Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Contradicting warning levels in Uw-editsummary and Uw-editsummary2

Section renamed from Contradicting warning levels

Moved from Template talk:Uw-editsummary2

 – discussion about Template:Uw-editsummary2

It was brought up to me that this template, while said to be used as a warning for experienced editors, additionally counts as a level 2 warning (see the comment in the wikitext). I'd be fine with this given the name being es2, but the warning symbol used is the one that is associated with level 1 warnings which feels extremely confusing. I feel like one of these should change, and I also find it odd that we have a user warning for edit summaries that is meant for experienced editors, but that if you use it for that purpose, it has the bonus of sending the user an instant jump to level 2; which usually signifies no assumption of good faith, even though an experienced editor is very likely a good faith editor. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The hidden comment is just a reference to the template itself, not to the level of the warning. The visible part of the template (the icon) counts, the hidden comment doesn't.

There is no progression from Template:Uw-editsummary to Template:Uw-editsummary2 in the regular sense of how numbered user warning templates operate. They are just two similar templates.

To avoid the confusion, we could rename Template:Uw-editsummary2 to Template:Uw-editsummary-experienced or some other name that doesn't include the number. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I am aware that the comment just refers to the template, but as far as I know all of the modern tools that display warning levels use the comment (though I could be wrong on that). The mismatch between the icons is a bit confusing. I think it would make more sense to rename it given the precedent set by other user warnings such as Template:Uw-ewsoft where the alternative template does not actually use a number. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, like you said, the hidden comment having that number at the end means it's a level 2 warning as far as automated tools go. Renaming is a great idea. Pinging @Novem Linguae since Twinkle uses this. tony 19:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support rename. CapnZapp (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just confirming that the hidden template name definitely counts, and is used as a control field for various tools for identifying which template is involved, as well as what level it is. If renamed, please be sure the hidden string matches the new template name. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

HTML comments such as <!-- Template:Uw-editsummary2 --> helps editors understand which template was used when they are subtsed. It's sometimes the only easy way to understand which template was used (if you want to read its documentation or even tweak its message) CapnZapp (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Support rename. Please create a Twinkle feature request ticket once the rename is complete. Please leave a redirect to keep things from breaking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: (possibly o/t) While considering possible renaming of these edit summary-related templates, maybe we ought to be considering renaming the {{uw-subtle1}} to {{uw-subtle4}} series, which operate in the no man's land between uw-editsummary[1-4] and uw-vandalism[1-4], with a template name that brings neither to mind. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus to rename Template:Uw-editsummary2. Does anybody have ideas beside Template:Uw-editsummary-experienced suggested above? —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer Template:Uw-editsummary to be renamed to Template:uw-editsummary-soft (or uw-essoft) and Template:Uw-editsummary2 to become Template:Uw-editsummary (or uw-es) just because that seems like what most other templates use, but I don't prefer it by that much. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Repurposing the suffix-less Template:Uw-editsummary has the potential of confusing people who are used to it being the template for new editors. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2026: +link

−

Even a short summary is better than no summary

+

Even [[Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference|a short summary]] is better than no summary

Note that {{Uw-editsummary}} (the lower version) already includes this link. — W.andrea (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it worth linking WP:CON from Template:Uw-editsummary2 ?

{{Uw-editsummary}} (the lower version) includes a link to Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing here:

every edit should be [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing|explained by a clear edit summary]], or by discussion on the [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]].

Is it worth including the link in summary2 as well? Maybe here:

−

Please do your best to {{strong|always fill in the summary field}}.

+

Please do your best to {{strong|[[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing|always fill in the summary field]]}}.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 May 2026

Please implement my change in the sandbox, which adds a preload link to submit the unblock that should be much easier for new users to use. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2026

Please implement my changes in the sandbox which add a "welcome" parameter which adds the text "Welcome to Wikipedia" (the hope is to standardise {{uw-softerblock}}, etc.) Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey Awesome Aasim, could you explain what adding this parameter would accomplish? Is there another template in this series with this behavior? I think adding the welcome text is an improvement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Completed – see [test cases] page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2026

Please implement my changes in both template sandboxes.

Step 1: For {{uw-ublock}}, {{uw-ublock/procedure}} is brought out from the subpage to the main template with some wording changes since it is necessary to customize with additional parameters added named "usernamepolicyinfo" and "negreason" (which should be worded as the opposite of "reason". Additional customization with the addition of an "addendum" parameter was also added.

Step 2: For {{uw-softerblock}}, the template now uses {{uw-ublock}} with the customized parameters. Take caution when implementing from the sandbox to delete the "/sandbox" call as this template sandbox uses the first template sandbox. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 04:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2026

• Template:Uw-tempabuse1 → Template:Uw-badwarn1
• Template:Uw-tempabuse2 → Template:Uw-badwarn2

– "Uw-tempabuse" sounds like a name that would make much more sense as the name of the template for TA sockpuppetry (uw-multipleTAs). (Note: I'm not RMing that template, since "Uw-multipleTAs" works better.) "Uw-badwarn" much more accurately reflects what these templates are used for. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good idea. tempabuse is confusing and badwarn is clear & concise. tony 20:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: First off, shouldn't requests like this be preceded by a discussion, so consensus is formed prior to the request? Rather than what is happening here - the request itself kickstarting the discussion? Anyway, I realize "temp" stands for "template" which probably wasn't a great idea before but certainly isn't one now, when "temporary (accounts)" is or should be the overwhelmingly primary use. Not sure I like "warn" to mean "warning template" or "bad" for, presumably, "bad warning". Is "bad warning" a good summary of the intended use case? Based on the actual text displayed, I would urge y'all to at least discuss template names that mixes together "misuse", "warn" and "block". CapnZapp (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Support along with possible alternatives - I think this is a good start. Warning template names should be short and memorable for accessibility's sake. We may be able to find something better than "badwarn" as per above, but I do think that we should move the templates away from the current titles. ASUKITE 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose While I agree that "Tempabuse" sounds like a warning for TA socking, "Badwarn" is vague. It doesn't seem to me like it tells you what the warning is for, but rather tells you that it's a bad warning template that shouldn't be used. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit proposal on 26 May 2026 - create doc subpage

Is it possible to move the documentation to the /doc subpage? What I have in mind is:

Replace on Template:Uw-ew:

−

<noinclude> {{Single notice|nothankyou=yes|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}|see also=*{{t|uw-ewsoft}}{{spnd}}a more softly worded version of this warning}} </noinclude>

+

<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

Create Template:Uw-ew/doc:

{{documentation subpage}}

{{Single notice
|nothankyou=yes
|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}
|see also=*{{t|uw-ewsoft}}{{spnd}}a more softly worded version of this warning
}}

I'm asking because I want to list out the shortcuts/redirects for this template but as it stands, I'll need to submit an edit request to do that, and future changes to the documentation would also require an edit request.

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Cf. Template:Uw-3rr, which has its docs on the /doc subpage. — W.andrea (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Uw-coi too long

I'm considering doing a rewrite of {{Uw-coi}}; it's way too long. I've noticed when I use it, nobody reads it. On the other hand, when I use my own words and write a post, I get a nearly 100% comprehension rate.

It's just way too overloaded with information. I'll do a rewrite and post here for approval. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Grapesurgeon/uw

Here's first draft. Yes, it does exclude information that's in the template, but the stuff I excluded is either too detailed/overwhelming for newbies, or it just doesn't apply in many cases (e.g. the username stuff or excessive linking).

Remember that the average person does not have a Wikipedia editor's attention span. Nor are they interested in reading through the mountains of rules/guidelines we have. Just need to give them the most important information and then provide individual guidance to adjust course, not give them a mountain of info up front. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: maybe collaborate with User:Mathglot who is crafting {{Uw-coi-brief}}, presumably for much the same reason you want to rewrite this. As you can find out on Template talk:Uw-coi-brief I have posted feedback, and I should say I like your directness (in your draft). I think it would be preferable to keep the current template and instead focus on providing alternatives such as Uw-coi-brief. Keeping the current template has the advantage of users accustomed to its completeness not being surprised when it no longer does the job of making sure users can't claim they weren't fully informed. Since this is a different use case than what you seem to have in mind, having two templates (or three - if you and Mathglot have different aims, by all means, don't work together) sound like a better solution than to force a one-size fits all solution into just one. I might be wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

One avenue I thought about taking was the same as Mathglot's in Uw-coi-brief. I'd consider that.

Even if we do go the multiple version route, the current COI template is objectively repetitive (the parts about disclosure) and needlessly verbose. You can see how I addressed some of those issues in my rewrite. I'd at least prefer we chop down those aspects of the current version first, even if we don't remove substantive content. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Like this is ridiculously and pointlessly verbose. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I trimmed that part down a little. I edited some other parts of the existing template too, somewhat based on your version. — W.andrea (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's better thanks; still too long, but better. I'd prefer we move the "Disclose" bullet up top; it's very important and frequently people don't know they have to disclose (because they never read this post) until I tell them they do. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Smartse @Femke noticed you both edited template recently; pinging in case you haven't seen this discussion grapesurgeon (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure some people think "avoid writing 'bout yourself" is the key admonishment, so... CapnZapp (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not they write about themselves is already a foregone conclusion for most uses of this template. That's often something that's often not really actionable by that point.

On the other hand, what does require action is the disclosure of COI. That's a really important step and people very often do not do it because of how ridiculously long this template is.

Also notice above in Mathglot's version; the disclosure of COI is like the primary thing Mathglot zeroes in on. They do that for a reason.

Also please no sarcasm, reads a bit condescending grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No condescension intended. I wanted to point out that I find it conceivable another user might use this template primarily for its "don't write about" part, and that it is possible (or even probable?) that's the reason this bullet point was written first. Much like how I am not entirely convinced the imposing and long nature of the current version should necessarily be dismissed. You do come across as hot-headed when you write stuff like " ridiculously and pointlessly verbose", seemingly placing next to zero value on the work that precedes you. Perhaps cooling down will give your efforts increased longevity? My comments are thus not intended to stymie your attempts at improving Wikipedia, but to encourage you to consider other perspectives before you make changes. Which, again, isn't a veiled attempt to make you stop, but a reminder that if you do first consider other perspectives and conclude you have consensus, your changes will likely be subject to fewer changes in the future. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Granted on the "ridiculously and pointlessly verbose" bit, I worded roughly.

But respectfully even the comment you just wrote is pretty verbose; makes me worried that you may not grasp how verbose this template is/was, and how big of an issue that is.

Vast majority of people in 2026 do not respond well to writing this long or wordy. Many condescendingly dismiss it outright as foppish/out of touch; in fact that's how tons of people view Wikipedia as a whole.

I very regularly use this template; probably hundreds of times now. I notice if/how people [edit: missing word "respond"] to it, and it's not encouraging at all. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm with you nearly all the way, except the final bit, where you seem to dismiss the need for or value of a complete and/or formal template. Everything else you say makes sense. I really don't see why this must be an all or nothing situation. CapnZapp (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

? No I'm open to having a second template, thruout this entire thread I left that open as a possibility grapesurgeon (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Then go forth and boldly create one! Having this discussion presumes we're discussing non-trivial changes to the existing one. CapnZapp (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No, One avenue I thought about taking was the same as Mathglot's in Uw-coi-brief. I'd consider that. I already said this. I don't feel a need to create a second one at present. Let's stop this back and forth, taking up room grapesurgeon (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. Don't say I didn't try friendlier approaches and to avoid this, but here goes: I oppose your proposed changes to the existing template. I see good arguments for a need to offer alternative, more digestible, templates, but what I don't see is any good arguments why we should rip up this more formal and complete one. Furthermore: I do not think this is ridiculously and pointlessly verbose and I do not agree it is way too overloaded with information. I think the proper takeaway from I've noticed when I use it, nobody reads it. On the other hand, when I use my own words and write a post, I get a nearly 100% comprehension rate is to... not use templates? In particular, I find that holding a low opinion of people's attention span or comprehension abilities are outright bad arguments for ceasing to provide full information to those still able to take it in. CapnZapp (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

...You somehow 180°d in several of your opinions, possibly actively misrepresenting them earlier. Now you're choosing to stonewall.

I am still open to a second template being used, such as Mathglot's, I'm just not interested in personally creating one. Did you misunderstand my position here?

rip up this more formal and complete one Active misrepresentation of my opinion. I said it needs some revisions and suggested a few, some were even implemented.

is to... not use templates? I'd rather use Mathglot's. This seems like combativeness for combativeness's sake; not sure why you're arguing this.

In particular, I find that holding a low opinion of people's attention span or comprehension abilities are outright bad arguments for ceasing to provide full information to those still able to take it in.

I meet people where they are at, not where I want them to be. The reality is that people are measurably having rapidly dropping attention spans and educational outcomes have dropped globally. If I see something actively not working, I adjust course, not go full steam ahead with something that isn't working. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Responded at my user talk. CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Template family

Currently we have two. Over at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace they are described like this:

• {{subst:uw-coi}} Conflict of interest, with an extended legal warning
• {{subst:uw-coi-brief}} Brief question about possible coi, when you are not sure and just want to ask

First off, as already established, it is my opinion that {{subst:uw-coi}} should keep its "extended legal warning". Yes, this makes it long, but the solution is clear: offer alternative templates when you feel the extended legal warning will be wasted, or even cause the editor to not read any of it. I'll clarify this in its doc.

Which brings us to the semi-new {{subst:uw-coi-brief}} created by Mathglot. The name of the template says one thing, the description (above) tells me another. I confess to making edits to the template because I made assumptions based off its name; that it aimed to be a brief version of {{subst:uw-coi}}. Now I realize there might be a better (as in more agreeable) solution: have three templates:

• {{subst:uw-coi}} Conflict of interest, with an extended legal warning, even when this scares away readers
• {{subst:uw-coi-brief}} or even {{subst:uw-coi-simple}}* Conflict of interest, with a minimum of legal warning, aiming for maximum reader engagement
• {{subst:uw-coi-ask}} (for example) Brief question about possible coi, when you are not sure and just want to ask. No legal warning.

*) "Simple" here intended in the same non-derogatory sense used by Simple English Wikipedia, meaning "easy" and not "stupid".

User:Mathglot - if I'm right and you prefer your previous more personal phrasing, you should restore that. You might consider renaming the template to avoid other editors making the same mistaken assumption I did.

Just a suggestion; nothing pressing. CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Reminder If {{subst:uw-coi-brief}} is renamed, please update Template:Uw-coi/doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I like the name {{uw-coi-ask}} better than the current name (and it's short, which is great!), and I'm fine with renaming it if everyone else is. Mathglot (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Continuing with your other points: I don't really see the need for a {{uw-coi-simple}}. What is the use case for it that is different than the one for {{uw-coi}}? I think that {{uw-coi}} needs to be strong, long, and read them the riot act, so they get it that this is no fooling around. I especially like the parallel structure, with the four bullets and a bolded expression leading off each one; this really says to me that you need to sit right up and pay attention. I would hate to see that diluted or carved up. If there is really support for two different wording styles in {{uw-coi}}, it would be possible to add a parameter like |brief= to accomplish that, but I don't really see the need for an alternate version if it waters down the "riot act" feel of the current one.

Whereas the point of {{uw-coi-ask}} is entirely different; no riot act, in fact, the complete opposite. It is supposed to be just a friendly ask with no details and no accusation: kind of a: "Hey, this probably doesn't even apply to you, but there's this Wikipedia rule thing that's pretty important, and I don't want to bother you with all the gory details unless it does so just lmk if this sounds like your situation, and if it is then I'll give you the long, boring spiel, otherwise just keep on keepin' on and forget I asked." If I had to boil it down: no accusation, very short, as friendly as possible, invite response. The downside about {{uw-coi-ask}} (the current "brief") is that this is not a drive-by template – the person placing it really has to watch for a "yes" response by the user and reply to it; placing the template and then ignoring a "yes" response is pointless, and they would have been better off not placing the template in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the both of you are aspirationally thinking that people would actually read a "riot act". Do people read the TOS when they sign up for services?

I'm perfectly ok with Mathglot's ask template. I still think the current template needs to be simplified some more; it's still repetitive (the disclosure part). grapesurgeon (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

To reiterate: my goal is to have writing that will actually be read. If we have writing that nobody reads, what's the point? Our intentions don't matter; de facto results do. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's just stop advocating for only having a dumbed down template, because there clearly is no consensus for that. To me everybody gets a template to their liking if we create and maintain all three of uw-coi, uw-coi-brief and uw-coi-ask. I'm am in no way opposing a brief or friendly or simple or whatever version. But there needs to be a template that is exhaustive even if "nobody" reads it. If the consensus is to use the current name ("uw-coi") for the simplified version, that's okay (for me personally, I can see others resisting such a major change) as long as a version resembling the current one remains available; call it uw-coi-extended or something. So simplify all you want, except if the unsimplified phrasing becomes completely unavailable. CapnZapp (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's just stop advocating for only having a dumbed down template you seriously need to stop strawmanning me, this is getting absurd. Last warning: do not misrepresent my position again. Next time ANI.

I'm ok with multiple templates, I want to simplify existing a bit more. Last time I will repeat my position. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2026

Please fix the code for Template:Uw-3rr as it does not insert a space when a specific page is linked. It currently appears as You appear to be engaged in an edit warat [pagename] and should be changed to You appear to be engaged in an edit war at [pagename]. Notice that there is no space between "edit war" and "at" in first example (how it is currently generated). – sbaio 05:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sbaio I think I've fixed it. The leading space was being ignored for some reason, so I've replaced it with a non-breaking space character. Thanks for catching this. Toadspike [Talk] 11:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: for some reason - it's a documented feature of the various {{#if:...}} parser functions that they trim off leading and trailing whitespace. See Help:Conditional expressions#Summary, paragraph beginning Also note that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thx. I tweaked the presentation to make this slightly easier to find. (Now look for "whitespace" instead of "also note that") CapnZapp (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of Template:Uw-salt

Template:Uw-salt has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2026

• Template:Uw-lblock → Template:Uw-LTAblock

– With most computer screen conditions, using an "l" ("L") looks like a 1 (one), the proposed title eliminates any confusion and ensures that editors are certain as to what type of policy violations this blocking template should be used for. It would be more clear what letter the template is using if it was a capital "L". Qwerty123M (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)