Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is permanently protected from editing because it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit semi-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor, extended-confirmed editor or autoconfirmed editor to make the requested edit.

This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.

I'm currently adding the {{Find substed templates notice}} template to the template documentations of various user warning and block templates, especially the block templates. This is specifically to make it easier to find users who have been blocked in the past for specific reasons.

In addition, some partial block template documentations, like Uw-pblock/doc, they literally almost copy Block notice/inner's substituted code, and then have a few small changes (e.g. the addition of the "Parameters" section). This should be compacted to use the same base wrapper template for all of the block templates' documentations, so that updates to the style of Block notice/inner can be consistent. RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RaptorsFan2019: You've been editing Wikipedia for less than a week, so why the interest in altering block templates? Blocks may only be imposed by administrators, who are de facto the only people who should be servicng block notices. So really, it's outside your area of requirement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing single-level notice {{uw-rfcbefore}}, to advise a user about Rfc before issues. Please make any needed improvements.

Pinging @Mz7, SPECIFICO, Closetside, WeatherWriter, ScottishFinnishRadish, Redrose64, Mandruss, Nemov, and Isaidnoway: because you have also advised users in discussions or at their Talk page about WP:RFCBEFORE issues; apologies in advance if the ping was unwelcome. Please leave feedback below, or just boldly edit the template as you see fit. I will notify Twinkle. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. "Unwelcome" pings don't exist in my world, provided they are in good faith. I am perfectly capable of ignoring pings where I have nothing to say; costs me less than a minute in most cases. Life is short but not that short. lol.

My first thought: Why couldn't all that just be added to WP:RFCBEFORE? Instead of templating the guy (or girl), we could just link to RFCBEFORE, which we already do many times. It goes without saying that RFCBEFORE, like all guideline-type information, should be well written and accessible to the average editor. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong that this template does not seem to allow for the possibility that the edit might not be vandalism and that the revert might be unjustified. It should include a way of 'appealing' - something to the effect of 'if you believe that this is a mistake and your edit was not unconstructive, you can ask for further input on the issue at (link)'. In general, there should be some kind of standard dispute resolution procedure for such cases. For instance, I just got this in connection with this, and I realise that there is no standard procedure for me to follow in order to have my contribution restored, given that just reverting back would presumably count as an edit war. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I note that in 2015, the Level 1 template included a note such as 'If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page'. Now it's gone. I even remember a discussion about the removal of this part - it was a bad decision with bad arguments, placing the comfort of vandal patrollers, who want to revert without being bothered on their talk pages, above giving the users whose edits are reverted any opportunity to object. It was the classic authoritarian fallacy that ;criminals don't deserve any rights - including the right to a fair procedure to establish whether they are, in fact, criminals'. --62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD. If you disagree with the notice, you can message the other editor first. People make mistakes; not every mistake has to be escalated to a formal appeal process. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be putting too much weight on a level 1 warning. If you disagree with the warning itself, you can always delete it and move on. If you disagree with the revert of your edit, you can always ask the question at the article's Talk page, or reach out to the editor who warned you. There's also other options. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the indef version of the uw-block template, one part of the message goes "You have been [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]". Per WP:MOS/Linking, double links like that are generally confusing and not used when possible. Would it be possible to replace this double link with "You have been [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|blocked indefinitely]]"? After all, both links lead to different sections of the same page, so it doesn't seem like too much information would be lost by changing the template. Somepinkdude (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable to me on the face of it, but if anyone responsible for the original decision is around, I'd be curious to hear what the rationale is/was. DonIago (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a good idea. We already shove enough walls of blue text at people, and it's fully redundant with the first link anyway. Perryprog (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Uw-ew has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change bold to {{strong}}:

<strong> renders as bold, but carries additional semantic meaning which is good for accessibility, e.g. a screen reader can use a different voice.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W.andrea -  Done (see diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved a user warning I was using in userspace for a few days to be a full grown-up warning and added it to I think all the lists, barring getting it added by default to Twinkle (which I'll also do provided no one has any issue with my doing so). It's specifically meant to be a quick polite message in response to talk page creations that have no existing articles, and are page creations that don't have enough content to warrant keeping. (For those, I just treat it like a normal draftify and use {{Uw-movedtodraft}} or similar.) This has seemingly become a common pattern, and I'm using it enough that it seems it'd be helpful for others. (Also it needs semi-page protection still so if any admin wants to drive-by add that, it'd be appreciated!) Perryprog (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Uw-tdel4im has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

link to specific help page:

I just made this change myself at levels 2, 3, and 4.

— W.andrea (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

W.andrea - Okay; seems harmless and fine to me -  Done. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template had used File:Ambox warning pn.svg as it's icon ever since this edit in 2011, but in this edit, the icon was changed to File:Stop hand nuvola.svg. I don't see any consensus for such a change, especially since Template:Uw-3rr has already used File:Stop hand nuvola.svg as it's icon since 2011. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a change has been left in place with no discussion for 14 years, we can safely assume the change has acquired consensus. That doesn't mean you can't boldly go ahead and change it back... CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The icon the IP is asking to change to is the one that was here for 14 years, not the one that's been here half a month. They can't change it back because the template's template-protected. (I've got no opinion either way myself.) —Cryptic 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the specific edit that the IP is contesting: Revision as of 10:57, 15 September 2025. Pinging @Oshwah, the editor performing that edit: could you please explain your rationale for changing the icon? Your edit summary only says Updating with clearer wording and better sentence structure, formatting. which doesn't even mention that you changed the icon? Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp - My rationale for doing so was for a few reasons. There are three warning templates that involve edit warring: {{uw-ewsoft}} (softer wording for new users, assumes good faith), {{uw-3rr}} (warning with explanation; assumes neutral faith), and this template - {{uw-ew}} (warning without in-depth explanation; assumes that the user is not new). My thought was that the image used on the "neutral warning with explanation" (File:Stop hand nuvola.svg), when comparing the visual and symbols used to the one used on this template (File:Ambox warning pn.svg), it is much more direct and... "tougher"? Just like how we use File:Ambox warning pn.svg on level 3 vandalism warnings and use File:Stop hand nuvola.svg on level 4 and level 4im warnings. I thought that since this warning is a bit "tougher", it should have at least the same one as the "neutral" one. The reason that I didn't mention it in the summary was because... I didn't think about it when I was entering it. Sorry about that; I'll keep that in mind for next time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Like Cryptic, I have no direct stake in this discussion. I do feel slightly confused your three templates doesn't even attempt to follow the standard naming practice... (I mean, why are these three given so completely different names? Why not uw-ew-im, uw-ew-soft and uw-ew-3rr?) However, that's off topic here. Let us see if this concludes this discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please update this template. It is incorrect in two regards.

One: It appears targeted at user talk pages, not talk pages in general. Yet it links to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Archiving and not to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User talk pages. Basically it should use WP:OWNTALK (and not, effectively, WP:TALKCOND or WP:TALKSIZE).

Two: It claims that the guideline say As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. but a specific number (such as 75 KB) has not been mentioned since March 2025 (discussion: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 17#Limit). Not to mention this number didn't apply to user talk pages even when it was there...

Also, the template's documentation should probably be more specific about when to use and - crucially - not to use this template.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking more about it, I have nominated the template for deletion. I believe further discussion is best held here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 6#Template:Uw-archive. CapnZapp (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...less than a day after raising the issue here? What's the rush? Why not give this opening of a discussion an opportunity to resolve the issue before jumping to a deletion nom? - \\'cԼF 10:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because after thinking about it, I feel resolving the issues brought up here can only be resolved by not having a user warning template at all. As I expand upon over at the TfD, all we can do, given current guidelines that gives full discretion over user talk pages to their owners, is politely ask users to archive. We already have a template doing just that, if we should template users at all. Placing a uw- template (a user warning or notification) implies someone is breaching protocol as it were (whether guidelines, policies or mere recommendations) and that's just not applicable anymore for user talk. As I asked you over at TfD, please provide a bit of detail about how you would "update" this template. If you agree with me, you would have to... pretty much remove everything about the template? So assuming you disagree, what specific parts of my line of reasoning do you disagree with? Please don't just !vote keep with no real intention to meet my actual arguments. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Uw-legal has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please add "If your copyrighted content is being used improperly, you can submit a DMCA request." to this template. The Pizza Hackers 🍕 16:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Creating a template is not a simple semi-edit request. Can be discussed here though, but closing this. Nubzor [T][C] 17:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor: The Pizza Hackers isn't asking for a template to be created, but an amendment to Template:Uw-legal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done By SnowyRiver28. x2step (lets talk 💌) 05:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @X2step, my edit request script kept timing out for some reason! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you replace "[https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Wikimedia_Foundation_Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act_(%22DMCA%22)_Policy DMCA request]" with "[[foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Policy|DMCA request]]"? The Pizza Hackers 🍕 14:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by User:Oshwah SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to update this to use {{Str startswith}} to automatically show a WP:HATGPT variant when the article link is set to a talk page, but ai1 is riddled with empty or oddly-placed noincludes and I'm worried I might accidentally break it if I touch anything. Dandykong1 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Template:Uw-ai1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandykong1: The empty <noinclude></noinclude> are there to prevent the various safesubst: from being triggered until the template is WP:SUBSTed for real. You can make your experimental changes in Template:Uw-ai1/sandbox where they won't affect the real world. See WP:TESTCASES --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to implement this and the switch (to allow for future adaptation to other namespaces) doesn't work in substitutions no matter what I do, and once I thought it worked I published the changes only to discover that I accidentally transcluded it in testing. Dandykong1 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to just make new templates for this. Dandykong1 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]