Content deleted Content added
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 20) (bot |
|||
| (413 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 20 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
#[[/Archive 16|August 2018–February 2020]] |
#[[/Archive 16|August 2018–February 2020]] |
||
#[[/Archive 17|February 2020–November 2020]] |
#[[/Archive 17|February 2020–November 2020]] |
||
#[[/Archive 18|December |
#[[/Archive 18|December 2020–November 2021]] |
||
#[[/Archive 19]] |
#[[/Archive 19|November 2021–March 2023]] |
||
#[[/Archive 20|March 2023–present]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
{{clear}} |
{{clear}} |
||
== [[Template:uw-spamublock]] == |
|||
== Proposal: Add single-level notice for user creating non-notable articles == |
|||
{{edit template-protected|template:uw-spamublock|answered=yes}} |
|||
I’m on NPP and run into users who don’t know or understand the notability requirements. It would be nice to have a notice that in a couple of sentences discusses why notability required and what it is, then points to the notability page. This would save NPP lots of time spent introducing people to notability. Of course, it won’t help with further discussion, but at least it would provide a concise and clear start. |
|||
your account has been used for advertising or promotion -> it has been used for advertising or promotion |
|||
Minor nitpick to reduce repetition. <i><span style="font-family:Segoe print">[[User:Mori Calliope fan|<span style="background-color:black;color:#ffb8f3">Mori Calliope fan</span>]] [[User talk:Mori Calliope fan|<span style="background-color:#870900;color:#ffb8f3">talk</span>]]</span></i> 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
uw-wizard is the closest to this currently, but it doesn’t provide the right message and advice. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 07:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|rsjaffe}} Do you think it would be better to just expand what uw-wizard says to include that information? - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::No, because, frankly, I can’t see the contributors I’m targeting using the wizard, unless forced to do so. They’ve already written an article or several, and are just puzzled as to why the article gets draftified or deleted. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This seems to be a side effect of the changes made by {{u|Jpgordon}} in [[Special:Diff/1162488493]]. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If one were drafting a new template, where would it go? "Draft:Template:" space? Sorry, but I haven't been able to find this in the docs. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 23:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Good nitpick, fixed. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇]]</small></sup> 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{reply to|HLHJ|rsjaffe}} I've created [[:Template:Uw-notability]] and would appreciate input or collaboration on improvement so that it works for what it's needed for. I don't want to add it to any lists or anything for general use until we're happy with what we're working with. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 03:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I’d like to add some explanation to this, as I think many find the resources daunting and don’t read them. The following is extracted from the resources and edited to the most common issues I’ve seen (e.g., interviews are used as “independent sources “). |
|||
:::::“A brief explanation of these terms (see the linked resources above for full definitions and detailed advice): |
|||
:::::“'''Significant''': Addresses the subject directly and in detail. |
|||
:::::”'''Reliable''': Materials with a reliable publication process, or authors who are regarded as authoritative in the subject. |
|||
:::::“'''Independent''': For example, these are ''not'' independent: press releases, autobiographies, the subject’s website, and interviews.” — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 08:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{reply to|rsjaffe}} I added it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-notability&type=revision&diff=1101769905&oldid=1101769154 made some changes] to try to address any counterpoints about notability that someone might try to bring up before they happen. For example clarifying what is meant by author to try to avoid them going through [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] which would be a wasted effort for them as that's not an improvement. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 18:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I like it! It might need some tweaking after seeing how it’s received and interpreted in real life, but to me it’s ready for a limited trial roll-out. Thanks for your work. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 18:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 == |
|||
:::::::{{reply to|Aoidh|rsjaffe}} (''so there isn't a Template draftspace?'') That looks pretty good, but I think the how-to-fix description is too high-level for the target recipients. "The article you created does not show how the article's subject is notable", for instance, is a statement of the problem, not the solution. Maybe something more like a step-by-step guide to what to do next: |
|||
{{hr}} |
|||
::::::"All articles need to list at least one source (book, article, webpage outside of Wikipedia, etc.) which shows that the topic is notable. A source shows that the article topic is notable if it: |
|||
::::::*is '''independent''' of the topic. This means it was written by someone who chose to cover the topic, despite not having any personal involvement. Coverage is ''not'' independent if it is done by people with a [[conflict of interest]] (a second motive that might conflict with a desire to provide accurate information). Press releases by the subject, autobiographies of the subject, the subject’s website, interview statements made by the subject, and other media controlled by someone with a COI are ''not'' independent. If in doubt, Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|a very detailed guide to assessing independence]]. |
|||
::::::*is '''reliable'''. Reliable publications can reasonably be expected to be accurate. We have a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|list of common sources]], like big newspapers, with an assessment of their reliablity. If a source isn't on the list, Wikipedia has developed [[WP:RS|rules for deciding if a publication is likely to be reliable]]; they work pretty well. If you still aren't sure, ask other editors at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Wikipedia's Reliable-sources Noticeboard]]. |
|||
::::::*has '''significant''' coverage. An entire article, book, or chapter on a topic is significant coverage of that topic; a passing mention in one sentence on page 369 of a thousand-page book is not. If there isn't enough information on the topic to make a decent article, you can still add the information to another article. If in doubt, there is a [[WP:ORGDEPTH|a content checklist]] to tell whether coverage is significant or trivial. |
|||
::::::You need at least one source which meets ''all three'' criteria. Two or three different sources that meet the criteria between them are not adequate. The sources do not have to be online, or recent; they must be [[WP:CITE|cited]] in a way that lets another editor find them and look up what they say. You can get specific advice on [[wp:TEAHOUSE|Wikipedia's Teahouse]]. |
|||
{{hr}} |
|||
::::::That needs editing down, but I hope the basic idea is clear. Common-sense deciding if coverage in idependent, reliable, and trivial will usually suffice; the recipient won't need to read the fine print. We might also want to clarify if that the topic may well be notable, but the article doesn't yet demonstrate the fact. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I’d rather start brief as it is now, test it, and see if we need to expand. I’m a strong fan of brevity. We lose eyeballs with each line of text, so I’d want each word to be proven necessary. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Your descriptions are nice, though, and I could see expanding in that direction if needed. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I was going to say the same, I like it and it's great to include all of that, but at some point it does become a tl;dr situation where the more that's said the less is read by a lot of people. I also disagree about the one source thing; [[WP:GNG]] requires multiple sources, so saying an article needs one source is misleading. There have been plenty of articles deleted at AfD because they only had the one good source but nothing else, and one isn't enough. I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-notability&diff=1101777413&oldid=1101769905 take out] the sentence about not showing how the article shows notability, as that sentence seemed superfluous. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
{{reply to|Skdb}} do you have any input before we roll this out? - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Sorry, I somehow did not see Aoidh's or rsjaffee's comments from just prior before posting, but did not get an edit conflict; my comment was more suitable for an earlier point in the discussion, and I didn't mean to come off as ignoring you! I see GNG speaks of plural notability-establishing sources; I'd never considered that as specifying two or more sources, and I'd have accepted an article with one notability-establishing source and other supporting RSs; I'll look into that, thank you. I entirely agree that my suggestion is too long. I do think it should explicitly say that the user needs to ''add notability-establishing sources'' to show notability. Say, replace {{background|beige|'An article you created does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'}} with {{background|beige|'According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." An article you created does not (yet) cite such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets Wikipedia's standards for notability.'}} By [[WP:NEXIST]], use of this template presumably means that the templating editor does not think that notability-establishing sources exist, but they might. There is some evidence suggesting that linking to talk forums like the Teahouse improves retention compared to just linking to docs (see [[WP:Encourage the newcomers]], much of which I wrote). This is a minor phrasing issue, but it might be good to clarify that the ''source'' needs to be reliable and independent, and the ''coverage'' needs to be significant. Finally, some of the examples might be a bit confusing; for instance, I think an interview with a topic expert could be independent for the topic. Testing it on new users seems like a very good idea, we can ask them what they understood and did! [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 03:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Like that change in wording for the intro. Agree that adding tea house to the ending is good. I have an idea for longer explanations, but I’m on mobile and can’t easily mock it up myself. How about hatting the longer explanation for each of the three highlighted points immediately below the point it expands upon, and have something like “click here for more” on the hat. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Actually, instead of hatting, this would work nicely: [[Help:Collapsing#"mw-collapsed"]]. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Template:Uw-mislead3|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::::::::::I'd mock it up for you but alas my mindreading seems pretty weak today {{smiley}}. Per [[MOS:LINKCLARITY]] and [[MOS:SPECIFICLINK]], I think the blue text of each link should describe its target as well as resonably possible. Explicit verbal statements that you can use a link "click here" or "see links above", were really common on the 1990s web, and became deprecated for a swath of good reasons. Another possiblitly is just assuming that "reliable", "independent", and "significant coverage" (once we add a link) are mostly self-explanatory and the reader will follow the links if not. This could produce something like this: |
|||
Please fix [[Template:Uw-mislead3]], it expands with a <code><nowiki><!-- Template:uw-move3 --></nowiki></code> comment instead of <code><nowiki><!-- Template:uw-mislead3 --></nowiki></code>.<br> |
|||
{{hr}} |
|||
I just had this shocking moment where I warned someone with a level 4 move disruption warning because I copied it and thought 'oh no, I warned them for move disruption in the third warning too, how did I not see it' - but no, turns out it's just the comment that's been wrong since the template was made. – [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091|2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091|talk]]) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article when it has received {{em|[[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]}} in {{em|[[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]]}} that are {{em|[[WP:Independent sources|independent of the subject]]}}. An article you created does not (yet) [[WP:cite|cite]] such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets [[WP:notability|Wikipedia's standards for notability]]. |
|||
:{{Done}} -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggestion: Merge templates for removing XFD notices == |
|||
Resources include: |
|||
* [[CAT:WNG|Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines]] |
|||
* a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|list of common sources]], like big newspapers, with an assessment of their reliablity. If a source isn't on the list, there's [[WP:RS|rules for deciding if a publication is likely to be reliable]], and if you still aren't sure, you can ask other editors at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Wikipedia's Reliable-sources Noticeboard]]. |
|||
* [[WP:YFA|Your First Article]] and the more general [[WP:Tutorial|Wikipedia Editing Tutorial]] |
|||
* the [[WP:draft|space for draft articles]], which can also be used with the [[WP:WIZ2|Article Wizard]] |
|||
* [[WP:Teahouse|Wikipedia's Teahouse]], where you can get advice on your draft from other editors |
|||
{{hr}} |
|||
::::::::::::That draft is a bit ugly, but succinct and fairly readable. The "Resources" section could be default-collapsed. I've added the WP:SIGCOV link, partly for those who don't follow every link, partly for balance, and partly for futureproofing. The "cite" link may be superfluous, if the reader already knows how to cite. I'm pretty sure there's more than one WP editing tutorial. I'm also unsure if the selection of resources is a good one, as it's been a long time since I made my first article and I didn't use any of them, mostly because they didn't exist! [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 15:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::In a couple of days I’ll have access to a real computer again, and can mock up my thoughts without forcing you to read minds remotely. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::If it helps, I've made a copy of the template at [[User:Aoidh/Sandboxes/TemplateSandbox]]. Of course we can also just edit the template directly, but I figured I'd offer that sandbox version as a place where we can play around with it and spitball ideas that we may or may not want refined before we put in the actual template. Feel free to play around with the sandbox or edit the template directly, whichever you're more comfortable with. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 03:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::I made a couple of edits to the template (not the sandbox) that I think get to some of HLHJ's points: clairifying the first paragraph, and making sure the interview section relates to the subject.Please read the changes ({{diff2|1102415147}} and {{diff2|1102415831}}, respectively) and see if they're ok. |
|||
:::::::::::::::I'm still at a loss as to how to add extra explanation without overburdening the notice. Wikipedia's accordion collapse controls all use ''show''/''hide'' links to open/close so there's no option to use more modern interface styles. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::::::::::}}Those two edits are good improvements, and I think it's good the way it is in terms of length. While more information certainly is better, there's still the tl;dr issue of what someone is willing to read, and in that aspect less is more. I think providing wikilinks to additional information satisfies the "Would you like to know more?" aspect so adding something like collapsing explanations is unnecessary, as that information is a click away and in much greater detail than a template could provide. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Proposal: Merge AFD, RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD and MFD user warning templates into one. This would let editors use a centralized warnings list for deletion in general instead of having to go and carefully find the one for the appropriate XFD. If needed, we could add a parameter to disambiguate which. |
|||
Thanks for adding the Teahouse text. I was thinking of introducing this to the new page reviewers for testing, if you all think it’s good enough for wide testing. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it's good to go, and getting feedback from the actual editors who will use it would go a long way too. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 17:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::See [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#New_Standard_Template_for_Informing_Contributors_of_Problem_with_Notability_Ready_for_Testing]] for the discussion. I'm going to try editing the template to respond to the comments. You might want to look at the changes and see if they're ok. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 21:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've done a bold copy-edit of the template for concision and clarity, without changing the structure of content except for minor redundancies of phrasing. I also added three wikilinks.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-notability&type=revision&diff=1102757805&oldid=1102627305] I hope these are non-controversial changes, but entirely understand if anyone want to revert them; I broke them out into small edits with a rationale for each. |
|||
:::One remaining issue: the template currently links "Wikipedia's standards for notability" and "Wikipedia's notability standards", both of which have the target [[WP:Notability]]. It also doesn't explicitly say that the person recieving the notice '''needs to add notability-establishing sources to their article'''. Here are three versions of the first para; the first is the current text, the other two are earlier suggestions of mine, the latter slightly shortened. |
|||
:::#{{background|khaki|'An article you created doesn't show that the topic meets [[Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia's standards for notability]]. According to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:GNG|general notability guideline]], a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received ''[[Wikipedia:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]'' in ''[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]'' that are ''[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] of the subject'.}} |
|||
:::#{{background|lightyellow|'According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received ''[[Wikipedia:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]'' in ''[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]'' that are ''[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject]]''" An article you created does not (yet) cite such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets [[Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia's standards for notability]].'}} |
|||
:::#{{background|PaleGoldenrod|'A topic is presumed suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article when it has received ''[[Wikipedia:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]'' in ''[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]'' that are ''[[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject]]''. An article you created does not (yet) [[Wikipedia:Cite|cite]] such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets [[Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia's standards for notability]].'}} |
|||
:::I'll play in the sandbox and try to come up with something that incorporates this and eliminates the redundant wikilink. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 19:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just noticed that the list sentences don't join up grammatically unless you move "significant coverage" etc. to parends at the end of each bullet point. Apologies, will work on this in the sandbox. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Here's what the templates might look like:<br> |
|||
::::Suggested rewrite at [[User:Aoidh/Sandboxes/TemplateSandbox]]. Possibly the bit in parends should be omitted, and the first bit still has some redundancy around descriptios of notability-establishing sources. I've tried to cover the basics: what is wrong, what can you do and how, why should you do it, and also enough of the jargon to understand the discussions. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Uw-xfd1: <code> Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd2: <code> Please do not remove deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd3: <code> Please stop. If you continue to remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd4: <code> You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a deletion notice or a comment from a deletion debate.</code><br> |
|||
Uw-xfd4im: <code> This is your only warning; if you remove a deletion notice from a page or delete comments from a deletion debate again, you may be blocked from editing.</code><br> |
|||
Any suggestions welcome! <small>If you reply here, please ping me.</small> <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">[[W:EN:User:TheTechie|<span style="color:Green">thetechie@enwiki</span>]]</span>: [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="MediumBlue">~/talk/</span>]] <span style="">$</span></span> 23:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Link the plain and simple COI guide? == |
|||
:::::{{reply to|Aoidh|rsjaffe}}; Thank you both for your edits, the template is now shorter and clearer. I asked at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability#GNG plural]] about how many notability-establishing sources are needed and got a lively discussion, so I decided to say "sources... add them" rather than making explicit statements about number, though more than one is usually necessary. But if others prefer to include an explicit statement, that's fine. Might/may for future possibilities is also [[English modal verbs#may|fine either way]]; I used "might" because it felt a bit kinder, but YMMV. Does it often occur that an editor creates multiple non-shown-to-be-notable articles? Or a mix of notable and maybe-notable? If so, I can add options for that as at [[:Template:Uw-medrs]]. Should we mention that deleted articles can be draftified? [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 00:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
A lot of newcomers on Wikipedia might not be familiar with all of our policies and feel lost in the wordings, maybe it would be good to link a more beginner-friendly guide such as [[Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide]] in {{tl|uw-coi}} and {{tl|uw-coi-username}} to gently nudge them towards more responsible editing? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotıċ <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Vector legacy == |
|||
I've just discovered the template {{tlx|sources exist}}, used for tagging non-notable articles. Should we mention it in the documentation for the template, {{u|Aoidh}}, {{u|rsjaffe}}? It seems usefully complementary. It encourages others to fix the problem, a more collaborative angle on responsibility. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 03:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|HLHJ}} Yeah absolutely, adding that as a "see also" seems perfectly reasonable to me. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
The template currently says: "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you)." This seems to apply to the Vector Legacy skin, but not the current Vector 2022 skin. I think there are now two places "Move" can be: the Tools sidebar, or Tools menu, but I don't know which one appears by default. Depending on this, please can the template be reworded, maybe to something like: |
|||
== ew-uwsoft == |
|||
* "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" action in the "Tools" menu]] at the top of the page (the "Tools" menu may be in a sidebar to the right of the page for you)." |
|||
or |
|||
* "you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" action in the "Tools" sidebar]] to the right of the page (the "Tools" sidebar may be hidden as a menu at the top of the page for you)." |
|||
Might also need a sentence there saying something like "if you're using the Vector legacy skin, there should be a [[Help:Moving a page|"Move" tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]])." (Is there a way to automatically detect which skin the user is using, and display text appropriate to that? This might be more difficult if this template has to be subst'ed.) |
|||
Updating [[Help:Moving a page]], and a replacement for [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png]] would be nice to have, but probably not worth waiting for to make this change. |
|||
I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ewsoft&diff=1100011917&oldid=1100005132 reverted] the change made to uw-ewsoft that removed the wording that warned the recipient about 3RR. While the purpose of the warning is to be softer worded and therefore a less [[WP:BITE]]Y template, it does not need to be worded such that it doesn't even notify them about 3RR. If you can be given an edit-warring template and then brought to [[WP:AN3]] for violating 3RR, you should at least be notified that it's a brightline rule first, otherwise a new editor is being potentially punished for something that they're not even aware of. The template needs to mention 3RR, there's no reason to remove that and we're not doing anyone any favors by notifying them about edit warring but failing to mention 3RR, given how important 3RR is at [[WP:AN3]], which is where most of the edit-warring editors will end up if they continue to edit war. The purpose of these templates is (1) to encourage them to stop warring, and (2) to serve as notification for the purposes of reporting at [[WP:AN3]]. If they don't know about 3RR, it fails both points, because they (1) have no incentive to stop and (2) weren't properly notified about 3RR. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 19:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:You seem to have left out the part where you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ewsoft&diff=1099883417&oldid=1062869160&diffmode=source reverted a change] which had been in place for more than half a year. You should have come here first before edit-warring; Sdkb was simply preserving the [[WP:Status Quo|Status Quo]] pending discussion. Regardless, thank you for coming here now. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 00:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I would like to address the merits of the content of the template, not a timeline of when content was inserted on a low-traffic template that I assume simply went unnoticed. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 00:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Putting aside the rather unfortunate irony here and getting to the content question, {{t|uw-ew}} (the stronger version) itself doesn't mention the three-revert rule, instead stating that {{tq|edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made}}. I suspect that the reason for that is that mentioning 3RR makes it difficult to use the template on the talk page of editors who haven't crossed that line yet without getting an immediate retort of "but I'm still under 3RR!" |
|||
:::As I mentioned in the summary, no matter how carefully worded, any mention of blocking will still be read by recipients as a threat. If such a threat is needed, Uw-ew should be used instead. I think there are opportunities to improve Uw-ew that we might want to discuss. Ew-soft should be kept differentiated enough that editors will feel comfortable using it even in mild cases. Best, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 00:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have an embarrassing confession, that I have not read (or I think even used) uw-ew specifically since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ew&diff=662047383&oldid=662047063 2015 when the 3RR wording was removed], I have always either used uw-3RR or uw-ewsoft. Therefore I assumed it still retained the 3RR wording, which it obviously does not. Since uw-ewsoft serves as a less [[WP:BITE]]Y version of uw-ew (or at least that was my intention for it), I do think it needs to match uw-ew in terms of what it says (even if it says it in a nicer way). I don't necessarily agree with the current wording of uw-ew but I do think it serves a good purpose currently as a "3RR doesn't apply but it's still edit warring" type of template, and by extension uw-ewsoft would therefore be a softer wording of uw-ew; after all the template is called uw-ewsoft not uw-3rrsoft (which I considered for a moment but I don't really think is necessary as a template since we already have 3 dedicated "don't edit war" templates). I do think that uw-ew and uw-ewsoft should mention 3RR but as that has obviously not been the cast in about 7 years, I think what is ''more'' important is consistency and that the two match in terms of scope. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 02:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::While this section is up, I did want to point out just for transparency that I did make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ewsoft&diff=prev&oldid=1101843656 one minor change] to the template. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 03:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Alternatively, is there a way to flag this up to the WMF team who implemented these changes to clean up? --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">[[User:Yodin|Yodin]]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>[[User talk:Yodin|T]]</sup></span> 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Remove a sentence from uw-block == |
|||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Template:Uw-cyberbully|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully]]== |
|||
I think that the sentence {{tqi|Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]].}} should be removed from {{tl|uw-block}} or at least completley re-written. I've been thinking about this for a while: I think that sentence has completely the wrong tone and doesn't impart anything useful on the recipient. |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Template:Uw-cyberbully|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully]].  All the best, <span style="color:#595959">‍—‍</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
== Templates warning against frivolous XfD/PROD nominations and comments? == |
|||
I think this sentence is extremely patronising and belittling, especially when given to established users. "One the block has expired you can go back to editing, but don't repeat the stuff that got you blocked" is so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, it sounds like the kind of thing you'd say to a five year old. I think the link to the five pillars is largely useless - it's about the most generic "catch all" policy page you can link to and may or may not actually contain anything directly relevant to the block at hand, and basically every block message will include the specific issue with the accounts edits anyway. |
|||
What is a good way to warn a user who makes a clearly inappropriate or disruptive XfD/PROD nomination, such as one without a valid reason for deletion? What about users who make disruptive comments at XfD that have nothing to do with the deletion policy? [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This message also makes it sound like ''all'' the account's contributions were unhelpful, which is not true in a significant number of situations - I think it's mildly offensive to editors who have spent hours of time to make thousands/tens of thousands of edits to imply that their edits were not useful. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.85|192.76.8.85]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.85|talk]]) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]], here's my recommendation: start by writing [[User:Xenon54/Don't template the newbies|a manual message]]: explain why their edits are disruptive, ask them to stop. If it's a new editor, try to [[WP:3LA|avoid jargon]]. If disruptive edits continue – revert. Then [[Template:Uw-disruptive1]] becomes appropriate, since it presupposes that the edits were reverted. —[[User:Andrybak|andrybak]] ([[User talk:Andrybak|talk]]) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Error in uw-ewsoft talk page link == |
|||
::A manual message seems good. The issue I have with existing templates is that XfD nominations and comments shouldn't be reverted like other edits just for being unconstructive (like saying an article "fails GNG" when it obviously doesn't). XfD nominations can be closed as [[Wikipedia:Speedy keep|speedy keep]] if there's no deletion rationale or they're obviously disruptive, but that's not exactly reversion and doesn't apply to all frivolous nominations. [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{tl|uw-ewsoft}} uses the code <code>[[Talk:{{{1}}}]]</code> as a link to the article talk page. This works if <code>{{{1}}}</code> is a regular article, but breaks if warning a user for reverting a page in template or other spaces, with the link being given as [[Talk:Template:Example]]. Is there a template out there to convert a given page name to its correct talk page? [[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 07:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Re|Lord Belbury}} There's a [[Help:Magic words|magic word]] for this. I've made an edit to {{tl|uw-ewsoft}}, and you can see the result at [[User:John of Reading/X1]]. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 10:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks! I thought there must be something for it. --[[User:Lord Belbury|Lord Belbury]] ([[User talk:Lord Belbury|talk]]) 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence == |
|||
I've proposed some changes to {{tl|uw-upeblock}} and {{tl|uw-soablock}} at [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence]]. Please see the discussion there. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:39, 18 May 2024
|
Archives
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
your account has been used for advertising or promotion -> it has been used for advertising or promotion
Minor nitpick to reduce repetition. Mori Calliope fan talk 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be a side effect of the changes made by Jpgordon in Special:Diff/1162488493. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- Good nitpick, fixed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024
Please fix Template:Uw-mislead3, it expands with a <!-- Template:uw-move3 --> comment instead of <!-- Template:uw-mislead3 -->.
I just had this shocking moment where I warned someone with a level 4 move disruption warning because I copied it and thought 'oh no, I warned them for move disruption in the third warning too, how did I not see it' - but no, turns out it's just the comment that's been wrong since the template was made. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:9C49:A8E6:A25E:3091 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion: Merge templates for removing XFD notices
Proposal: Merge AFD, RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD and MFD user warning templates into one. This would let editors use a centralized warnings list for deletion in general instead of having to go and carefully find the one for the appropriate XFD. If needed, we could add a parameter to disambiguate which.
Here's what the templates might look like:
Uw-xfd1: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
Uw-xfd2: Please do not remove deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Uw-xfd3: Please stop. If you continue to remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing.
Uw-xfd4: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a deletion notice or a comment from a deletion debate.
Uw-xfd4im: This is your only warning; if you remove a deletion notice from a page or delete comments from a deletion debate again, you may be blocked from editing.
Any suggestions welcome! If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Link the plain and simple COI guide?
A lot of newcomers on Wikipedia might not be familiar with all of our policies and feel lost in the wordings, maybe it would be good to link a more beginner-friendly guide such as Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide in {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-coi-username}} to gently nudge them towards more responsible editing? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Vector legacy
The template currently says: "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you)." This seems to apply to the Vector Legacy skin, but not the current Vector 2022 skin. I think there are now two places "Move" can be: the Tools sidebar, or Tools menu, but I don't know which one appears by default. Depending on this, please can the template be reworded, maybe to something like:
- "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" action in the "Tools" menu at the top of the page (the "Tools" menu may be in a sidebar to the right of the page for you)."
or
- "you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" action in the "Tools" sidebar to the right of the page (the "Tools" sidebar may be hidden as a menu at the top of the page for you)."
Might also need a sentence there saying something like "if you're using the Vector legacy skin, there should be a "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu)." (Is there a way to automatically detect which skin the user is using, and display text appropriate to that? This might be more difficult if this template has to be subst'ed.)
Updating Help:Moving a page, and a replacement for File:Vector hidden move button.png would be nice to have, but probably not worth waiting for to make this change.
Alternatively, is there a way to flag this up to the WMF team who implemented these changes to clean up? --YodinT 19:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7 § Template:Uw-cyberbully. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Templates warning against frivolous XfD/PROD nominations and comments?
What is a good way to warn a user who makes a clearly inappropriate or disruptive XfD/PROD nomination, such as one without a valid reason for deletion? What about users who make disruptive comments at XfD that have nothing to do with the deletion policy? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Helpful Raccoon, here's my recommendation: start by writing a manual message: explain why their edits are disruptive, ask them to stop. If it's a new editor, try to avoid jargon. If disruptive edits continue – revert. Then Template:Uw-disruptive1 becomes appropriate, since it presupposes that the edits were reverted. —andrybak (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- A manual message seems good. The issue I have with existing templates is that XfD nominations and comments shouldn't be reverted like other edits just for being unconstructive (like saying an article "fails GNG" when it obviously doesn't). XfD nominations can be closed as speedy keep if there's no deletion rationale or they're obviously disruptive, but that's not exactly reversion and doesn't apply to all frivolous nominations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)