Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

{{uw-aitalk1}}

Can someone add the newly created uw-aitalk series of templates here? It seems to follow the standard rules of what should be in a uw, but exclusion from this list (as well as AV, etc.) makes it difficult to find. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I added it. 137a (talk • edits) 22:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Temp Account Bug

It seems like the templates are breaking once temporary accounts have been introduced. Now, the uws are all linking towards the personal sandbox, regardless if it's a temp account or not. Is there some way so that it will still link to WP:Sandbox for temporary accounts, because it's clearly not happening? HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 07:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've created the {{If temporary account}} metatemplate to detect whether a user is a temporary account. It's currently used in {{Uw-ecr}}. However, I don't see a problem with a temporary account using their own user sandbox instead of the shared one. — Newslinger talk 19:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Being directed to a nonexistent page may confuse new users. Also, are temporary users able to create their own sandboxes? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 00:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I don't know, and I should have confirmed this before making an assumption. According to mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts/FAQ, "Temporary accounts have their own user pages and user talk pages". However, according to Wikipedia:How to create a page, "Please note that only logged in users can create pages in non-talk namespaces." I'm not sure if that latter restriction extends to user subpages for temporary accounts, and it would be helpful to confirm this.​ — Newslinger talk 21:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Uw-confusinglinks1

Would this be considered a single-level or a multi-level template? There's currently only one template in this series, but it's structured like all the other uw1 templates. 137a (talk • edits) 17:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-fv1 as well. It seems like fv is supposed to be short for "false reference" or something. 137a (talk • edits) 00:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@137a: It's "failed verification", akin to {{fv}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Viewing usage of warning templates over time

Warning templates by year

Template	all years	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
{{uw-vandalism1}}	~2.5M	166,311	191,311	255,002	239,557	333,920
{{uw-vandalism2}}	807,736	46,723	53,541	66,451	68,436	83,707
{{uw-vandalism3}}	424,879	20,597	23,690	28,690	32,317	36,918
{{uw-vandalism4}}	237,965	11,682	12,484	14,894	17,241	19,798
{{uw-vandalism4im}}	73,495	4,084	5,269	4,630	4,794	5,264
{{uw-disruptive1}}	163,017	19,627	20,174	23,227	29,061	21,776
{{uw-disruptive2}}	56,637	6,180	6,882	7,289	9,045	7,362
{{uw-disruptive3}}	31,703	3,269	3,208	3,561	4,488	3,951
{{uw-npov1}}	69,348	6,696	7,304	7,552	8,624	8,789
{{uw-npov2}}	23,329	1,488	1,714	1,743	1,778	1,958
{{uw-npov3}}	7,448	429	525	509	595	613
{{uw-npov4}}	3,220	143	250	215	254	273
{{uw-biog1}}	81,690	7,563	9,285	11,200	10,382	10,762
{{uw-biog2}}	30,149	2,011	2,336	3,012	2,925	3,179
{{uw-biog3}}	13,446	775	929	1,162	1,130	1,330
{{uw-biog4}}	5,433	347	428	482	533	636
{{uw-biog4im}}	5,140	240	299	326	295	361
{{uw-nor1}}	36,927	2,807	2,927	4,756	3,627	4,664
{{uw-nor2}}	11,067	817	847	1,154	1,048	1,145
{{uw-nor3}}	4,520	278	286	457	378	483
{{uw-nor4}}	2,417	168	214	214	234	239
{{uw-error1}}	67,376	5,377	6,193	6,897	7,550	9,683
{{uw-error2}}	35,185	2,168	2,555	3,004	3,407	4,091
{{uw-error3}}	17,631	901	1,059	1,329	1,802	1,997
{{uw-error4}}	4,072	419	498	691	747	926

Recent improvements to template {{find substed}} have enabled the easy[-ier] discovery of the number of particular warning templates in use on User talk pages, and how those numbers have varied year over year. As a proof of concept, please see Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/warnings by year. These data could be expanded in several ways (more templates, more years) and/or used to plot time-series graphs, to give a view of how usage of warning templates varies over time. This, in turn, may be useful in providing data to analyze any number of issues, and should be helpful for WP:Editor retention. Note: numbers in the table are static, and figures in the first two columns will go stale over time, but other columns should remain stable. Links are dynamic, and should provide the correct statistic for each cell. Expansions are possible, such as, 'this month', 'this quarter', and so on. Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

{{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#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)

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)

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)

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)