Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Uw-error templates

I feel that these templates should be moved to Uw-incorrect because it makes more sense. Uw-error is ambiguous and people could think it refers to other templates (eg. the vandalism Template). Uw-incorrect currently redirects there Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Uw-citevar

Announcing single-level notice {{uw-citevar}}, to advise a user about WP:CITEVAR issues. I will notify RedWarn and Twinkle. Please make any needed improvements. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2025

Change "[[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]" to "[[Help:Introduction|welcome page]]" Jako96 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Completed per WP:NOTBROKEN – redirect from a page move. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead wranglers

I not infrequently run across editors who fall into an editing style that I am gong to call, "lead wranglers". By this I mean, those editors, usually fairly new, whose edits are made mostly to the lead of various articles, with no clear benefit, but hard to attack as clearly violating some guideline. (Probably WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY comes closest.) These editors may be of good faith and they may be seriously trying to improve wording, grammar, or style, although rarely citations or content; their edits are pretty much always low-effort edits of uncertain value. Maybe they are improvements, maybe not, but they generally don't involve, say, significant effort to chase down a reliable source and generate a needed citation; rather, they are the low-hanging fruit of non-objectionable word diddling or just questionable changes in wording or style. At some level, maybe we have all been guilty of this on some occasion, but if I am not mistaken, there is a cohort of editors who do this to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. They just diddle the lead, leaving it no worse, maybe, but whether it is better, is doubtful, and anyone's guess.

One, or two, or a handful of such edits would probably fly under the radar and not matter, especially as there may not be a particular policy or guideline violation to point to (and template their talk page with). But at some point, one has to question whether they are really here to improve the encyclopedia, or just getting off on messing with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with the least effort they can get away with, by continually messing with the top of the page. I view such edits as unhelpful, and potentially disruptive.

First of all, I am interested in your feedback: whether you have noticed anything like what I am describing, and how you have dealt with it. Secondly, I am considering creating a new advice template for this situation, to be called {{uw-lead wrangler}}, at least until someone comes up with a better name. The point of having a template is to record the event on the user talk page when warranted. Ideally, by making the editor aware, they would change their ways and improve as an editor, and that would be the best outcome. But in the worst case, it would provide a record that might be of value later to an admin looking at the user's history. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2025

Please change the [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] icon to [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] to match with the other uw-3 templates. Yerlo (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I checked four or five level 3 templates, and they all use the Nuvola image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 August 2025

These templates should also have their icons changed from File:Ambox warning pn.svg to File:Nuvola apps important.svg to match the base template ({{uw3}}) and the other uw-3 templates. Yerlo (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching these. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What have I been doing lately?

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)

@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)

Uw-rfcbefore

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)

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)

There needs to be a way of 'appealing'

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)

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)

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)

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)

MOS compliance

In the indef version of this 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)