Template talk:Warning

You can replace () with, and it won't show up unless  is activated. 16:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Unlink images
The code  should be replaced with   as it will unlink the image. Same with other templates. -- B. wilson  http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv323/kiwinami/the%20emoticons/emoticon-00159-music.gif  talk  02:01, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Proposal: Addressing the template's issues
DELETED BY REQUEST

This template has some issues, and the point of this proposal is to address them.

The draft for what it should be like is located at User:B.wilson/Warning. Here are the major changes:


 * 1) The image is unlinked - clicking on it does nothing.
 * 2) "Inappropriate behavior" to "Disruptive behavior" - not all disruption can be inappropriate. Editing userspace too much and deliberately ignoring others are certainly not inappropriate types of disruption. Therefore, the word "disruptive" would be more appropriate here, logically.
 * 3) "Will be blocked" to "May be blocked" - sometimes blocking will not happen after another form of disruption happens; sometimes the targeted user will receive another warning for another form of disruption, and it often happens here. Sometimes blocking may not occur if time passes. More logical
 * 4) And of course, blocked from editing is bold, along with "blocked" having a link to the Blocking policy.

Is there consensus to change the wording of this template to a more logical way?

Proposer: Deadline: December 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT Extended: December 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT, December 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT , December 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Change
- I agree that there is no problem with the current template, but if it's going to come down to which of these two templates is better, I am going to have to say the new one. It is indeed more clear, as he said. I think that this whole thing is overrated, but if B.wilson went through the work of creating the new template, I think that it wouldn't be much of a stretch for someone to just copy/paste it over.
 * 1) - I'm not sure about linking to the blocking policy, but the other proposed changes make sense.
 * 2) - Per Marioguy1. The new version of the template is more clear and the link to the Blocking Policy would lead the user to know what it is specifically.
 * 3) - Per ThePremiumYoshi.

Semi-Change

 * 1) I agree with 2 and 4, but not wih 1 and 3.  1 is kinda unnecessary, and 3 is way too lenient.  Saying "may" opens a possibility that you might not be blocked, even if your wrongfulbehaviour continues.
 * 2) – I support 1, 2, and 4. I oppose 3 because "may" just seems like wimpy wording and even if their next warning won't get them blocked, it does describe the ultimate consequence for their subsequent actions.
 * 3) Per Knife.
 * 4) I only agree with rule 4.
 * 5) Per Knife
 * 6) I'm gonna say yes to unlinking the image, no to changing "Inappropriate behavior" to "Disruptive behavior", no to changing "Will be blocked" to "May be blocked", and honestly I don't really care if the "blocked from editing" is bolded or if the "blocked" links to the blocking policy.
 * 7) per knife
 * 8) all
 * 9) Per Knife.

Don't Change

 * 1) Nothing's wrong with the template. First, all disruption is inappropriate (unbecoming of a reputable user), hence why it is considered disruption and why we have rules against it. Second, blocks are a last resort and are only delivered when a user chooses not to correct his or her behavior (excluding very serious offenses). The template informs the receiver that he or she will be blocked if the inappropriate behavior continues, which is reinforced by the last warning if and when necessary. Third, the blocking policy is more for the benefit of the administration than for that of all users, especially those that are exhibiting inappropriate behavior, since the policy outlines the situations that require blocking users as well as the lengths of said blocks, something that most users need not concern themselves with since they don't have the ability to carry out blocks. As an aside, the picture doesn't need to link to anything. There's already a link to the applicable section of the warning policy in the template.
 * 2) Per the words above
 * 3) Per Mario4Ever
 * 4) - Unlinking the image and linking to the Blocking Policies are good, but I don't agree with the other changes. "May be blocked" doesn't seem like strong enough wording: blocking is the ultimate fate of rule-breakers if they don't cut it out, so we should tell it like it is (plus, the other templates use "will" too when discussing future consequences). On the other hand, Warnings are a step removed from blocking, so bolding that part seems unnecessary at this point: leave it for . Also, I don't follow your logic on #2 (or perhaps it's your definition of "inappropriate" that's the issue), since it seems more like it's the other way around; not all inappropriate behaviours are disruptive - which makes the current wording more general, which is more desirable. For example, if all someone does is edit their userpage, but they don't do it in massive floods of edits, that's not disrupting RecentChanges or anything else, but it's still against the rules. A lot of the other Level 1 offences are like this too. Finally, what's with the use of  ? There's no reason to use that instead of simply typing "Super Mario Wiki"...
 * 5) - I really don't see any reason to change the  template.  Per the things that Mario4Ever and Walkazo stated.
 * 6) - Per all; it's fine as it is. Besides, as others said, this simply says that the offending user that breached certain rules needs to reconsider their actions and comply after the warning itself has been issued.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - I still support making these changes over not making them, however Walkazo's comment about deleting this proposal and then starting over with a half-half scenario seems like the best idea of all to me. And since it appears there will be no canceling the proposal, it failing is the next best thing.
 * 9) Per Walkazo and Mario4Ever.
 * 10) There is no significent difference. They both clearly state what it is enforcing, and are both formatted correctly. There is nothing wrong with the current one.
 * 11) - To withdraw this proposal

Comments
Mario4Ever: I appreciate your vote, but "the image doesn't need to link to anything" - that's something I pointed out that needs to be fixed. The image DOES link to something now, part of this proposal is to remove that link.
 * Hmm, misread that part, but I'm not going to support the proposal just for that.
 * On the matter of linking to the blocking policy, I think that we should definitely link to some sort of policy - whether it be the warning one or the blocking one - with that word. Which means either the earlier link be transferred forward or the link to the blocking policy be added, because we definitely need to have some sort of policy relating to blocks linking from the word "block".
 * @Walkazo: I agree with you, the linking and unlinking are the only benefits of this proposal, and turning this proposal down will deprive the template of those benefits. The other things (may be blocked, bolding, inappropriate) are all aesthetic changes and don't really alter the content of the template. The only one of those I really have a problem with is "may/will be blocked" but I see that as less of a problem than the linking issues.

I think some changes from the proposal can be applied, and some not, although that would give me a third option, and obviously there is no one here. I think I'll adhere with Walkazo's comments, as the warning is very direct to the user and shows the consequences (perhaps the only consequence) for not following the rules. Additionally, you can always count with the reminder that is more ambigous about the end of the user for making uncostructive edits (you'll may have a warning if you continue or likely not).
 * If there was a third option to leave the content but add the image thing an an extra link, I'd be all for it. But as things are now, personally, I'd rather delay the employment of those aspects by a month (at which point we can just add them) but maintain the wording/bolding that I feel is best. And I don't consider those aspects of the template aesthetic at all: the image is the only aesthetic part here, while everything else is part of the functionality of the template (yeah, it's all just words and emphasis, but that's kinda what templates are to begin with anyway). In the meantime, the other templates can have their images de-linked right away and a Blocking Policy link can at least be added to Lastwarn. - 03:06, 20 November 2011 (EST)
 * I have added the Semi-Change section for such. --
 * Awesome, but can you explicitly state what the "Semi-Change" vote covers in the proposal? Simply saying it's for "some" things to be changed is too vague, since voters might want different parts of the proposal changed, so a grab-all header for anyone who doesn't completely support or oppose doesn't work. Explaining that the option's specifically for adding a blocking policy link and delinking the image leaves no room for misunderstandings, but having it in the comments isn't central enough, and it's too wordy to make into the header itself. -
 * Does the format at User:B.wilson/proform do a favor? Because there are four points to change, and there is a section for each one of them --
 * That's way too involved, especially considering that this is a pretty minor change. Just decide on one intermediate step. The image de-linking is a no-brainer technical fix and I doubt anyone would oppose that, so adding the Blocking Policy link (plus that) is the most logical intermediate step between changing nothing and changing content (i.e. working and emphasis via. boldface). Just don't change the proposal, because that runs afoul of Rule 12, and even just changing this technical aspect is pushing it... And now that someone's voted in the semi-option with their own set of supports and oppositions, it just makes things even messier. Actually, by this point it might be easier to just cancel and start again with fully outlined options. Or just cancel it and let us make the technical changes informally and then revisit the content issue by itself. - 09:37, 22 November 2011 (EST)