Template talk:Bot use warning
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Image
[edit]@Waddie96: The new icon made me misread this as the {{AI-generated}} tag. I think this template should be a bit more visually distinct. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)- @Waddie96 sorry to bother, I'm not entirely happy with the current icon. as I can't pingnfor IPs' opinions, what do think about using the same icon with two colours (blue for this notice, and red for destructive)? Juwan (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there @Juwan, what is the use-case for the destructive color? The template is static in its appearance right, so when would it use the destructive icon versus the current icon? waddie96 ★ (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- sorry for not being clear, the red destructive colour scheme would be used for the {{AI-generated}} to mirror other maintanance notices (particularly the deletion ones). this is to contrast with this template notice in blue. Juwan (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest with you, I've tried to make notices on Wikipedia consistent with Codex for example and OOUI many years ago; but there are the die-hard editors who edit daily for years now that monitor watchlists closely, and they're sometimes quite conservative (only some) and generally with oppose any changes that they don't visually like and generally oppose "changes" in general. And if you look at WP:VILLAGE village pump proposals, there's a massive RfC going for over a month since I asked for consensus on changing the mbox icons. And it's not the first time the community has been asked.
- Look I appreciate your work, but I'm just giving you a forewarning of unhappy editors if you make changes without consensus. And reaching out to fellow editors like you did just me is great. But I may just agree too easily.
- I'll be frank, this robot icon is liked, heck even I like it. So it won't change....
- And a red robot icon will not be liked, even by me since it is too harsh, and not in keeping with Wikipedia's general style nor the Codex design guidelines. Also since red denotes an error state/a massive problem, and unless it's broken code warning/URL not opening or copyright, anything else isn't worthy of such a big red icon on Wikipedia; so I would say no. To changing either icons at all. If you wanted to make whatever notice you wqant to change, a suggestion to change it to the base-color black icon or the placeholder gray that would be acceptable.
- Which template do oyu weant to change btw? waddie96 ★ (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Juwan Oh and here's the massive RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Update messagebox module with new Codex icons. It's still going one month in 👍. Icons are a precious treasure to the old editor. Heck I've been around since 2010 and I love them too waddie96 ★ (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Waddie96 I greatly appreciate for your time and knowledge. it is a pain sometimes to deal with this kind of stuff, as I know very well, ahah. I may leave this template be but I will give my two cents to help in the wider discussion. Juwan (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Waddie96 I greatly appreciate for your time and knowledge. it is a pain sometimes to deal with this kind of stuff, as I know very well, ahah. I may leave this template be but I will give my two cents to help in the wider discussion. Juwan (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- sorry for not being clear, the red destructive colour scheme would be used for the {{AI-generated}} to mirror other maintanance notices (particularly the deletion ones). this is to contrast with this template notice in blue. Juwan (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi there @Juwan, what is the use-case for the destructive color? The template is static in its appearance right, so when would it use the destructive icon versus the current icon? waddie96 ★ (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Juwan: I understand that you not entirely happy with the current icon. I don't like File:Codex icon robot.svg because it makes me want to reflexively open a ZeroGPT tab. I thought the current icon is already more consistent
than the old icon. What do you think about this icon I copied from {{bot}}?
 | This template is used by one or more bots in their standard operation. Any breaking changes to this template, including moving it or nominating it for deletion, must be communicated in advance to the bot operator(s). |
@Waddie96: 2/4 scripts/bots at Template:Redirect for discussion/doc use the default icon. If we use it, it will switch to being consistent with Codex for example and OOUI
once your RfC passes.
 | This template is used by one or more bots in their standard operation. Any breaking changes to this template, including moving it or nominating it for deletion, must be communicated in advance to the bot operator(s). |
174.138.212.71 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- The gear icon you used is neither consistent with Codex nor OOUI waddie96 ★ (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- the idea holds well however. what about
? Juwan (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- That icon is used in the interface/UI for settings and preferences in multiple instances. It should be kept for that type of use to keep the visual recognition. And avoid confusion... waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- the idea holds well however. what about
Reverted
[edit]It seems some people haven't quite understood that non-(obviously-)breaking changes may still negatively affect bot use, nor do they know when it's appropriate to use |link= to suppress the backlink on an image. Nor did they respect that the Village pump discussion closed with a general opposition to the flat-style icons. I'd suggest that any further attempt at significant changes here should probably be raised at WP:BON for greater attention. Anomie⚔ 03:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)