Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

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: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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CapnZapp - I'm astonished; you give me much more credit than I deserve! I wasn't the creator of any of these templates nor was I responsible for why they were given the names they have. Fortunately for us, the owner of these templates... wait... *looks again at his paperwork*... Oh, that's odd... *shuffles paperwork*..... no owner was written down according to my paperwork here! ;-) I guess that means... that means... MINE! IT'S MINE! I SAW IT FIRST! IT'S MINE!!! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're jesting, and that you did realize I didn't think you necessarily had anything to do with the naming of these, and only made my observation now that you brought them up as a grouped trio. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp - Correct; I was just being silly... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-archive

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)

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)

...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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

can you replace "[https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Wiki media_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)

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

@Oshwah i said replace the url with [[foundation:<insert text here>]], not add span plain links The Pizza Hackers 🍕 06:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They link to the same page, no? The link you provided is missing quotation marks and broken anyway. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

that's an example, i used <nowiki> so it doesnt appear as an actual link The Pizza Hackers 🍕 12:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Please make sure any example HTML tags you post in a comment are inside nowiki or code tags, you almost broke the page. Dandykong1 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Better still, use {{tag}} which is specifically designed and extensively tested to be safe from acciental interpretation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Pizza Hackers - I actually performed that edit on my own; I wasn't aware that you had this edit request open and that it involved the exact item that I saw and happened to improve. If you believe that the template needs further revision, you're of course 100% welcome to create a new edit request with the changes you suggest and your rationale for why it is necessary. If you'd like, I'll be happy to review it myself and discuss it with you. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The Pizza Hackers - I'm just following up with you here to let you know that I've made the edit to the template that you suggested in your request, so you're all set! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Uw-ai

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)

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

@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)

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)

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

Template:Uw-notenglishtalk

I've often noticed some editors using other languages in their edit summaries (even if they use English in the actual edit). Could we make a slight tweak to the wording in the {{uw-notenglishtalk}} template to cover these instances?

−

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you[...]

+

I noticed that you have communicated with editors in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments and edit summaries. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you[...]

It's common, but probably not quite common enough to create its own template, especially when essentially the reason behind it is the exact same as this one. Nil🥝 03:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Nil NZ - I agree that "communicated with" is a better word choice than "posted comments".  Done, with one exception: I added the word "other" to your suggestion so that it says, "communicated with other editors". ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 11 October 2025

Description of suggested change:

Please add the new Template:Uw-prod

Diff:

−

* [[Template:uw-plagiarism|plagiarism]] * [[Template:uw-preview|preview]] * [[Template:Ping fix|pingfix]] * [[Template:Gs/alert|probation]]

+

* [[Template:uw-plagiarism|plagiarism]] * [[Template:uw-preview|preview]] * [[Template:Ping fix|pingfix]] * [[Template:Gs/alert|probation]] * [[Template:uw-prod|prod]]

Úíqíípédê (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Úíqíípédê - Sure. Where to exactly? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I provided a helpful diff… Úíqíípédê (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

So right after * [[Template:Gs/alert|probation]] Úíqíípédê (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Úíqíípédê - Oh sorry, I meant what page am I making this change to? Your request gives me where in the page, but not the page itself. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

To Template:Single notice links. I didn’t notice the talk redirect Úíqíípédê (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Úíqíípédê -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2025

Please changed the text "...may have been in good faith..." to "...may have been in good faith". The wikitext for the link is [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. As of Special:Permalink/1306120214, the template has four wikilinks already. The words "good faith" don't need additional explanation. Plain English interpretation without enwiki context is fine. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 15 October 2025

Template:Uw-unreliable parameter description:

I'm not sure this particular template qualifies as "semi-protected" or not, but I don't want to change it myself for fear of breaking something. What I'm seeing is that the "Usage" section of Template:Uw-unreliable says "{{subst:Uw-unreliable|User name}} references a specific user name". I believe that should be talking about an "article name" instead. What I think (but am unsure) might fix it is in the diff below.

Diff:

−

param1=user name

+

param1=article name

Orxenhorf (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know either. Have you tried your requested edit on the sandbox per Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases? I am not sure why this is an edit request, but I will leave it for now anyways. Slomo666 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking again, I'm confused why you put this request on the template index talk page rather than the template talk page itself.Slomo666 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The template talk page link brings one here. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That said, it does indeed look to me as though param1 is supposed to be used for the name of an article, not the name of a user. I tried it out on my sandbox. I imagine the documentation for the template would need to be updated in addition to the template itself. I can attempt to make the fix if another editor concurs with my assessment, or if another editor wants to make the changes, they have my blessing. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Slomo666: As DonIago mentions, the "Talk" link on the template leads to here. I didn't even know that Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases existed. I'll look through it, but do still feel it would be better if someone with more than my few minutes of looking at template source code had the final say, particularly on a template in use across the entire site. Orxenhorf (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding to other responses – see at the top of this talk page a banner that says 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. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1317005308. I used param1=page name, because the template can be used for articles, category pages, template pages, etc.

This change is in the documentation of the template inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. The template itself isn't affected. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

For documentation of the parameter |param1= of template {{Single notice}}, see Template:Single notice#Parameters. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)