Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

@Mathglot Every template documentation written in the last 10 years uses h2. I don't mind you reverting my copyedits, although I fell they are useful. But there really is no reason to use h3. I like h3 better too, but the example in Wikipedia:Template documentation § Manual creation clearly uses h2 for "Usage". This reflects current usage. As you said, this template is not revamped often. FaviFake (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The headers at Template:Uw-advert4 (among others) skipped H2, which is bad for accessibility ("Skipping heading levels for emphasis disrupts the logical hierarchy and should be avoided"), so I converted the H3 to H2.

BTW, I just randomly happened onto this problem while I was searching for a template to warn someone. Funny that this dispute happened on the same day!

— W.andrea (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

W.andrea, oh, so you changed it already while we are in discussion about this very topic? That is rather aggressive; you should self-revert and await the outcome. Also, the 'Skipping' quotation above does not apply in this case; if you scroll up about an inch from that quote you'll see that the subsection is discussing § Article structure, and this is not an article. Even if it did apply, using h3 here is not "skipping" anything. Going from h2 to h4, or h3 to h5 is skipping a level. Starting at h3 is not skipping a level, any more than starting at h2 is "skipping" h1—which we support, as in =Heading One=. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind that it is transcluded currently in 345 templates, mostly user warning templates, and editors are used to seeing it this way for some time. If we want to change that, there should by some complaints about it, or a really good reason to change it. Is there? Certainly whatever it says at Wikipedia:Template documentation is no reason to change, that is neither a guideline nor a policy, so no need to slavishly follow it, especially if you prefer h3, too (although preference should not be the deciding factor). I don't see a reason to upset the current usage and expectation.

If we are going to update the inner template, there are some real reasons to do so, but in other directions. For example, while it has a parameter to create a Usage section, it does not have parameters to create sections for Parameters, Examples, or Notes—all sections commonly seen in Template docs, but rare in user warning template doc because there is no easy way to do it. (You can kidnap the usage parameter to force those sections into the doc, but it is counterintuitive.) I'd rather see us spend our time on deciding if and how we want to include those sections, rather than worry about whether some heading should be converted to h2. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If we want to change that, there should by some complaints about it, or a really good reason to change it.
No there shouldn't. That would be status quo stonewalling. The new solution simply needs to be better than the current one.

And despite that, there are indeed really good reasons to change it:

• Accessibility for users of screen readers:

  They must be nested sequentially—beginning at level 2 (==) for the main headings, then level 3 (===), and so on. Level 1 headings, automatically reserved for the article title, should not appear within the article's body text. Skipping heading levels for emphasis disrupts the logical hierarchy and should be avoided.

  And that is a guideline. Not sure why it only applies to articles, but there's no reason why blind or disabled users should not be able to have an accessible experience outside mainspace. If you actually disagree with this, then I'm really curious to hear why.
• As I said, Every template documentation written in the last decade uses h2.. You have not yet responded to this.
• Starting at h3 is not skipping a level, any more than starting at h2 is "skipping" h1
  — That's not true because pages need to start with h2 and not h1. Or, rather, all pages start with h1 (the title), therefore the second heading must usually not skip h2.

I can't understand your second paragraph. We shouldn't improve accessibility and consistency just because... the template has other problems? What? FaviFake (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request to Template:Uw-generic4 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move {{Twinkle standard installation}} to top.

{{single notice
|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}
|extra usage=:<code><nowiki>{{subst:Uw-generic4|Article|Additional text|reason=}}</nowiki></code> changes "[[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disrupt Wikipedia]]" to the entered text

* This is a generic template for [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|UW template series]] that have no level-4 template. 
}}

Veritas Sapientiae (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request to Template:Uw has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix typo (add missing class=") and improve dark mode compatibility by adding color:inherit;.

a wondrous raven (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done. I removed the duplicate background instead of adding a duplicate color. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The message of Template:Userfied is about a page that works as a top-level user page, but which the user put somewhere else (draft, article, etc.). It is pretty clearly meets the purpose of a user warning template, with param-1 linking the page, and the rest of it explaining what they did wrong, and linking to the relevant guidelines that explain how do it right. That's exactly the purpose and structure of a user warning/notice template.

I think we should formalize this, by bringing Template:Userfied into the fold as a standard user warning template, of type "notices". It is already very close to complying with the guidelines of the user warnings project, with a few minor differences that could easily be patched up:

• title – it should be renamed to Template:Uw-userfied (or pick a better name)
• param-1 – the article link in param-1 is currently required; it should be made optional, per the guideline
• doc – switch from current dedicated doc subpage, to use Template:Single notice instead

This template has some surface similarity with {{Uw-articletodraft}} and {{Uw-autobiography}}, but in the opposite direction, so to speak, so neither one could be used as a redirect destination for the current template without major changes to the wording of one of those.

No doubt the current template wording could be improved, but I see that as a separate issue that could be handled before, after, or during a move, but essentially unrelated to it. Anything I'm missing? If there's no issues with this, I'll probably carry out the move and other adjustments in a week or two. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've started my attempt at doing these at my userpage subpage. BooksBooksBooks3 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know I've seen guidance somewhere about the principle of normally starting at level 1 when warning a user with a multi-level warning template, but I can't find it. It's not at WP:Template index/User talk namespace, and it's not at WP:WikiProject User warnings. It's not at WP:BITE, either, which should certainly mention it as well, because it is even more important not to jump to L2 when addressing a new user, unless it is very clearly justified.

Wherever it is, either it would fit better here and should be linked from wherever it is now, or possibly if it has a really good home now (does it?), then all three of the pages mentioned should summarize, or at least, prominently link to it. Does anyone remember where that guidance about levels is? Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:UWLEVELS? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Courtesy link: Draft:Uw-proxy-url

Wanted to get feedback from users about how often you have to fix problems in citations, due to a good-faith editor adding a valid citation, but adding a |url= parameter to the citation that only works in their university network environment while you are on the campus network? Typically, these have a query string parameter listing another url inside the main url; for example: the Maag (2017) citation at Exclusive psalmody (diff). Most often, the top-level domain ends in .edu, but not always (as in this example, with a domain of uwo.ca belonging to the University of Western Ontario).

I see these often enough that I wish there were a friendly, notice-type template explaining the problem and how to fix it, as it is a little involved to explain it. My most recent attempt to explain it on a user's Talk page is here, at the bottom of the (second) Welcome message; but I'm sure it could be explained better than that.

What about you, how often do you see these in-school-only urls, and would it help you if we had a template for it? I know it would help me. One issue: it's not obvious how to name such a template so we would remember it: {{Uw-in-school-url}}, or {{Uw-in-network-url}}, maybe? Can you come up with a better title? Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

What these are are "proxy URLs". It's not limited to schools, but of course it does happen very often with students. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you ever talk to users about them, and what do you tell them? Thanks for the jargon correction; so maybe a template name like, {{uw-proxy-url}}, with the others being redirects? Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here is a draft template with some wording we can look at and discuss: Draft:Uw-proxy-url. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've seen such proxy URLs occasionally used in place of file names, but internal file system addresses are a more common error in that department. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean a file name on a hard drive, like, C:/Users/All Users/Example1/Documents/abc.txt? Or what do you mean by a "file name"? And what do you mean by a "file system address error"; is this related to the question of urls that are only available on a given network? Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Sometimes people try to link to files on their computer or local network when trying to add an image to an article. I patrol Category:Articles with missing files and Category:Pages using infoboxes with URL in image parameter, and depending on exactly what they do, the article will usually end up in one of those two categories. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:52, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

If I understand you correctly, I don't see how those situations involving images or missing files have anything to do with using a proxy url as the value of the |url= parameter of a {{cite web}} template, although they may be worth addressing separately. As far as users using the |url= param to link to a drive on their computer, there seem to be no such cases in the |url= param in a citation. ("None" is a really small number; maybe a bot is stripping them out. Here's some stats, using Windows-style drives: there are at least 470k articles with {{cite web}} templates with |url= parameters, and of those, there are only six cases of {{cite web}} with an url parameter starting with letters 'C' or 'D', but none of them are drive letters as there are no pages with url params starting 'C:' or 'D:'.) If there are no such cases to deal with, or a bot already handles them, then it doesn't seem necessary to have a template to handle them. But there are at least a thousand articles with proxy-style urls. The cases you raise may be valid ones in another context, but I don't see how they are related to a possible template addressing proxy urls in {{cite web}} citations, which is the subject of this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just thought it was a related problem. And there's no bot to handle it. It's mostly just me. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

If it's an image url issue and not a proxy url in a {{cite web}} url param, then I don't see how that could be handled in the proposed template. By the way: please have a look at WP:THREAD for the recommended use of tab stops to indent replies under the comment they refer. Rule of thumb: always use one more tab stop than the comment you are replying to. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you make this template-protected? Indefinitely121 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Indefinitely121, this is the talk page for many templates, so we don't know which template you're referring to. If you'd like to request protection for a template, the best place to do that is at Requests for page protection. tony 23:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The template, not the talk page. Indefinitely121 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, it's Template:Uw-aepblock, judging by this edit. It was declined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I noticed that the wording of level 1 templates doesn't really explain to users that they can and should use an article's talk page to discuss issues - they encourage the warned user to discuss at the talk page of the user who warned them, but don't explain that they can also start a discussion on the talk pages of articles. While this isn't necessary for all level 1 templates (Template:Uw-test1 obviously doesn't need it), I think a note like this could be useful on templates like Template:Uw-disruptive1, Template:Uw-vandalism1, Template:Uw-notcensored1, Template:Uw-delete1 etc to encourage editors to discuss article content on talk pages before making potentially disruptive or controversial edits. I was thinking of appending something to the tune of If you would like to discuss an issue with an article, consider leaving a comment on its talk page. near the end of the template, with an option to replace the generic "an article" with the article parameter and link to the relevant talk page. Thoughts? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

As a sockpuppet investigations clerk, I am not sure I have ever seen a good use of the TM:Uw-socksuspect template. There is very rarely any need for a sockpuppetry suspect to be alerted to the investigation. In many cases they will simply ignore it, or in worse cases possibly use it as advance warning to abandon an account and make a fresher one that we might not catch, or they turn up at the SPI itself and become argumentative. In fact, the template documentation page itself specifically states that the template should be avoided for this reason. However, the template is found in both Twinkle and Ultraviolet (and its predecessor, RedWarn). When warning someone through these tools you do not see the template documentation and thus it is very easy to miss. It's this reason I believe the template should be removed from these tools, and I would appreciate community input before suggesting such to the tool maintainers. Thoughts? CoconutOctopus talk 17:23, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

As another SPI clerk, I strongly support this proposal. As CoconutOctopus mentions above, there is almost never a reason for regular users to be using this warning template, and SPI team members are capable enough to know if it is necessary to—and, if so, how best to (after hundreds of cases clerked I don't think I've used this template once)—alert users of a filing involving them. Having {{uw-socksuspect}} in Twinkle and other tools makes it seem that its use is recommended, despite the opposite being true. If people wish to warn users they suspect of sockpuppetry outside of sockpuppet investigations, {{uw-multiple-accts}} and {{uw-agf-sock}} are more than sufficient. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support as well. FaviFake (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply