Template talk:Uw-plotsum1

General discussion about template merits

Contents of discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films

Hi there. I already mentioned this on the Talk page for the style guidelines, but thought I should drop a note here as well. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) These could be helpful for helping to guide editors to the guidelines on plot summaries. Thank you for developing the templates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you, and you're welcome! :) Doniago (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry for chiming in this late about the templates. I don't think templates such as this are necessary but, if we must have a template, it should serve as a notification to the user, not a warning. I would be in favour of a single-level template (not an escalating system of warnings) that avoids classifying edits to a plot summary as not constructive. Calling something not constructive can easily make a bad first impression and alienate a new editor who came in good faith to add something from his knowledge to the encyclopedia but hasn't been around long enough to read MOS:FILM. Editors such as that need to be educated, not warned. I would suggest a template that contains no wording notifying the user that their edits are not wanted but to state something along the lines of: Thank you for your recent contribution to [film article]. It is preferred for film articles on Wikipedia to follow a manual of style that serves as a guide on how film articles are best improved. If some of your recent edits have been changed or removed, it is possible that another editor attempted to improve upon your addition by conforming it to the manual of style. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have about the above manual of style at WikiProject Films' talk page where the members of the project will be happy to help you. That's just a draft. It's not perfect but you get the idea. If a user keeps making further non-MOS conforming edits after a template such as this is posted on someone's talk page, I suggest using your own words to talk to them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Hi there...I hope you don't mind if I number your points in my response, to keep things better organized for me- Well, I don't think this template should be necessary, and it's certainly not a must-have, but I've been in more than one situation where users inflated plot summaries by significant amounts, and having a standardized warning around, for me at least, was preferable to writing-up essentially the same message on repeated occasions, especially if I wanted to include links and attempt to be thorough. I certainly don't feel that any editor should feel compelled to use these templates if they have issues with them. I modeled the wording for the templates from the standard vandalism templates, where level one is defined as AGF, while level two is a no-faith assumption (in this instance I can't really imagine issuing a level two without a level one having already been given). If the feeling is that even the level one wording is too 'warning' and not enough 'advice', I'd welcome suggestions for how to change it (see below notes, though). If a user were to continue inflating plot summaries after receiving both warnings, I'd think they're at risk of being considered a vandal and potentially looking at a 3RR issue. I think people tend to overlook the actual wording of the template. It doesn't call edits unconstructive, it says they -appear to be- unconstructive. The key difference to me is that an element of doubt is explicitly indicated. I'm somewhat concerned that your suggested wording is film-centric, while I intend for the templates to apply to other areas where word-count and such is stipulated as well, such as novels, non-fiction books, etc. If you think a more specific template is the way to go though, I'd be curious to hear from others on that point. One of the reasons I prefer templates is that I -don't- trust my own words not to be poorly-constructed and/or misinterpreted and I find it comforting for there to be a standard that others have reviewed and (generally) agreed upon as well. In any case, while we seem to have a difference of opinion on how best to approach this issue, I certainly appreciate your feedback and hope that you understand where I'm coming from. Please let me know if you have additional questions/concerns! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Some of those style guidelines are pretty long-winded. The Film MOS tackles the subject of plot length directly so maybe it would be better to direct editors to WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Why? That makes the template purely for Film usage, where as Doniago seems to clearly intend for it to be useable for all media articles. I think his idea makes it a much more globally usable template, and properly directs people to the appropriate reading for a specific article (Film's plot guidelines apply only to films, after all). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC) If it's for use on all media articles why are we discussing it on the Film Project? Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC) because folks replied here instead of at the template talk page as requested :-P And we are one of several projects who would likely want to know it exists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Well I'd appreciate a link to the main discussion then so I can consider everyone's point of view. I don't see much point in having separate discussions about the same template spanning different projects. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Ideally the template talk page itself would be where the main discussion occurred...which is why I did request that discussion occur there, rather than, say, here. I would favor moving further discussion there and just linking back to this conversation. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I don't have an issue with it being a template spanning several different WikiProjects and subject matters and I do see a clear benefit in it being that way; I only object to the issue of it being a warning and being worded as such. By nature, warnings can be interpreted as somewhat forceful and aggressive. Warning someone of unconstructive edits can easily be seen as an unnecessarily more aggressive approach compared to a gentler approach of informing someone of something they didn't know (as opposed to something they did wrong). Whenever a gentler or more cordial way of resolving any issue is possible, it should be preferred over a more forceful one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC) True. Perhaps just a single level, like other single issue notices? While it is aggrieving to deal with, unless it is an OR or copyright issue, it isn't a warnable offense per se. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'd definitely be open to this approach if people feel this is more appropriate than the two-tiered version (FWIW I never intended to take it beyond that, since I think if a user actually needed a level-three version there's probably larger editing issues at stake). Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Betty, there isn't a centralized discussion on this. Notices were posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) and here. The anime talk page has some feedback, the other pages don't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'd like to request that, per my original request, further discussion of the template(s) take place at their talk pages rather than here, so that anyone with an interest in them can see the discussion without having to peruse the various project pages for possible discussion. Of course, linking back here would probably be useful. (smile) Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Contents of discussion from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)

Hi there. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) So you don't think {{plot}} handles those just fine? is there a need to "warn" editors about it? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The advisories I created are intended for users who are disregarding the {{plot}} template or bloating summaries to a degree that the template would then be needed. The lower-level template, IMO, does assume good faith and doesn't assume a user knows what the guidelines are. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Does it really happen all that often that a single user does that? In my experience, it's often a lot of edits that accumulate over time that are the most pernicious. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't happen all that often, but having the template around can't hurt either IMO (and I ran it past a couple of other editors before posting here). There is the occasional persistent editor who will continue to reinsert the same huge material, however, and none of the existing templates seemed to address this kind of issue specifically...certainly not with links to the pertinent guidelines. Doniago (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) There is a discussion ongoing here about the templates as well. My view can be summed up as this: whenever possible (which is almost always, in these types of situations), I'd prefer to notify someone that there's something they may not know rather than warning them that they did something wrong. I worry about the possibility of newbies being frightened by such templates, expecially in escalating levels. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Contents of discussion from User talk:Millahnna

Hiya! I found myself bored, so I thought I'd branch out a bit and develop a "standard" advisory for when users are bloating plot summaries. You can view the template at Template:Uw-plotsum1 and it should be implemented as "{{subst:Uw-plotsum1|Article}} ~~~~". If/when I get particularly ambitious I may even add documentation. I'd love to hear what you think...but this is my first time doing something like this, so please be kind. :) Doniago (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I see you used some of the one I was developing, cool. (Deftonesderrick 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)) It was easier than writing one up from scratch. :) But seriously, thanks for giving me a very good starting point! Doniago (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) No problem! You actually inspired me to finish mine and get them on template pages. You can find them here. (Deftonesderrick 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)) Awesome! You, sir, are teh poo, as the kids say. I actually saved the long thing I wrote on Timmy's page to put up as an essay in my user space for a similar purpose. Template will be great for the most part but I figure when folks seriously ask that "why not all the details" question I can point them to that. I'm going to draft it into something a little less directed at one specific editor. I'm wondering, since plots of all varieties are so heavily edited, even though not even close to all wiki articles even have plots, do you think the twinkle or friendly peeps would be amenable to adding this? Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Deft-Cool. We should probably try to adopt a standard...it seems like you were working on these before I ever got involved, so I'd be happy to defer to you. I was thinking about a level 2 warning as well. Anything beyond that can probably be covered by general vandalism (if not outright edit warring). Millahanna-It can't hurt to ask. :) I'd love to have it as a Rollback option myself.Doniago (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Groovy. I think what I'll do is give it a little while of us using it to make sure there aren't any changes y'all want to make and then go bug em. Remind me to do something with this conversation so I don't lose the format when it gets archived. I can't keep all of these templates in my skull. Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (laughs) That's what Notepad is for. Okay I'm kidding, but I do keep my most-used templates there for easy reference. Also, I must say that Timmy's talk page is becoming a source of endless amusement for me. Doniago (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) " Also, I must say that Timmy's talk page is becoming a source of endless amusement for me." QFT. I still can't decide if he's serious, 9 years old, or both. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I've added a level 2 version of the template (yep, got bored). I would think anything beyond this can be considered general vandalism if not edit warring. Unindenting for specific commentary on this version. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I left a message about the toy for newer editor who seems to be a plot god. He's been reverting the same types of plot additions and been attempting to explain in his revert edit summaries so I'm guessing he'll find it useful. Have you poked your head in at WP Films, TV and Books (Novels I think) to let them know about it? Video Games might find it useful on occasion too although I see fewer plot edit problems on the few game pages I watch than the others. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I was looking for more "localized" feedback before opening them up to the general public, but if you and Deft think my tp's are ready for primtetime, I could post something on WP Films. As far as the other media goes, I think the links need to be reviewed/more globalized for that...I believe the current ones are somewhat film-specific. Doniago (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Ah that makes sense. I think it's fine but perhaps you're right that about holding off for a bit first. You're right they are film specific but TV and Film cross over a lot so that wouldn't be too tricky (I've seen TV plot people refer people to their own MOS as well as the film one on occasion). Novels and games though; yeah you're totally right. I'm a doofus. =) As for the other editor I mentioned, Jack is new but he's catching on quickly to the ways o the force so he should be a good tester as well. He's also branched out beyond plots more than I have so he may think of something I haven't Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC). (ec)Hi. Millahnna gave me the heads up about this discussion, and I thought I'd toss my two euros in. I think the warning - which i think should be used only when the person seriously does not choose to "get the point" and lapses into disruptive editing - is pretty well-constructed. That said, I think there is a tendency to shorthand a lot of the editorial comments and sometimes, templating someone who doesn't know the rules is as unhelpful as templating the regulars. I realize that it can get pedantic, explaining the same thing to successive individuals, but how else are they going to learn? Sure, a road sign indicating stop sometimes works, but its far more instructive to explain how they might get t-boned at an intersection if they don't stop. All of us have been in the position of being new folk in the wiki at one point or another; we can all remember one unhelpful jerk or another telling us that we were wrong without telling us why we were wrong. I think that taking the time to explain builds a better editor. (stepping off soapbox) I think the wording of the template is a bit off. " your recent edits to the plot summary do not appear to be constructive" is of particlar note, as - by definition - creating material is constructive, and that comment is going to confuse anyone who thought they were adding to the article. Maybe something like, " your recent edits to the plot summary appear to be excessive and not in keeping with an encyclopedic entry" would be a better wording. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Hi Jack, Thanks for your feedback. The first plot summary message is intended to be more of an advisory and a "Welcome to Wikipedia, we're glad to have you...but you should know this...", which the second message is definitely more of a "Hey, we're glad you're trying to help, but you're not helping, so knock it off..." Both messages do provide multiple links to the pertinent guidelines, so I think they're definitely encouraging people to actually read the rules rather than just saying they broke them. Additionally a level 1 (and possibly level 2 depending on your perspective) warning shouldn't be taken -too- seriously...for most editing issues there's 4 levels, and that's assuming you commit the violations in a fairly short time-span. If a user persists in bloating the same article more than twice, than they're not only, IMO, probably a vandal (and not taking the hint) but possibly edit warring as well...they definitely don't have the guidelines on their side at that point. At any rate, at that point we might as well revert to the standard vandalism warnings that specifically mention the possibility of a block for bad behavior. "do not appear to be constructive" is taken directly from the level-one (or two?) vandalism warnings. I think it's diplomatic to indicate that the warning issuer acknowledges that others may disagree. Creating material isn't constructive if it lowers the quality of the article....which is essentially what plot-bloat does. As I said, the warning messages (I prefer to use the term "advisory", FWIW) do link to the various guidelines, so people shouldn't, IMO, be wondering why they're being told off...they can look it up. Or ask, if they're still confused. Hope this all makes sense, and thanks again! Doniago (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It does make sense, and I appreciate you responding so quickly, Doniago (clever play on words for the handle. btw). My main concern is that some of the ways we tend to treat each other as editors - including newbies - tend to push away those uninitiated to wiki-en shorthand. When I was editing as an anon, I found that - with few notable (and wonderful) exceptions - I wasn't given the assumption of good faith by most other editors simply because I was seen as a newbie (which I certainly am not). I think that user templates fail to accomplish their goal, and tend to create more problems than they resolve. The sole exception to this, imho, are the vandalism and edit-waring templates. Those remind the recipient that they are treading on very thin ice where our policies are concerned. they very use of the template serves to reinforce the weight of what's a-coming if they don't cease and desist. A user who adds content isn't trying to be a dick; they are innocently trying to expand an article, and are unaware of what's allowed. Instead of indirectly assuming bad faith that the person cannot be educated (or simply that you haven't the time to educate them - which is pretty sloppy and uncivil in my book) and throwing a template at them, I think the encyclopedia is better off helping the person to understand what an encyclopedia is. Point out the specific definition of a plot summary is and contrast it to what they are doing. Most new or inexperienced editors are going to become defensive about being templated, esp. when it wasn't prefaced by specific talk as to what they were doing wrong. With respect to your second point, "Creating material isn't constructive if it lowers the quality of the article....which is essentially what plot-bloat does", you and I both know that one editor's bloat is another's "better explanation". I despise bloat as well (pretty much on the same plane as cruft). Again, we - as more experienced editors - are supposed to help the new folk along in the wiki learning curve. Assuming that they are there to screw up the article on purpose is quintessential bad faith. If the person adding bloat refuses to get the point, they are being disruptive, and calling them onto the AN/I carpet allows wiki learning to take place with several teachers. Usually, just helping the person learn creates a better editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know if this helps but a couple of the warning templates that twinkle pulls from recently had their wording changed to reflect a more AGF mentality (specifically the level one and two of editing tests, if I recall correctly). I'd have to check the twinkle talk page to remember the specifics of the changes but the concept was along the lines of what you're saying here and apparently this issue has been cropping up all over the place (overly zealous speedy deletion templates has been contentious of late). Basically they went with a softer wording to allow for the fact that some silliness or unencyclopedic content from an anon or new editor might be an honest attempt at an improvement. That said, Doniago does link to some plot summary guidelines in there and I, personally, am a fan of including a personal message on templates when they aren't obvious vandalism or sock puppetry (like the TimmyPolo situation which is likely what brought this on). Perhaps this is a matter of just changing the wording a bit? I can't help it, I love the idea of having something basic to to draw on like this, though I do see your point about how it could be abused. With respect to how you were treated as an anon, I can give an example. When I first spotted you, you were doing a fantastic job of cleaning up the U.K. tv show Survivors. And your edits kept getting reverted one particular editor who probably just looked at the summary in recent changes and saw a big red negative number with an IP editor. I distinctly got the impression they didn't even look at WHAT you'd changed, though they seemed to mean well. Although I don't think that particular editor actually templated you, I still found it odd at the time. I do recent changes patrols sometimes and I have a very different method. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Hi Jack. I understand your concerns about AGF, but Level 1 advisories are intended to be AGF to begin with...hence the welcoming to WP and the "appear to be" lines. As long as the template is worded in a manner utilizing AGF, I think that should be sufficient. Giving someone a template warning isn't in and of itself failure to AGF...definition-wise, even a level 2 warning is technically a no-faith assumption. It's 3 and higher that are bad faith assumptions. For the templates I created I did try to use the level 1 and 2 language as much as possible, since hopefully the editors who put those together know what they're talking about (smile). Even so, if an editor is concerned that the template will come across poorly, there's no requirement for it to be used. As I indicated, I don't feel that L1 and L2 templates are "you're treading on thin ice". L1 to me is more a "Welcome and thanks for your help, but you shouldn't really do what you just did," while L2 is "We appreciate that you're trying to help, but you're not helping." L3 OTOH is definitely more "Knock it off or we'll block you." I guess we may need to agree to disagree on this, but it's always been my feeling that some editors take template usage (when it's used against them, anyway) far too seriously. Also, as has been said, both the L1 and L2 templates do point to the pertinent guidelines...I mean, while I'm obviously biased, if I got one of these templates thrown at me I'd go "Huh, I'd better follow those links and see what they're talking about," not, "WTH am I getting templates thrown at me for no reason?" I really do feel they are worded in a way that a normal editor would tend to think isn't particularly offensive, but I do welcome suggestions. Anyway, thanks again for your feedback. I hope I didn't sound overly-critical of your concerns, but I guess we may have somewhat different perspectives on this. I suspect the first time I ever heard about this issue was when I saw an article marked for having too lengthy a plot, at which time I read up on the guidelines, so I was never a "victim" of plot-bloat reversion myself. Doniago (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Milahnna, you (and Erik) were one of the wonderful exceptions I alluded to. I didn't mean to suggest that Doniago thinks that most of the folk adding crufty content are vandals or fanboys. I just think that talking is better than templating in those cases not consisting of outright vandalism or disruptive behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Well, people certainly aren't required to use the templates. There are people (like myself) who are more comfortable with some sort of standard they can refer to...or who just find themselves always basically restating the same thing...and that's what templates are for. I think some users have a tendency to read too much into template usage, but obviously that's an opinion. Honestly, I don't think these templates will see a lot of use, but they seem to be "nice to have" as an option. Doniago (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think where they'll be ideal is with situations like TimmyPolo seemed to be at first (and before he started actually asking direct questions). In that case we tried with the edit summaries but faced persistence without acknowledgment or direct communication, at first . Eventually he did ask questions and that opened up a more personalized line of talking with him. And of course in that specific case the whole situation was moot as he was a sock. But if a well intended newer editor was doing the same thing it's something we could fall back on. I am still going to tweak my essay thingy, though, for additional backup. It's kicking around in my sandbox waiting for me to have time to come play. All I've been able to do lately are recent changes on my watchlist and a sentence tweak here and there. Job hunting kind of sucks the time right out of my day. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I did a bit of an overhaul of the templates, cleaning up grammar and standardizing them. Links for films, novels and non-fiction books are now included. For other genres I didn't see much in the way of guidelines specifically related to the plot other than the general references. If nobody has any objections I'll probably open these up for general consumption in a couple of days. Thanks for the feedback everyone! Doniago (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me. In light of Jack's concerns, I will probably include some friendly personal message at the end if/when I use it. Hopefully when you're ready to open it up, other editors will have some good feedback as well. Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)}}

This discussion is being centralized to avoid redundant discussion over several different project talk pages. Above are the comments offered so far. Please pitch in below. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Responding to Doniago's five point response to me, I must say that in four years I can't think of a single occasion where I would have had to use a template like this. Plot summaries most often become bloated when many overzealous IPs gradually add a sentence here and there over a long period of time. It's not usually one editor that's responsible for a mammoth-sized plot summary on their own although I'll concede that exceptions to the rule may exist. The tide of IPs coming in and adding further detail cannot be stemmed with such measures. We have in place processes for dispute resolution that work well and cover any scenario in which this template would be used, including edit warring and vandalism.

Telling an editor that their edits "do not appear to be constructive" is, in this case, identical to telling them their edits "are not constructive". The "element of doubt" is lost as soon as we show the editor that their edit was against MOS guidelines which, the template would appear to suggest, is considered unconstructive. Hence, edits against MOS no longer only appear to be unconstructive, we proved how they are unconstructive.

My suggested wording was meant to be a guide only on the tone of the informational notification, not on the scope of the subject matter. I know little about other projects' MOS guidelines so I was sticking only to that which I know. By all means, feel free to revise it any which way you wish in order to not exclude other subject matters. So long as the template's tone doesn't make the receiving editor feel like they are unable to properly contribute because of the overwhelming amount of documentation they must read before they can help without being warned with phrases such as "your recent edits...do not appear to be constructive." We warn people for actions that they should reasonably know are not in Wikipedia's best interest. Someone who makes an edit such as this one is not trying to harm Wikipedia and should not be warned. At the end of the day, the purpose of a system of escalated warnings is to notify you that there are consequences (WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN) if you keep doing what you're doing. No one gets blocked for writing long plot summaries, why escalate their warnings? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I added contents from a third discussion from User talk:Millahnna. I wasn't aware of it initially but Millahnna was kind enough to notify me. Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was pretty early on in Doniago's process but I figured it might help anyone with feedback who might like to see how he's progressed with suggestions and comments thus far. I hadn't really thought about the types of concerns Jack had until he brought them up. I still think the template is useful but those concerns (and likewise Big Bird's) do merit some consideration of HOW we use the template for those of us who feel so inclined. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Second parameter should be optional

I noticed that if all you do is {{subst:uw-plotsum1|Article}}, it will show a literal {{{2}}} before your signature. Perhaps that should default to "Thank you." if not specified. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the coding mojo to make that change, but I'd support it. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Not that difficult apparently! DonIago (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be merged with (redirected to) Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace?

Per what is stated on the top of that page. Geolodus (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so? It's my understanding that it's fine to discuss concerns relating to a specific template at that template's Talk page, just as we don't move all discussion of a specific film to WT:FILM. That said, I'm not an expert on this. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It should, I believe. I've redirected 3 warning templates' talk pages to that page. The Silent Ones (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, things may have changed in the last three years as well. :p DonIago (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)