Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:00, 5 November 2013

This page is part of the Misplaced Pages: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 centralize discussion, all uw-* template talk pages and UW project talk pages, redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the UW-* templates, please be sure to identify which one. If you have a query, refer to the WikiProject user warnings main page for more information.

Template:Archive box collapsible

uw-vandalism1 warning

Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Template:uw-vandalism1 - new wording, I think Template:uw-vandalism1 should stick to the "I reverted" language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should stick to the "I undid" language. James asked what harm there was in using the "was reverted" kind of language, and the answer is that we know it makes the warning less effective. This was very heavily discussed before implementing, at this 30 day RFC. Prior to the RFC, we ran randomized, controlled tests of versions that used active voice and where the user introduced themselves, against versions that used passive voice. We ended up proposing the current "I reverted" language because it was more effective at driving away vandals and introducing the rules. Considering that, using TW and Huggle, it is far more common to revert and warn simultaneously, the gains we got in making the warnings more effective are worth the comparatively small annoyance of needing to use a separate template like {{uw-vandalism0}} in an edge case. Plus, and this part is just my personal opinion as a writer, using passive voice is bad grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When passive voice is needed, I personally prefer to use {{uw-test2}} instead of {{uw-vandalism0}} as it still assumes good faith but puts the warning at level 2 in case it really is a bad faith vandal we are dealing with. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe template:uw-disruptive1 needs a active voice makeover. Dreth Phantomhive 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Uw-ublock}}

Sending completely new users to Special:ListUsers comes across as slightly intimidating, in my opinion. How about the template proposing them to check availability of another username at the SUL Info? — Yerpo 13:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, especially since every account is global now so even if there is only a local account you still can't create the global account. However I think a wikilink is probably better than an external link (tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't know that it's possible to link to the toolserver like that, thanks. — Yerpo 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

uw-block discussion

on AN NE Ent 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced templates are counterproductive to the encyclopedia

The uw-unsourced templates seem pretty WP:BITEish. Aside from their language, which misinterprets WP:V as "every piece of information must have a citation" and not "please cite reliable sources when a statement if a statement is likely to be challenge", it's hard for me to see them as more than impersonal responses to the contributions of newbies. If an experienced editor added a piece of information another editor interpreted as controversial, the editors would likely discuss the issue with specific language on the talk page. Slapping a uw-unsourced template on a newbie's talk page seems like an impersonal way to shut what could have been a productive conversation down. Is there any reason to keep these templates around? It seems far too easy for a protective editor to use them to push newcomers away from their article. (I've noticed this issue has been raised a couple of months ago couple of months ago, which primarily focused on the misinterpretation of WP:V and not the inappropriateness of having an "unsourced information" template at all.) --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of it is to be used when the information they added did need a citation. If editors use it when they shouldn't, that should be addressed with that editor. If the wording implies every piece of information needs a citation, it should just be updated to fix that rather than removing the templates altogether. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I just can't think of any situation where a template would be more appropriate than addressing the specific piece of information. As a hypothetical example, "Thanks for contributing to the coffee article. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that suggests coffee can cause pancreatic cancer. I've tried to verify the fact you added, but I couldn't find anything on Google or Google Books. Could you point me in the direction of where you learned that coffee causes pancreatic cancer?" This sort of personalized response seems much more likely to lead editors to learn about Misplaced Pages policies and continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. An impersonal template is more likely to put editors on the defensive and make them leave Misplaced Pages in frustration. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 16:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:uw-inline-el

Hi,

I've come across {{uw-inline-el}}, which I think is suitable for adding to this project (at least after the bit of tidying myself and Scott Martin have done. Are there any hoops I should jump through before I add {{single notice}} to the template and add it to the list at {{single notice links}}?

While we're on the subject, would it make more sense for this to be moved to {{uw-inline-el1}}, possibly with higher levels of its own or possibly with higher levels redirecting to the uw-spam series?

—me_and 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No hoops, add freely.

I'd avoid making it into a series, unless strongly needed, as the proliferation of templates is an ongoing problem. Simplify, when possible! –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

uw-redlink

There used to be a useful warning template for ignorant removals of redlinks, but I see it was changed years ago and later deleted (years ago). I find myself composing a redlink removal warning frequently, so I would personally like to have it in Twinkle's choice of single issue notices. I have composed (recomposed?) such a template {{uw-redlink}}, but I am not sure of the process to incorporate it into TW. I would appreciate comments on the validity of such a user warning template as well as making it available in Twinkle. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not sure how/where templates get added to Twinkle, but asking at WT:TW is the best bet - I see a few similar requests in the archives there. –Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Flagging templates in the source code

There's recently been some back-and forth in {{uw-vandalism1}} over whether to include the <!--Template:uw-vandalism1-->:

• Codename Lisa removed the comment as it "provoked a hostile response"; even though the template expands to something that assumes good faith and doesn't mention vandalism, I can understand an editor seeing the comment and objecting to the accusation of vandalism.
• Jackmcbarn restored the comment as it's useful to know which template left the message.
• Codename Lisa swapped Template:uw-vandalism1 for oldid=580227252, saying it "serves the same purpose but doesn't have that bad effect".

I don't understand the meaning of the oldid string; is it intended to just be an arbitrary string that someone could search for if they needed to? Or can it be used in some way I don't understand to reference the actual template?

In any case, I suspect this would (a) benefit from some wider discussion (or at least awareness), and (b) whatever conclusion is reached should probably be applied across the user warning templates, in the name of consistency.

For my part, I entirely understand Codename Lisa's objection to having the template name in the comments, but I do think we need some way of referencing the template in question.

—me_and 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• WikiProject User warnings