Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

{{uw-uploadfirst}}

Hi! I patrol CAT:MISSFILE, and have recently been working on a project to include the user template notifying users when a missing file is added. There are a couple different issues that cause missing files to be added into articles: users not uploading a file properly, or attempting to hot-link an external image from another site (often with the mistaken belief that Wikipedia will magically be able to link to the image on that site).

The template we've had for a number of years is {{uploadfirst}}. However, given the complexity of Wikipedia's image policies, I feel the current wording is confusing for new users. {{uw-uploadfirst}}'s current wording states: I noticed that one of your recent edits added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server.

The current wording attempts to guess a list of possible reasons why the editor made the error. From patrolling the category every day, the majority of missing files come from new users unaware of how to upload images to Wikipedia. For new users who are already unfamiliar with how images work on Wikipedia, the current wording does not seem simple or easy-to-understand. A template listing a bunch of possible reasons that the error could have been made seems more likely to confuse new users than help them.

I felt the best way to address this was to split the two separate issues into two separate templates. From my experience working with new users, the best way to communicate these issues to them is simple, concise wording that focuses on a specific issue. I recently created {{uw-notuploaded}} to address the issue of users not uploading a file properly. The majority of {{uw-uploadfirst}}'s wording is centered around external images, except the one sentence excerpt from above. My thought was that the wording of {{uw-uploadfirst}} could be changed to focus only on users attempting to link external images.

I attempted to make this change; however, I was reverted. I attempted to discuss with the user, but they were unwilling to discuss beyond saying they didn't see a need for the change. Given this, I wanted to bring up this issue here to get others' thoughts on splitting off not uploading (non-external) images properly into a separate template, so that {{uw-uploadfirst}} can solely address the issue of hot-linking external images. Do others feel a split would be helpful/necessary?

This is my first time attempting to discuss a template, so please let me know if this is inappropriate, but I'm pinging all of the users that have used {{uw-uploadfirst}} in the past six months from this search Sumanuil GorillaWarfare LaffyTaffer ClaudineChionh, as well as KylieTastic and Dawnseeker2000 as they are regular patrollers of CAT:MISSFILE and may have opinions on this. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Sam Sailor/Archive 29#Uw-uploadfirst Template Linking your discussion with Sam Sailor where this was also discussed. I'm inclined to mostly agree with him that a split seems unnecessary. The current wording of uploadfirst seems to cover the relevant info clearly enough with little room for misinterpreting anything, but I suspect I'm either not seeing what you're seeing or I've possibly misunderstood your intent with the split in the first place. ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Katniss, can you expand on what distinction you're making between the two templates' use cases? I agree that {{uw-uploadfirst}} could potentially benefit from copyediting to make it a bit simpler to understand, but I'm unclear on what the different issues are that a split would benefit. tony 18:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

TonySt, sure, happy to elaborate more! The reason I feel {{uw-uploadfirst}} could be used specifically for edits that attempt to hot-link external images from other sites or their computer. Here is an example of what I'm talking about with a user trying to hot-link an image from an external site. This is another example of a user trying to hot-link an external image from their computer. To me, copying a link to an image on an external site/personal computer seems like a separate issue from attempting to upload a non-external file, but doing so incorrectly (See example of this here). The current wording of {{uw-uploadfirst}} seems to mainly focus on linking external images, except for the one sentence in the excerpt I italicized in my original message. If or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server was removed, {{uw-uploadfirst}} could be specifically used just for users that attempt to hot-link images from external sites. To me, the current wording of uploadfirst seems to try to cover both the issue of hot-linking images and not uploading files properly at the same time. Splitting the issue incorrect file uploads off into {{uw-notuploaded}}, and leaving {{uw-uploadfirst}} specifically for hot-linking images would allow us to communicate the specific issue to new users in a simpler, more concise way. I feel this version before Sam Sailor's edit in 2018 is perfect, because it does not attempt to cover the two separate issues in one template. Let me know if I can clarify any further! Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Although I can see the rational for a split I think getting people to use two separate ones and understand the differences may be difficult. However, I do feel the exist wording of {{Uw-uploadfirst}} is not good and tries to guess a few of multiple reasons an image name could be invalid. I think that the initial text should just say what the problem is and not guess the reasons with a list of or separated options. So instead of "I noticed that one of your recent edits added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server." just "I noticed that one of your recent edits added a link to an image that does not exist on Wikipedia's servers." The current "For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia" I don't find helpful for new users. So if I was so re-write that confusing start I would have something like:

"I noticed that one of your recent edits added a link to an image that does not exist on Wikipedia's servers. Files from other sources such as other websites or from your computer need to be uploaded first (where copyright and permissions allow). Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. If you think the image already exists check the filename matches exactly. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images."

Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone! While there is a part of me that still feels like trying to fit it all into one template is too complicated, I think Kylie's version is a significant improvement on the current version. I completely agree that the current wording seems like it's doing too much guesswork, and could be written in a clearer way for new users. Sam Sailor, would you be open to changing the wording to what KylieTastic wrote above? Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Extra tags in uw-talkinarticle series

{{uw-talkinarticle1}}, {{uw-talkinarticle2}}, and {{uw-talkinarticle3}} all have corresponding NPOV template tags (<!-- Template:uw-npov1 -->, <!-- Template:uw-npov2 -->, etc.) listed after their own invisible tags in the content that is added to the user's talk page.

I think this is an accidental holdover.

The extra tag was added to talkinarticle in 2013 back when the template was a single-issue template, in an attempt to cause automated tools to count it as a Level 1 warning. Since automated tools use regex to find the user's current "level" for automated escalations, <!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle --> would not have been picked up by automated tools as a level 1 template (since there is no level number at the end of the template).

When the template was moved to talkinarticle1 and the series was extended to add levels 2 and 3, the extra "NPOV" tag was copied over to the new templates, even though automated tools are able to pick up <!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle1 -->, <!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle2 -->, etc. just fine, provided they know that the uw-talkinarticle series exists (I know AntiVandal, Twinkle, and my own script know about uw-talkinarticle1,2,3, and while I've not use Huggle I'd be surprised if it didn't).

I think we should remove the <!-- Template:uw-npov1 -->, <!-- Template:uw-npov2 -->, and <!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> tags from {{uw-talkinarticle1}}, {{uw-talkinarticle2}}, and {{uw-talkinarticle3}} respectively:

−

[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTESSAY|Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles]], nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle1 --><!-- Template:uw-npov1 -->

+

[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTESSAY|Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles]], nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle1 -->

Any thoughts or concerns? tony 17:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no input, I've made these changes. --tony 16:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Uw-chat, part 2

This was archived but I was not finished with the discussion nor did it come to a conclusion.

There are many problems with the uw-chat series of templates:

• "Chat rooms" and "forums" are largely relics of the 1990s and early 2000s, and specifically of the people who were extremely online in those years who made up Wikipedia's early userbase. Those phrases most likely mean nothing to newer and younger users.
• As such, most people post-2022 are not using them as a "chat room" or "forum," in the way they did back in 2007 or so. They are almost always doing one of several things. (All examples here should be construed of only one out of literally hundreds per week.)

• Mistake the talk page for emailing, DMing, or contacting a person directly. (Example: Talk:MrBeast, try editing that page and see what you get).
• Mistake the talk page for a Google, Siri, or Alexa search. (Example: The sheer bulk of edits to Talk:Google)
• Mistake the talk page for ChatGPT or a similar AI chatbot. (Example: Talk:ChatGPT, which is now semi-protected). It really does not help that the tab is titled "Talk," which as a UI element on the broader Internet has now come to mean "talk to AI," but changing that is probably too much of a lift.
• Mistake the talk page for a homework help service. Generally they fill out a one-word school subject under "Subject" and a query under "Description." (Example: This - "MAPEH" is a Philippines school subject).

• The template is written above the reading level of the people who will probably see it, who are disproportionately not fluent in English and/or not adults. Even for a fluent English speaker, something like However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages is shaggy and buries the lead. And again, outdated terms like "chat room" and "forum" don't help.

So, it would be good if the templates were rewritten -- especially the first one, as the stronger warnings are unfortunately also much clearer about what they are about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than merely listing why you feel the templates need to be rewritten (I'm not saying I disagree), you offer proposed changes? DonIago (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Is this a big misunderstanding? Or are you talking about other template(s) than {{Uw-chat1}} through {{Uw-chat4}}? ({{Uw-chat}} has redirected to {{Uw-chat1}} since 2007!) These templates aren't about chat rooms or forums. They never mention chat rooms or forums. These terms may be outdated but they are also not mentioned or alluded to in any way. Maybe the easiest solution is to not use these UW templates when you want to warn a user against mistaking Wikipedia for a 2010-era discussion forum, a 2000-era chat room, or 1990-era bulletin board? CapnZapp (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How to clarify COI warning templates for draftspace editors?

When a COI editor gets a {{uw-coi}} or {{uw-paid1}} warning while submitting a draft, they routinely misinterpret it and believe they are not even allowed to edit the draft. I sometimes add a message at the end clarifying that they are in fact allowed to do this. {{uw-coi}} does not even mention draftspace or AfC. Does anyone have suggestions for modifying the warnings, or adding new warnings specific to editors who submit a draft? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

A starting point could involve copying language from uw-paid1 into uw-coi that says At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. In fact, the entire paragraph in uw-paid1 could be reused in uw-coi. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate Template:uw-joke4im?

While looking through WP:UWT, I was surprised that there is a 4im warning template for adding jokes into articles. I don't understand what is so serious (no pun intended) about this, as even disruptive editing does not have a level-4im. Given that jokes are acceptable in WP-space and many jokesters are probably just confused newbies, it makes more sense to just give them a level 3 and then the level 4, even in egregious cases. I'm curious if this would merit an RfC or TfD, as I think the idea of having a uw-joke4im conflicts too much with WP:BITE. Somepinkdude (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Gibberish

Should there be a warning for adding gibberish or patent nonsense to articles? CabinetCavers (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that either be vandalism or disruptive editing? DonIago (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right, but doesn't deliberate factual error also count as vandalism sometimes? CabinetCavers (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

There's the Template:uw-error1, etc. series for warning about inserting errors, because at lower levels there's no assumption that it's deliberate and that the information being edited may have itself been wrong, so the editor is given instruction as to how they can more appropriately change the text (e.g. by providing a supporting source for their change). I'm not sure how warning an editor for inserting gibberish would be substantively different from warning an editor for vandalism or general disruption. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, you win. CabinetCavers (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that we avoid warning users for things we haven't formalized in our guidelines and policies. We have no rule that specifically says "don't add gibberish", and we don't define what "gibberish" means for Wikipedia. We instead say things like "your edit was reverted because it didn't appear constructive" since that lets us use defined terms and lets us refer to violations of specific policies. Have a look at templates such as {{Uw-disruptive1}} or {{Uw-vandalism1}} (or, indeed, {{uw-error1}}) and notice how they are useful in cases of "gibberish" while remaining specific and direct. CapnZapp (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There is Template:Uw-nonsense which redirects to Template:Uw-test1. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Always subst the template

In my opinion, this section doesn't do a good job of actually explaining why you should subst.

Currently "why should we do it?" is answered with "so the text doesn't change"... but why is that important or relevant?

Boldly attempting to rephrase. CapnZapp (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I have made the following edit:

1. adding an initial paragraph explaining in layman's terms why you should subst these templates, that is, why should you prevent the template text from changing!
2. rephrased the explanation to make it (much, imo) more clear that substing ensures updates to templates don't impact users warned
3. and once more, emphasizing the why

Feel free to further improve. CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

"Old sections should be removed on anonymous user talk pages after a few months."

Removing this (section Layout), partly because we no longer use IP editing, and partly because I don't think it is a good idea to encourage editing of other people's accounts. No relevant policy directly support the "it's fine to archive the contents of other accounts' talk contents", and note how the introduction of temporary accounts automatically means people will assume "accounts" includes temporary accounts. I have considered the following, do tell me if I missed something relevant: WP:USERTALKSTOP, WP:OWNTALK and WP:TPG#EDIT. I did consider the last link's bullet point "Moving edits to closed discussions" but cannot clearly and unequivocally interpret it to prescribe archiving the user talk pages of other accounts than your own. CapnZapp (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A general problem with several of the 'warning' templates

It does not include a parameter for a link to the edits that are claimed to be a rule violation, and the default form does not even specify on which page the user has done that. Even if the identification is correct, this is quite unhelpful: if good faith is assumed, it is likely that the addressee was not aware of breaking a rule and hence doesn't remember the edit in question as an instance of rule-breaking, so such a general wording gives them very little help in seeing their mistake and avoiding repeating it in the future. And if the identification isn't correct, the addressee is given no way of objecting and disproving it. At least any user of these templates should be strongly encouraged to specify the page in question. And ideally, a parameter for links to edits should be added. I became aware of this because I just got this situation (and the user refused to give any explanation or to engage in a conversation at all). ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38000-28: The template you seem to be referring to, {{Uw-chat1}}, does allow for a page to be specified. It's unfortunate if the editor did not provide one and, moreover, then refused to engage with you. If you already looked through your contributions, and don't see how it applies, it seems you've made a sufficient good-faith attempt to resolve the issue. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Not only didn't they name the page (Talk:Zhang Bojun) but their removal of OP's edit from the page due to a supposed NOTFORUM violation was in error. Your edit has been restored; details at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had that experience and didn't get the feedback you needed. Your goal of providing maximum information to a user so they can identify the problem being raised is definitely a good one. However, I think the current parameter list already provides what is needed in most cases, though perhaps not all. All of the user warning templates make use of positional parameter 1 to specify the article name, and this will point the user to the correct article context. You're right that the param is optional, but users placing the template should be encouraged to use it when needed. I think it would be reasonable to update the doc to make that point. We could try a WP:BOLD change like that, and see if there is any objection to it. Note that users who are templated very often are brand new users and have only edited one article; in such cases, the article name parameter is not needed.

In my opinion, a diff link to the exact edit is not necessary most of the time, because an editor usually has made just one edit or a small number of edits to an article in the period just before they received a warning template, so there won't normally be any question what it is about. In the small number of cases where the editor has made numerous changes to the same article in a short span of time, I usually just add a timestamp or diff link to positional parameter 2, something like this:

|2=This applies to your edit of 13:55, 32 Octember 2025.

That said, I can see the usefulness of having a new param to link a specific edit or edit series, in a few cases. As this would affect hundreds of templates, the UI, and operation of the template, it would have to be meticulously thought out and described precisely, and then it would have to be approved via a well-attended Rfc that offers two or three options to the community of how it should look and work. If you want to go down that road, be aware that you should *not* start an Rfc until this has been very thoroughly discussed here first. But you're welcome to initiate/continue the process now, if you wish. In the meantime, as even under optimal conditions it would be many weeks or months before a change of this nature might actually see the light of day, perhaps another doc change could be made, suggesting one possible use of param 2 as shown in the example above. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The Uw-chat2 template

'Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.'

With the last sentences ('If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages), the template seems to be suited for prohibiting questions on the topic of the article. Now, questions that are definitely intended for personal usage only, as in personal advice etc., are obviously inappropriate, but the default interpretation of questions asked on the talk page should be that a certain piece of information would be of interest to readers of the article, but is missing and should be filled in, if possible. For example, when someone asks 'When was the subject born?', this should be taken as a shorthand for 'It would be good for the article to supply information about when the subject was born', rather than be viewed as a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. In fact, even if a user with little knowledge of Wikipedia is asking just out of personal curiosity, this is usually an indication that the question would also be of interest for other readers and, hence, that it would be a good idea to answer it in the article. And this is how questions have usually been interpreted so far. However, I've just had a encounter where an editor assumed the other interpretation, consequently reverted my question and posted a warning for policy violation. Again, it should at least probably be indicated somewhere (maybe in WP:NOTAFORUM, maybe somewhere here) for the benefit of overzealous editors that they should not assume the 'forum' interpretation of questions on talk pages in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. And even if they do, the way to go should arguably be to tell the other user to use the reference desk, not to revert their talk page edit and to post warnings on their talk page. ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears you've had more than one instance of this nature. Perhaps the advice should instead be, "Rather than simply asking questions, try to phrase your talk page posts in a way that clearly indicates what improvements you feel should be made to the article"? DonIago (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

uw-name

Hi, I created the template {{uw-name1}} for WP:COMMONNAME as it's a more common disruption, compared to the MOS. Making 1 was already tiring & I aim to create templates till level 4. So, I need some help with it. Thanks! codelivid 12:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Livid, it is not clear to me what this template is about, or what policy or guideline it applies to. Unless you can significantly clarify, I think it is a candidate to be nominated for deletion. Alternatively, do you want to develop it some more in Draft space? There you would have all the time you need.

If it is supposed to be about article titles, creating a warning template about that is inappropriate, because article titles are open to discussion by the community to find the best title by consensus. If the title is slam-dunk so bad that no one could possibly support it, let's say, a hoax, vandalism, a joke, contains slang or has misspelled words, then you just do a WP:BOLDMOVE and fix it, and that's the end of it. If it is debatable, even if the majority might think it is bad but there are policy-compliant arguments that could be made to support it, then you must open a discussion about the title and seek consensus for the change. There is no situation where it would ever be appropriate to tell a user that their choice is wrong, but you are not going to start a Talk page discussion preparatory to a possible WP:MOVE. That is backwards; what you do in that case, is start a discussion first, and then notify the user on his Talk page to come join the discussion, not template them with a warning. Please clarify your intent with this template, as I plan to nominate this for deletion soon, as a template that never has any legitimate use. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: okay, I see from your links that it is about article titles. So, this is just to let you know that I will start a discussion at Tfd, and you should bring your response there; no need to duplicate effort here. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the Tfd can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 3 § Template:Uw-name1

Template:Uw-editsummary "and/or"

@Voidxor: Regarding your edit, I can't read that as inclusive or, can you? It looks like exclusive or, which is why I changed the wording previously. — W.andrea (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I do read it as inclusive 'or'. As MOS:ANDOR states, best to be specific if you mean to be exclusive (e.g. "this or that but not both"). BTW, should we just change it from "or" to "and"? That thought occurred to me after my edit. We want to encourage editors to state both what they're changing and why. — voidxor 20:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

should we just change it from "or" to "and"?

I think it's fine the way it is if it's inclusive. Often one or the other is implied between what's changing and why. — W.andrea (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Separately, I disagree with your reversion of my hyphenation of "the edit-summary field" on the grounds that "edit" is not an adjective. Words can be more than one part of speech. The part of speech is defined by how the word is used. In "edit summary", it's an adjective that describes the type of summary. Adding an article ("the edit summary") reinforces that. Take it one step further with "field" becoming the noun, and "edit summary" now describes the type of field. The words can't be flipped though "the summary edit field", because "edit" acts on "summary", not "field". Hence the compound modifier. Not a big deal, but still. — voidxor 20:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

because "edit" acts on "summary", not "field".

That's what I meant to say: The reason to hyphenate a compound is to resolve that type of ambiguity, but it doesn't exist here; there's no "summary field" or "edit field". — W.andrea (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC) edited 21:38

Template-protected edit request on 4 January 2026

Can we introduce a {{{sp}}} parameter for this template? This template is inconsistent in regional spelling. 2600 etc (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)