The templates Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4, Template:Uw4im, and Template:Uw2 are being considered for merging with Template:Uw. Please add <noinclude> {{subst:tfm|Uw}} </noinclude> to these templates. Thanks. Awesome Aasim 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In {{uw-delete1}}:

If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored.

If I, for one, was a brand-new editor who made an edit only to have it immediately wiped off the site,^[a] I would probably read that part of the warning message and interpret it as insinuating that my edit was so ridiculous it could only have resulted as a mistake. Even if that's not what happens, why are we judging whether someone intentionality did an edit or not in the first place? We should simply say

I have restored the deleted content to be safe.

Or even just

I have restored the deleted content.

Even "I have restored the deleted content in case this was a mistake" would be better than the current text, and would convey the same meaning without the condescencion.

I would also advocate similar changes for {{uw-blpprod1}}, {{uw-tdel1}}, {{uw-blank1}}, {{uw-idt1}}, {{WPRYT Uw-banner}} (why does a WikiProject have dedicated warnings?!), and {{uw-speedycontest1}}. 24.24.242.66 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not view this as condescending. Assuming that an editor did not deliberately damage an article is part of WP:AGF — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "If this was a mistake" seems like very clear language to me, freely allowing for the possibility that it wasn't a mistake. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this edit request is to add the |link= option to the warning icon.

This has the effect of removing the link on the warning icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.

But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).

The diff is:

The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates. I've edited most of them manually, and I'm glad to see most level 3 templates transclude Uw3, that's much less tedious =)

I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw3/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 93 transclusions, there are some user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 3 uw templates. I'm hoping this is okay, as a small cosmetic fix for dark mode compat.

Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, that reminds me I should take the opportunity to double-check the level 1s and 2s all have a proper alt text, since they don't transclude uw1/uw2, it's very possible a couple are missing it. Mlkj (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Please revert this, the image is licensed {{LGPL}} which is not public domain, so the link to the file description page must not be defeated. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images concerns the |alt= option, not the |link= option. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 Note that I also introduced the same change on some level 1 and 2 user warning templates. It will have to be reverted there as well. Although, I'm hoping to replace it with another workaround based on the PNG version of the image that preserves attribution while keeping dark mode compatibility.

The theme compatibility is certainly less important than the attribution, so I'm happy to see this reverted quickly. That said, would you have any objection to doing both changes at once, to save some back and forth? I've applied what I have in mind to the Uw3 sandbox. Mlkj (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and added a bit of clarifying text to help me the next time I go looking for guidance on blank |link= parameters. As for svg v. png, I thought that svg was generally preferred. If there is a bug with dark mode, shouldn't we fix that bug instead of working around it by changing image calls in a bunch of templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (again), this edit request is to add the |link= option to the stop hand icon. (Essentially the same request as above, now for the uw4 template).

This has the effect of removing the link on the stop icon to its File page. Considering we send those warning templates primarily to new users, the File page is a confusing place, so this isn't a link we really want them to click at this time.

But I'm primarily submitting this to fix dark mode compatibility. Image links (for SVG images) are currently forced to have a white background, even in dark mode (CSS class .mw-file-description gets applied to image links).

The diff is:

The current situation as of this request is a mix between link and non-link images for levels 1 and 2 templates, while uw3 is fully converted over.

I've tested that this renders correctly in Template:Uw4/sandbox (both light and dark mode), and I've checked that the doc is correct. Looking at the 151 transclusions, there are some user and user talk pages in there, 4 archive pages, and the level 4 uw templates. (There's two transclusions into user .js files, but they don't do anything special, so I expect nothing there should break.)

Thank you! Mlkj (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: File:Stop hand nuvola.svg requires attribution per its Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. Removing the link is considered violating the "Attribution" part of the license of the file. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I was unaware. It makes sense that attribution would require a link.

Could the following diff be considered instead?

−

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

+

[[File:Stop2.png|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

This displays the same stop hand image. Including a PNG instead of the SVG is a different way to workaround the issue without having to remove the link. Mlkj (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be better to fix the root cause of this problem instead of working around it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert above. About svg vs png, my understanding from Help:SVG is that MediaWiki will always convert SVGs to PNGs, at least for small icons, but that it is preferred to upload SVGs since they are easier to edit, and allow MediaWiki to serve the most appropriate size PNG thumbnail (saving bandwidth). In this case, it would be a 2kB PNG vs a 54kB PNG. I'd argue not a very significant increase, if the image will be cached. The editing concern should also be okay, since the SVG is still the source of truth, the PNG just a practical render of it.

Absolutely agree that a proper fix would be better than a workaround, but I suspect the behavior of forcing SVGs to have a white background even in dark mode is intended. Many SVGs will feature black lines on a transparent background, since transparency is the default behavior for most SVG editors. It would arguably be a bug in the other direction to display those on a black background, so my guess is they made this change to force a white background on SVGs intentionally.

The fix is almost certainly not removing the white background unconditionally in MediaWiki. Ideally, there would be a CSS class to opt-in SVG transparency, without using a workaround (in the same way that there is .mw-no-invert to opt-in the color inversion filter on black-and-white images).

I'm not a MW contributor myself, and I suspect this won't top the list of high-priority issues in Phabricator. I'm unsure whether it's worth bothering with the workaround, but my expectation is we won't see a proper fix for some time, it doesn't look like an easy fix.

Sorry for the slight wall of text. Feedback and opinions welcome :) Mlkj (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlkj: The white background is a feature of the dark-mode gadget, not something about MediaWiki. Like Jonesey95, my impression was that the underlying issue with dark mode should be addressed instead. So I have been looking a bit at MediaWiki:Gadget-dark-mode.css#L-163, which is where this is coded in. This is meant to fix images like those with black text on a transparent background (see, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget)#Fixed elements are movable, Text on SVGs, and Black color), but it usually just seems slightly annoying. (Here is a comment suggesting it be removed — but seemingly not aware that it was intentional.)

One way to fix these user warning images would be to add another exception for images with " icon" in the alt text, since all of these uw templates have that.

html .image img[ alt^=" icon" ],
html .mw-file-description img[ alt^=" icon" ]

Another possible change would be not to add the white background unless the viewer hovers over it (but to add a white dotted outline so that the user can recognize that there is an image there).

(Note: Since there is more to discuss, perhaps continuing at WT:Dark mode (gadget), I am setting the edit request as inactive.) SilverLocust 💬 01:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlkj recently noticed that, because the orange "information" icon has an attribution requirement in its license, we have to link to the file page if we use it. This is unfortunate, given that users who see a clickable information icon will generally expect it to lead to information about the warning they were just given, not a file page. Is it time for us to change our standard icon? Or is the current icon set simple enough that we could just declare it PD under {{PD-simple}}? Sdkb ^talk 19:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I can see now that other icons that are usually without link (like the vote icons used on noticeboards) are public domain, unlike the info icons. I evidently visit the File page a lot less often for icons than images in articles (or at least rarely intentionally). But for new users receiving a template notice, if there's any link we want them to visit the File page of the icon is probably not the first choice.

I'd absolutely be open to replacing the information icons with a PD alternative. Although these have been here for over 10 year so I expect quite a bit of pushback! Small but very visible UI changes can result in the longest discussions, everyone may very well have an opinion on the matter.

I wasn't aware of {{PD-simple}}, very interesting. I wonder whether the info icon might have too much of a distinctive identity to qualify purely text or purely simple geometric shapes. Although looking where {{PD-simple}} is transcluded, some of those logos are pretty intricate... I'm far from a subject matter expert, so I'd be happy to take any more informed user's word for it!

I also wonder if we could contact the author (assuming they're still around). Maybe they'd be willing to offer a license that doesn't require attribution? Mlkj (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobarino is the creator, although it looks like they're not very active. Sdkb ^talk 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an earlier png version by User:Renesis, who would seem to be the relevant original author for that icon (so Bobarino can't decrease whatever license applied). I was thinking of asking at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright whether those icons fail the threshold of creativity (as I think they do, though the shading can contribute a bit beyond the shape and text). SilverLocust 💬 01:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Renesis unfortunately isn't very active these days either. Definitely feel free to ask about whether they pass the threshold of originality (WP:Media copyright questions might also be a relevant spot). Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 01:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Commons would be the better place, since it's merely mirrored on enwiki. (Apparently my edit to link c:Threshold of originality did not go through (possibly due to an edit conflict and then closing the tab). Threshold of originality, modicum of creativity, threshold of creativity — potato, tomato, pomato.) SilverLocust 💬 01:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the last word 'Thanks!' of the template to 'Thanks.', omit the exclamation mark to keep polite and formal. Like this Hello, I'm 2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! but 'Thanks.' rather than 'Thanks!'.2001:EE0:4BCA:6530:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the exclamation mark in that specific template is a good idea (though I'd agree with you for every single other warning template). Editing tests are made in good faith – the user is not attempting to damage Wikipedia, but rather see what happens or see if they are able to edit. We really don't want to scare away these people, because they are potential contributors. The exclamation point in this case, in my opinion, helps significantly to make it clear that while we don't want them to test editing in live articles, nobody is 'upset with them'. Being informal in this case is a feature, not a bug. Tollens (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the proper documentation and categories to Template:Uw-dupargs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? It's not currently documented nor categorized. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, the missing template was added and thank you for pointing it out! 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:21CD:A8F5:EB1C:410F (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new documentation is deficient, it references non-existant shortcuts. Why would this short named template need such shortcuts? It's not a fully spelled out template name. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the last sentence, we should write as Please comment on content, not on contributors rather than Comment on content, not on contributors to keep it formal. 2001:EE0:4BC2:15B0:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's the 4th warning, I think saying please is the least of worries. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per The Grid. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix this as soon as possible. Thanks. 2001:EE0:4BC2:15B0:49A4:5AB0:3C6E:D99E (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is unclear what you are referring to. Please state the edits to be made in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mseingth2133444, I mean the documentations of them about formatting seems not consistent in order. 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:2CA9:DB6F:E9D5:5AE7 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What about it is inconsistent? You need to be more specific or nobody can help you. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mseingth2133444, the template {{Single notice}} source code should not be used, which produces:

as the template {{uw-generic4}} is using. Alternatively, occupy the template {{Templatesnotice}} as most near-end warning templates used, including {{uw-delete4}} and {{uw-vandalism4}}, which outputs:

.113.165.236.133 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with doing this if there is consensus. Also, please do not include transcluded templates in talk page replies.Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for consistency. Beep beep beep boop? 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a warning template for gaming the system, User:Mseingth2133444/uw-gts for gaming the system and I request it be included in the list of templates. Or can I just do it myself? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does gaming the system mean in this context? The list of templates is really for general templates. – The Grid (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's a mix between vandalism and disruptive editing? That, and the fact that it has its own policy article influenced me to create it. So you're saying we should just use DE templates? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything more specific would be added here. – The Grid (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please start the template by Hello, I'm Example. This is a message to let you know that one or more of [[your recent edits]] appeared to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. for consistency.

113.165.236.133 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the page's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I have tested on the sandbox. Discuss whether it is more appropriate to change. 2001:EE0:4BCC:2E80:2CA9:DB6F:E9D5:5AE7 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the TfM templates from these templates, as it was closed as no consensus. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 06:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 08:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! I've just made some changes to the template's sandbox because the text that we're seeing right now looked really vague and outdated compared to its sister uw-uhblock. The table below shows why we need this change and why it's worth it. More details about the change can be found here.

If you have any questions about this change feel free to reply below! kleshkreikne. T 15:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question. Why do we have two different templates with the same wording? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Although it might’ve been the same, I just changed things up so that new users who aren’t familiar with what a block is understand this situation. I’ve kinda changed the wording a little bit, especially in the third sentence. kleshkreikne. T 20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to say 'If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page'. Now it doesn't even mention the possibility that the identification of your edit was vandalism could have been a mistake, even though such mistakes are, in fact, made by vandal patrollers with regards to edits by IP editors all the time. Instead, it just assumes that if there is a problem, it must be due to you not understanding something. Instead of mentioning that you could talk to the actual person who sent you the template and dispute the claim that your edit was vandalism, it directs you to general forums. This is a rather horrible change. I suppose that vandal patrollers wanted to be able to revert away at peace without having to engage in any dialogue at all, treating the IPs like space invaders or zombies in a first person shooter game - which they had a tendency to do even before the change, hence the frequent 'false positives' - but this just means a total lack of accountability and greatly increased unfairness. This change is authoritarian and self-serving. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of this change? The "level 1" templates I spot-checked all still have that wording while the "level 2" do not, and I do not see any recent changes in this regard. DMacks (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the vandalism level 1 template - here is the change, and it is currently in effect. It may not be exactly recent (2018), although it seems so if you have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 or so, as I have. I see that there was a majority for the change in the quick straw poll that the edit summary links to, but only a couple of users actually participated in the poll. Anyway, even if the majority of the community is for the current wording, I have the right to voice my opinion on its effects. The user's reasoning that 'we should be able to volunteer our time to fight vandalism without inviting drama to our talk pages', i.e. without having to justify our claims that something is vandalism, was incredibly complacent - basically assuming that people accusing others of vandalism are always right and shouldn't need to justify their actions, when in reality incorrect accusations of vandalism are made all the time. It's annoying enough to be reverted and accused of vandalism for no reason, but not having even the opportunity to object and having your mouth shut is the icing on the cake.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I do think it's a bit arbitrary of a removal. I would be in favor of putting the talk page link back. Remsense诉 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a section which says "Please check here (linking to Special:CentralAuth) to see if your username is similar to a different one." Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

To which template(s)? DonIago (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]