Wikipedia:Requested templates

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Add new requests for a new template or updates to existing templates to the bottom of this page. Please be clear about what the template is used for, roughly what it should look like, and which articles it should link to, if any.

For requests regarding stub templates, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.

A general description and guideline for userboxes can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes. A detailed instruction to use the userbox template can be found at Template:Userbox. For requests regarding userboxes, go to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas.

For help with fixing existing templates, you may want to visit Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Template for excessive details

I would like to request a new user warning talk page template similar to things such as uw-vandalism, uw-warn, etc, to remind users that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, not employees, to be used when people make comments such as “do your job,” “you’re not doing your job properly,” or similar remarks implying that editors are paid staff. My proposed name for it is {{uw-notpaid}}, and I have created an example for what it could look like here. SuperCode111 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thats a good idea, but that has never happened to me and i have seen nothing like it so it might be to obscure to add, but im not sure if there something like too obscure to add. Misterpotatoman (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. It needs a little copyediting, but I can't think of a good reason not to deploy it. I don't know how much it would be used, but I can at least imagine scenarios where it could be used. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm regularly active on the Requests for Unblock pages and we're steadily getting more and more AI-generated appeals - whilst I haven't run the data (since that's no way to definitely confirm this), it certainly feels like a good 50% of the appeals come from ChatGPT and not the blocked editor. The issue isn't going away, it's getting worse as AI is becoming more prevalent.

In view of the existing guidelines and essays which discourage AI-use on Talk pages in general and unblock requests in particular (e.g. Wikipedia:NICETRY & Wikipedia:LLMTALK), it's high time that we add a warning to the block template(s) asking editors not to use AI to generate their appeals since these are usually immediately declined.

Whilst I appreciate that this may not be read by everyone (along with the main WP:GAB article), it'll save us a lot of time even in those cases. Instead of writing a post explaining the issue and manually linking to NICETRY over and over again, can we please add a single sentence to explain that AI-generated appeals will not be accepted with a link to NICETRY?

Whilst there are multiple block templates, the one where we see this most often is Template:Uw-spamublock - for hopefully obvious reasons.

I would suggest a line to say "Please do not use AI, LLM or chatbots to write your appeal - please see WP:NICETRY for details." This could be anywhere you feel appropriate, but again I'm happy to give specific details on an appropriate location if needed.

If you think this is reasonable, I'll also be happy to provide other templates that could do with this being added (although I'd prefer this be added to all appealable block templates, I understand if this isn't possible).

I really hope I've brought this to the right forum, if not could you please let me know how best to proceed? Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering This seems to make sense, right? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I wouldn't write "please see WP:NICETRY for details". Pinging @Yamla, @PhilKnight, @Jpgordon, @Significa liberdade, @Chaotic Enby to grab another handful of unblocks admins for opinions. I'm a bit wary of adding more to the already overloaded block templates, but "Please do not use AI/LLMs/chatbots to write your appeal" or "Appeals generated by AI/LLMs/chatbots will be summarily declined" aren't terribly long and might be worth adding. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could go for "Please do not use AI/LLMs/chatbots to write your appeal, as they might not properly show your understanding of the situation."? I'm not married to the wording, but either way, yep, we definitely need something for a quick response. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as a shorter one, "An AI/LLM/chatbot-written appeal might not help to assess your understanding of the situation." I still do like the idea of linking WP:NICETRY (maybe not with that shortcut), as WP:GAB is quite long and editors might miss it otherwise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use NICETRY ever; it's condescending, snarky/bitey, and really should just be eliminated. If we're going to put in a note in block notices, I'd suggest along the lines of: "Please note that Wikipedia will not consider chatbot-generated unblock requests" or whatever is the best COMMONNAME for this. My guess is it won't reduce our workload much, but it won't hurt. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I know it might not be the be-all-end-all solution but I'm thinking that the shortcut should definitely be replaced by something more neutral, such as WP:LLMAPPEAL. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes use it since it goes straight to the relevant section, but it does feel weird with the way the shortcut is named (I was quite surprised the first time I came across it!). I often pipe-name it to something softer as a result.

I'd love for it to be renamed, it could even be changed to something shorter like "WP:LLMAPP" so it's easier to type? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could work so much better, the only risk is confusing it with LLM applications, but some of our shortcuts already have multiple realistic targets so that should be fine. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with anything up to big flashing lights. More seriously, I second Chaotic Enby's suggestion around WP:LLMAPPEAL, possibly also with a redirect from WP:AIAPPEAL. I think we should remember that people can and do use LLMs in good faith, it's just that it's basically always truly terrible regarding unblock requests. So, let's try guiding people away from such use, perhaps starting at one unblock template. Then, if it is at all helpful, let's roll out the guidance to (many) other unblock templates. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see AI used most often with UPE/promo blocks, so perhaps Template:Uw-spamublock? Template:Uw-adblock is shorter but not used as frequently. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with adding it to the first one. The template is already getting quite long, so, as a counterbalance, we might want to cut out the pretty redundant Before requesting a new username, check if it is still available. If the search says "There is no global account for [username]", the username is free to use. and move it into point 4. as Provide a new username after checking that it is available. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of proposed changes to Template:Uw-spamublock:

• Change #4 to "Provide a new username after checking that it is available."
• Remove "Before requesting a new username, check if it is still available. If the search says "There is no global account for [username]", the username is free to use."
• Add "Please note that Wikipedia will not consider AI/LLM/chatbot-generated unblock requests, see WP:LLMAPPEAL." to the bottom of the template (can we bold this, or is it a bit too much?).

What does everyone think so far? Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the template sandbox, put your changes there, and we'll look at it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I also copied it to my own sandbox, just in case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal, but I think Jpgordon meant the template's own sandbox (Template:Uw-spamublock/sandbox). I already made the first change there (with a request on the talk page to implement it), feel free to take a look at both! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I had no idea that was a thing - I learned something today! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, can you also fix it so that it leads to the right part of the unblock wizard so people are prompted to answer the rename question? I can't remember where we talked about that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Akin to {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}, I'd like to have a template called {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS}}.

To get the number of unique mainspace links on a page, in this example, a WikiProject report page, the code would look like:

• {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS|Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/OldIssues|0}} or
• {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS|Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/OldIssues|ns=0}}

The default for ns would be for "all namespaces", returning the number of all unique pages that are linked.

If unique links to a multiple number of namespaces are desired in the result, the code would look like either

• {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS|pagename|0|1}} or
• {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS|pagename|ns=0|ns2=1}}

My particular need for this is to obtain the number of unique articles (in the form of internal links) returned in the results of a {{Database report}} on a page. I use such reports to create specialized lists of issues in articles. With the number returned, I can use it to demonstrate when a backlog exists, or for comparing the number of articles affected between different types of issues (useful for backlog ordering), or for comparing the number of articles affected by a particular type of issue between different WikiProjects.

I assume this will require an underlying module. (I'd write this myself but my experience with module code is next to zero at this point.)

I have asked for something like this in the Community Wishlist, but it has been marked as "Community opportunity".

Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would encourage the specification be changed slightly to stay in numbered parameters to allow for multiple namespaces to be specified, so {{NUMBEROFUNIQUELINKS|Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/OldIssues|0|1}} would return the number of unique links from both the article: and talk: namespaces. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 20:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done great idea. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: For casual readers, the "Done" above doesn't mean the template has been created, just that I changed the request. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 22:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created a template that allows to directly plot data again based on the new Chart Feature. It uses a common module and the purpose is to come closer to the look and feel of the previous Template:Graph:Chart. Let me know if the template is fine for you.

The template is here: Template:ChartDirect --McBayne (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, I decided to push the first version: Template:ChartDirect --McBayne (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request the creation of the page Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:ElevenLabs, with the content {{Generative AI editnotice}}, similarly to what is done with e.g. ChatGPT. I can't do it myself because it requires admin or template editing permission.

Alenoach (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be needed now that Talk:ElevenLabs has been semi-protected. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:The Equalizer/sandbox/Template:Capital Distance3}} - a new template to add geographic distances between locations into an article, please add recommendations and suggestions over there, thanks. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so, pages like lolol are insanely messy, so what if we have a template called {{dropdown}} where it makes a drop down arrow for you with a title and many other texts that are hidden until opened, for example, you dont have

• a
  • b
  • c
  • d,

you have a ▽ which turns into a ∆

 b 
 c
 d Misterpotatoman (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're looking for Template:Collapse. It is used to collapse tables and navigational boxes in articles, but it shouldn't be used to hide prose in articles. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, collapse is fat and different from normal text, this new template would look like a regular link with a arrow next to it^[a] that opens the reveal more link

how it would work

• first box^[b] would be the name of the link
• second box would be the link
• third box would be what the links sprouting from the dropdown arrow are which are this template itself (series overview does this with other templates

that's pretty much it!

Misterpotatoman (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing wiki template for Michelin stars. In the UK and Ireland, the AA Rosette fulfills a very similar role to the Michelin Guide system.

However, AA operate the Rosette system for restaurants and use a separate star system for B&Bs and restaurants with rooms. One star is not equivalent to one rosette.

I noted when editing The Witchery that this causes some confusion. This restaurant is rated by AA under both systems (and both ratings are from 2026). Using stars for both scales makes it hard to parse and to the casual viewer it might seem like the restaurant is rated poorly under the rosette system. Two rosettes is in fact exceptional!

Is there support for creating an "AA rosettes" template, with the same functionality as the "Michelin stars" template but with the Rosette symbol instead?

Grommmet (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grommmet: The template wasn't hard to do: . Some more changes will be needed before it is mainspace ready, but before that please check at an appropriate Wikiproject if there is support for using this template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Thanks, appreciate you taking the time to build it - looks exactly as I pictured it! I will seek further input. Grommmet (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a need to show 2/5 rosettes, like for example? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would say no need, the AA awards themselves just display the number of rosettes (i.e. no blankspace or greyed out icons). Grommmet (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Removing the code for those conditions has simplified the template a lot. When you do get consensus for using this template, please ping me to move this to template-space OR feel free to move it there yourself. I would suggest Template:RosetteRating or something along those lines. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done {{rosetteRating}}. Feel free to ping me from the template talk page if any tweaks are needed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

imagine, a template that makes efns work but doesn't make a list, this would be useful for discussions that use efns, for example, see the discussion, dropdown links Misterpotatoman (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:HATNOTE template that combines Template:Distinguish and Template:Other uses, sort of like Template:Redirect-distinguish combines Template:Redirect and Template:Distinguish. Something like:

{{Distinguish-other uses|PAGE1|PAGE2}} → Not to be confused with PAGE1. For other uses, see PAGE2. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. I would like to change two templates: {{GA nominee}}, and {{GANentry}}, to show errors under certain conditions.

The GA nominee template currently shows "Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically." if there is no page parameter included. It also shows " This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations." if there is no subtopic parameter. I'd like to add an error for a missing or invalid status parameter, saying "This template must include a status parameter" if it's missing, or "status must be one of the following: blank, onreview, on review, hold, on hold, onhold, 2nd opinion, or 2ndopinion" if it's not valid. I would like all these errors to be red and bold.

I would like to add a new parameter, error, to the GANentry template. It should function as follows:

This wikitext: {{GANentry|1=Example|2=1|shortdesc=|error=This is a test error message}}

should produce the output it normally produces followed by an error message, like so:

Example (talk | history | start review) This is a test error message

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]