Template talk:Dont remove warnings

 

 

 

Do we actually have anything like a policy that says users can't remove warnings from their talk page?

I don't have a problem with it, and especially when people get spammed with generic warnings I am not surprised they feel inclined to remove them... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think removing warnings from a talk page in good faith is not a problem. But as you probably know, the ones that actually really need to have a dossier, are inclined to remove the stain on their reputation. I'm assuming this template is for them :). Siebrand 06:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And giving them yet another template is going to improve the situation, how exactly? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not really know. As you may have seen the template was created by User:Lar a while ago. Best ask him? I at least have not used the template at any time... Siebrand 07:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of this template?

I think we don't have a policy about this, and if we do we should not. If we don't have a policy, this particular templated message might not be a good idea. Perhaps we should delete it? If we keep it, I'd put back part of this dif [1] (the part about if you see this text you're editing the master copy not the user page) ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I put back that comment. I didn't think we needed it anymore, but if you think it should be there then it's cool. These warnings should always be subst'd anyway. The policy we do have does mention it, but I think this template does need to be reworded. The line "If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page" should definitly change as I think most wouldn't call it vandalism or would block people because of it. If we keep this, it should do what the policy page does and simply mention removing warnings is discouraged. (I think we should have something for those new users that delete warnings as soon as they see them without any response.) Rocket000 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a template gadget that can be used somewhere which will warn of not substing if we went that way but no, we don't normally subst the warning templates here... they're multilingual after all. Still, this template doesn't fit the overall vibe here, I did it long ago when I first got involved here. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No? Well, anyways, I'm fine with deleting this template. I never used it and I don't think I ever would. If the user's constant removal becomes a problem I'd probably just write them my own message. It's rare enough of an occasion where a template isn't necessary, at least to me. Templates are overused and I find just writing a sentence or two works much better (granted they speak English). That's one good thing about temps. on Commons though—the multilingual part. Rocket000 08:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 delete!!! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've used it a couple of times and the feedback was terrible. I don't use it any longer. We don't need templates that give bad feedback. We can just ask people to archive their pages. Patrícia ^msg 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this template is appropriate either, it is basically demanding that people 'wear' warnings given by others. Why? They have implicitly acknowledged they have seen the warning (more so than if it had been removed by an automatic archive bot), and it is in their page history if they ever dispute that they were warned. --Tony Wills 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea of message templates in general is a good one, I feel (although not everyone agrees), as we are multilingual and if one guesses wrong, there are other templates for the receiver to choose from. But clearly this particular one hasn't worked out very well at all. So do we nuke it (and its siblings in other languages) from orbit and clean up the places where it was linked (or perhaps subst it as needed?), or do we do the standard delete discussion or what? :) No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more... ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we just delete it as this talk page can serve as our deletion discussion. Someone can run a bot to subst all those in use so we don't alter history. If people feel a need for it later, they can make a less demanding friendlier one. Rocket000 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I fired up AWB and I confess, I'm not totally clear on what to do. What I am finding are that there are a fair number of invocations of Template:Dont remove warnings/lang... if we subst those away, and get rid of the template itself in the language variants, we then lose the language "transparency" for users who don't speak english as their primary lang. (in many cases, the en version of the template already WAS subst'd as the text is already on the talk page...) So... ??? ... I wonder if we are "stuck" leaving it all in place and all we can do is deprecate its use with big red text? Or maybe make it much friendlier NOW, instead of deprecating? thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was only one transclusion of the template that wasn't already a subst'ed text and wasn't on, for instance, the tracking page where we work on message templates, but was rather in user space. I fixed that with Larbot. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative wording for friendly version

"Hi, I noticed that you removed a warning message from your talk page, I hope that you read it first and responded in an appropriate way :-). The warning will of course remain in your talk page's history, but you could consider archiving your talk page regularly instead of deleting material (this can be done with MiszaBot). If the warning has been removed without the problem having been dealt with, do not be supprised if you get another warning :-) --~~~~"

Insert links and correct spelling as appropriate :-) --Tony Wills 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is against Wikipedia policy. Users can remove anything from their talk pages

See en:WP:TALK. Users can remove anything from their talk pages, and they can do it without archiving it. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. And this template is being abused by some editors, who falsely claim it is a rule. There is no legitimate reason to force users to keep warning templates on their talk pages. The guideline COM:TALK recommends, but does not require, users to keep warning templates. In my opinion, this template should be deprecated as it serves no purpose other than to brand users as malfeasants. - MrX 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion here already agreed that this template was not valid. The creator of this template, Lar, wrote: "No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more..."

Elvey solved the problem of how to deal with this invalid template by deprecating it. See this December 16, 2012 diff. Elvey added this tag: {{Deprecated}} --Timeshifter (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Updating this template

There is currently a discussion about updating this template at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Updating Template:Dont remove warnings. GMG^talk 13:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I updated the English template according to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/11#Updating_Template:Dont_remove_warnings. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is terrible

It starts (emphasis added):

This is a reminder for you that removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page without addressing the identified issues is discouraged according to our community guidelines.

Firstly, I think it is really referring to Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?; if so, it should link directly there. Secondly, the guideline discourages deletion of comments even after they have been addressed.

The template will soon return to this theme of discouragement, but first, this bit gets in the way:

Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history

The template returns to discouragement:

and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community.

Actually, this is more than just discouragement; such strong wording does not seem to be supported by the guideline.

Then the template moves on to alternatives:

You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions.

This actually links to the same page as the previous link, but the shortcut disguises this fact.

The template continues:

You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}} or {{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page ...

Seriously? It recommends the use of a template in user space? And to make it even worse, this recommendation is being substituted every time it is used? Even without considering how it fits in to the overall template, this stands out as a bad thing! Luckily, Commons:ARCHIVE does not make this mistake. Why is this template inconsistent with that page? Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: People keep changing User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup to make dangerously large archives, so I made my own at User:Jeff G./usertalksetup. Where should it be?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Instead of making a new template, address the problem at User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup. Or maybe just get rid of this idea of "dangerously large" pages. If we really want to protect users with not much computing resources, let's do it in MediaWiki. Brianjd (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymnes. Brianjd (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the current wording about deletions is appropriate. Deletion is discouraged by the guideline and it's clear from the three DRs that a significant part of the community feels that deleting warnings is inappropriate. "seen as rude or hostile" may be a little strong, but not far out of line.

As far as the archiving goes, I make no comment. I archive my talk page manually and have never seen the need to it automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jim: I started automatically archiving over 14 years ago, although the sorting of my archive names is suboptimal.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that links should show where they go and that linking a template in user page is bad. The advice on how to archive should be in the guideline on archiving, not in a random template. I don't know whether the wording agrees with practice, so no comment on that. –LPfi (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I just found this wonderful statement in the template’s documentation:

Archiving is not demanded by policy and removing warnings is not explicitly discouraged.

It either is or it isn’t. If we can’t get basic stuff like this sorted out, then the deletion requests for this template are meaningless. By the way, a new request has just been created.

Brianjd (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I got a notice of the deletion discussion being started again. I missed it before it got closed, but I would have suggested delete was appropriate. Failing that, I think the idea to rework this to make it more friendly and less difficult to decipher is a good idea. Looks like some good analysis has already been done. Be bold and make the changes! ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

IMHO this close was premature and the previous close was against consensus. I have restored the deprecated notice though, in line with the current documentation. A friendlier alternative would require a different name as well, I think. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As both @Lar and @Guido den Broeder have both disagreed with my closure (and disagreed with the prev close too) I've reopened the DR, Still convinced it's gonna be reclosed as keep. Consensus can change. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Davey2010 You were right. Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

But now the DR has been reopened again. Brianjd (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

202211 rewrite

i went ahead and edited Template:Dont remove warnings/en. i hope it sounds more collegial now. feel free to edit further. RZuo (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@RZuo It’s a good attempt, but I think this template is fundamentally unfixable. In fact, your attempt at rewriting it highlights the problem further: it now leads with something other than what its title suggests, namely the removal of warnings. (Nitpick: It also had a sentence with two links to the same page, a fact disguised by the redirect. I have removed the redirect link.) Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

the other part of my suggestion special:permalink/706082790#Amendment is to rename the template to maybe "Dont ignore warnings". RZuo (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I support that as the next-best solution given that, against consensus, the deletion of this template is actively being prevented. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about edits related to opening/closing the DR

@Guido den Broeder Regarding the DR: restoring an archived discussion that should not be modified is not vandalism. Please stop edit warring there. Brianjd (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Yann, Jeff G. as users who did such restoration. Brianjd (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I'm not the one editwarring. While the instructions say do not add to a closed discussion, it doesn't follow that such an addition (due to an edit conflict) should then as a matter of course be deleted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC) @Guido den Broeder: So what should the penalty be?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Note that the DR has been reopened as it was closed prematurely by a non-neutral user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC) @Davey2010: When you reopened the DR, did you mean to also change the {{Deprecated}} template parameter? Brianjd (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Hi @Brianjd, I did, Whilst I do agree with the wording the !keepers here wont and it just causes more unnecessarily edit wars, Once the DRs closed you're more than welcome to readd it back but for now I'd rather everyone concentrates on the template and not the side issue (your addition of the wording), If the wording is left people will only comment on that and we wont get anywhere, Hope that helps, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC) @Davey2010 My addition? What are you talking about? To be clear, my previous comment referred to revision 706462975, where you changed {{deprecated}} to {{deprecated|note='''''This template is abused to enforce non-existent policy'''''}} in addition to restoring the DR notice. That note on {{Deprecated}} had previously been removed by Jeff G. because the DR contravenes it. Brianjd (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Brianjd, I thought my reply to you above made it obvious I had no idea I reinstated that text .... apparently not. If I commented saying I didn't agree with it and that you can readd it back later why the holy hell would I then add it back intentionally ?, Instead of being a dick or like "WhAt ArE yOu TaLkInG aBoUt?" you could've simply removed the text as again it should've been abundantly clear to you that I had no idea I had even reinstated it. –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Davey2010 We can both argue that something should have been clear. When I asked if you intended to do something, it should have been clear that it was in fact you that did it. But we should probably let this go now, before someone says something they regret. Brianjd (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) No but instead of replying you've could've simply removed the text and let me know I in fact didn't remove the text in the first place?, Anyway as you note below I've finally removed it. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)  Done Note has been removed again. Brianjd (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)