Template:Archive box collapsible

The documentation for this template reads: "{{subst:Uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you" ". But the template doesn't actually do that; what it does is add the additional text after "Thank you", and italicises it. As far as the thank you is concerned, it'd probably be good if the documentation and the actual functioning were in agreement; but what are the italics for? Could this be modified to add the additional message in plain text? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through {{uw-coi}} and it looks fine. I also added {{subst:uw-coi|Foo|You have been informed about this before}} to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings, and that also looks fine. Where have you seen a problem occur? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for replying, Redrose64. I'm sorry that I somehow failed to notice that you had done so. The edit that caused me to post this was this one. I hope that the problem ("Thank you" is not removed; the comment is in italics) is clear from that diff; if not, I'll try to provide more that reproduce the result. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: OK, thanks; notice the position of the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> in your diff - it's after the category and before the italicised text. Now consider the two tests in this edit and notice the position of the words "Additional text". In the first test, {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} it takes the place of the worrds "Thank you.", but in the second, {{subst:uw-coi|Article}} Additional text it's just after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> - just as it is in your diff linked above. I can only conclude that the italicised text was also placed outside the {{subst:uw-coi}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply. Your examples do not replicate the problem I have, but I don't know why not. The only explanation I can think of is that I use Twinkle to place such notices. Could this be a Twinkle problem? I tried {{uw-coi}}-warning myself, and the Twinkle preview clearly shows that (a) "Thank you." is not removed and (b) the additional text (mine was "blah blah blah") is italicised. So I tried it on the uw-sandbox. Please see this diff. Does that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Your latest diff does have the italicised text after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> so it wasn't placed in the "Additional text" parameter of a {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}}. I don't use Twinkle myself: in fact I don't use any automated tools, preferring to make my own mistakes. But if you're certain that you didn't consciously add the italics, then they must be coming from Twinkle, so I suggest that you put a message on WT:TW pointing them to this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the conclusion I was coming to also. Many thanks for your input. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the warnings say "you may be blocked from editing" or "you will be blocked from editing"? George8211^{what did I break now?} 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is not a matter of grammar at all. Both are grammatically correct. Your question goes above the layer of syntax, semantics and pragmatics all the way up to discourse analysis layer. But even then, IMHO, threatening, which is illegal all over the world, is ill-advised.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said, right up to the part where you suggest that threatening to block someone from a privately run website could possibly be a legal issue, which is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not say "legal issue". I said "ill-advised". If adhering to the minimum of law was the goal, these templates would have never been created. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "which is illegal all over the world". Legoktm (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it should say "you may be blocked from editing", because nobody can guarantee that a block will take place. There are all sorts of reasons why blocks don't happen when they could, such as nobody notices the error in question; somebody does, but does not report it to administrators; somebody does that, but, for any one of a myriad of reasons, a reviewing administrator declines to act. (And of course Codename Lisa is quite right: this is nothing whatever to do with grammar.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with may in both meanings: in terms of permission-to-block per policy, and probability-of-blocking by process&people. --Lexein (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with the use of may and not will. This is a question of correct semantics and not one of grammar. Unless reached by community consensus such as at WP:ANI or Arbcom, blocking is entirely at the discretion of admins and many may well consider that a block might not be necessary even in repeated instances of abuse. It depends very much on the circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for {{subst:Uw-soablock}} suggests that |anon= and |time= are valid parameters - in fact they are ignored.

Template:Uw-vandalism1 was changed after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings but now contains "that I undid", which is incorrect when warning for an edit has already been undone. There's Template:Uw-v1-h, but that was created as a version of the standard template with a header and just hasn't been updated. Does a separate template exist for this? Peter James (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. We have the beautiful Template:Uw-vandalism0. Cheers, Fylbecatulous talk 18:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some certain level 3 templates have ambox icon, and some ones have the Nuvola Apps icon, Can we explain why we have 2 different warning icons on level 3 templates

Ambox Icon on a level 3 template:

• Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

and the nuvola apps icon on :

• Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Dreth 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hadn't noticed before. I guess nobody else did. Maybe that's the whole reason: Similarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled into Uw-test1 and some level1 warning templates that were redesigned in July/August 2012, How come they now have passive voice now. It would be better to just simply stick to the "I wanted to let you know I undid your edit because it could be bad" and not "Your edit was reverted because it was seen as bad". Dreth 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's because not always the issuer of the message is the reverter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]