Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 6

message: Khukri had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding  already had shortcut , I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since  and  were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts for RFC-related templates 

message: I felt the need for a new template, so I've created .  This still needs some work and perhaps a better name though, so I'm leaving it here for suggestions before I add it to UTM.  Thanks in advance for your comments, Dar-Ape 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DJR may be hard to remember, maybe something like . Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Template:Uw-warn"? GracenotesT § 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I have moved it to .  Dar-Ape 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: and its sisters are for users who move pages unnecessarily. Is there a template for people who do cut-and-paste page moves rather than using the "move" button (whether because their accounts are too new to move a page or because it takes admin powers to delete an existing redirect)? I encounter this frequently and it's a pain in the butt to fix after the fact. —Angr 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there may be times when said editors have the move button but don't know about WP:RM. (Gracenotes opens his closet to reveal Coca tea, if anyone's interested) GracenotesT § 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, that's something the template should inform them of. Granted, a template like this could only be used after the user has already made the cut-and-paste page move, but it may stop them from doing it again. —Angr 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-and-paste page moves 

message: Please check out Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Parameters for user warning templates if you have the time. Thanks! GracenotesT § 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized discussion about parameters 

message: I like the new system, good job :) The only thing I've noticed missing so far is (?)
And I hope the WP:UW project moves on to cleanup the welcome templates next! --Quiddity 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Test-self really needs to be added here... I find that it comes up quite a bit, and several times now I've looked for it. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mainly because the harmonisation isn't finished yet. The template hasn't disappeared and most probably isn't likely to. Khukri 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test-self 

message: The "biog" series has now been generalized to apply to controversial statements in any article, not just biographical articles.  Maybe I am missing something (and I probably am), but the biog series and the defamatory series now seem to serve pretty much the same purpose.  Can anyone clarify why we need both?--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-biog1}} vs {{tl|uw-defamatory1}} 

message: Why do these have such long names? uw-vandalism2 takes a lot longer to type than test2. --AW 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be descriptive, so that when you look at a list of template names you have an idea of what each one is for; and conversely, when you want to post a template on a user page, the topic you want to address tells you the template name you want to type. A name like "test" doesn't help with either of those. -- Ben 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some shortcuts have created, for example you can use  rather than . →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up on Oliver's comment, the four most common - test, vandalism, spam and delete - all have one letter shortcuts (i.e. t, v, s and d).  So, for example, you can use  for vandalism2.--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could use  for the deletion series. I had this complaint too, so redirects were created by me and others. :Category:Redirects from warning template keeps track of 'em, and tag a redirect page with  if you want to create one. GracenotesT § 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could these short names be added to the project page (or even replace the long ones there now)? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everybody, i didn't know there were short ones. Are there replacements for the  and ? I like those ones, since they encourage being a good editor --AW 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long names 

message: Especially during school hours, much vandalism involves people who randomly insert personal messages, their names, or their friends' names, into articles. This is junk like "Joe was here" or "Podunk High School is the best." I would call it personal graffiti. These are generally not "Editing tests," they aren't exactly "unhelpful or unconstructive information", usually they can't be called "joke edits," they aren't spam or defamation, it's a stretch to call them autobiographical or "nonneutral POV," and since they aren't posting on talk pages it makes no sense to say "talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic." With all the focused templates that have been created recently, could someone create a series for personal graffiti?--orlady 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, vandalism is vandalism. It seems like the vandalism templates will work just fine. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New warning templates for people who use article pages to post personal graffiti? 

message: Hi, I was wondering if the templates that say "You have been blocked for so long because blah blah..." could be used by non-administrator users? What is the limit of what a non-admin Wikipedian can use? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, anyone can use them [the templates] but they will not have any real force. Blocking and leaving a template message are two separate actions. I (I'm not an admin) could use Template:uw-block on a talk page, but the user would't actually be blocked. As it is lying to the users though, I believe it is discouraged. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: However, if an admin has blocked someone and did not give a block message, a non-admin is welcome to put a block note. JoshuaZ 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little question 

message: Howdy, I asked this question on the Template talk:test page, but I figured it might get to more people if I asked it here. I'm sure if I went back in the archives and searched for it I could find the answer, but I'm kinda lazy.
Why did we change from the  etc templates to  set of templates?  GofG |||  Contribs 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main aim of the exercise was to introduce a uniform set of user warning templates, so that they all look and behave the same way. Really, the whole old system needed a good clear out and tidy up. By the way, you might find that the  set is a better replacement for the  ones. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did we change? 

message: Is there a warning for users with disruptive sigs, like this: Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. In this case, I would definitely use a personal message, not a template (which, by the way, doesn't exist). I wouldn't call it disruptive based on the sig alone; perhaps the user merely wants a sig that looks good. (It really depends, so a template might not be best.) GracenotesT § 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't screw up anything in my browser. --WikiSlasher 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to brighten everyone's mood, the whole font tag is being deprecated in HTML, and may not be supported in future versions, which seems likely to make a whole lot of older-HTML-coded pages incompatible. -- Ben 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this apply just to MediaWiki or the entire web? --WikiSlasher 11:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would apply to the whole web, but I can't imagine it's going anywhere anytime soon. —METS501 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I've been meaning to change the font tag to a span for some time (in my sig), but space is a concern :( Anyway, back to the topic... GracenotesT § 22:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The font tag is already considered deprecated by the W3C (), but the W3C states that user agents (like browsers) should continue to support deprecated tags (). So although it's considered out of date to use it, support for it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there anything that needs to be warned about here?  I don't see how it could do harm.  Mr.Z-man what exactly is it doing to your browser?  SubSeven 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, yes, it is technically a violation of policy.  I guess drop him a friendly message then.  Doubtful that there will be a template for disruptive sigs.  SubSeven 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures 

message: Just went to apply this to a user page adding in the article name and additional text, and noticed a minor error in formatting. When doing this, the words ownership and such on line one join together and own becomes apart of the link to WP:OWN. Obviously this is unexpected, so if someone could look and fix this template up it would be apprecicated. thewinchester 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with uw-own3 template 

message: I just tried to use  for a blp warning, but that redirects to . Why? The common warnings seem to have obvious one-letter variants, uw-t1, uw-v2, uw-d3, s for spam, i for images, e for errors. The most common warning without an obvious one-letter redirect is uw-biog. Perhaps u for user-page related vandalism, too. Gimmetrow 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's because the "old" version of delete1 was .  So, someone typing b1 might be expecting the "blank" template.  However, your point is well taken (at least by me), and I think we should change the redirect to delete1.  I was thinking maybe we should wait until we are fairly confident people have adjusted to the new system.  However, it might be best to do it now before anyone gets too comfortable with b1 redirecting to delete1.  Anyone else?--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shortcuts 

message: I find the type used for some of the template names is almost illegibly small when monospace fonts are used with my browser and the default Monobook skin (set in Special:Preferences). The monospace fonts are serif fonts which are hard to read in small sizes.
Since there's a need to keep these small, I suggest not using monospace fonts but rather sans-serif fonts such as Arial. Here's an example:
's monospace serif fonts work well at normal sizes:
*
**Sans-serif alternative: 
's monospace serif fonts become hard to read in smaller sizes
*
**Sans-serif alternative: 
I'm not a Wikitext-typography-html-Wikipedia "skins" guru, so I'm not sure everyone's browser will display the example above the way I intended, but what I think you should see is an example of how a sans-serif font like Arial can improve the legibility of small font sizes.
This is less of a problem with some of the other skins I tried, but since monobook is the default, it's what most editors will see in the templates grid. --A. B. (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fine print used for the grid of warnings is hard to read 

message: I don't see any template to use to let a user know that their discussion edit belongs on the talk page.  Please point me to it and let's add it to this page. WilliamKF 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may use  for the moment, but there is a fair chance this will be modified in the coming weeks. See WP:UW/Overview Regards Khukri 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning for discussion on article 

message: If WP is default to "American" spelling unless the article content is Britian-centric, why does  say vandalise instead of vandalize? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the 1000 posts in the archive about this :-)  The WP standard is actually to not change it: whoever creates the page controls the spelling. —METS501 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we just change them to American spelling and get this over n bloody done with? I'm beginning to think it's more hassle than it's worth. Khukri 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry I didn't check the archives first. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we leave it Britlish. Wikipedia defaults to the version first used. If some Yank gets it wrong, then someone else should very tactfully change it and not make a big deal of it. It's hard to keep track of two spelling standards and if you edit on Wikipedia long enough, you end up editing in some sort of weird BritYanklish regardless of the form you learned in school. Likewise, Yanks shouldn't make a big deal of this stuff either. Editing Wikipedia (or would that be Wikipaedia?) has ruined my spelling in this way. Just, please, keep the Scots away. --A. B. (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't, I agree but I've lost count with the amount of times I've reverted them. Ignoring what the guidelines say about author and subject matter/context etc, I've read that Wikipedia is American therefore the spelling should be American. WP:VAND uses American English therefore should the templates should be the same. More Americans use Wikipedia than Brits, to name a few arguments. I started the vandalism templates, except 4im which was Lucas and he's French so doesn't count, désolé mon pot. Even though I write what little article editing I do in British English, I think on these ones I'm willing to let them go, just to stop these little edit wars that arise.  Khukri 12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the colourful spelling? 

message: Is there a template message that pertains to users blanking vandal warnings on their talk page?   "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatley, it was decided that this isn't actually vandalism. This is still a continuing debate however, it may change. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see WP:UW/FAQ, although as Mr.Z-man mentioned, WP:CCC. GracenotesT § 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Guys, I've started a discussion at WP:UW here so I can rattle off the remainder of the templates on the overview page, finish the single issue templates, and wrap everything up. It's primarily about the redirects and the eventual fate of the project. But I'd appreciate all of you regulars and visitors here to add your thoughts and input please. Cheers Khukri 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview page 

message: How about copyvio warnings? I'd really like to see  and  (and other nothanks-* templates) integrated here, and also something that includes an after-the-fact notice of deletion (in vein of ). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too -- that's exactly what I came to :WP:WARN looking for. Unfortunately I didn't check this talk page before making up my own message. Are confident users welcome to add existing templates to :WP:WARN, or should we leave it to experienced wikipedians/admins?  - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here looking for something too.   doesn't quite cut it though:  it implies the whole article is a copyright violation.  Something appropriate when reverting the addition of copyrighted content would be useful.  —EncMstr 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio warnings 

message: Since Werdnabot is down indefinitely, I have requested that MiszaBot II archive this page when sections get 7 days old. I also requested that the bot automatically start a new archive after the archive reaches the size of 100K. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking batman. Khukri 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Archiving 

message: I encountered the following uw templates that aren't featured on this page, nor are any redirects:
* Template:uw-repost (redirect from Template:Repost-warn)
* Template:uw-pinfo (redirect from Template:Pinfo, Template:Pinfo4)
Perhaps they should be incorporated in some way. Oliphaunt 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates not featured on this page 

message: I'm going to swap round the redirect the above template  to  keep it the same as the others so there are no capitals.
Also I'm going to create a ,  for user:Viridae that was brought up on the straw poll on WP:UW . Khukri 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of things 

message: For those who don't have all the templates in their watchlists seems like test1 is broken see Template talk:Uw-test1. I know bugga all about the coding so if someone would step to the fore... Cheers Khukri 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  does break the template. I'll check it further later. -- lucasbfr talk 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, all templates (tested error, vand, test and creation) share the same issue. Oh God... I'll try to find what caused the problem (I thought it was a new issue but it seems to be around for a while) -- lucasbfr talk 09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The #if: statement is not working with the . I don't know wiki syntax enough to see how to fix it. If some wiki guru could give a hand that would be great! I copied the test1 template to User:Lucasbfr/Sandbox if someone wants to perform some tests. -- lucasbfr talk 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at work so can't use IRC, but see if Misza13 is around, he's fairly handy at this sort of stuff, I think Gracenote is asleep at the mo. Khukri 10:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same no IRC here. I'll poke the vilage pump. I just discovered I might have given some broken warnings lately myself. -- lucasbfr talk 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok seems the bug is on Media wiki and there is not much we can do... Let's stop advertising the subst=subst: trick perhaps? -- lucasbfr talk 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've none this for a long time, and figured out the subst=subst: only works when the page parameter is used. If used, the template works fine. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the templates help text (on Template:Singlenotice/inner and Template:Templatesnotice/inner) to reflect the bug. -- lucasbfr talk 09:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template broken 

message: Should this series of templates warn people not to delete content or templates? Doesn't this just put ideas into vandals' heads? (ie we shouldn't mention blanking templates to people who've only thought of blanking article content, per WP:BEANS). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... Do you have a specific example?  I was thinking (not that I would dare thinking too much today) that we have  and  for the few templates that shouldn't normally be removed. For the other templates, if it's clearly vandalism, I personally use the usual templates. -- lucasbfr talk 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the maintenance series, which is a good catchall category for other templates. Natalie 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made myself clear. The problem I thought of (and I admit I haven't seen an example) is where someone deletes content from an article, gets one of these warnings, and gets the idea to edit, blank or otherwise vandalise a template because that is mentioned in the warning text. Possibly I'm assuming more knowledge of how WP works than most blanking-vandals have, but the risk is higher because nonsense would then be included in any page which includes the vandalised template in un'subst'ed form. I just thought that removing the 'or templates' from the warning text would be good. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most vandals don't have the slightest idea on how templates work to be honest. I would personally fall back on a high level of uw-vand, I think, since if someone edits a template he obviously has a good idea on how WP works (there is most of the time no link to templates). -- lucasbfr talk 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. I can't remember how long I edited until I edited a template, but it was definitely a few months. I'd wager that most newbie vandals wouldn't know how to find templates, and those who do probably already know where they are and that vandalising a template can do a lot of damage. Natalie 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quite a common occurence in fact, hence the reason most of the templates are semi protected. The other common trick is the vandal in return posts the same warning on the orginal issuers page. If you'd issued for example a npov warning and it was a logged in edit who messed with the template, you would increment the level by one or two and give a vandalism warning. If they gave you a warning back again increment the level and leave a uw-tpv warning. There is a warning I saw a couple of months back but can't find it at the mo which was specfically for the false issuing of templates. Ho hum I digress. Khukri 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mention of templates in uw-deleteN 

message: I am quite puzzled by the , ,  templates to be honest. If I am correct the usual practice is that legal threats are a big no no in the Wikipedia community and that indef blocks are issued quite easily on these. I don't see the point in having 3 levels for these since a single offence can get you banned. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno where they came from but shows you how much attention I pay. You are 100% right, this was one of two warning I had in mind from the early days as one strike n then you're out warning,  and . You wanna do it or shall I? As was pointed out with copyvio this cannot be incremental. Khukri 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created . I am going to bring the others to TfD later in the day. -- lucasbfr talk 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please come by and voice your opinion there :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoudn't the uw-legal template be a single template? 

message: Hey guys! I just found out something very interesting today. Our new warning system is not substed by any bot! So, I've submitted a bot request here. A user suggested that I alert you guys to this (even though you all are probably quite happy about it). --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Substing of Templates 

message: Just for info User:Carnildo has put , ,  up for TfD. Khukri 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erf... I would never have thought some people would use it as a "don't remove warnings" message... -- lucasbfr talk 09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, but as per your TfD comment if there is the potential that it could be misconstrude then I think we should reword it to remove the ambiguity. Khukri 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates are fine as they are right now - however, they can be reworded to be a bit more clear that it's unnecessary to proofread discussion pages and annoys other users. --Sigma 7 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD 

message: Should the user warnings about changing English styles (, , , , , and ) be included here. If so, should they be renamed with the uw prefix. Also there are six, should 1 or 2 of them be deleted? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming up soon to a wikiproject near you. The lang, date, royalty will all be replaced by a boilerplate the uw-mos (manual of style) warning. But usually this type of offence is a one of, as editors do not fully understand what is acceptable when changing format within an article. For this reason there will also be a one off warning , ,  which will be the first warning issued, just as a polite reminder or pointer on how the format of these articles is/was decided. After that if they choose to ignore the reminder then it would be  or  depending on severity. Why I hear you ask then do we have a  agf level warning. This is because new editors sometimes come in and don't know formatting, bulleting or general layout/syntax that is expected in an article and this shows the editor where they can look to find this info. Khukri 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English styles 

message: Is there a version of  that's appropriate for page blanking?  I don't want to use a standard vandalism warning as the user self-reverted... JulesH 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  or ? If its a one off and was reverted there may be no need for a warning at all.... WjBscribe 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted, but it's not a one-off.  In the end I used , which seemed most appropriate. JulesH 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you use a warning that says Please do not add nonsense.... for someone removing content? The uw-delete series as WJBscribe wrote above are for this type of vandalism. Khukri 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw-test3 &  page blanking 

message: And moreover, can I make a redirect for Template:uw-selftest ? I feel so retro still using  Shenme 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is live but nope you can't redirect it yet. I'll be looking at that this week depending on the result here. Cheers Khukri 09:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I 'think' you misunderstood (but I might be misunderstanding :-) ).  There is currently a Template:uw-selfrevert.  But what I was wanting 'also' was a redirect from Template:uw-selftest to there.  I understand there is discussion over possibly redirecting all the old names, like 'selftest', to new names.  Rather, I'm just lazy and don't want to type the extra two characters, or think of that hard word 'revert'. Shenme 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is uw-selfrevert 'live' yet? 

message: Are  and  really necessary with the  series? Attack isn't even listed on this page. Are there that many instances of racism that we need a template for it? Also, why do we have npa and uw-npa? Were , , and  supposed to be deleted when the uw templates were created? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At [{WP:UW]], we're currently discussing redirecting the old templates. I agree with you on the racism template. I was thinking the same thing today. The attack template and the old npa are all old, and we haven't decided what to do with them yet. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@  02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been discussion of the attack template before and whether one of the new series can be modified to cover attack page creation situations.  Currently NPA is geared towards attacks on other editors rather than at attack pages.  I've been ambivalent, but I think maybe keeping  as a single issue template is the best solution.--Kubigula (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack templates 

message: This is probably not the right place to ask, but I just randomly opened this page, and since it discuss the user warning templates, I'll ask here. I'm working mainly on Tokyo Mew Mew articles, in which the names from Tokyopop's English translation are used. I regularly have to revert edits that change the names to those used in fansubs or on fansites - even though there is a note about the names inserted into every article. Some users even do it in such way that the links to the characters' articles get broken, and they don't seem to care about this. Is there any template message that would tell the user that they should use certain translation of the names in the articles?  夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 04:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might want to ask this same question here: Wikipedia:Help desk. Someone will have a decent answer for you. Kukini  hablame aqui 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The people seem to want stronger level two warnings.  I agree that there is room for strengthening.  So, I went ahead and changed the "could be considered vandalism" to "appear to be vandalism".  Personally, I think that's about the right nuance for a level 2 warning.  Other thoughts?--Kubigula (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the change. --Kukini  hablame aqui 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As I mull this some more, I think I'd like to strengthen  a bit more, along the lines of .  We already described the person's edit as unhelpful and unconstructive in V1, so I think we should make it stronger and ask them not to add nonsense in V2.  The other level two warnings look good (to me).  Any objections?--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As gracenotes wrote on WP:UW I think with these warning we can afford to step away slightly from the good faith guidelines on the more common warnings as you've already done. I like the changes, and would you do  as well please? Cheers Khukri 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - done.  I would still support changing "unhelpful and unconstructive information" to "nonsense" on V2.  However, this is a fairly big change, so I will not do so unless others agree.--Kubigula (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think personally that nonsense is more suited to T2 than to V2. I personally use T2 for gibberish and V2 for the other types of vandalism (insults and "poop vandalism" mainly). -- lucasbfr talk 09:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stronger level twos 

message: -->  
Should we replace the icons on the final and only warnings to better match the other icons used? Also what about increasing the size of the icons for every warning from smallest (vandalism 1) to largest (vandlaism 4)? Larger icons for the final warnings should help emphasize the severity of the issue. -- Hdt83 | Talk 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think that that's a little too subtle. After all, it's really the words that count and maybe a warning image. bibliomaniac15 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments at Usefulness of icons in warnings: another aspect, where I also ask about increasing icon size by seriousness of the warning.  I don't know about 'subtle'.  The icons are non-verbal, which helps a lot if the vandal is not an English reader.  They are more likely to understand the icons than the changing text. Shenme 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, many people don't read instructions carefully or if the text is long they may just "skip over it". A larger icon helps people by showing them that they did something wrong and needs to stop. -- Hdt83 | Talk 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I can think of with larger icons is that generally, the more severe the warning, the less text there is. The level 1 templates give a detailed explanation as to why the user is receiving the warning, but the level 4 templates just say: Stop or be blocked. If the level 4 template icons get too big, they will dominate the text. Or, if the level 1 icons get too small, they will be less prominent. And the text should be more important than the look. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed you replaced the image on block 1 & 2, but the reason behind the original harmonisation was to try and keep things the same. I have no problems with the image at all, but if it is going to be changed then you need to change the other 30 or so level4 templates to the same image. On the image size, if you read through the histories (there is a fair bit of it though ;) ) the images were discussed at length. My thoughts and that of many of the other project members was that with the most commonly issued level 4 warnings i.e. vandalism, delete etc, was that could you put a flashing neon sign on them, and they would more as likely get ignored. IMHO there are three types of vandal, the newbie vandal who stops after one warning, those that like to push the limit and see how far they can go and stop when they get to 4, and those that just don't care. As Z-man stated above the level 4 warning is short and sweet, if there can be anyway that the community's intentions and message with this warning can be misconstrude, that could be changed by adding a larger icon, then I'd like to see it. There are alot of editors who do not like the images at the moment, for now I'd like to keep them reasonably discrete and then maybe re-examine the issue in a couple of months once the last part of WP:UW has finished and the waters have calmed a bit. Khukri 09:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, don't worry, I am not going to change the icon sizes or anything. Maybe icons on the lv4 templates but thats all unless anybody objects. -- Hdt83 | Talk 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my deepest apologies I missed your message and reverted the occurrences I found for the previous version, for consistency reasond. Personally I don't like at all the "3D" look and feel of this icon, but if there is a consensus to change it, no problem. -- lucasbfr talk 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons