→Block templates...: agreed |
Templates are now live. |
||
Line 765: | Line 765: | ||
I think the ''blocked'' templates need to be taken out of the "warning" table (and moved to it's own table). It's not really a big issue, but it seems out of place on so many levels. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
I think the ''blocked'' templates need to be taken out of the "warning" table (and moved to it's own table). It's not really a big issue, but it seems out of place on so many levels. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
: I posted that above this morning above and tend to agree. On it now. Thanks for the feedback [[User:Khukri|'''Khukri''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">talk</font>''']] . [[Special:Contributions/Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">contribs</font>''']])</sup> 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
: I posted that above this morning above and tend to agree. On it now. Thanks for the feedback [[User:Khukri|'''Khukri''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">talk</font>''']] . [[Special:Contributions/Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">contribs</font>''']])</sup> 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Templates are now live. == |
|||
The first phase of these templates went live today. Thank you all very much for your participation, assitance and time. However, we are not finished yet. These templates are not finished, they will still need re-work and if you could be on hand for any queries in [[WP:UTM]] that would be appreciated. I have created the single issue details but the templates all need to be harmonised in the same manner we did with the multi level warnings. Then we have to wrap this project up and merge it with WP:UTM. I am going to do some on the single issues page and within a couple of weeks I will hope to create a new overview page. Again thanks for all your help, and if you see any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. [[User:Khukri|'''Khukri''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">talk</font>''']] . [[Special:Contributions/Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">contribs</font>''']])</sup> 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)… |
Revision as of 20:30, 22 January 2007
Eliminate the boxes around the new warnings
Putting the warnings inside of message boxes, like we're doing, is what messes a lot of things up. Just to start off the long list of problems, almost all vandal fighting programs/scripts put the signature in the message, so a user's signature would show up twice, and programs like VandalProof that include a link to the diff would have the warning and the diff seperate, possible confusing a newbie who doesn't know what is/isn't vandalism. Does anyone agree? Iced Kola 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it would be a problem; this was brought up and addressed above, please read the sections "IMPORTANT: Signatures" and "New template features". I think at this point it's at worst a minor nuisance, though there may be other stylistic concerns about the boxes. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:19Z
Wikipedia Day Awards
Straw Poll on Adding the "uw-" prefix
This discussion has discussed whether to add the "uw-" prefix to all of our user warning templates. This is wanted because it would eliminate the confusion of users warning people with templates like test3, not knowing it's meaning was changed. No cons are seen. . Please help determine consenus below. Explanation optional.
Support adding "uw-" prefix to all new templates
- Eliminates confused users and problems improperly warned people. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would have prefered to get it all out of the way in one go, but if it gets rid of alot of the worries then, why not. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- (obviously, since I proposed this) —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:58Z
- Not only for these reasons. I also think adding a prefix as with the "db-" templates might be a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I said before, no good reason not to do this so both can exist at the same time (for a while before people use the better/newer templates universally). JoeSmack Talk 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's the best solution for the likely problems that have been discussed. -- Satori Son 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support, per many of the opinions above. --NMajdan•talk 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. — Sebastian 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support, in order to reduce confusion, as discussed above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose (keep as is)
- This new proposal doesn't explain why any change is actually needed. It needs clarification and rewording before I can consider it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: can you explain further what the problem is with keeping them the way they are now? Unless I'm not fully understanding the situation, I would definitely oppose this change. -- Renesis (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the first sentence of the straw poll, it gives a piped link saying this discussion. (It didn't work before because I hit the number sign instead of the pipe character) --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but since I wasn't involved in the discussion, I don't really understand why we have a problem. I understand this change was discussed, but what is the problem in the first place? -- Renesis (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are two problems that I see. The first is that someone the has been on Wikibreak, or just hasn't read a page saying it, may not know that the warning levels and templates have changed. An example would know be that according to the overview plan, the test templates will be for actual tests (can I type here?) only, not vandalism also, which is how it's used now. Instead we'll have vandalism template. The second problem is that some template may be confused for things belonging elseware, like someone wanting to put on an article a tag the says it may contain POV. They may not like the POV template, so they would assume POV2 is another POV template, where it's really a warning template. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the case of name-conflicts with non warning templates, we should just find a different name altogether. -- Renesis (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- But the name should be relevant, related, and easy. If there were non user warning templates at Template:pov and Template:npov, what would you name it. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd have to think about it, but this should absolutely not be justification for prefixing all templates with uw-. Programmers have to deal with naming conflicts all the time, but it doesn't mean you create a new namespace every time you find a conflict. -- Renesis (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a new namespace. It would be located at Template:uw-NAME OF TEMPLATE. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Namespace (also Namespace (computer science)#Emulating namespaces), not Wikipedia:Namespace. -- Renesis (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a new namespace. It would be located at Template:uw-NAME OF TEMPLATE. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to think about it, but this should absolutely not be justification for prefixing all templates with uw-. Programmers have to deal with naming conflicts all the time, but it doesn't mean you create a new namespace every time you find a conflict. -- Renesis (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- But the name should be relevant, related, and easy. If there were non user warning templates at Template:pov and Template:npov, what would you name it. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that namespacing shouldn't be thrown around carelessly, but in this situation I think namespacing is appropriate, for "official" warnings. Compare the db- templates. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 00:58Z
- In the case of name-conflicts with non warning templates, we should just find a different name altogether. -- Renesis (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are two problems that I see. The first is that someone the has been on Wikibreak, or just hasn't read a page saying it, may not know that the warning levels and templates have changed. An example would know be that according to the overview plan, the test templates will be for actual tests (can I type here?) only, not vandalism also, which is how it's used now. Instead we'll have vandalism template. The second problem is that some template may be confused for things belonging elseware, like someone wanting to put on an article a tag the says it may contain POV. They may not like the POV template, so they would assume POV2 is another POV template, where it's really a warning template. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but since I wasn't involved in the discussion, I don't really understand why we have a problem. I understand this change was discussed, but what is the problem in the first place? -- Renesis (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Copy of new overview page here looks pretty good I think. Maybe shorten vandalism down to vand and defamatory? Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also with your uw- idea (you're my hero ;) )it'll mean we are the only ones with templates in the area so won't get in anyone elses way. Also with this idea the existing re-directs become obsolete, well for the beginning anyway, until we want to phase out the old warnings. Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- How come the "uw-" in the overview table starts lowercased, yet in the redirect table, it's uppercased ("Uw")? --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's to do with wikipedia capitalising first letters. Even when you click on the redlink in the overview table it will take you to a uppercase template page. If you look here even though you write {{test3}} it'll still take you to an upper case version. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I should also add Misza's second parameter to both the templatenotice and the what to type page. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Info Icon
Renesis13 changed the icon on the {{Templatesnotice}} to the new design, which looks much better. So could everyone responsible for a template page update their pages to the new version. I'll do all mine and the base template, most probably after my wife has dragged me round the gardeening centre this afternoon. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you like it! I made this with the intention of making the UW templates look more uniform in appearance, and I may make a stop sign one when I have some time. One reason why I didn't replace this image anywhere besides the {{Templatesnotice}} is that I wasn't sure if the samples on the UW sandbox pages are actually indicating that the templates (level 0 and 1) will contain that image. Is that the case? -- Renesis (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
All taken, only four to finish
- Daniel & Ken's look almost finished so I think these can go up for review if you'd like to do that. Misza has just one level to complete. Teck I know you think it's not necessary, but humour me please ;), I've done the defamatories and I think your npa's can be along the same lines for the first two levels.... please........
- Misza has moded the {{Templatesnotice}} and after Teck's question about the blocks I've created {{Blocksnotice}} to explain the parser functions on the additional texts and sig functions.
- I think we can just go ahead with Quarl's uw- proposal. Now if this is the case, it means the redirects will not be needed in the short term. If you all think it would be helpful I therefore suggest we copy all our templates over to their respective individual pages, and this means we can use the page on my sandbox to create a more complete review. Thoughts please? Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Per this thread at the admin noticeboard, crz has created a new UW template for people who are "biting" newbies. My question is -- what process have we implemented for people to create new templates, and keep the project organized at the same time? Also, I have some time if there is anything I can do. -- Renesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- This sort of warning comes into the one off type of warning, much like {{editsummary}}, {{Double redirect}}, etc. These warnings will be covered in the second phase of this project, where we look at everything else on and bring them together. Depending on if anyone objects in the next 48 hours or so, I think if you want something to do you can help me create all the new individual template pages, cutting and pasting the text in. Question for admins, do we delete the old grouped template pages, or just stuff them in a archive corner somewhere? If the outstanding templates are completed soon, I still see the third week in January as an optimistic date to go live with all these templates. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I can do that. What is the process for that? Creating Template:Uw-spam0 and pasting the contents from the spam page into it? About the grouped template pages, if they are not historical, I'd think we can delete them. I can do this if you make a list of the ones that are ready to be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- This sort of warning comes into the one off type of warning, much like {{editsummary}}, {{Double redirect}}, etc. These warnings will be covered in the second phase of this project, where we look at everything else on and bring them together. Depending on if anyone objects in the next 48 hours or so, I think if you want something to do you can help me create all the new individual template pages, cutting and pasting the text in. Question for admins, do we delete the old grouped template pages, or just stuff them in a archive corner somewhere? If the outstanding templates are completed soon, I still see the third week in January as an optimistic date to go live with all these templates. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The eternal question
OK it's already becoming obvious here that we are going to have language differences acorss our templates, I've already seen one that uses both types of English. WP:MOS just states that the language should be either dependant on it's subject matter, or as a final recourse must stay in the language of the initial editor. Just to plagarise (notice no Z) Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. What I would like to suggest is that we add to our mandate that all templates are written in X or Y. I think looking at the work that you all do round here that most of you will be above the language issue but I think it would be good to have continuity throughout the project as I can't stand seeing Vandalise on one template and Vandalize on another. So I'll start
- Neutral even though I personally use British English I just want one or the other. Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- British English, as it's spoken across the whole of the Commonwealth (with the exception of Canada - 53 different nations), and is the form most commonly taught in countries where English is not the mother language. In the interests of worldwide accessibility (and not just the fact that I'm British - honest!), I feel British English is the form we should use. ShakingSpirittalk 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral i would say whatever they do now in all the old templates; i never even stopped to notice, but that seems best. JoeSmack Talk 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Change levels from 0 - 3 to 1 - 4
I think Physicq210 and Titoxd are on to something with changeing the levels from 0 -> 3 to 1 -> 4. I suggest when we put the templates into their respective pages we just increment the levels by 1. Let me know all what you think?
- As I said above in the redirect thread, I think there is merit for both 0 and 1 level warnings. They are both "entry-level" warnings, with level 0 being a warning where they most likely meant no harm or were trying to be helpful (like '''Bold text''' or an external/spam link that was inappropriate but put in by someone trying to help), and level 1 being a first warning for somebody who's edits were less likely in good faith (I.E., someone who is new to Wikipedia and doesn't mean great harm, but thinks it's funny to put "Joe is dumb!" or someone who is trying to point traffic to their website). -- Renesis (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I think it safe to say we can go ahead now, I'll finish off the npa warnings tomorrow evening most probably. Then we can copy all the rest of the warnings over to their respective templates pages. I also think we should use level 1 - 4 now as already mentioned. If someone has some time, I'm a wee bit busy at the mo, would they mind copying my sandbox page to the overview page but incrementing all warnings by 1. If not no problems I'll do it tomorrow evening. If anyone does do it, also please add a note to the top of the page saying these templates are only for review and are not to be used at the moment. Almost there, at last ...... Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, why was the vandalism 3 template already created? Second, didn't we agree to change stuff like vandalism3 to vand3?
- Because it was one I created for a test if that's OK? As for vand and defam there was only Quarl who responded I think. But as was also mentioned we can create {{uw-vandalism3}} but have a redirect from {{uw-vand3}} if necessary. Khukri (talk . contribs) 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, why was the vandalism 3 template already created? Second, didn't we agree to change stuff like vandalism3 to vand3?
- Right all done, I've created all of the individual template pages, and created the new overview page which will be the base for the remplacement WP:UTM page. Would one of our admins be so kind as to delete the old template pages which we used to start off please. I moved the old overview page over to my sandbox and the links can be found there.
- OK I've done my piece for a wee while, I'm going to be busy back at work over the next couple of weeks, so won't be able to devote as much time to the project. Would someone please take care of the publicity campaign, to announce the upcoming changes please? I'll be keeping an eye out so any questions I'll try to respond. Thanks to all those who have done the template work and helped out. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I think it safe to say we can go ahead now, I'll finish off the npa warnings tomorrow evening most probably. Then we can copy all the rest of the warnings over to their respective templates pages. I also think we should use level 1 - 4 now as already mentioned. If someone has some time, I'm a wee bit busy at the mo, would they mind copying my sandbox page to the overview page but incrementing all warnings by 1. If not no problems I'll do it tomorrow evening. If anyone does do it, also please add a note to the top of the page saying these templates are only for review and are not to be used at the moment. Almost there, at last ...... Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- After I went back and read the text of the messages, I support this change. However, I am a little concerned at the now-absence of 0 level templates -- previously, they had been a mix between a welcome message and a warning, something which was useful because (as I said above) some users (particularly those adding inappropriately links and becoming candidates for the {{spam}} template) were actually attempting to improve the article, and a warning (even a level 1) seemed a bit harsh or cold. Can we add a provision for these for some of the template types? -- Renesis (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Civil(n) templates?
Are the civil templates not being considered as part of this project? --Ronz 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Had originally forseen amalgamating npa and civil under a global fits all template. Mainly because civil didn't have the full spectrum of warnings and could be incorporated quite easily within. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The view seems to be that boilerplate is not appropriate for civility reminders. The civility template was recently deleted on TfD.--Docg 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could someone explain what this means? --Ronz 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A Change of Notices Message
If anyone doesn't want to take the time to write their own message, the one below is the I left at Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol. It basically says the important stuff. Feel free to change it:
Though the following isn't effective yet, please read the following: Wikiproject user warnings has been working to redo all templates. Originally, plans were to slowly insert these, so people would know that the warnings had changed. However, this was thought to be bad, so all of the new templates of the project have a " uw- " in front of them. Another advantage of the prefix was so that the user warning template wouldn't get confused with something else (ie. a POV template for an article page and a POV template for a user talk page of a user who's inserting POV). This means that the old templates will still work as normal. However, these new templates are more organized. Level 0 has been eliminated, and the levels now go from 1-4. In addition, block templates are organized differently. All new templates automatically insert your signature, and all templates are completely lower-cased. An important note is that the new test templates are not blockable, as they are only for tests (i.e. can I really type here?). Things that test was previously used for, like vandalism, now have their own templates. The templates are currently on review until Jan. 22. For the complete list of templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Spot on. Here's the one I did for sitting on the recent changes page, and just looking out for editors dishing out warnings. Thanks very much. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Uw-3rr2}}
I just saw that this template was a placeholder. I edited it (even if I still feel it is a bit too long), don't hesitate to review and correct it! -- lucasbfr talk 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
I pasted the boilerplate request for feedback (I've noticed you recently used a template, etc.) provided by Khukri on BlankVerse's talk page. This was posted on my talk page as a result, moving here where the project can actually see it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-Begin pasted post-
I'm not sure why you asked for me to look at the 'discussion' on the new user templates.
I looked at the new designs shown here, and in my personal opinion, they are ugly as hell, as well as looking very impersonal and in-your-face. IMHO, for those problem editors who might be turned around into good contributors, the new versions will be much more likely turn them over to the dark side.
On the other hand, it looks like a small group of editors has been quietly working at the redesigns for months and they've already made up their mind, so my voice isn't going to change the current direction. Therefore, I see no reason to get involved. I'll predict, however, that when WP:UW tries to deprecate the numerous existing user warning templates that there will be tremendous resistance. I will NEVER use the new, very ugly, boxed (with extraneous graphics) user warning templates. BlankVerse 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-End pasted post-
- I can understand in some respect their sentiment, but these are the warning templates and I think we make ourselves look a bit unprofessional, for want of a better word, if we have frivolous images and colours plastered over warning templates. Once we go past the good faith warning which is the only one I would say has any need to be pleasing to the eye, then IMHO an editor is not going to be swayed by whether we dished out pretty warnings or not, but by the content or until they receive a block. However, I can see the single issue templates being slightly more aesthetic and pleasing to the eye.
- I object to someone saying we've been quitely getting on with this, when I think I've most probably got up the nose of alot of admins and longterm editors going on about this, we've been at this now since the beginning of October with posting on most of the major notice boards.
- Ugly as hell does not give us anything to go by, if you compare the {{test1}} warning to the {{uw-test1}} warnings or {{uw-vandalism1}} warnings, there's minor text change, it's boxed and there a standard image. If uglyness is denoted by one image and box when we look at the plethora of different formats, boxing, images on current templates then I think we're doomed to just creating another fragmented system, as editors create their pink fluffy boxes because they don't like a standard.
- If he/she had analysed this project, then they would see we have had editors come in here with suggestions and we are open to suggestions. Now is the time to come up with suggestion whilst we are in the review period, it's not too late to change anything. But to have a dummy spit after the horse has bolted is fruitless and to talk of in digging heels now before we have even gone live is not productive. So in short, this project isn't here for me or any of the other editors on this project it's for the community. If you want to change something, change it but do it to all of the them. I know we are going to have as Quarl mentioned Bikeshed problems once it's gone live, but this project doesn't stop on the 22nd January, it's a work in progress, we've created a foundation take it and let it evolve, but I repeat, do your changes to all of the templates. If someone isn't happy, ask them to make suggestions, don't just criticise. We're not Wiki-luddites unwilling to see changes......... honest Template:Emot Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the style used on the table at here distorted their actual appearance, adding extra boxes around all of the tables. I changed the table to show the correct appearance. -- kenb215 talk 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not really my speciality, but what about getting rid of (making invisible) the whole table, how does that look? Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree so I went bold and removed the border. Hope it seems easier to sell now :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks better now, I too hope that we can sell this. Also I'm really serious though and with you saying about being WP:BOLD I don't want anyone to think that this is only for us and they have to obey our rules. This is for everyone, anyone gets any criticism like the puppies please send them here to give their suggestions or ideas. Khukri (talk . contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree so I went bold and removed the border. Hope it seems easier to sell now :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not really my speciality, but what about getting rid of (making invisible) the whole table, how does that look? Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Minor copyediting
Nothing major, just a quick log of little changes I've made to the templates - some of these may be based on what I think "reads better", so if you disagree with a change please reply here and/or revert it ^_^
- {{uw-vandalism1}} - "However, unconstructive edits, as you did to Article, are considered to be vandalism." -> "However, unconstructive edits, as you made to Article, are considered to be vandalism."
- {{uw-block3}} - "...including an explanation why you feel the block should be removed." -> "...including an explanation for why you feel the block should be removed."
- {{uw-test1}} - "Thank you for experimenting with, the page Article on Wikipedia." -> "Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia."
- {{uw-test3}} - "It is considered vandalism which under Wikipedia guidelines can lead to blocks being applied." -> "It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied."
- {{uw-tpv2}} - "Please do not introduce some form of vandalism to the userpages of other users." -> "Please do not introduce any form of vandalism to the userpages of other users."
- {{uw-agf1}} - "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not do here, Article." -> "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not on Article."
(Same change made to agf2 and agf3 aswell. I noticed the same format being used on the npa templates too, which I haven't changed - does anyone else agree that my form is more readable, or is it just personal bias?)
- {{uw-defamatory1}} - "However, your recent edits , to Article have been reverted" -> "However, your recent edits to Article have been reverted"
- {{uw-defamatory2}} - "Please do not add defamatory content, as you did to Article, to Wikipedia." -> "Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article."
- {{uw-joke2}} - "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do seriously here." -> "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously."
I will wikignomeify the rest when I get home from work ^_^ ShakingSpirittalk 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance anyone could add the text about {{unblock}} to {{uw-block1}} & {{uw-block2}} please. I'm off out tonight on a mission. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can anyone sort out the parser on {{uw-image1}} it will only put a space in if there is a comma after the pipe i.e. 1|}}}|, into [[:{{{1 but then the english reads rubbish. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
I would suggest getting rid of the border around the templates. →AzaToth 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK we'll give it a try as you're the second who's not keen on the boxes.
- Just so it can be mass undone by anyone, use AWB find background-color:#F8FCFF; and replace with background:#FFF; border:1px solid #AAA;
- Like or dislike everyone? One thought though is that if people use different skins then it'll be messy, unless the background can be made transparent? Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out, so long as we aren't creating a rod for our own back by making these things way too complex. Anyway what do you prefer, boxes or none? Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Without knowing how they will look once on a user's talk page, I prefer the boxes. However, signatures would be easier without the boxes (how did we solve that, anyway?) -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tell you what I'll give you a warning on your talk page, then we can have an idea how it looks Template:Emot. Misza parsered the sig into the box, and if you look at {{Templatesnotice}} shows how you can disable it. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Without knowing how they will look once on a user's talk page, I prefer the boxes. However, signatures would be easier without the boxes (how did we solve that, anyway?) -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Knock yourself out, so long as we aren't creating a rod for our own back by making these things way too complex. Anyway what do you prefer, boxes or none? Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been dropping spam ones off on usertalk's, and i've noticed it makes it hard to distinguish from the standard IP boilerplate when they both have the same border/box style. Most things on usertalks are text w/o the border, so it's easy to gloss over the bordered warning templates when they are close to the IP thing. JoeSmack Talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I think the question to be answered with this box questions is are they ugly, or do they make the warnings stand out from the usual background chat, etc. The IP templates are quite tidy anyway, but talkpage headers will come next in the single issue templates, and this might be the time to see how we differentiate between the two. We have the images so maybe that suffices, I dunno. Think we need lots of input on this now. To be honest to me they look good both ways, and maybe we can put some form of page break between a header template and the actual chat. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been noticing the new borderless version of the spam warnings, and I have to say I like em better. The icon in front of each draws more than enough attention to the eye alone w/o the border. My 2cents. JoeSmack Talk 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think neither borders nor icons are useful. The new messages banner draws sufficient attention to the messages, and a user who deliberately ignores normal messages will not pay more attention if they have common icons beside them. I've missed quite a bit in the time I was away; what happened to the discussion at /Archives/2006#Images? It seems the images just went into use regardless. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been noticing the new borderless version of the spam warnings, and I have to say I like em better. The icon in front of each draws more than enough attention to the eye alone w/o the border. My 2cents. JoeSmack Talk 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I think the question to be answered with this box questions is are they ugly, or do they make the warnings stand out from the usual background chat, etc. The IP templates are quite tidy anyway, but talkpage headers will come next in the single issue templates, and this might be the time to see how we differentiate between the two. We have the images so maybe that suffices, I dunno. Think we need lots of input on this now. To be honest to me they look good both ways, and maybe we can put some form of page break between a header template and the actual chat. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have made a template for this: {{uw}}. The template page shows the possible parameters, and I think Khukri is going to try to do a semi-automated replacement for all the templates. -- Renesis (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- {{uw}} breaks lists because the wikiML table syntax contains line breaks. Some possible solutions are [a] use HTML table syntax, or [b] remove or scale down the icons so a table isn't necessary (as is done with {{s/block}}). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Appearance when used
I put some of these templates on my sandbox to see what they look like when they are actually used. The layout I used is the one recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings#Layout Guidelines. They don't seem to number or bullet as expected. Also, the extra text that can be added doesn't stand out, and thus won't usually be seen by someone experienced glancing through the templates. Comments? -- kenb215 talk 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- {{uw}} breaks lists because the wikiML table syntax contains line breaks. See 'Suggestion' above. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This will be a non-issue if we decide not to use icons everywhere, since there will be no need for a table at all. See 'Icons in general' below (or above, depending how it's archived). —{admin} Pathoschild 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I personally like the idea of icons, at least for the first and last levels. The message looks more professional with the information icon in my opinion (and is more friendly IMHO). for levels 2 and 3 I have no opinion (I like it but I don't think they are that useful) -- lucasbfr talk 09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know enough to know if it's the icons or something else about the warnings, but the current format does indeed bugger the number and bullet layout. That's not good. --Geniac 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
New Stop icon
I finally created a new stop hand icon to match the others. I placed it in the {{uw}} template, so when we convert all the other templates, they will be using the new icons. The uw-vandalism and uw-block templates are already converted. -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
template proposal
{{template_to_much}}
- "You have been identified as using too many boilerplate templates. Continuing to do so can be seen as disruptive, biting the newcomers and incivil. Please don't make wikipedia look like a ridiculous bureaucratic police state by over-using templates on the talk pages of established editors."
What do y'all think? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's could have irony on so many levels, creating a template for the express use of saying
- Hey you're dishing out too many templates. Seriously though, this sort of message would come under single issue templates, which we will be looking at shortly. Currently we have removed some ambiguity in the multi level warnings by cutting the number of templates almost in half to cover the same warnings. I have no doubt we will do something similar for the single issue templates, and this could be included in a general conduct template of sorts. Keep an eye out in the near future. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually trying to be sarcastic. :) It was just a commentary on the shear amount of boilerplate speech on wikipedia in general. Oh well. I don't gotta like it to understand it.
- Just don't lose touch with the human on the other end of the nickname or IP address. Impersonal messages have much less impact then a personalised message, and, in the end might serve to turn potential converts away from the project. But do we really have time to personal address every random drive-by vandal? Not really I guess. So whats the solution? Whats the happy middle ground between perfection and impersonal bureaucracy? I have no idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop hand.svg
Can someone please revert the image back to the last version, the new one looks odd. --SunStar Nettalk 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why does no one like the new icons? I realize I'm too close to the issue to give an unbiased opinion, but the entire reason I made the two new ones was to make the set more consistent, along with giving a cleaner look. The old ones, to me, just look dated. Compare the two...
- Old set:
- New set:
- -- Renesis (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it, I prefer them, but if people want their old logo's just upload it as a different name. If our current icon problems get resolved then we'll use yours. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I like the new set. Shiny and pretty, though I think the hand is a bit muddied in the stop icon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the usage of the new-look stop-hand icon. It's a bit too bright, whereas the old one was clean and understated:
same for [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg]]. I preferred the SVG on MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext as it looked better. PNG replacement of SVG isn't always a good thing. However, the new versions could be uploaded, but as ImageName(1).svg, the 1 denoting it's a copy. --SunStar Nettalk 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I like the new information icon as well. Good work! --WikiSlasher 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just... wow
I stumbled across this, and looking at your lovely neat table of templates... I'm amazed. This rocks. I've taken the liberty of moving a few commas to make them show up correctly, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. This is some great work, if a lowly user like myself can say so :-) Rawling 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aaaand they're under review. My bad. I only used one. I guess I'll just keep watch on this project until it goes mainstream. Rawling 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
User/talk page vandalism templates
As I've said (just above) this project looks like it's going amazingly well. I'm concerned about one set of templates; the User/talk page vandalism set. The templates themselves, uw-tpv1 through 3, refer solely to Userpage vandalism, so they're not appropriate for use on Talk page vandalism. I would have expected uw-tpv templates to be for Talk page vandalism, and there to be another set uw-upv for Userpage vandalism. Rawling 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is the perceived differentiation between the talk page and the user page vandalism on Wikipedia. Talk page commentary seems to be allowed so long as it's not personal attack, uncivil, defamatroy, etc. But a user page is seen to be sacrosanct. However I think you have raised a valid point in this regard in that it's the user page we focus on and as such the warning should be UPV. Thank you for your comments and appreciation above. We are more than likely to be having some major changes in the next week before we go live. But if you wish to join the project please, sign up and make your first project the migration of TPV to UPV warnings and get the old one deleted. They're my templates, so knock yourself out. If you have any further question don't hesitate to get in contact. Khukri (talk . contribs) 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've migrated the various tpv templates to upv, I think I've done it properly, and I've updated the table on the overview page. However I'm not going to request deletion of the old templates in case we need some tpv warnings for people breaking talk page guidelines. Rawling 10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, further to this, I've taken a stab at creating templates for genuine talk page vandalism - namely deleting or editing legitimate posts, as mentioned on the vandalism and talk page guidelines pages. If someone would care to take a look at Template:uw-tpv1, Template:uw-tpv2 and Template:uw-tpv3 and decide whether it's worth adding these to the main summary table, or otherwise just delete them. Rawling 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good, having thought on it, maybe we should think about the 3rd level warning just being a straight {{vandalism3}} and make the tpv & upv be non-blockable. Only a suggestion as otherwise it's good and follows what we are trying to set out here. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've made the templates, so I'll leave the decisions as to which ones to use where up to the guys in charge around here :) Rawling 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, cancel that. I didn't think we were deciding policy here, just designing some nifty templates. What exactly does this project deciding to make Talk- and User-page vandalism non-blockable mean? I would have thought either practice would be blockable if performed repeatedly despite being warned against it. Rawling 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, I didn't check before I left the message, the tpv/upv warnings weren't directly blockable anyway. Yes you're right the act itself should be blockable, but by the time we've got to a fourth level warning there's no point in having a specific warning for each of these and we just treat it for what it is. We give them a final warning for vandalism, hence the use {{uw-vandalism4}} on the table. Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:Spamonly
Anyone seen {{Spamonly}} - I could TFD this, but I'm not sure if it is relevant or not. Whats your thought's on this?? --SunStar Nettalk 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that templete has anything to do with this project. That said, I'm new here myself :p Rawling 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would ask on the IRC spam channel if they use this much. I wouldn't worry about TfD'ing it for now. Once we have done this whole project including the single issue warnings completed, if there is a need for it then we'll leave it for a while, try and incorporate it then TfD it with minimum fuss later on. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the channel: #wikipedia-spam-t. JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this apart of the project?
Saw a new, under-development vandalism template and didn't know if it was apart of the project. {{vand3}}. If it is not, we may want to inform that user of this project but I wanted to check here first.--NMajdan•talk 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you'd be so kind. Our {{uw-vandalism3}} meets all of their points and concerns and if we're to become the one stop shop for all user warnings then it's better they come through here first. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Biog & Defamatory
Anyone else reckon we can merge the biog and defamatory warnings?? Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really see the relationship in them. How would you merge them? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Adding negative information to a biog article is usually defamatory. But I would word it something along the lines of Please do not add unsourced negative comments or defamatory remarks to wikipedia, as you did to blah blah blah to cover both warnings. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Icons in general
Icons
Neither borders nor icons are useful. The new messages banner draws sufficient attention to the messages, and a user who deliberately ignores normal messages will not pay more attention if they have ubiquitous icons beside them. Other users will easily find the warnings if they are placed in their own dated sections as recommended.
Whatever happened to the discussion at /Archives/2006#Images? It seems the icons just went into use regardless. The icons should only be used for higher-severity warnings, if at all. Ubiquitous images make the warnings unprofessional by giving pages an cluttered and overdone appearance. Further, they detract from what impact images have as they become common to any templated message. I think we should discuss this particular can of worms before we continue adding them everywhere. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all welcome back, I'll can get my coat now and leave it up to you. There was nothing malicious in putting the images in, it's just there was more people interested in having them than against it. But if that looks like it changes then delete away. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome and for your efforts; you're probably the hardest-working participant around. I didn't assume anything malicious in the reintroduction of the icons. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 08:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, I think the icons are usefull in that they quickly give the state of play of a user's talk page. A quick glance tells you whether s/he has been warned before and how seriously or whether s/he has been blocked. I think their use is more for the user coming to the page wondering which user warning to add, than it is for the user being warned. I have only just had a chnace to look at all this in detail. Congratulations, folks! A job well done. --Bduke 11:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Telling where I user has been warning-wise by a quick glance like Bduke suggests is exactly what it is useful for. I think they are a valuable part of the new standardized warning system; regardless of if it is a spam level 3 or a NPOV 2 or a NPA 4, you have a common graphic metric to see what the deal is with an IP/user. Especially good if your memory ain't terrific on what each level of each template looks like in text (cause really I don't know a lot of em). Icons are simple, clear and helpful. JoeSmack Talk 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok lets try n keep all these feedback/icons discussions in one thread, reply to other comments above below here please as we'll start losing track of who said what.
- As I see it, alot of members seem to be keen on the icons, but we're as the technical phrase has come to be known is buggered. We have two choices, that's unless one of you geniuses come up with a third option. First is we keep the icons, possibly usings Ren's {{uw}} template or we go back to how it was. But one of our more brighter members to come in and sort out the table/div's messup, so it follows the layout guidelines with bullets/numbering. Or we remove the icons which will remove the need for all the rest of the paraphernalia we've attached to it. I personally would like to see the icons stay, but if alot of people come out of the woodwork saying they don't like them or this problem isn't resolved before we go live, then I think we have no choice then to get rid of them. Unfortunately coding n programming is not my forte, so I have no idea how to get around it, but I really hope one of you can help out. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The icons are not necessary to find warnings if they are in the proper section as recommended (see below). They might be useful in a level four warning to emphasise that it is a final warning, but adding icons to all levels removes their impact without making them any easier to find.
Example contents
|
—{admin} Pathoschild 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Prevent users from deleting templates
In a recent mediation case, I learned that there seems to be widespread support for the idea that users are allowed to delete anything they want on their talk page. Since I believe in the principle of least astonishment, I feel strongly we should tell users, especially new users, that we don't want them to delete the templates. I wrote {{dontremovewarn}} for that purpose, but I'm aware it's much too wordy. Can we add something like that to every first time template?
(Other related discussions: I asked Is removewarn fair?, and was referred to the Centralized discussion, where I found a nice discussion about {{removewarn}}. I haven't read all of that page, so please point me to any pertinent discussion if I overlooked it.)
Thanks! — Sebastian 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- If, when adding a template to a talk page, you name that in the edit summary (Added {
{uw-spam2}}.), then even if the user does delete the template itself, the fact of its having been there will remain in the page history, and anyone can then do a text-search (find "{{uw-") on the history to see... "Hmmm, this user got levels 0,1, and 2, so it's time for level 3." Since some users will delete warnings no matter what the rules say; and since page archiving may do the same quite innocently; and since (as you say) there's widespread support for the right to delete anything off one's own talk page -- going to the history seems safer, as long as the warnings show up in the summaries there. Unless you want to keep some central registry (somewhere else) of warnings given, which will rapidly become a huge list... or create a third standard user page just for warnings (User warn:SebastianHelm)... either of which would involve far more setup than using the already existing history function. -- Ben 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Noo!! Delete that redlink! Don't give people ideas - I'm so happy that it's still empty!
- You're right, I shouldn't create a whole new namespace. So see (bluelinked) User talk:SebastianHelm/Warnings instead. -- Ben 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously, though. I agree with you about the edit history - we should write something on top of template:TestTemplates or our new equivalent that tells people to use standardized summaries for that reason. Once we can rely on that, it shouldn't be too hard to create or extend a tool like wannabe_kate to collect such information. If I may spin that dream further: Ideally, everything could be done together with just two clicks:
- Revert vandalism and display user's warning history;
- Write appropriate warning with automatized summary, and block user if appliccable.
- Seriously, though. I agree with you about the edit history - we should write something on top of template:TestTemplates or our new equivalent that tells people to use standardized summaries for that reason. Once we can rely on that, it shouldn't be too hard to create or extend a tool like wannabe_kate to collect such information. If I may spin that dream further: Ideally, everything could be done together with just two clicks:
- Back to the original topic, though: I still think we should inform users what our stance on deletion is. If we don't say so, then we specifically make those users look bad who deserve our good faith: the users who keep the unpleasant warning. — Sebastian 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but as long as the warnings are recorded someplace the user cannot delete -- whether that be a future delete-protected "Warnings" page that anyone can add to (via the "+"/"add comment" tab) but only admins can edit/delete, or the present page history whose entries only someone wih the Oversight authority can delete -- it will not matter whether the user deletes the talk page notice. Why create a rule, thus (when broken) a type of offense, which will require all the workload of monitoring and enforcement, when that isn't necessary if we take advantage of undeletable records? -- Ben 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please reread my previous message. I said "I agree with you about the edit history". Why keep bringing up a point that we both agree "will not matter" (your italics)??
- My point was principle of least astonishment. Even if someone did something that warranted a warning once, let's not forget WP:BITE - in other words, that we're dealing with real people with real feelings here. — Sebastian 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Levels: What do they actually mean?
- (See also #Change levels from 0 - 3 to 1 - 4 for another discussion of levels.)
I feel the levels are a disimprovent over the current Template:TestTemplates. Currently, we have quite a clear list of levels like this:
Level: | 0: New users | 1: Factual note | 2: Possible rule violation | 3: Warning to stop | 4: Final warning | 5: Blocked | 6: Block & severe warning |
---|
In the new uw- templates, the levels seem to have no other purpose than putting them in a sequence, which I regard as an unnecessary loss of clarity.
(I cheated a bit to adopt the rainbow texts to my ideal captions. I agree that there should be no distinction between "AGF" and "Factual note" levels.) — Sebastian 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at, say, the vandalism series of templates, levels 2-4 seem to fit with your 2-4 above; level 1 does seem to be a tradeoff between your levels 0 and 1 so it does seem that one level's been lost along the way. They are mostly consistent in the strength of language used across each level, though - I think it's unfair to say the levels are only there for the sake of having an order. Rawling4851 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all the nice coloured banner is about the only thing complete with the existing system, as almost every single type of warning is incomplete. It is not possible to guarantee that if you wish to issue a warning that the specific level will be available to you. I would suggest reading the talk page and archives for the complete evolution of this project as it's all explained there. But in short looking through the current warnings there is too much ambiguity within the first three levels and in most cases the actual wording itself does not correspond with it's actual category. With the new system we intend to create a system not just for a complete warning system, but that they are implemented in a certain manner. You're correct the main change is that the levels 0 & 1 and in some part level 2 have been merged in the new system to a assume good faith message then a no faith assumption level 2 message. I'm not sure how creating a complete set of incremental warnings and the fact they're in sequence removes clarity. Most of the support we have seen over the last few months is that there is little clarity in the exsiting system, except with the test warnings, which are almost the global panacea for every problem. This in itself does not give clarity to the warning messages, as the warnings themselves were originally forseen as for editing tests not blatant vandalism. Nowadays we see it being issued for ever type of infraction. On the top of the Overview page is the listing of what the levels actually mean. If the wording can be improved please feel free to get involved. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Systemic problems with the current levels
- This refers to the following levels (from WP:UW/O)
- Level 1 - Assumes good faith
- Level 2 - No faith assumption
- Level 3 - Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
- Level 4 - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
- This refers to the following levels (from WP:UW/O)
Thanks for both of your replies. I see that I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase:
- The current levels are not used consistently
- Of course, the old system (Template:TestTemplates) is not consistent; that's natural since it has grown organically without a plan. But the very chance of a new system is that we don't have to worry about legacy inconsistencies - so you would expect it to be free of them. Instead, my little research below (see #Do Level 1 templates AGF?) leads me to believe that the new system is already less consistent than the old one! To be frank, I'm appalled!
- The inconsistencies are systemic
- I see the reason for this in the wishy-washy definition of levels. The old system has by and by arrived at a list of some unmistakable, measurable criteria, such as as "Warning to stop". Why throw them out? From my experience with Template:TestTemplates, I would therefore propose the following levels with measurable criteria:
Level | Criterion | Explanation |
---|---|---|
0 | addresses new users | contains "welcome"; assumes zero previous knowledge. AGF as a matter of course. Only to be used in special cases, such as {{summary}}. |
1 | Possible rule violation | No emotions or bad faith assumptions, just a short statement of what user did, and a reference to the policy/guideline. |
2 | Warning to stop | Assumes bad faith, if necessary |
3 | Final warning before block | States that user will be blocked next time |
5 | Block |
Please take this seriously, it is crucial for the new system to be built on a solid foundation. — Sebastian 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Purple text added 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I find the level 0 / welcome level to be very confusing and non-intuitive. Are you welcoming a user or warning them? If you want to do both, do both, separately - use one of the generic welcome templates followed by a base level warning template. As long as the level 1 template used assumes good faith, this is not contradictory, and gets rid of the confusingly different level 0 templates that we have today. I've done this a number of times with the current system, and find it much less confusing than trying to remember/use all of the varying welcome-level templates that exist. —Krellis 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. You're right that we can do both separately. This is, BTW, the reason why I created {{welcomeshort}}; the rationale to make it short was so new users don't overlook the other message I wanted to send them. The one template that I still use frequently for newbies is {{summary}} because it explains everything with nice baby steps. So far I had success with it; everyone started writing summaries. — Sebastian 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- The 0 - 3 or 1 to 4 warnings were discussed previously, I don't care which is used so long as we have a decision, which I thought we had. Why have the block as 5 and not 4? Having looked quickly through you have a fair point with the level 1 warnings in general that they need to assume more good faith. I responded a bit below but I think we should emphasise the 'Welcome but hey watch it' aspect 'What you did could be considered vandalism' across the board more. There's a whole reasoning in the archives about assuming too much good faith with vandalism by issuing test warnings. A test warning should be issued for what it is, an editing test. If it isn't an editing test then it's vandalism. But why have a vandalism level 1 I hear you cry. Because WP:BITE aside, I've personally issued with the old system a test 1 on a first time vandal who's left blatant vandalism of the John smells of poo variety and ended up in dialogue with editors, who have created logins and got positively stuck in. I think it's going to be difficult to go away from this 4 level system. One reason Pathos will jump in and tell you it's in the guidelines, and if we end up throwing this out at this late stage, then we might as well try and re-work the old system, with all that it entails. I'd be interested in reading up on your unmistakable, measurable criteria and please don't be appalled that's why we are having this review period to try and get experienced editors like yourself on board to get stuck in. The exisiting system isn't ideal but it's fit for purpose if you only want to give out test warnings. As has been said before what we are trying to create here is a foundation, but it need to develop. Look how long WP:TT has taken to get to it's current state. I personally feel it's a bit dramatic to be appalled by the overview's current state in comparison to the existing system, Rome wasn't built in a day. You've put yourself as active so please, get stuck in and reword away. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. If you think I'm just being dramatic, then I haven't gotten my point across. I feel if you build anything more complex than a tool shed, you need to start with a plan. Currently, our plan for the different levels is tantamount to an architect saying: "This house shall be big and have a nice roof." Distinctions between "stern" and "strong" are useless for definitions since everyone understands such subjective terms differently, depending on disposition and the local weather. At the very minimum, we should use the plan that WP:TT evolved to. Given that I already extracted such a plan out of WP:TT, I find it appalling that we go back to the stone age - planning without any measureable criterion.
- I must qualify my statement. Since last week, some people kinda agreed that level 1 should mean "AGF", which is a measurable criterion. It was a very welcome side effect that many good people invested their time in making the level 1 templates friendlier. However, I don't think AGF is a useful criterion for the following two reasons: (1) There are exceptions already (uw-blockn). (2) We should always AGF where possible. If it's possible for a level 2 warning, why not do it? — Sebastian 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think all level1 templates (besides block) need to be AGF, but after being very nice at level1, level2 should be more neutral and factual (and level3 firmer) in my opinion. We are not in the legendary planet of Magrathea ("Please rest assured that this 2 months block is a special feature we reserve for our most challenging editors. We will be happy to have you back when the block expires.") (kidding ;)) -- lucasbfr talk 09:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The plan was simple really to take WP:TT fill in the blanks and removed the superfluous warnings. If you extracted a plan out of WP:TT then I'd say there were still some holes in it. I think your analogy of how we came up with the current overview system is a tad if not very insulting in comparison to the amount of work done here. Proposals were made and left for quite a while while we garnered support and opinion. In the same vein as I would like to see the unmistakable, measurable criteria and would love to see what plan was applied to WP:TT. The level 2 issue you mentioned above aside, what warnings do you feel are missing here, or what is not covered that exists in your plan for WP:TT. As I said before WP:TT is only fit for purpose if you wish to apply a test warning. A large portion of the texts that now fill the current warnings are based on the existing warning which we identified using the now defunct (ish) redirects page. I would currently say the overview is more complete than WP:TT has been. OK there are issues with some of the wording which you identified, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Please as I said previously you've made alot of suggetions but haven't really followed up on then, and others have tried to bring the level1 warnings up to scratch to your previous suggestions. Please and I mean it with all sincerity, get stuck into the templates and edit away, don't sit on the sideline. On your last point, if I have understood you correctly, IMHO the only way is which AGF comes into play with the block warnings is that is to those who have been hit by a collateral block, and that's should be made clear with the unblock statement. Normally they should have had 3 or 4 warnings prior to receiving the block, and should have had a fair dose of AGF. I should maybe remove the blocks out of that table. Even though I do agree with WP:BITE, I do however feel that in reality this is a warning system we are re-creating here, and as Lucas said above we can go overboard on sugar coating the warning. Also the onus is on the issuing editor to make an educated decision and apply the correct level warning to meet the level of offence. To finish I whole heartly believe the new system is covers a wider range, is intuitive and is more complete than the existing system. Yes there are bugs, and wording issue but not insurmountable ones I feel. Please get stuck in and make the changes, that you feel are necessary. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Level 1 templates AGF?
This list shows my assessment of all templates currently listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview#Overview. That page defines level 1 as "Level 1 - Assumes good faith", so I wanted to know how well the templates fit that definition.
Template | Fits level definition? | Why (not)?, comment. |
---|---|---|
{{uw-block1}} | No | assumes "abuse" |
{{uw-vandalism1}} | No | assumes "vandalism" |
{{uw-delete1}} | No | assumes "vandalism" |
{{uw-test1}} | Yes | But sounds a bit disingenous to say "thank you" and remove it. |
{{uw-upv1}} | No | assumes "vandalism" |
{{uw-tpv1}} | No | assumes "vandalism" |
{{uw-error1}} | No | assumes "deliberately adding incorrect information" |
{{uw-mos1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-notcensored1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-notcensored1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-unsourced1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-npa1}} | No | "insist", leaves no room for doubt that it was indeed an attack |
{{uw-defamatory1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-biog1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-joke1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-npov1}} | Yes | But I think WP:BOLD is wrong here. |
{{uw-spam1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-copyright1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-creation1}} | No | Speedy deletion of their favorite topic is for many newbies the biggest slap in the face they can imagine. Why would you want to do that to someone who acted in good faith? |
{{uw-3rr1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-image1}} | borderline | |
{{uw-move1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-agf1}} | No | uses "insist"; more severe than {{uw-agf2}}, which says "please" |
The purpose of this list is not ad-hoc improvement of the individual templates. (For all I know, the other templates may be just as wrongly classified!) The purpose is to open my fellow project members' eyes to the fact that we have indeed a systemic problem here, which is my point in the previous section.
I don't think anybody could argue that assuming vandalism is assuming good faith. And it's not necessary or even helpful: There are several other reasons beyond WP:BITE why it's bad to talk of vandalism or similar bad faith actions right from the start - see Template talk:Warn for a discussion.
Seeing how many level 1 templates are at odds even with this simple requirement to AGF, I have serious doubts if the authors even thought about the meaning of the levels. My impression is that they rather just ligned up some variations of the warning message and gave them numbers in sequence. This is what I meant when I said "the levels seem to have no other purpose than putting them in a sequence, which I regard as an unnecessary loss of clarity". — Sebastian 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't there circumstances when it is absurd to assume good faith, though? For example, if an IP user adds "Red Sox suck, Yankees rule!" to Boston Red Sox, and they don't have any past warning history, what is an appropriate warning? Under the current system, it seems strongly encouraged to use {{test1}}, but, to be honest, I feel stupid every time I apply that template in a circumstance like that. Why should we say "thank you for experimenting" when it is clear vandalism? I think that is actually the biggest confusion in the whole concept of warning templates on Wikipedia, at least in my mind - what is and is not vandalism? If this project is going to succeed, I think the difference between when to use test(n) vs. when to use vandalism(n) is going to need to be much more clearly defined than it currently is. — Krellis — continues after insertion below
- I agree that there are such circumstances, and that the "Yankees rule" grafitti is a good example for that, even though it's true and therefore encyclopedic . But I disagree that this distinction is essential. I only brought it up above in order to prove my point that people don't think about the level definition when they write templates. I think, AGF should be in any template as far as possible; it should not be a distinguishing criterium because it's highly subjective, and I have seen LOTS of fights about just that question. Why not just write: "Your edit does not fit into an encyclopedia", without the blame game? — Sebastian 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I knew someone would have to be a smart-ass if I used the Red Sox example ;) Seriously, though, I think I see your point. I'm going to take a hack at the vandalism(n) templates (at least probably 1 and 2) and try to do to them what I did to error1/2. I won't get to it right away, but probably at some point later today. I'll see if I can strike a balance between the fallacy of saying "thank you for experimenting" and the accusatory tone of "don't vandalize". —Krellis 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that there are such circumstances, and that the "Yankees rule" grafitti is a good example for that, even though it's true and therefore encyclopedic . But I disagree that this distinction is essential. I only brought it up above in order to prove my point that people don't think about the level definition when they write templates. I think, AGF should be in any template as far as possible; it should not be a distinguishing criterium because it's highly subjective, and I have seen LOTS of fights about just that question. Why not just write: "Your edit does not fit into an encyclopedia", without the blame game? — Sebastian 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with that, under the current set of available templates, is that there is no vandalism(n), there are just {{vw}} and {{bv}}. The creation of vandalism(n) here is, I think, a positive step. In the process of getting these new templates accepted by the community, though, we are going to have to define the difference I mentioned above. Just to run down a few possible scenarios:
- Adding "poop", "fart", curse words, etc to an article.
- Adding total gibberish to an article.
- Removing content from an article with no explanation.
- Blanking an article entirely.
- Adding obviously derogatory or insulting statements to an article.
- Adding NPOV information to an article.
- There are, of course, many more types of scenarios, those are just the ones I can think of off-hand. Of those, numbers 1 and 5 are, to me, clearly vandalism, and thus AGF does not apply, while the other three can certainly have some assumption of good faith. To address your specific concern of the overview table indicating that level 1 should always be assuming good faith, I would suggest that certain types of warning inherently need not do so (particularly vandalism and blocking - if you're blocking, obviously there's no assumption of good faith), so they should either be in a separate table or have a footnote explaining that the levels may not directly apply to those particular items. As long as it's understood that those items are only used when bad faith is already evident, I don't think this is really a problem. I do see a problem, though, with how many templates you've called out as not assuming good faith in level 1, and I'll take a look through them tonight and see if I can suggest some ways to soften them a little bit. —Krellis 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's perfect. Do we completely remove the fact that it might be seen as vandalism? -- lucasbfr talk 11:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've edited {{uw-error1}} and {{uw-error2}} to try and bring them more in line with what you've described as a more gradual set of warnings - take a look and let me know if that's a better assumption of good faith. And everyone else is welcome to comment on my changes as well. I think they still get the message across, without nearly as much assumption of bad faith. —Krellis 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've edited {{Uw-delete1}} to a version closer to the old {{test1}} (that one assumes a lot of good faith :D). Tell me what you think. -- lucasbfr talk 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply in detail later on, but just a couple of points (well points of view) block1 must assume abuse, they've just been blocked, we don't block people on good faith Template:Emot. I don't think we are assuming bad faith with the level 1 warning, it should be read as, What you did isn't acceptable, but we'll let you off this time, but in future it could be considered as .... Even with the good faith warnings, you can tell people of the rules and that they are in breach of them, whether they did it intentionally or not and without tearing a strip of them. But it's the wording these could be considered. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- But do we, in fact, block people we believe to be editing in good faith sometimes? I'm not an admin, but I can imagine the following scenario:
- IP user 1.2.3.4 is merrily editing pages. Some of their edits look legit, while others are obviously non-vandalism tests (sticking example images in, "Italic text here" and the like). They are warned several times about this over a short period, but do not stop. I think WP:AGF still applies here - after all, perhaps they did not see the "you have new messages" box (I don't quite know how they could miss it, but we have to assume it's possible). At the same time, their edits are clearly disruptive and detrimental to the encyclopedia, so a block makes sense. If we have a level 1 block template that assumes good faith, it stands a much better chance of helping this user understand what they did wrong than a template that simply says they were abusing their editing privileges. At the very least, I think {{uw-block1}} should be a bit more wordy and include some of the standard level 1 thank you / please language, perhaps even an apology for needing to block them. As it currently stands, {{uw-block2}} is virtually identical to block1, and that seems inappropriate, I have to agree with Sebastian. Also, why is there no {{uw-block4}}? I would propose that block1 be softened, block2 stay mostly as it is, maybe a little softening, block3 move to block4, and a middle-of-the-road block3 be created. If there was some discussion in the archives about block4, please point me to it, because I don't see it. —Krellis 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Only problem with that scenario is as you say they would have to have missed three possibly four other warnings, prior to receiving the block. If you look at the non parsered warning, the second level is you have been blocked for repeated offence. However, others might but I certainly have no problems if you wish to try and create a 4 level system for the blocks as well. In short knock your selfout. Khukri (talk . contribs) 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- The way I look at it, the level of block is based on how many times you've gone through a sequence of other warnings. So an example might be to go through a sequence like: test1, test2, test3, vand4, block1; a few days (or weeks) later, vand1, vand2, vand3, vand4, block2; another few weeks later, error1, test2, vand3, vand4, block3; etc. Obviously the entire four-warning sequence probably wouldn't happen on the latter infractions, particularly if it was blatant vandalism. But basically, I envision that the level of the block message would increase with each blocking, not each warning. It probably doesn't map perfectly, and I would expect that there would be plenty of times when starting with block1 doesn't make sense, but I think it does make sense for it to exist and try to AGF a little more than it currently does. I'll give it a shot in a little while. —Krellis 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- the Vand1 warning I just added to it the mention of vandalism otherwise it's no different to the test warning. I've just added my tuppence worth but edit away, I still think the in all thelevel1/ AGF warnings we should still mention what they possibly did wrong. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's the same as test1, even without a mention of vandalism. I agree with Sebastian's point - the very mention of vandalism could be seen as an assumption of bad faith. The wording (even without mentioning vandalism) is considerably stronger - it does not thank them for experimenting, and it refers to the edits as unhelpful and unconstructive, rather than a test. I guess I'm somewhat invested now, since I made those changes, but if anyone else wants to weigh in, that would be great. —Krellis 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote the original templates and agree they were to strong to start with. But I think it assumes far too much good faith that we should skirt around telling them why we reverted their edits in the first place, and to not give details of their transgression. But I do feel that this can be done politely, and AGF. Yes we screw up as well, that's why I like the VP warnings that have a link to the reversion and says if you feel this is incorrect please get in contact with me. I'd rather see a link to the policy on why we reverted their warnings, but that's my personal preference, and will follow the concensus. In the best traditions of TV, lets ask the audience. What does everyone else out there think? Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The wording of {{Uw-tpv1}} is a bit too strong indeed for someone who for example tried to reword someone's thoughts and did not know the policy. Maybe we could make it a bit more like {{uw-npov1}}? By the way I didn't follow what you meant about the be bold in npov1. (the idea in the original template was to not discourage the editors) -- lucasbfr talk 11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point it is quite strong. I haven't looked through all of Seb's points up above, but his AGF and creation points are certainly valid. If you have 15 mins, would you mind doing the honours, as I'm busy as at the mo? Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest I am busy too that's why I went lazy and just wrote here about the problem. I see if I have the time tonight though! -- lucasbfr talk 15:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I toned down the language on {{Uw-tpv1}} a bit; it came from a pretty straight copy of the vandalism1 tag, so I can see how it started out too strong. Go ahead and edit them yourself if you wish :) Rawling4851 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Single level warnings
I've just started a list page here, for all the single level warnings that aren't covered by the overview page and will come into the second part of this project. There are some which have levels like the edit summaries and I would appreciate your thoughts on if we just create single warning for all of these or if any of them should be moved into the multiple warnings, such as edit summary, etc. Also add any that appear in or any special ones that you have stashed away somewhere, that you feel should be included. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should start looking at a merge of this project in the near future with the above, we already have our overview page which in part will cover WP:TT, and will be completed by the single level templates in the near future. I'm also concerned that this project is titled user warnings, where as 'UTM - User template messages' covers everything, is better titled and conveys a more neutral standpoint. After Sebastien's points above about assume good faith and our perceived profile, I think it would be a good opportunity to move this project into a more neutral sounding territory. Also in my mind I see it as good time to finish this project and hand it over to the community. This is a work in progress but there has to come a time when it is no longer a project, and those who have worked on it to bring it to a live status and have set the standard, let go and take over a more janitorial role in it's up keep. I propose therefor that once the two phases (multi & single level warning) have gone live, that we wrap the work up here and transfer it, the instructions and guidelines over to WP:UTM or another location. I would be interested in you thoughts on this. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I should point out that Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace has more than just warnings so the new warnings overview page won't replace all of it. But yeah merging is probably a good idea. --WikiSlasher 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
notcensored2 --> notcensored1
I took the liberty to renumber one proposed template in the redirect-to list, from "notcensored2" to "notcensored1". Reasons: (a) the previous level is "notcensored0", and normally 1 follows 0; (b) template {{notcensored2}} exists and is different in both content and purpose (meant for posting on article talk pages). If for any reason this change is unacceptable, please let's discuss what to do instead. I had created "notcensored2" before discovering this project, and it is already transcluded on numerous talk pages, so replacing its content will require re-editing all those pages. If I'd known you intended to use that name, I would have chosen a different one. -- Ben 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that! As you can see, we decided to rename all our templates by adding "uw-" at the start, to prevent such collisions. I don't think we will make the redirections from the old system to the new one in a near future (I might be wrong I am not sure) -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Header & instructions
Hi there! I've been following this project with great interest on and off for the past few months. I'm not sure if what I'm going to write about has been addressed yet (because you've got a LOT of information here!) so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating an already settled topic.
On the project's front page, you say that these warnings will be grouped under a header called Warnings on the user's talk page. It is my feeling that wording is a bit strong and could be construed as a violation of WP:BITE. I've started using the more innocuous Regarding your edits in my own posts to user pages. I think including that or a similar phrase in the instructions for warnings would be the better course.
On the subject of instuctions, I'm hoping that you are writing a good set for the use of these new templates, especially as to how to apply them to anonymous IPs. I see abuse of the warning templates all the time especially towards anonymous IPs. Many's the time I've seen an IP w/out a warning in over a month and with good edits in the meantime, get blasted with a test3 or test4 for one vandalous edit. If an instruction set is not already written, I'd be happy to assist. Thank you for all the time and effort all of you have put into this project! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Helloo! I know I'm new to your project, but could one of you answer my question please? Thanks! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even though in the last couple of days, we've tried to make some of the warnings more agf, etc, we can't lose sight of the fact that these are warnings. For a one off issue of a template, you wouldn't necessarily add a warnings heading, hence not coming into the realms of WP:BITE. But if you have a repeater IP address then I would recommend applying the heading. Just my take but if you feel it needs changing make a proposal and see waht everyone else thinks. As for the instruction, I'm hoping someone is going to offer to look after that one, so if you're looking for something to do ........Template:Emot. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Very good then. I've made some changes over at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Introduction, tell me your thoughts- or just edit the heck out of them!--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{uw}} broken
I'll try to fix the bullet/numbering thing -- how was it supposed to work? I don't see any # or * in the templates. Did I remove them? -- Renesis (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- erm ........ mmmmmmmmm ........ that'd might be me then. I think I forgot them amongst everything else I did with the merger of WP:UWLS, and it was the main reason I merged the two projects. Sorry guys. If you could sort it out Ren, that would be really appreciated. The guide is on the project page here. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see how it can work with the tables (or anything) surrounding the message. Did it ever work? is the number outside the table? I'm a little confused here. Is the user entering the message supposed to put the #? -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the {{S/block}} then I think a table got added in side the div or something, to tidy the image up as it messed the text up. Then it got changed again as it was overkill having divs and tables, and I think they just got lost in the changes over the last 3 months. might need a complete re-think on behind the scenes structure. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Using a small floated icon (or no icon at all) will fix the problem. {{s/block}} only uses a div container to create the coloured box. No container is necessary unless the icon is too big or the message too short. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the {{S/block}} then I think a table got added in side the div or something, to tidy the image up as it messed the text up. Then it got changed again as it was overkill having divs and tables, and I think they just got lost in the changes over the last 3 months. might need a complete re-think on behind the scenes structure. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see how it can work with the tables (or anything) surrounding the message. Did it ever work? is the number outside the table? I'm a little confused here. Is the user entering the message supposed to put the #? -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just moved this section down to the bottom of that page to keep it in our minds, as it's very important. I've just been running some tests and to start I've changed Pathoschild's blocks back to the original divs used in the S/blocks warnings. I've also removed all div's and tables from my vandalism warnings. Now they are back to how they were at the beginning. I've put them on my sandbox which shows how they should look. What I've done is in the first group I've knocked the image size down to 25 pixels. As P mentioned above this hopefully removes the space that we were trying to get rid of in the first place between the first and second lines. If you look below you will see how it did look originally. It also includes the bullet/numbering convention. This is the last thing I can think of, no other ideas have come forward in the last few days. So if this is no good then we have one or two options, lose the images or lose the bullet/numbering. In the next couple of days I will modify the overview page so that it becomes the replacement page for WP:UTM and remove all the single issue templates from there and put them on a new page for the second part of this project. I ask for comments quite regularly and lucky if I get a couple. On this one I would really like some feedback and to know your thoughts on this last(ish) test. Cheers muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just my two cents, I did like the icons before (as they currently are on the overview page) but if that's screwing something up behind the scenes then obviously that's more important. The small icons are a step up from the large ones if they just go inline with the text, but it's not really the same effect. Whatever, I definately think we need something to distinguish these warnings from just plain text, but I don't really understand the workings behind these :p Rawling 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Edit: Just a random idea. If we like the idea of a small image in-line with the text, rather than a large one on one side, why not make it a longer, shorter rectangle - like a box with a word representing the icon, I'm not sure. Like the hand of ! icon could be replaced by "WARNING" on a little red rectangle. Just something to make the boxes stand out and to show what level they are at a glance, like the larger icons do in the current "buggered" version. Rawling 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like this. Just the general idea. Rawling 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
COOOOEEEEEEEEEEE if I don't get anymore feedback, then I'm going to take it as an acceptance of no divs/table (except block) and a reduced sized image meets ours and the old WP:UWLS criteria. I have taken Monday off work and I will change all the templates then to what is decided. Then barring a meteor strike or Jimbo coming in and saying he shutting down wikipedia, with the work you lot are doing on the wording hopefully we can go live Monday evening (UTC). Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was just looking at the templates as seen at Overview#Details. I agree that no divs/table (except block) is good such as with the uw-vandalismX ones. Is the plan to have an auto-numbering # sign added to the rest? --Geniac 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3 days left
I've moved this discussion to the bottom of the page again, just to keep it fresh in our minds. Right, since there were no disagreements over the last couple of days, as previously discussed I've changed all the templates to no div's/tables (except blocks) with a reduced sized image, and including the numbering system from warning layout. Some of you are going great guns at the minor re-wording and general tidying of the templates, so thank you for that. All that needs to be done between now and Monday is the continuing of this tidying, and the finishing of the single level warnings page, which I will do tonight or Monday. There are a couple of open tasks (top of page) if someone could look at them please. Also between now and Monday we need to have a final round of advertising of the changes. So if you could all please do a wee bit of spamming, noticeboards, IRC channels, the standard vandal patrollers we all know, that would be great. I suggest a roll out on Monday 18:00 UTC. User:Krellis any chance you can do your 4th level block you were talking of? Anyhoo it's a weekend of Heineken cup rugby and my birthday, so I'm going to be fairly incommunicado this weekend. Any probs leave a glaring announcement. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've hit a bit of an impasse as far as the block templates go. I had all kinds of good ideas in my head, but when I try to put them down in the actual templates, none of them seem to make sense. So, I think I've talked myself into being content with them as they are currently. —Krellis 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone screams stop across the top of the page, then I intend to go live with the overview page in around 9 hours. Lucas I see you are still editing, if you get a chance can you look at the couple of minor taks sitting up top. I will add the unblock text to the block warnings and create the single issue warnings table this morning and afternoon. Any other problems let me know. Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added the single issue warnings, to the overview page. Just got to sort the text on the WP:UTM page, and create backups of all the old pages, in case anyone wishes to use them until everyone is 100% happy that we have the finished article. Going to split the WP:UTM page in two, once part for the overview grid and one which displays all the warnings. Knocking implementation back to 19:00 utc a couple of us are meeting in the #martinp23 IRC channel, just to talk through implementation, so jump in. Khukri (talk . contribs) 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
uw-test templates
I rewrote {{uw-test2}} and {{uw-test3}} a bit, I thought test2 was very strong "is unacceptable" for a level 2 warning. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. ...making test edits in Wikipedia articles even... would it be in or on? Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe "in" is correct, "to" would probably also be correct, "on" doesn't sound right to me. "On Wikipedia", yes, but "in Wikipedia articles". —Krellis 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- My guts tell me "in" would mean inside WP articles and "on" would mean about WP articles. But again, my English is not as good as I would like (errr... is that even correct??). -- lucasbfr talk 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense to me. --WikiSlasher 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- My guts tell me "in" would mean inside WP articles and "on" would mean about WP articles. But again, my English is not as good as I would like (errr... is that even correct??). -- lucasbfr talk 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I believe "in" is correct, "to" would probably also be correct, "on" doesn't sound right to me. "On Wikipedia", yes, but "in Wikipedia articles". —Krellis 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Issues with the layout
The current layout guidelines seem like they could stand for some improvement. One simple change needed would be that, because numbering is included in the templates, it isn't needed as part of the layout. This can be fixed by just removing the #'s and *'s from the list (except for when used for comments, where #'s are still needed).
A better method of breaking up warning notices than by month is also probably needed. Separating them by month will cause problems when a user is warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another. Breaking them up by when a user was banned (and the sequence restarted) also wouldn't work if the user was banned for a short time, and continued as soon as the ban ended. -- kenb215 talk 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by "warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another." ? --Geniac 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unless they were active through the changeover from one month to the other then I wouldn't see it as being an issue. Most vandals go from warnings 1 - 4 in pretty short order till a block is applied, in that case the editor would just leave the warning grouped with the previous month. But if you wanted to correctly month it, then I'm sure the blocking admin will pick up fairly quickly whats going on. My opinion is that the monthing isn't an arbitary page sectioning, it's a recommendation to try and avoid the plethora of headers that are seen on repeater vandals page. I think the list on the front page just reflects that they're included in the template. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a last look at the level 1 templates?
I edited {{Uw-npa1}} and {{Uw-creation1}} to make them a bit more assuming good faith. I copy paste the table Sebastian wrote. Please edit the table above to see if we are on the same page -- lucasbfr talk 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Template | Fits level definition? | Editors comments. |
---|---|---|
{{uw-block1}} | No | Is it a problem? -- lucasbfr talk |
{{uw-vandalism1}} | Yes? | |
{{uw-delete1}} | Yes? | |
{{uw-test1}} | Yes | But sounds a bit disingenous to say "thank you" and remove it. |
{{uw-upv1}} | No | Not changed -- lucasbfr talk |
{{uw-tpv1}} | No? | Not changed but I feel it assumes good faith-- lucasbfr talk |
{{uw-error1}} | Yes? | |
{{uw-mos1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-notcensored1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-notcensored1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-unsourced1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-npa1}} | Yes? | |
{{uw-defamatory1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-biog1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-joke1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-npov1}} | Yes | But I think WP:BOLD is wrong here. |
{{uw-spam1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-copyright1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-creation1}} | Yes? | |
{{uw-3rr1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-image1}} | borderline | |
{{uw-move1}} | Yes | |
{{uw-agf1}} | No? |
Block templates...
I think the blocked templates need to be taken out of the "warning" table (and moved to it's own table). It's not really a big issue, but it seems out of place on so many levels. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I posted that above this morning above and tend to agree. On it now. Thanks for the feedback Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Templates are now live.
The first phase of these templates went live today. Thank you all very much for your participation, assitance and time. However, we are not finished yet. These templates are not finished, they will still need re-work and if you could be on hand for any queries in WP:UTM that would be appreciated. I have created the single issue details but the templates all need to be harmonised in the same manner we did with the multi level warnings. Then we have to wrap this project up and merge it with WP:UTM. I am going to do some on the single issues page and within a couple of weeks I will hope to create a new overview page. Again thanks for all your help, and if you see any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)…