Template:Archive box collapsible

Many of the warning templates include text along the lines of

If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Is that really the right thing to say? Especially in warnings that are mostly intended for new editors? Discussions of article content belong on the respective article's talk page, not hidden away on some editor's talk page where other interested editors won't be likely to see it. I believe these templates should be changed accordingly. Jeh (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is the correct place. Most (95%?) of these notices are given to newbie editors and everyone else knows better. Best not to clutter up the article talk pages with redundant information.

In the few cases where there is a topic genuinely needing discussion, the editor issuing the warning can follow up (after being contacted) by moving the discussion to a suitable venue: the article's talk page, a related wikiproject, WP:AIV, WP:VP, a guideline, or policy page. —EncMstr (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see the logic. Thank you for the reply. Jeh (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why there are duplicate templates for some speedy deletion notice templates (e.g. Template:Db-attack-notice and Template:Uw-attack)? - Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 10:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mlpearc, I tried to improve the template because an important bit of information was missing. My change appeared to be "bitey", and I certainly don't want that. How can this change be made in a better way? I think we still need to be direct, or the message will get lost.

Here is the reversion of my edit. (Keep that link open in a separate window.) Note the GF edit summary. I appreciate that.

My point is to mention something lacking in the template: discussion should replace attempts to force one's edit (by repetition of controversial/disputed editing actions): "...stop repeating any edits which are reverted or disputed by others.... At this phase, you need to discuss, not edit."

Any suggestions? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving Wikipedia, I have nothing against what you are trying to do. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""...stop repeating any edits which are reverted or disputed by others.... At this phase, you need to discuss, not edit." How about, "Please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. The answer at this stage is to discuss not edit-war". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BullRangifer. I made the change. Please feel free to tweak. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Template:Uw-talkinarticle links the word "talk page" to Help:Talk page. If a page has been specified, should this link to that page's talk page instead? This would change:

[[Help:Talk page|talk page]]

to

[[:{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|Help:Talk page}}|talk page]]

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if Template:Uw-autobiography needs a bit of revision. A lot of times I see new users create an article about themselves, totally oblivious to WP:NOTWEBHOST. The current warning mentions not creating an article about themselves, but makes no mention of userpages, where they can write (a little bit) about themselves. If we put some mention of userpages in the message, it could turn a common newbie blunder into an opportunity to retain and educate a new user. Comments/thoughts? --Drm310 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]