Shortcut: WT:UTM

This page is part of the WikiProject on 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 centralize discussion, all uw-* template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of these templates, please be sure to identify which one. If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject Frequently Asked Questions to see if it is answered there. Thank you.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template messages/User talk namespace page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Archives (Index)
April 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – February 2007 February 2007 February 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – May 2008 April 2008 –

Contents 1 Subst paramter 2 Usage documentation 3 Use of the word "unconstructive" 4 Uw-redirect1 5 Suicide response template needed 5.1 Nomination for deletion of Template:Suicide response 6 New Template:Uw-bizlist 7 Add <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~? 8 Removal of sourced information 9 Incorrect vandalism repair notice 10 test vs uw-test1

[edit] Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Usage documentation

Is there a page that discusses which template to use for various cases, such as {{uw-test1}} vs {{uw-vandalism1}}, and when are the 4im ones appropriate? Should there be a link to that page either on the documentation pages for the individual templates and/or on the category page?

[edit] Use of the word "unconstructive"

Should this template be changed to use the word "nonconstructive" instead of "unconstructive"? Is "unconstructive" a proper word? Firefox's automatic spell checker says it's an incorrect word. It's not included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.[1] It's not included in the Cambridge Dictionary.[2] It's not included in the MSN Dictionary.[3] It's not included in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary that is sitting on my desk, albeit an old dictionary. It seems that the definitions that exist on the WordReference.com dictionary[4] TheFreeDictionary.com[5] only serve as common sense contrivance of a definition of a word ("not constructive"). Is it technically incorrect to use "unconstructive", with "nonconstructive" being the actual correct word?--Abusing (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to wikt:unconstructive, it is correct. In addition, nonconstructive has a slightly different connotation, in my view, at least. It is difficult to describe, but it exists nonetheless. Intelligentsium 02:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it exists, but it seems like more of slapping a prefix onto a word. If "unconstructive" is not in many dictionaries, which use "nonconstructive" instead (both words do have the same meaning) I'm simply suggesting that "non" is the correct word, with "unconstructive" being more of an informal use. Compare this to "uncivil". You would generally use "uncivil" instead of "incivil" and "noncivil", yet all three words exist on Wiktionary. All three words exist, do they not? However, you should simply use the most correct form of the word, should you not?--Abusing (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Firefox underlines a lot of words that are correctly spelled. –xeno^talk 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right.--Abusing (talk)

[edit] Uw-redirect1

Perhaps the language for this should be softened as it doesn't assume good faith at all. I just got slapped with one of these for this edit [6] leading to this discussion: [7]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree the wording is to strong for a Level 1 template message. SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide response template needed

Could you people standardize Template:Suicide response and add it to WP:UTM?? We need something to deal with those disturbed enough to threaten suicide. This template seems to be a good start. I was notified about a recent suicide threat being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat of Suicide that I accidentally got involved in by blocking a vandal. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if some suicide prevention group might already have some kind of guidance for netizens on this point already that could be adapted, or if not, whether it might be better to ask them for a suggestion? There have been attempts to address it before e.g. Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Шизомби (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea from a liability perspective for us to "endorse" any kind of standard suicide response. –xeno^talk 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. Question might be best addressed by Wikipedia's lawyers, it has some, I'd suppose. Шизомби (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At least 1, yes. –xeno^talk 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why? The vast number of so-called 'suicide threats' that are posted are just the poster trolling because he knows it'll get a response from you. HalfShadow 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And if even once it turns out to be genuine, and our response is found (by inquest) to have contributed to an actual suicide....? The potential liability in that event pretty much demands careful attention from legal staff. We volunteers of scattered backgrounds should not be expected to respond both spontaneously and correctly. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody will ever suicide for something so trivial as by something that took place at a web page. In any case it can be the circunstancial excuse, but any background study would soon show divorces, social rejection, drugs adictions, or other real causes of suicide. MBelgrano (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Templated warnings were only meant as a standardised response for every day occurrences such as vandalism etc, they were never foreseen as a substitute for situations where a personal message is/was required. For something so specialised as suicide notes, to slap a templated message/warning on a user page, whether it was trolling or genuine would be contrary to the very nature of the UW templates. One does not issue a UW warning when someone may or maynot be requiring help. For the average editor something along these lines should be go direct to direct to WP:ANI do not pass go and do not collect $200. There are enough admins there with experience dealing with these issues. I would suggest, someone with the best intention in the world using this template could create far more damage than it resolves. Regards ^Khukri 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle the situation. Suicide threats need personalised attention, not a fire-and-forget template. Also the proposed template is very cold-hearted, which is not the way to go about responding to a suicide threat. ThemFromSpace 17:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for deletion of Template:Suicide response

Template:Suicide response has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ^Khukri 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Template:Uw-bizlist

People keep adding their business listings in the hopes of drawing customers, and we keep telling them not to do it here. {{uw-bizlist}} suggests they take it to Wikia's Yellowikis instead. Maybe with someplace to actually go, fewer will keep trying to sneak under the gate here.

This can of course be used in conjunction with the Uw-advert* templates; its purpose is slightly different, that's all. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for creating it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~?

Should we add <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ to {{uw-v1}}, {{uw-v2}}, {{uw-v3}}, {{uw-v4}} and {{uw-v4im}}? Samwb123^T-C-@ 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, for several reasons. The most obvious is that most users are accoustomed to signing after templated messages, so this would cause some confusion at first. Almost all templated messages do not feature the included signature, so we will either have to change all of them, or not change them at all; only changing the vandalism series will cause incredible confusion. Less obviously, sometimes users forget to substitute these messages, which will result in the four tildes being displayed raw, rather than expanded. An additional note: the orthography you suggest will not work; the tildes will be expanded as the signature of whomever put them to the original template when the template is transcluded. An orthography that will work is ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly>. Intelligentsium 03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, some people (like me) sign with --~~~~, which I think used to be the preferred way in the editor documentation and used to expand "--" to "—" also, but doesn't seem to now. Lots of editors (even on this page itself) use this form. I just encountered a userspace welcome template moments ago that already included the tildes (and a return and space to boot), mangling my --~~~~ on the end. --Closeapple (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If, as I normally do, you sign by using the signature button this puts in a double hyphen thus: --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What about adding |sig=yes to it? This would allow people to include the sig that way if they chose to do so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. And I agree with Intelligentsium, let's add this to all of the user template messages. Samwb123^T-C-@ 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

However, it requires more characters (and hence more keystrokes) to type |sig=yes than it does ~~~~. However, this could be an option on templates (such as certain welcome templates) which use the signature in a place other than the end of the post. Intelligentsium 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Before you go ahead with anything like this you may want to look way way way back in the archives, as this was all discussed when we created the templates and the reasons why and eventual why we didn't. Also I would look to go to centralised discussion with a change along these lines. ^Khukri 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced information

I can't see that we have a suitable warning for when someone removes information from an article which is appropriately sourced. The page blanking/removal of content warning isn't quite what I find I'm looking for. __meco (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the blanking templates are all we have for this type of situation.--Kubigula (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to communicate that isn't in the uw-delete* templates? If it's highly specific, you can tell that editor about that case using the "additional text" parameter at {{uw-delete1}}: "{{subst:uw-delete1|Article|Additional text|subst=subst:}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of 'Thank you'". If it would be more generally useful, perhaps a new template should be created. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes solidly sourced information can still be removed legitimately over a WP:ROC concern, that is, the information fits much better in another article. Sometimes also, it can be removed over a WP:UNDUE concern.

So I don't see a need for templates to deal specifically with this problem. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. If it can't be addressed with a uw-delete template, then it probably is the type of situation that calls for a personal message rather than a template.--Kubigula (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Probably" — in the absence of details about what Meco wants to say — but I'd still like to know, just in case (even improbably) there's something worth saying often enough to make another template useful. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect vandalism repair notice

Incorrect vandalism repair is a distressingly common occurrence in Wikipedia. In my opinion, {{Uw-removevandalism}} is currently too vaguely worded. It doesn't actually tell people that they've made a blunder, it just talks about the problem in the abstract. Obviously we want to put the user straight in the nicest possible way, but we do want the message to get through, don't we? Is there any way we could we make the wording a bit more explicit? How about:

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from <article name>. This is greatly appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history and restoring either the whole article or the relevant parts to an appropriate earlier version. If you just manually remove the visible vandalism then any earlier content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for further details. Thank you.

Also, is there any way we could have an optional parameter so that a link to the diff where the vandalism was removed can be provided? If it happened a long time ago then the user might not exactly remember what they did. 81.156.127.29 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC).

[edit] test vs uw-test1

There are two templates, {{test}} and {{uw-test1}} which I believe are for basically similar circumstances. What are the specific criteria for each one? Similaly, there are stronger pairs {{test2}} and {{uw-test2}} etc.; so why are two sets necessary?

Further, the documentation for {{uw-test1}} suggests to use |subst=subst: whereas that for {{test}} doesn't, even though it recognises the |subst= parameter. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 December 2009

Proposing that one series becomes a redirect to the other. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007 an unsuccessful proposal was made that suggested we redirect the entire {{test}} series of warning templates to the {{uw-test1}} series (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17#Template:Test). However perhaps consensus has changed in the 33 months since that discussion. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)