not account sharing.
Here is what this template may look like.
Uw-accshare
Hello, Template index/User talk namespace! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that this account may be used by multiple people. Sharing accounts is prohibited on Wikipedia, and those who do may be blocked from editing. If there are multiple people sharing this account, please make them log out and create an account. Additionally, please change the password on this account. Thank you.
Please feel free to provide any and all feedback to my proposal. Millows (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
((subst:Uw-username|it implies possible use by multiple individuals))
This edit request to Template:Uw-advert1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original text:
Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;
The two links are a little mixed up: "advertising" links to "soapbox" and "soapbox" links to "soapbox or means of promotion":
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Advertising]]
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|soapbox]]
I propose pointing them to specific links, e.g.:
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for advertising|Advertising]]
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox]]
Or it could be better to link the whole phrase, with a little rewrite:
Using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" or means of promotion is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion|Using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" or means of promotion]] is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted;
Sidenote: I'm using redirected links in these examples, but the corresponding section links would also be fine. I'm not sure why the verbose versions are being used currently, but I imagine there's a good reason.
— W.andrea (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a template for informing other editors that a vandal has removed prior warnings that can be viewed in the edit history of their user talk. I can't remember the name of it and cannot find it, can someone help? – Meena • 11:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
If this was unjustified, please do revert. I've blanked out the Islamic honorific warnings 3 and after and replaced islamhon2 to mos2 on the template index. The Islamic honorific warnings stopped at 1 (and the Manual of Style warnings replace it after that), so that way it doesn't show too much different ones in the same row. It does appear that Islamic honorifics are more an NPOV thing than a MOS thing. The redirects should stay, because some user-warning tools might use those instead of the uw-mos series. GrishForce (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time monitoring CAT:RFU. I'm concluding that there's something wrong with Template:Uw-spamublock. The vast majority of the unblock requests for this indicate the user is strongly under the impression that the problem with their account is the name; it's almost always "ok, please change my name and then I can edit again", and almost never "oh, I'm sorry I've been spamming, here's what I'll do in the future, and also, please change my name." Users who are blocked using spamublock - at least the ones who request unblocking - are rarely malicious spammers; most often they are associated with small businesses and are simply unaware of our policies. I think we need to modify the text so that it's clear that the username issue is entirely secondary to the spamming issue. Small changes could change the emphasis. For example:
This moves the emphasis from the name to the problematic behavior, and should result in less confusion on the part of the blocked user, and less time wasted explaining stuff to users who thought they had fixed the problem by asking for a rename.
Thoughts? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at Template:Uw-spamublock/sandbox; I've got a first pass on a new version there. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hard to tell if it's made a difference (since of course we wouldn't see what people are doing less of.) I've put a small change in the sandbox -- numbering instead of bullets on the desired steps. Maybe putting the new name as number 4 would indicate that it's "all of these things", not "one of these things"? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Today I noticed that a new editor modified content cited to a particular source (which I have access to) changing the meaning to something other than what the source said. There's no template for failed verification as far as I can tell. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
On Template:Uw-notenglishedit, replace "I removed one or more of your recent additions" with "one or more of your recent additions has been removed" because someone else could have removed the edit. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 13:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Am I allowed to use the ((uw-vandalism2)) template or is it meant to be used by administrators only? AmberWing1352 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm looking over the guidelines while making a new template of this type. The rules are quite specific (perhaps because they are used in scripts and gadgets?). Is there a checklist or any kind of approval process for the warning template once I feel it's ready? Rjjiii (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Template:Uw-ga-driveby
Rjjiii, Proposed text change:
− | + | Current practice is that only editors who have significantly contributed to the article are able to nominate it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions). |
The more time goes on, the less likely anybody is going to know or care what happened before Jan. 2023. I left two words ("current practice") in there to handle the case I think you were trying to deal with, i.e., the "surprise" factor for those who may have been doing this for a long time and missed the update, but even those words should come out after a time, and the template should ultimately just say what the requirement *is*, without worrying too much about what it used to be. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, is there a warning template for adding a wrong reference? If not, could you please add one?
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transavia&diff=prev&oldid=1182003448
The article is about the airline Transavia and the user added a reference about a poultry company called Transavia totally not belonging there.
My suggestion is similar to the template for of not adding references:
Please stop. If you continue to add references, that don't support the particular material, as you did in the Transavia article, you may be blocked from editing.
[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop. If you continue to add [[Wikipedia:PROVEIT|wrong references, that don't support the particular material]], as you did in the [["name of article"]] article, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. [["Possible explanation"]] <!-- Template:uw-wrongref1 --> WikiPate (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
While this template's explanation of the "national varieties of English" policy has all of the necessary detail for explaining said policy, it fails to account for a common cause of infractions, which is a lack of knowledge of alternate spellings that result in mistaking different varieties of English for misspellings. Speaking from personal experience, I think that the template assuming any change to be intentional localization comes across as harsh or unfeeling when that is not the user's intention, even if the language is not aggressive.
The addition of a short passage acknowledging the possibility of said mistake will dampen negative reception without muddying the informative aspect of the message. Meatius Pizzus (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This template has Please see Help:Minor edit for more information
at the end, but the term "Minor edit" is already mentioned above, so to me, it makes more sense to link it there instead. I usually do this when I'm using the template myself, specifically:
... I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.
— W.andrea (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose removing this opening from the level-1 templates (and any others that might have it). It's redundant with the signature, distracts from the person getting the actual message, is irrelevant, is kind of misleading (implies that the editor leaving the template is some kind of authority figure who needs to be name-dropped), and tends to be repetitive with other messages (e.g. previous warnings/notices and a previous welcome template left by the same editor). I wouldn't be opposed to retaining an introductory "Hello" at the level-1 stage, but the username injection is repetitive and arguably counterproductive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☏ ¢😼or
Belbury (talk)at the end of a message is even a signature or the name of a person at all. Being notified of a level 1 template on their user talk will in most cases be the first time that they'll have ever seen a Wikipedia talk page.
((uw1|...))
) instead of substitution (((subst:uw1|...))
), which I've fixed]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Would it be possible to create a standard warning for misrepresenting what sources say? I run into this problem a lot. The current unsourced warnings tend to be people adding no sources. Yuchitown (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
It occurs to me that this template ((notenglish)) should support a parameter indicating the language of the contribution in question. Such as a ISO 639 language code, and a suggestion about contributing to the Wikipedia (if it exists) in that language. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
A template similar to the uw-vandalism1 template It should go like this: Hello, I"m (user). I noticed that you added unneeded details in one or more of (your contributions). It's been removed for now. If you want to know how to be concise, see WP:TLDR.
Note: this is a rough draft of the template. Improvements would be greatly appreciated. ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
For ((Uw-editsummary)) and ((Uw-editsummary2)), would others support adding a mention that using edit summaries in practice reduces the chances that an edit will be reverted? This seems like a more direct incentive to use them than some of the language presently there. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Uw-plotsum1 and Template:Uw-plotsum3 don't list ((Uw-plotsum4))
in the series list at the bottom of the page, I don't know how to fix this, can someone fix it for me please? Theooolone (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-test1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I dislike the phrasing "a mistake was made", even if it is not what was intended here. I recommend just using the wording "if you think I made a mistake" like many other user warning templates. Ca talk to me! 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello all- Question re editing this template's message, or creating another version of it: I occasionally leave talk page messages encouraging use of edit summaries. Sometimes I invoke this template via RedWarn (where it is called "Not using edit summary for more experienced users"). Ideally, where appropriate, I'd like to have the option to change the opening "Hello" to "Hello, and thank you for your contributions". Does anyone think that it might be worth considering that we change this templates message to that? I understand that the thank-you might not always be merited, so I wanted to run the idea by anyone who watches here.
Side question: Using RedWarn to post template messages always creates a section header with the month and year. Does anyone know if there is a mechanism to suggest alternate section headings to the keepers of RedWarn? For example, I would prefer that this template's message be given a header more along the lines of "Edit summaries, please". Thanks in advance for any comment. Eric talk 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4 and Template:Uw4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The templates Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4, Template:Uw4im, and Template:Uw2 are being considered for merging with Template:Uw. Please add <noinclude>
((subst:tfm|Uw))
</noinclude>
to these templates. Thanks. Awesome Aasim 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-delete1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In ((uw-delete1)):
If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored.
If I, for one, was a brand-new editor who made an edit only to have it immediately wiped off the site,[a] I would probably read that part of the warning message and interpret it as insinuating that my edit was so ridiculous it could only have resulted as a mistake. Even if that's not what happens, why are we judging whether someone intentionality did an edit or not in the first place? We should simply say
I have restored the deleted content to be safe.
Or even just
I have restored the deleted content.
Even "I have restored the deleted content in case this was a mistake" would be better than the current text, and would convey the same meaning without the condescencion.
I would also advocate similar changes for ((uw-blpprod1)), ((uw-tdel1)), ((uw-blank1)), ((uw-idt1)), ((WPRYT Uw-banner)) (why does a WikiProject have dedicated warnings?!), and ((uw-speedycontest1)). 24.24.242.66 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
((Edit template-protected))
template. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)This edit request to Template:Uw3 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, this edit request is to add the |link=
option to the warning icon.
This has the effect of removing the link on the warning icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.
But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).
The diff is:
− | [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning | + | [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon|link=]] |
The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates. I've edited most of them manually, and I'm glad to see most level 3 templates transclude Uw3, that's much less tedious =)
I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw3/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 93 transclusions, there are some user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 3 uw templates. I'm hoping this is okay, as a small cosmetic fix for dark mode compat.
Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
((LGPL))
which is not public domain, so the link to the file description page must not be defeated. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images concerns the |alt=
option, not the |link=
option. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
|link=
parameters. As for svg v. png, I thought that svg was generally preferred. If there is a bug with dark mode, shouldn't we fix that bug instead of working around it by changing image calls in a bunch of templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)This edit request to Template:Uw4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello (again), this edit request is to add the |link=
option to the stop hand icon. (Essentially the same request as above, now for the uw4 template).
This has the effect of removing the link on the stop icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.
But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).
The diff is:
− | [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop | + | [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]] |
The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates, while uw3 is fully converted over.
I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw4/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 151 transclusions, there are some user and user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 4 uw templates. (There's two transclusions into user .js files, but they don't do anything special, so I expect nothing there should break.)
Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
− | [[File: | + | [[File:Stop2.png|30px|alt=Stop icon]] |
html .image img[ alt^=" icon" ],
html .mw-file-description img[ alt^=" icon" ]
@Mlkj recently noticed that, because the orange "information" icon has an attribution requirement in its license, we have to link to the file page if we use it. This is unfortunate, given that users who see a clickable information icon will generally expect it to lead to information about the warning they were just given, not a file page. Is it time for us to change our standard icon? Or is the current icon set simple enough that we could just declare it PD under ((PD-simple))? Sdkb talk 19:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Can someone add the proper documentation and categories to Template:Uw-dupargs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? It's not currently documented nor categorized. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the last word 'Thanks!' of the template to 'Thanks.', omit the exclamation mark to keep polite and formal. Like this Hello, I'm 2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! but 'Thanks.' rather than 'Thanks!'.2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit semi-protected))
template. PianoDan (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the last sentence, we should write as Please comment on content, not on contributors rather than Comment on content, not on contributors to keep it formal. 2001:EE0:4BC2:15B0:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I made a warning template for gaming the system, User:Mseingth2133444/uw-gts for gaming the system and I request it be included in the list of templates. Or can I just do it myself? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw-error1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please start the template by Hello, I'm Example. This is a message to let you know that one or more of [[your recent edits]] appeared to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. for consistency.
113.165.236.133 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4 and Template:Uw4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the TfM templates from these templates, as it was closed as no consensus. Thanks, Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 06:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)