Template talk:Behave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Documentation

These templates should pretty much always be used with the "subst:" keyword, as strongly suggested on Wikipedia:template substitution. They are shown without subst here to reduce the display space occupied by this table, not to encourage their use without subst. For example, type {{subst:test}}, not {{test}} to warn common first-time vandals.

For a full list of warning and test templates, see Template:TestTemplates. For a list of all userspace templates with explanations, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

[edit] Usage

Usage	Output
{{subst:Behave}}	Thank you for adding your humor to Wikipedia, but the articles are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). Maybe you should check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.
{{subst:Behave|Article}}*	Thank you for adding your humor to Wikipedia, but the articles are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Article. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). Maybe you should check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

*You can use {{subst:Behave|Article|subst=subst:}} to substitute the contained ParserFunctions.

[edit] whiniest template ever

Easily the whiniest template ever :-). Could also be a red rag to a bull... Dan100 (Talk) 09:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But consensus was...

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. Dan100 (Talk) 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like "Now go and play a little in Wikipedia sandbox." It's the most patronising thing I've read on Wikipedia (and grammatically incorrect to boot). Can't we replace it with "If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive)"? --Malthusian (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, why not just delete this, the most obnoxious template on Wikipedia? It's almost like taunting the vandals, doing the exact opposite of the two aims of such templates: to soothe vandals (its patronizing, inanely culture mis-referencing likely causes more vandalism than it solves, and is at the very least vastly less effective than every other template with a similar message) and to show that Wikipedia's policies aren't negotiable and repeated vandalism won't be tolerated (instead, it goads vandals, complimenting them on their amusing destructive behavior and coyly—yet awkwardly—winking and nudging while telling them to settle down a bit). This template is an enemy to Wikipedia and an insult to everything good, beautiful, and noble in the human heart. Like the superior vena cava. And, worst of all, it's not even funny. -Silence 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus it misquotes the very cultural reference it bases itself off of, which is "Oh be-have" (followed by an optional "mrrow"); the proper way to extend the "oh" into a longer sound is "ohh" (which preserves the phoneticization), whereas "ooh" alters, rather than extends, the sound, changing to from o in "moan" to the one in "moon". Very unimpressive use of onomatopoeia. -Silence 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I agree. How on earth did this survive deletion? The link above just points to the log and I don't feel like hunting for the debate. --Malthusian (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In what is the single most pointless thing I'll probably ever do on Wikipedia, I included my suggestion, fixed the enunciation of 'oh behave' per Silence, and moreover, 'mightn't'? Anyone here ever said 'mightn't'? --Malthusian (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've used mightn't, but I'm just weird that way. Thanks for the fix! I agree that it's a trivial and silly matter, which is why I didn't bring it up earlier or try to do anything about it myself; if people like the template, they're free to use it, and I'm free to not. But I just had to get that off my chest, this template's been bugging me forever. :) Glad we could work out an improvement. -Silence 18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this template becose it is way more friendly than Template:Joke--E-Bod 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

Should uncyclopedia be mentioned in this warning, rather than being mentioned only in more severe warnings? Andjam 02:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Suport--E-Bod 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be better than telling them to use the sandbox becose they can have their edits stay seen on Uncyclopedia--E-Bod 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Last March, Samuel Blanning removed a similar template's link to Uncyclopedia. His edit summary: removed the link to Uncyclopaedia. they don't want our vandals any more than we do. writing good humour is probably harder than writing good factual articles. Feezo (Talk) 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake. Just because someone can't write good factual articles doesn't mean they can't write good humour. And these warnings aren't being given to run-of-the-mill vandals (for which pointing them towards uncyclopedia would be a mistake). Also, does Samuel contribute to uncyclopedia? Andjam 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behave-n

Behave-n Is the Equivalent template that allows us to refer to the article the jokester edited. I wonder why it isn’t included on Template_messages/User_talk_namespace while the Alternative Joke includes It’s “-n” equivalent. --E-Bod 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use {{Behave-n}} instead of this template

It may be preferable to use {{Behave-n}}. When a user's contributions are deleted, they no longer show in the user's contribution history, which makes it difficult to track a pattern of abuse. With {{Behave-n}} there is at least a link to find past nonsense. ~MDD4696 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)