Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

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 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)

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)

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)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2025: Use semantic markup

Change bold to {{strong}}:

−

'''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''

+

{{strong|Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}

−

'''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''

+

{{strong|Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.}}

−

'''may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''

+

{{strong|may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.}}

<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)

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

Template:Uw-orphantalk created

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)

Template-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

link to specific help page:

−

remove [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance|maintenance templates]]

+

[[Help:Maintenance template removal|remove maintenance templates]]

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

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

Template:Uw-ew

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)