Template talk:Shared IP advice

Shared IP vs shared computer
"If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."

Perhaps this template would be better worded as "shared computer" than "shared IP". There's a good chance that the people to whom this template is addressing do not know what an IP address is (and lets face it, they wouldn't look it up). Jason Quinn (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "shared computer" wouldn't be right as one IP address is often shared among many computers connected through a router to the rest of the net. Maybe something about "source address" might make it clearer. This template just codified an advisory long used by editors - it might be in one of the editing tools somewhere. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Upon further reflection, "shared IP" is still the best idea. "Source address" is too vague, IMHO. For now you've convinced me it's okay as is. Thanks for your reply. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2019
Change "and you did not make the edits" to "and you did not perform such edits". EggRoll97 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: "make the edits" seems fine to me (well, as fine as "performed the edits"), but I have tweaked the text a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oppose Unnecessarily bureaucratic. The current language is clear and concise. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

creating vs logging into an account
The template currently reads (copied from source just now)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I would like to note that merely creating an account won't help. You need to be logged in as well.

Contrast the following phrasing and spot the difference :)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself and logging in, or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When someone creates an account (e.g. with this form), does the process automatically log them in? If so, it's more accurate as it is. If not, your revision might be helpful. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"create an account" link
"Create an account" currently links to WP:Why create an account? If someone is creating an account to avoid shared IP notices, they already know why they're creating it, so I think it'd be better to send them straight to Special:CreateAccount. No one is going to bother reading through the entire exhaustive list of reasons to create an account, which would take 10x as long as it would to actually create the account. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The first line on Why create an account? is a link to create an account. The instruction to consider creating an account seems to to suggest a target at which one might consider whether to create an account, which is the former. --Bsherr (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, just from a UI perspective, you'd never see a page like that at another website, since every step that you add to the process is a chance for someone to turn away. Facebook/Google/etc. all make it extremely easy to create an account so that more people will do it, and since we want more people to create accounts here (for ease of communication/accountability/etc.), I think we might want to do the same. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Use
Please replace definition list markup (the colon at the beginning of the template) with per  (or even remove the indentation altogether). Kleinpecan (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * given that this is how all talkpage messages work, I'm not sure there is consensus for this change here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It should remain indented. It's helpful in that it clearly separates the message from other notices left on the talk page; it's immediately obvious. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ to improve accessibility and so as not to render invalid HTML5. Thank you all very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Revert the above
All of our talk page discussions are indented with a colon. Blockquote's style has double the indentation of a colon, so the above change results in the appearance of a double indentation, and a ginormous triple indentation from those using RedWarn as RedWarn for some reason adds its own colon before this template. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , RedWarn probably shouldn't do that. You might mention that to the people who maintain it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! RedWarn developer here. It would have helped to have been informed of this so that we could have changed RedWarn's code respectively. I've now finished the changes required in the code and we're now waiting for to update the userscript. No need to revert the prior changes. Chlod (say hi!) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My mention of RedWarn above was just supposed to be tangential, I do still think this template should go back to a normal colon indentation like all other talk page discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add my own opinion here: for many years users have been using this template with a colon to indent, and such a sudden change to a major template without much community consensus could break many different tools and habits that are in place regarding how to use this template. IMHO this should have been discussed on a page where much more people are watching it, such as WT:UW. ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think users add a colon (if that's what you meant) - I simply enter  and have done with it; it comes out indented. I want it to continue to work that way. It's true that colons are standard for talk pages, but if that bit of code causes an accessibility problem, it should be fixed. As I understand it, that's what 's suggestion to change to block indent did. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The correct venue for you to try to garner consensus is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, where the present community consensus is to not use a colon to indent in this type of situation.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 23:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

When should this template be used?
The current "Usage" section is not very descriptive. Could someone please add a short explanation? I'm thinking something like this: Use this template when a shared IP address submitted edits that require a warning. Just add this template after the warning template, as so:

...

If the template has already been added, there is no need to add it again. — W.andrea (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)