Template talk:Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Test is indefinitely protected. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit.

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Usage 1.2 Archives 2 Example for article name 3 Why should we subst this? 4 Another link 5 Your test worked 6 Interwiki links 7 Suggestions for users testing with creating newpages 8 Proposed revised version

[edit] Documentation

Generic Test: {{test0}}, {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, {{test5}}, {{test6}}

Specialized Test: {{test-self}}, {{test2b}}, {{test4a}}, {{test4im}}

Removing Content: {{test1a}}, {{test2del}}, {{test2a}}

Clear Vandalism: {{vw}}, {{bv}}

Spam Links: {{spam0}}, {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}}

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:Test}}	Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
{{subst:Test|Article}}	Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

[edit] Archives

See the Archives index.

[edit] Example for article name

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)

The documentation at the top of this page mentions it. The box on the template page contains helpful reminders, rather than actual instructions. —[admin] Pathoschild 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why should we subst this?

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)

It's a very simple ParserFunction, and there is an optional parameter that allows you to substitute the contained code. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is that "Thank you for experimenting with {{#if:{{{1|}}}|the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on}} Wikipedia." doesn't look good on user talk pages, not really much better than {{test}}. Kusma (討論) 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple fix, just put <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)

Then it works when substituted, but breaks when not. That's not much of a problem, of course; it'll just break messages by users who still don't substitute. It'd be simple to implement a reverse parameter to fix display on example pages, where the templates aren't substituted. I see no real problem with switching to that method. —[admin] Pathoschild 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be possible to check for substitution and change it if it isn't substed. But you do realize that neither method is incorporated in the test templates, right? -Amarkov ^babble 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking for substitution requires ParserFunctions, which would then need to be substituted by one of the two methods above. Adding unsubstituting ParserFunctions to check for substitution to use the correct method to substitute other ParserFunctions is rather self-defeating (and confusing).

The first method isn't present because the test series was migrated separately by someone else. If there's no opposition to Amarkov's suggestion, I'll implement that across the spectrum. —[admin] Pathoschild 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 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)

[edit] Another link

Template: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)

This test template is designed for newbie tests. Very few newbies are disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. WP:POINT is directed more at experienced knowlegeable Wikipedians who purposefully disrupt Wikipedia because they are knowledgeable about policies and disagree with them. Newbie tests are done by those who are not knowledgeable of the policies, or often even that their edits will show up in the encyclopedia. moink 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than you make it seem, actually. By doing this, we imply that is what they are doing. Saying that is definitely biting the newcomers, and possibly a violation of WP:AGF, too. -Amarkov ^babble 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your test worked

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)

I think the wording is supposed to be like reverse psychology. --Luigifan 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not have appeared for long and, properly, it did not appear in the "encyclopedia", could have been reverted instantly. —Centrx→talk • 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

Please add [[simple:Template:Test]] and [[fr:Modèle:Test 1]]. --Rory096 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also add [[th:แม่แบบ:Test]] --Jutiphan 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Kusma (討論) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for users testing with creating newpages

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:

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, but please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Also, often people post articles about non-notable people, i.e. themselves, their friends, etc. Perhaps something like this might be appropriate:

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, however, some of the subjects you have written about may not correspond to our notability guidelines. Please take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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)

The {{TestXarticle}} series? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revised version

Here is my idea of a revised version of the template:

Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.

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)