Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Template index
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 36.84.235.155 (talk) at 08:48, 4 June 2019 (→Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Question about titles

What does the "im" in the titles of Uw-vandalism4im, Uw-delete4im, Uw-spam4im etc. stand for? Geolodus (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it translates to "only warning" but I'm unsure of the etymology. DonIago (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate? Natureium (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Too obvious. :p DonIago (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're im big trouble? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my friends have said I'm imcorrigible... DonIago (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, no one knows? Geolodus (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess immediate (blocking). If you're lucky you might catch Jtdirl who created and surely knows about the original {{test4im}} template. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolodus: my apologies, I meant to come back later and supply a more real answer. I strongly suspect it is related to the metatamplate {{imbox}}, which is an image box. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolodus: From my research, it seems likely this was never documented, and thus Jtdirl is probably the only one who knows.

Here's my research, some of which zzuuzz beat me to:

The above seems to disprove Beeblebrox's theory, since {{Imbox}} has only existed since 24 April 2008 and the "-im" warnings aren't image message boxes in any special way that the other warnings aren't anyway. I would also guess "immediate", but it's just a guess. eπi (talk | contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good question now that I think of it, my first thought is that it stands for "immediate" too. I created it upon suggestion, to mirror {{test4im}}. -- Luk talk 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I just came across this monstrosity and I have to say, it's doing an awful job at serving its purpose as a navigational aide. Snarky remark aside, {{single notice links}} is anything but navigable in its current state. Never mind that it's a horizontal list: there's also the {{tl}} brackets, asymmetrical left-right split, wasted whitespace, and arbitrarily color-coded headers. It also doesn't collapse, which probably can't be all that much desired. Anyways, instead of complaining I think I'll do some tinkering when time permits. Curious to hear your opinions. jdeazy (t • c) 02:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jdeazy, you have my Support to tinker. I don't think I've ever seen that template before, but I concur with your comments. The spam of brackets are redundant. Making it collapsible sounds like a plus. The unbalanced left-right split would probably work better as a top/bottom split. I suggest the shorter list go on top. When people quit visually-scanning long content it can cause short content at the bottom to perceptually disappear. Alsee (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: how's this instead? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
jdeazy Hmmmm. It looks good but I was taken aback a bit by the unexpected size. The aligned bullets makes things well organized, but big. I just removed the columns and packed it smaller, assuming no one objects. I'd say it's looking much improved over the original version. Alsee (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: that just looks horrible. You left a left-aligned asterisk-separated horizontal monstrosity. Why not substitute div col for flatlist, and remove list2- and list3style? That would leave you with this:
But I believe using a horizontal list is the root of the issue. So I reverted your changes, added an additional column and collapsed the lists. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the smaller version you posted here, but I don't object to the current version. Alsee (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: I'll admit that I personally think the version shown above is more pleasing to eye than the current rendition with columns. However, my primary concern is the template's legibility and the ease with which one can find an accurate template message, which, I think, is best attained through columns instead of the sardines-in-can effect. Recognizing that this may be entirely subjective, of course, I won't oppose if you decide to apply the aforementioned horizontal styling. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: User warning for the changing of other users' posts on talk pages

WITHDRAWN
This isn't going anywhere InvalidOS (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be a user warning for the changing of other users' posts on talk pages? InvalidOS (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moot
 – There already are. That is, the standard installation of WP:TWINKLE allows one to do this, (and I assume it could be done manually if one knows the right way to code the template) see [1], it's a specific usecase of {{tpv1}}-{{tpv4}}, so a full suite of four escalating warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
InvalidOS, per Beeble's comment I suggest withdrawing or clarifying the RFC. I'd also like to note that this is especially the kind of issue where hand-written messages generally work better. I'd really suggest addressing the details of the specific case. Just be sure to include a link to WP:Talk page guidelines#EDIT aka WP:TPO. Alsee (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. InvalidOS (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– These pages only contain warnings, not general templates; the terms "multi-level" and "single-level" don't even seem relevant outside the context of warnings. Warnings aren't the only type of user talk namespace template messages. eπi (talk | contribs) 18:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Strongest possible meh I don't see anything real that would be accomplished by this change... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: I would like to restructure the headings in the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and I'm listing this as a first step to understand how this community considered warnings and user talk namespace template messages to be related. It wouldn't make sense to change the headings to be inconsistent with the subpages; thus I'm listing the subpages first to gauge if there are any objections. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These pages only contain warnings". But that isn't true and the single issue page even contains separate headers for "warnings" and "notices". Unless you consider every notice to be a warning, and I don't think that a very good idea. You say, "Warnings aren't the only type of user talk namespace template messages", so I don't see how this proposal is even self-consistent. What happens to the notices which aren't warnings? -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: You have accurately indentified that I failed to notice Single-level templates has two separate sections Single issue warnings and Single issue notices, and my original move rationale held the premise that these pages only contained warnings.
    I will however note that it appears the multi-level page contains levels of warnings, though it could probably be argued that the lower-level warnings are more like notices. Additionally, every page on the single-level page is prefixed with uw-, even those that are purpotedly "notices", though your point is taken.
    I have some further thoughts about reorganizing, but I will withdraw this request for now, and contemplate the exact details further. I am unsatisfied with the current status quo of these pages, but it seems this suggestion is not quite the correct way forward. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Uw-biog2 edit request

Merge tag (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_25#Template:Uw-bdp). Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There is no consensus for this yet. DonIago (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago, What do you mean this needs consensus? Both templates are listed at TfD. Surely the tag is uncontroversial? It's no different to putting an AfD tag on a protected article. Perhaps I should have been clearer; by 'Merge tag', I meant the TfD merge discussion tag. Adam9007 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not sure why you're posting here. Is this just an advisory to ask editors to look at the other discussion? You worded this as an edit request, which suggests you want people to take an action, but with an open discussion at TfD no action should be taken until that discussion has been closed. If you wanted this handled as an uncontroversial merge, then a request here without opening a discussion at TfD would, I think, have gotten the job done, but right now conversation really needs to occur there because TfD is a formal process. You could withdraw the TfD nomination and make it more clear what you're looking for, though? DonIago (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago, The edit request was to put the TfD tag on the page. Twinkle tried to do it automatically, but couldn't as the page is protected. It did manage to put the tag on the other template, and it makes no sense for the tag to be on one page but not the other. Adam9007 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'm reactivating this request as I can't help with that. DonIago (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up CSD notification list and adding CSD post-deletion notices

There are two parts of this, but they're birds of a feather. The first are the subset of notices found under CSD nominations in the Deletion notifications column of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Other. The full list is at Template:Speedy deletion notices, but I don't think what is currently listed is representative of the whole. Listing to all four levels of redirects to {{Uw-test1}}, etc., two redirects to {{Db-notability-notice }}, and leading with R2 all seem unhelpful.

Relatedly, I have recently created a suite of post-deletion notices, listed at Template:Speedy deletion deleted. These will soon be added to Twinkle for sysops, so I think it'd be good to list them here as well. Some older ones exist in the CSD deletions area; this would replace those. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2019

To fix lint errors, please change

<p>[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|left|40px|alt=|link=]]

to

[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|left|40px|alt=|link=]]<p>

— Anomalocaris (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-atblock

Someone made this template and it got drafted. Is it okay to add this template? 36.84.235.155 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace&oldid=900231096"