This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Test redirect. |
|
Archives: 1 |
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
See the Archives index.
My understanding is that this template now wraps in the behavior of {{ test-n}}? The instructions given don't mention this, which was rather confusing. Could an example be added? -- Creidieki 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Since {{ test}} and {{ test-n}} were merged, they both create messy code on user talk pages. I personally think templates containing if should never be subst'ed. Kusma (討論) 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>
before the #if:
. Should I get an admin to change that, or is there a problem? -
Amarkov
babble
01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Bug 5678 ("Colon functions: undefined parameter (default) values clobbered") makes #if unusable for this purpose when substituted (see sandboxed bug test). If someone is aware of a viable workaround, please explain it here or implement it yourself. —{ admin} Pathoschild 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
I think that we should make the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" a link to
Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It would be a piped link, of course, so that the first sentence of {{subst:
Test}} would look like, "
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia.", and the first sentence of {{subst:
Test|Article}} would look like "
Thank you for experimenting with the page
Article on Wikipedia." After that, both versions of the template would look exactly the same. The reason I think this should be added to the template is so that users who "recieve" this template would be directed to the policy that I'd mentioned, so that they could realize why their "improvements" had been reverted. That way, we have a better chance of turning
vandals into constructive users, not to mention
not alienating the ones who were trying to be constructive in the first place. What do you guys think? --
Luigifan
21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Editprotected change not carried out. Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This wording has always bothered me a bit. It seems to legitimize testing. It reminds me of an old usenet response to test posts - "nope, still didn't appear in alt.test". I think it should say, instead of "your test worked", something like "your edit appeared in the encyclopaedia and has been reverted...". Does anyone know what I mean? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think for some instances of legitimate testing (not vandalsim) where someone is experimenting with something like a template or a chart, trying to see how it works and if they can change it to work differently, and their test royally screws up the template or chart... to say "your test worked" is blatently wrong. Most testing is of the, "hey, I can edit? What happens if I push this button?" variety and in those instances, yes, their test did work. Earlier today, however, I reverted Portal:Current events/Calendar. It looked like the anon was trying to figure out what all that mess of code in the edit window does and really made a mess out of it and couldn't figure out how to fix it. I warned them with test, but then thought, "Well, no, your test most certianly did not work", so I manually edited the template after warning them, but still... maybe the wording of the template should be altered to be useable in both situations. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add [[simple:Template:Test]] and [[fr:Modèle:Test 1]]. -- Rory096 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please also add [[th:แม่แบบ:Test]] -- Jutiphan 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Often when newpage patrolling, I encounter users who are clearly experimenting with Wikipedia by creating a new page, sometimes as vandalism or perhaps just without knowing much about what we do, i.e. creating a page about themselves. I was wondering whether a set of templates to add to those user pages would be useful, for example:
Also, often people post articles about non-notable people, i.e. themselves, their friends, etc. Perhaps something like this might be appropriate:
Then there could perhaps be a similarly graded system for repeats, etc. Does anybody else have an opinion about this? Bob talk 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is my idea of a revised version of the template:
I think this version is better, because it has more universal use. It could be used more appropriately in cases when a user makes an unconstructive edit that is not necessarily a "test".-- Azer Red Si? 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia"
WP:VAND says that "if you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{test}}." What if the user was not experimenting, but rather was making a good faith edit, and another user thought it was a test, and reverted it? The reverter would just put this template on the talk page. It might intimidate the user, deterring him from further editing. I think this template should be used as a warning, nothing else. Many users "warn" good-faith newbies without thinking of the consequences. What they need to do is manually type a reason for reverting, and what that user could do in the future. Also, I noticed that they usually leave an edit summary of "test1" or "test2" or "warning user with VandalProof". These may further intimidate a good-faith newbie user. Users need to think before they warn. -- 75.26.9.99 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you get mad at that wiki
isaiahs01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Crazyhors
They did something wrong, we shouldn't be thanking them for it. - Amarkov blah edits 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm torn as to whether or not I think it's a good idea for this template to link to Help:Revert. Since it's a a good faith warning, keeping it wouldn't hurt in cases where the edit in question was indeed good faith, and would equip those users to revert vandalism in the future. But do they really need to know exactly what a revert is now just to know that their test has been removed? If they stick around, they'll learn the tricks of the trade as they become a more experienced editor, anyway.
The template is also given to users who turn out to be vandals. In these cases, might WP:BEANS apply? I've seen vandalism marked with an edit summary claiming to be reverting vandalism once or twice, so it might be a bad idea to teach possible vandals about that nifty little trick. Then again, such deception is pretty rare, and they'll always figure out how to revert (or claim to be reverting) eventually, too. Like I said, I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep that wikilink, so I thought I'd just mention it here in case someone else had a stronger argument than I do. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for catalyzing the catabolic processes of this somatic cell. Your hydrolysis worked, and it has been allosterically inhibited or marked for destruction by lyzosomes. Please use the Golgi Apparatus for any other substrates you may want to catalyze. Take a look at the chaperonins to learn more about catalyzing our polypeptides.
I'm wondering if there's any way to make it so that; when warning someone with {{subst:test-n|name of page}} we could make it work with multiple pages? See, for example User talk:169.244.174.12. Water is on my watchlist; so I saw the vandalism there and reverted it, then checked the user's contributions and reverted their earlier vandalism to the other two pages. I only wanted to use one warning template as they hadn't yet been warned and it seems silly to give them {{test}}, {{test2}}, and {{test3}} without giving them a chance to see {{test}} and respond. At the same time you want them to know that all their testing and vandalism has been reverted.
I don't know enough template syntax to know if it's even possible; but is there a way that we could specify with {{subst:test-n}} that there's more than one page, how many, and the names of all pages? Maybe something like {{subst:test-n|3|Water|Protein|Lion}}? Is that possible? Is it hard? Should we edit the template to use that? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:
Thank you for experimenting with {{#if:{{{1|}}}|the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on}} Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.<!-- Template:Test (first level warning) --><noinclude> {{protected template}} {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} <!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>
Thanks. + mwtoews 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we reword this? "Thank You" seems like a strange thing to say to someone who's vandalizing Wikipedia. -- DDG 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} This template appears to have been superseded by {{ uw-test1}}. I therefore would like to redirect this to that. (Why wasn't this done when uw-test1 was created ITFP?) This would not only cut the confusion resulting from the presence of two nearly identical templates unaware of each other's existence, it would also clarify that we have these multi-level templates and hence why the wording is as it is. -- Smjg 12:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected change not carried out, there doesn't seem to be consensus to do so. Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why we need two different vandalism/experimenting templates. Why did we change from the old one? And why don't we just have the old one redirect to the new one? Could someone explain please? GofG ||| Contribs 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — mrholybrain 's talk 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Can you please redirect this page to {{ uw-test1}} as part of the Wikiproject User Warnings and they are basicaly the same anyway, thank you. Af648 10:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, add iwiki to ru:Шаблон:Тест.-- 193.124.238.46 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I just came across these warnings and I can't figure out when I should use them. The first one implies that the editor somehow guessed that the edit was a "test". But how do we define what a "test" is? Replacing a page with "qze eqzrf eqrez ez" could be considered a test but why would we bother finding out if the user was "testing" or just vandalizing. I'd say in all cases, a {{uw-vandalism1}} is appropriate while a {{uw-test1}} warning is just guess work. If a user purposely damage a page as a "test", it's still vandalism unless he/she undo the changes. The {{uw-test2}} warning and more are even less useful since they are assuming bad faith - in other words they are assuming vandalism in which case a {{uw-vandalism2}} and more would be more helpful (in particular for new changes patrollers). So I'm just wondering what was the rational for creating these templates? What purpose do they fullfil that a {{uw-vandalismx}} wouldn't? Laurent ( talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Six years on... Based on this, I don't think anyone is using this template anymore. I am tempted to redirect it to {{ uw-test1}}; are there any objections? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)