Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is indefinitely semi-protected from editing as it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit semi-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor, extended-confirmed editor or autoconfirmed editor to make the requested edit.

This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.

Is there a template that can be used for users that admit to using multiple accounts, though not necessarily in violation of sockpuppetry guidelines? I've come across this a good few times, enough to where a dedicated template would be nice to have. A lot of other platforms have very lax de facto rules on alternate accounts, and given that there are no doubt many people cheaply making first and second Wikipedia accounts paying no mind to the frankly convoluted and out-of-the-way sockpuppetry policy (which also isn't at Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines or Wikipedia:Five pillars, and only appears in an infobox at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines--I imagine many a newcomer would miss it, and speaking from experience--I didn't know about sockpuppetry until after I made a second account and forgot the password of the first). Departure– (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your intention to template User:Redrose64a? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first make sure your expectations are aligned, Departure–. First off, you can have many accounts without that being a problem. You can even have many accounts and not saying so in a perfectly legitimate way (and maybe not being aware you've used several accounts or, as you say, even be aware how multiaccounting could be an issue). This is detailed at WP:SOCKPUPPET. Do you feel the issue is that WP:SOCKPUPPET is hard to find? Do you feel the circumstances around this is adequately laid out? I'm asking because we prefer to say "I am disclosing my alternate account" and not "I admit to using two accounts", because the latter implies you have done something wrong, which is not necessarily the case. More specifically, the general answer (as opposed to Redrose64's specific one) would be to look at WP:ALTNOTIFY. Does this help? CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-spamublock is one of our longest block templates and suffers from the "wall of text" effect. I've shortened it a bit at Template:uw-spamublock/sandbox (condensing the Before requesting a new username... sentence into point 4. above), and I'm thinking of making more changes if there is consensus for it. For instance, If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change... is unnecessarily passive-aggressive and could be shortened into You may request an unblock and a username change... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My spontaneous reflection is that "wall of text" is not a problem in a case like this, where the reader is only supposed to focus on this single template. "Wall of text" is a problem when the "wall" gets in the way of the bits of a page readers want to focus on, where the amount of boilerplate becomes so large it just blurs together and gets skipped. When the wall is intended as an actual wall, as in "look at this and nothing else", then the fact the text is substantial is not the issue it might be elsewhere. I'm not saying I'm actively opposing your changes, I'm saying maybe focus your efforts elsewhere? CapnZapp (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that, even in this single template, the amount of information is overwhelming for an editor who already might not be very familiar with how Wikipedia works, especially after having gotten multiple other templates (various warnings, welcome templates, speedy deletions, etc.)

The more concise we can make the information, the easier it is for the reader to focus on what is important, especially as we're not removing any information but just making it more concise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used for a highly specific and complicated case, where someone has a) named their account after their company (etc) AND then b) proceeded to use that account for promotional purposes. Taking this into account, I don't think the presentation is overly verbose. Not every message can be very short and small. Remember, most people reading this message weren't here to contribute anyway. Maybe "overwhelming" information can even be beneficial in this case, if it scares away those who would only follow an easier set of instructions to do more spam...? Again, not opposing you, just reminding you not every "wall of text" needs to be torn down, and before you proceed, maybe actually consider whether this one really is urgent to fix. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, my proposal isn't an easier set of instructions, but rewording the exact same instructions in a more concise way. I also don't see why "urgency" is an issue, as we wouldn't lose any time by just implementing it – in fact, it would have been done faster than a long back-and-forth consensus discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add documentation to one specific single notice template? CapnZapp (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the documentation template used on the page: {{templates notice|extra usage=specific usage notes}} or {{block notice|extra usage before=specific usage notes}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response, andrybak. I now understand the {{Single notice}} standardized template also features this |extra usage= parameter. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following bullet point to the usage notes of this template's documentation:

• Use this template if you have concerns that someone you have reason to believe has a registered account is editing while logged out of that account (using a temporary account) and those edits are inappropriate

Because I felt that the template's message wasn't sufficiently self-documenting. In particular, when users are sent to this template from WP:LOGOUT it's made clear the circumstances in which to use the template. But if you happen upon the template without that context, several things stood out as not sufficiently clear:

1. you need a reason to think the temporary editor has a registered account
2. the edits of the TA needs to be inappropriate
3. what is meant by "your intention" here? The template completely fails to detail the scenario where edits are deemed controversial enough to merit its use, though at the same time, logging in would make those concerns vanish?

Just the text of the template Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. can easily be interpreted as "you should never make logged-out edits"* or even "you should always log in before making controversial edits", which is a much simplified version of the actual policy.
*) Over at the index of message templates, the only guidance you get is that this template is for "Editing while logged out" as if all editing while logged-out is inappropriate.

I have not changed this message, but one improvement would be to avoid the passive voice where we notice you have made edits while logged out (which could be perfectly acceptable edits), and only then in-kind-of-passing implies that these might have been controversial. It would have been much more direct, open, and to the point (and avoid me having to add the usage bullet point) if the template directly addressed these facts. Maybe:

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. Please be mindful Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts prohibits editors from using alternate accounts (including temporary ones) to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus as detailed at WP:BADSOCK. You can avoid issues related to this by making sure you are logged in before editing. Thank you.

This makes it clear that when you tag somebody with this template you are saying you think they are editing while logged out, and you are also saying you think these edits are controversial. If you don't have reason to suspect the user has a registered account, don't use this template. If the edits aren't controversial, don't use this template. What do y'all think? CapnZapp (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I amended {{uw-pronouns3}} to say If you continue to introduce incorrect pronouns into articles... instead of ...into an article... because I felt it was more flexible and (not as importantly) more consistent across other level-3 templates (e.g. {{uw-talkinarticle3}}). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Uw-unsourced1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Clarify where the "page history" link goes, per MOS:LINKCLARITY. The text looks like it goes to WP:Page history, but actually it goes to the history of a specific page.

— W.andrea (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this correctly, the "page history" text only appears as a link when the warning is used in conjunction with a specific article. To my mind, in that context it makes sense that the link "the page history" would link to the history for that specific page. Can you perhaps provide an example of where you saw "page history" as a link in a case where you felt it was suboptimal or unexpected that it linked to the history for a specific article? DonIago (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the link "the page history"

You mean the link "page history", right?

the "page history" text only appears as a link when the warning is used in conjunction with a specific article.

Yeah, but you have to read the code to know that. — W.andrea (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point being I'm not sure why one would want the "page history" link to point to anywhere other than the page history for a given article when the link only appears when a specific article is referenced in the warning when issued. This is why I asked whether you might have an example of the link behaving in a manner seemingly contrary to what one might reasonably expect.

Unless you were just talking about improving the documentation for the template to more clearly mention that, in which case...sure, why not? DonIago (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you were just talking about improving the documentation

Eh? I put a diff of my proposed change. Can you not see it?

the link only appears when a specific article is referenced

Again, you have to read the code to know that. Someone receiving the template won't know that, or even someone issuing it if they haven't read the code.

My point being I'm not sure why one would want the "page history" link to point to anywhere other than the page history for a given article

Yes, we're on the same page about that. I was momentarily confused when I was issuing the template because the link text looks like it goes to WP:Page history. — W.andrea (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really understand what you're proposing (as I said twice now, an example might be helpful to me). As such, I'll defer to other editors. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it the request is for the link "...the page history" to be changed to "...the page history", that is, the inclusion of the word "the" into the actual link (so the word "the" also gets blue). Again, as I see it the rationale is that the first link would be presumed to go to an article on page histories in general (WP:Page History) while the second would go to a specific article's page history. The template looks like this:

Hello, I'm CapnZapp. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Disney, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Specifically, the sentence "If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history." This sentence only shows when you use the template for a specific article, Disney in my example case.

Do note I'm not taking a stance whether the current phrasing is unclear, nor whether the proposed tweak really improves anything.

CapnZapp (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the Village Pump that may be of interest to users here. You can take part here. Matt Deres (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what does the "im" in {{Uw-vandalism4im}} mean?
Note: Template talk:Uw-vandalism4im redirects here. Thanks! SeaDragon1 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaDragon1: "im" is for "immediate"; see for example this 2009 thread. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Really wish templates could start explaining their name choice. SeaDragon1 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not explained at every template. It is explained once, here: WP:UWLEVELS. And the explanation focuses on how you use it, not how the name is derived. I've modified the explanation. CapnZapp (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay. SeaDragon1 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what kind of criteria people use to ascertain that some text is AI-generated, and from my testing it's kind of difficult to do so, at all (and, as such, is likely to produce false positives, along with the opposite, unless it has obvious elements such as placeholders that aren't replaced), as... if some site is used to try to detect them automatically (not sure if this happens or users of the above templates go with some hunches), from my observation, at most it seems to detect chatgpt; gemini also seems to have some watermark system for text, so perhaps those two can be ascertained, but there's many other models that seem to escape automated detectors, at least... ~Lofty abyss 20:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find the answers you need over at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]