Template:Archive box collapsible

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

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]

New question, The majority of the people who warn are reverters themselves. And if passive voice is needed, we could always use uw-test2 for good faith. Dreth 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Longstanding consensus is to use the active voice in the level 1 templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Guys, templates must be usable for all, not the majority. If the longstanding consensus has no reason backing it, so change it. But again, if there not enough people sending notices for the reverts of others and there is a reason behind using the active voice, who am I to mind?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we can rewire the active voice level 1 warnings to include the passive voice, but still have the active voice kept as well, or maybe create the level1a templates for passive voice users.Dreth 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "longstanding consensus" to use the active voice, even the RfC that initiated the change to the "I reverted it" wording (which was a few months ago, hardly longstanding) noted that the consensus was that these templates needed to be worked on further, so I don't see that there was ever much of a consensus other than a very few editors insisting that they thought it was better. - Aoidh (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now. should we 'BOLDly change the level 1 back templates to active voice? Or require census? Dreth 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Just want to point out there is also {{uw-vandalism0}} if you need passive voice. As Dreth said above, the majority of reverters are also doing the warning themselves. Since comparative testing showed that using the active voice was better at retaining good faith people who'd made mistakes and driving away real vandals, I'd recommend we stick with the consensus from the previous 30 day RFC and have all the level 1 templates be active voice. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such consensus for the active voice, as specifically noted by the closing admin's comments in the RfC. I get that pushing the active voice on the templates was your pet project, but don't continue to cite a consensus that wasn't there to justify a change rather than actually discussing the topic at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The active voice was one of the major changes, if not the major change. The closure was clearly that we should go with those versions and keep tweaking them. We have, as well as creating uw-vandalism0, but completely changing back from active to passive voice when all the objective evidence we have says that it doesn't work as well and isn't needed in the majority of cases makes no sense. By changing to passive voice we're designing the templates for an exception rather than the norm. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the fact that any time anyone suggests a tweak of any kind, you try to stonewall any discussion by citing a consensus that doesn't support your claims. - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history of the most common level one templates, you'll see many edits since we implemented the RFC. Most of these are, in fact, small tweaks or technical changes. I'm only objecting to reverting back to the passive voice that was a main component of older versions. We spent six months carefully testing those core changes. We didn't change them on a whim or based solely on personal preference, and in the many iterations we tried, active voice was consistently more successful. Also: passive voice is terrible grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a template which says the following (but, hopefully, better expressed)

This IP has been used recently by a blocked editor. However, he's stopped using it (and gone on to another IP), so there is no point in blocking.

The blocked editor in question has never been associated with an editor login, so the sock puppet templates don't seem quite appropriate.

It may not be true that there is no point in blocking. I recall one which has had 6 (2-12 hour) uses by the same person (per WP:DUCK), and none by anyone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{IPsock}}: Template:IPsock

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work if there were an editor name to be associated with. However, I suppose {{IPsock}} could be edited to have the option of reporting a description rather than a name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since notice without target article means I'm Talk page stalker we should make template to require the {{{article}}} by default. This can be done with {{error|Please specify a reference article}} which gives Please specify a reference article . --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean on templates like {{subst:uw-editsummary}}? There are cases where a user has edited several different pages without leaving an edit summary on any of them. If it's a general problem, it's better to leave the page name unspecified, since naming a particular one might convey the impression that only the edit to that one page lacked an edit summary, and that all the others were OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I posted this idea because I submited this without this parameter and this happened (clink this link and see talk). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link that you have given is not your edit - it is an edit made by Lexein (talk · contribs), and consisted of a {{subst:unsigned|Rezonansowy|12:23, 4 January 2014}} followed by a {{tps}} and some text. The {{tps}} produces (talk page stalker) - I often use it myself, to denote that I'm replying to a question on a user talk page, even though I'm not the person to whom the question was directed. Your edit was this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his comment, that's why I propose to require this by default, can be filled with one or multiple articles. I personally agree with his comment. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposal, for the reason which Redrose64 explained in his earlier reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it can be filled with one or multiple articles and leaving it blank means:

(talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs which illustrate specific problems. I agree that edit summaries should always be added, and that they should be concisely explanatory. Further, Preferences has an option to automatically encourage edit summary addition. Finally, any editor who hopes to become an administrator should have a consistent history of good WP:edit summaries, wikilinking applicable policy#sections where helpful. --Lexein (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you have just copypasted inside a {{tq}} didn't come from any templates. It was hand-entered by Lexein (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What you mean exactly? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking about the text (talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs ... in connection with {{subst:uw-editsummary}}. I'm saying that the two are entirely separate. If you want to know why Lexein (talk · contribs) used that specific text, I can't answer that, and nor is it a question for this page. You should be asking Lexein directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexein: could comment what do you think about this idea? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rezonansowy, {{tps}} means I'm the WP:Talk page stalker, not you. I was watching the page, saw your comment, and suggested that you add diffs (or link to the article) to illustrate the problem you're describing. In your original request, you didn't link or explain (or offer an example of) what a helpful edit summary might have been for that particular edit. I see that you later provided a link to the article which concerned you; that's very helpful.

• If you're suggesting that warning template code should display a red-text error message if an article link or diff isn't supplied, I disagree with that. This will break existing templates where used. Existing warning templates which have been on user Talk pages for weeks or years (but not {{subst}}ed) would now surprisingly and suddenly show error text in red, where there was none before.
• If you're suggesting that template doc language should more strongly encourage links for warnings, I agree.
• If you're suggesting that WP:Twinkle require a link before saving a manually created warning template, I'd support changing Twinkle's Warn language from "Article link?" to "Article link(suggested)?". For now.

--Lexein (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out, there are times when a message such as this refers to a number of edits, not to a specific edit, and there is absolutely no reason whatever why editors shouldn't use messages in this generic way, whether they are using Twinkle or not. It is not at all clear to me what would be the advantage of adding "(suggested)" to Twinkle's message would be, but in any case this is not the place to discuss proposals to change the working of Twinkle. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see {{uw}} and Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox, you can test this with your talk page by substituting. I think this backbone template is ready to simplify markup on every user notice template, it includes auto thanks and sign text and auto icon options. IMO we can use this template by default in such templates. Please comment! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand yet what you are proposing or how to use it or why... Can you elaborate on those? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:I have a complete example in Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite. Why does the markup need to be simplified? What exactly is this supposed to simplify and why complicate something that isn't broken? Can this be used with all of the user warning design guidelines for each different level of user warning template? - Aoidh (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not one to "tinker" with standardized template messages such template:uw-dab, but I am looking it over and am noticing a few things:

• 1.) it has a LOT of bold and italicised text, some it also blue-linked, which makes it read like someone is a little histrionic. Perhaps this template could be toned down a little to look less like it is shouting?
• 2.) the policy of including at least one any yet only one blue-link per DAB entry is lost in the wording here. I can see it, it's there, technically, but the way it is written it gets completely run over. I'd like to propose a small change to make this policy a wee bit clearer. The second item on the warning list and its sub-item might be better phrased thus:

• Be sure to use one and only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Do not add a non-navigable link ("red link") unless that term is used in an article"

It isn't much, but I think these small changes would make the template easier to understand and less confrontational while remaining assertive. Perhaps I can just make such changes myself (?) but I would rather get input from the community first. Anyone have any thoughts on these things? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This change looks pretty good. I think when half the template is in boldface like it was it takes away from the point of doing it at all, like writing a comment in all caps, people are less likely to pay attention to it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was thinking, Aoidh. If the volume goes up, people just become deaf. I turned the volume down a bit without turning it off altogether. Thanks for supporting my move on that front. KDS4444^Talk 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, that is not the way it struck me at all. I saw the use of bold text as helping to mark out the particular points which were most in need of taking notice of, making it easier to see the essential points. I don't see it at all as having a similar "shouting" effect as writing a comment all in capitals. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]