Wiktionary talk:Warning

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm sorry to be critical of nearly everything you're doing here, but this is ridiculous. Most admins only rarely use warning templates at all! Having ten types and three levels for each type is overkill on overkill. The only useful thing that could be done is to write a single template which covers everything and is really concise. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, currently used warning templates that I know of are {{notwikipedia}} and {{test}}. There is also some practise of using {{welcome}} and a short note. Conrad.Irwin 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Atelaes' comment, above. Let me explain. There are, as I see it, two reasons for a template. One is uniformity: the same format or text is desired on every page (whether for aesthetic reasons, or for readability reasons, or for bot-readability reasons, or whatever). The other reason is ease of typing: you simply don't want to type out the full content of the template each time, so instead simply put in a template. For example, {{en-noun}} is for uniformity's sake: it's very easy to type "noun (plural: nouns)". On the other hand, {{test}} is for the sake of ease of use; there's no reason every user talk page needs to have the same exact "test" message on it, but those writing it don't want to write it by hand each time. It's pretty obvious to me that the warning templates someone has suggested on the accompanying project page are for ease of use, not uniformity, like {{test}}. But, and here's the kicker, ease-of-use templates are only useful if the text they paste is widely used. If the text is not widely used, there's no point in simplifying the text's use by templatifyng it. These templates do not paste widely used text, so the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the user proposing their use wishes them to be widely used. This top-down approach, unfortunately, is familiar to me already, even in the short amount of time I have seen this user. And I'm not even referring to the policy recommendations he has made on the project page (e.g., "if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them").—msh210 03:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have stated a third reason for use of templates: easy removal from a page. This is true for any template that one hopes will be removed, such as rfv and wikify. This is irrelevant to the project page at hand, but I should have mentioned it.—msh210 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of you may have failed to notice, that there is currently an "in use" tag on the article, meaning it is not finished. As I have already discussed with an admin, the page is not how it will be when it is finished. Next time, before you take delight in constantly opposing everything I do, I suggest you investigate a little more, as this is certainly becoming tiring now. Cheers. Nwspel 10:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary relevant warnings[edit]

It might be a good idea to have warnings about the problems that occur here. i.e. Inserting protologisms (and/or list words), Copyright violation, etc. Conrad.Irwin 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. I'm currently trying to compile the list down, so that there are a smaller number of options, so that we don't have a massive list like they did at Wikipedia. Perhaps one could make a list of suggestions for things we need warnings on, and we can discuss as a group, whether they can be part of another warning, or need their own warning, or anything else? --nwspel tork kontribz 09:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • {{test}} is used for, things that would have been acceptable in the sandbox, but aren't on the entries.
  • Vandalism doesn't need a warning, it is instantly blocked.
  • PoV is much harder to determine, and I can't see a template being useful - it really needs a specific message.
  • Spammers occasionally need a warning, but are often just blocked.
  • Content removal comes under {{test}}.
  • I'm assuming you mean "layout policy violation" by "incorrect style" - it's a much more serious offence than that makes it sound.
  • Adding protologisms is something I often (maybe once a week-fortnight, to give an idea of the pace of Wiktionary) warn people about.
  • Copyright violation is moderately common, and easily templatised.

Conrad.Irwin 09:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of "test" because it is so ambiguous. How does a new user know what a "test" is? A test can mean anything, and as a result, should not be used when there are more appropriate templates.
Yes, in general, vandalism is blocked straight away. But if the user has other good contributions, and their last one was vandalism, it would not be appropriate to block them. Also, block templates are supposed to show why the person has been blocked, and since (based on our previous discussion at my talk page) I made level 3 template equate to a "block", the vandal3 template is used as a block template.
Would you suggest naming it "layout policy violation"?
Yes, adding protologisms could well be included, as could the copyright. Good ideas.
--nwspel tork kontribz 09:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown have been tweaked for Wiktionary, and are probably worth looking at. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If they have previsous good contributions, then it is unlikely that a templatised message will suit at all (and to be honest, it's so uncommon this isn't a problem). Test is intentionally very wide reaching, it is very useful to have a template like that which can be used in may situations - and for the times when it isn't appropriate, a personalised message is more effective. There is no practice of using "you are blocked" templates on Wiktionary, it achieves nothing as they can see they are blocked if they try and edit, and if they don't try and edit then no harm is done. As far as I am aware "Edit summary usage" is not considered an essential part of etiquette here, and not signing is hardly a blockable offence. Yes, I would very much prefer to call it "layout policy violation", you are the only person who refers to ELE as "style guide". Conrad.Irwin 09:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Block templates are certainly needed, as they explain to everyone who is reading the page, that the person was blocked, and why.
Perhaps "test" could be used as a merge of both the "adding vandalism" and "removing content" warnings?
--nwspel tork kontribz 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We have the block log, which explains perfectly adequately and unforgably - there is some javascript in WT:PREFS that pops up a banner on blocked user's pagse, but I think it might be restricted to sysops at the moment, maybe it should be opened up for everyone. Yes, that was what I was driving at with "test". Conrad.Irwin 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I support the "test" idea, but I think that the block template is rather needed. What do others think? --nwspel tork kontribz 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does everyone reading the userpage need to know the user was blocked, or why?—msh210 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Because if the user re-offends, people are able to see on their page that the user has been previously blocked for such and such a reason, and as such, will know what action to take this time, and what level of faith to assume. The blocked template also informs users of how they are able to request an unblock if they contest it. --nwspel tork kontribz 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request can be in the template the user sees when he attempts to edit (and, in my opinion, should be). As for others' seeing the userpage, (a) an Englishman's home is his castle and the user can simply remove the template once his block is over, and (b) anyone can check the block log (in fact, anyone attempting to block the user will automatically see the block log). I'm sorry, but I still don't see a need for the "has been blocked" template based on those reasons. I do see a reason to have a permanently blocked user (only) to have such a template (so people know not to leave him messages).—msh210 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot: it's customary to delete the userpage and talk page of permanently blocked users.—msh210 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The idea of not leaving a message on someone's page of why they have been blocked is completely alien to what a project like this should be aiming for. --nwspel tork kontribz 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what aim you're referring to, but note that the reason for the block is clearly visible to the user every time he tries to edit. If you like, request a (temporary) block, and you'll see.—msh210 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well... let's look at it this way, what does wiktionary have different from wikipedia for it not to include such templates? --nwspel tork kontribz 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mainly less time. There's no point in re-writing down something that is already easily visible to anyone who wishes to read it. Conrad.Irwin 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot less time, and a lot less sympathy for people who waste our time. No one is going to drop a template on a blocked user's page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is something that will need to be discussed again in the future, but anyway, if you are going to eradicate that, then shall we get rid of having multilevels, and just have one level for each wrongdoing? --nwspel tork kontribz 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(arbitrary new indentation level) Yes, I think that keeping this as simple as humanly possible is the only way it stands a chance of being used (I maintain my position that it will not work, regardless, but who knows). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping track of the comments I'm leaving on talk pages, I've created {{asdfg}} for use on the pages of people who make up words, and I think we also need a template for "Wiktionary does not use redirects". Conrad.Irwin 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, mee likee. That will save me a great deal of time. Thanks Conrad. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I just ask... why is it named "asdfg"?
--nwspel tork kontribz 08:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
While I have not been granted official license to speak for Conrad (although he really should make that authorization), I imagine that it is not a coincidence that the letters form a row of a standard keyboard, sort of implying that the user hit a bunch of random keys and then assigned it a definition. Clearly this is an exaggeration of the origins of most of our protologisms, but I think it makes a witty point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the "making up words" template should simply be part of another template... like the "do not add unsourced info" one. --nwspel tork kontribz 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's something that you'll remember, which is important (and I'll remember it, which is more important as I actually use it). I was talking with someone on IRC about it and the choice seemed to be between "UW:proto" (using the Wiktionary convention for template prefixes - my original choice, but fairly rubbish as it's not "UW:prot" or "W:proto" etc. etc.), "creative" (but that sounded too much like a marketing buzzword), or "asdfg", which is clearly made up and not worthy of inclusion. Conrad.Irwin 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia, unsourced information is not (yet?) a problem, whereas inventing words is. {{asdfg}} has a lot of necessary explanation in it (though perhaps it's still too unclear) I can't see how to build it nicely into a more generic template. Conrad.Irwin 12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)