Template talk:Test5-n

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning templates should 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:uw-vandalism1}}~~~~ (not {{uw-vandalism1}}) to warn common first-time vandals.

The levels of templates are:

1. Assumes good faith
2. No faith assumption
3. Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
4. Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning

[edit] Usage

{{subst:test5-n|length of block}}

Unlike other test messages where substitution is highly recommended, it is required for this to work.

[edit] Example

{{subst:test5-n|31 hours}}

Would create this:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I am assuming the second variable is for signatures, as that is how I have seen it used. Although the other -n templates are for article names, I don't see how it could be used as much if it were limited to one article, and it is not currently worded correctly for the second variable to be the article name. Should it then be renamed to something like Test5a? «»Who?¿?^meta 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly second parameter

This template could be simplified by removing both the table markup and the second parameter with little detrimental effect that I can see. Then the signature (and any other comments) could simply be written after the template, rather than having to include them as a parameter, which is consistent with the other test-n templates. Should I make this change, or am I missing something? Lupin|talk|popups 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the signature is in the second parameter is to have it as part of the "whitened" block. (No, I didn't create this, and I still don't know HTML/Wikicode design enough to think of a way around it.) --Nlu 00:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed it. Someone can restore it causes the template to mess up. --Madchester 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it -- since it does cause the signature to go in a weird place if you don't include it. --Nlu (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the clock?

I think the traditional Image:octagon-warning.png or Image:stop_hand.png would be more appropriate. -- Scott e^iπ 07:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• The clock icon is appropriate because this variant specifically states on long the block will last. It's enough of a difference from Test5 and Vblock that a change in icon is a good idea. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, that makes sense. But still, in the context of someone's talk page it seems out of place. -- Scott e^iπ 11:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Can we go back to the clock? It stands out from the others, and shows that it's time dependent. Oh, and I like it better. :) Wikibofh_(talk) 00:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Border

Any support for adding a light border around the message? It would display as:

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia for a period of {{{1}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. {{{2}}}

What do you think? Prodego ^talk 12:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• No preference. Wikibofh_(talk) 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer it. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's over-styled. Femto 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the tildes?

Why are there tildes in this template, but none in test5? It should be kept consistent I think, by removing them. Any comments? --Majorly (Talk) 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• The tildes make it so it auto-signs for you. If anything, test5 should be fixed, not have it removed from here. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The other test templates do not have autosigning, so why should this one? --Majorly (Talk) 16:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Because it makes our lives easier. Fix the other ones, don't emasculate this one. The reason it isn't in all of the others is because it used to not be technically possible. It is now. They haven't been upgraded. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I just wanted to add a closing remark with my block notice, but couldn't because of the autosign. Not an autosigning template makes my life easier but the 'insert note' feature of my browser. I say it's this template that's wrong, not all the others. Femto 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree... --Majorly 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Template:Test5

I think this template should be redirected to Template:Test5 because it does everything this template does. The only differences are that {{test5}} is longer, and the image is different. Is there really any point in keeping this? J Di ^talk 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There really is no reason to keep it, other then some people (including myself) think it looks better then the regular {{test5}} template. Of course, if it were merged it could just be recreated in someones userspace, but there is really no reason to merge it, as long as it is different in some way from {{test5}}. Prodego ^talk 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Test5 does not provide a way to give the time period of the block, whereas this template does. --Nlu (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It does. J Di ^talk 08:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How? The template itself indicates that the optional parameter gives the name of the article the vandal last vandalized, not the duration of the block. --Nlu (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:test5|three hours|blah}} gives:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of three hours as a result of your disruptive edits to blah. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. J Di ^talk 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case, the template description for test5 should be changed. But I am now neutral as whether to redirect. --Nlu (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nonstandard 1st parameter and autosignature

For the other test-n templates, if I pass a single parameter, it is the name of the article that was vandalized. This template should follow this pattern - otherwise we are likely to produce goofy messages like this one:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Clown for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. FreplySpang 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't care for auto-signatures. This template autosigns by default. The most important thing is that all the test-n templates should be consistent in their usage of auto-signatures, and my strong preference would be not to autosign. FreplySpang 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Prefer auto-signing. I think for test5 templates, the length of the block should be included, but I'm not stuck on that. I've always like this icon better, as it is distinctive from the rest of the warn templates. Not on enough that my opinion should be heavily weighted, however. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The "-n" in test-n stands for name, i.e. the name of the vandalism articles. It is unacceptable for (only) this one of the -n's to have different behavior. The documentation even said the template did this; it didn't, so I fixed it. I also added some parser logic so it would intelligently change depending on which parameters were specified. Superm401 - Talk 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Per discussion here, I'd prefer that autosigning stayed. May not seem like much, but after the first few hundreded invocations, I prefer not having to do the ~~~~. I want it to display the block time, really, the article name is irrelevant for a block, and I'm curious where you found that -n was name. Autosign, block time. Good things. Everything else, DK. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think it should be auto-signed; none of the others are, and so are most user talk templates. --Majorly (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to bow to consensus, but my argument would be the others SHOULD be. Most templates aren't autosigned because 2 years ago it wasn't technically possible. That's no longer true. The ability to put in the duration and be done is nice for those of us doing a lot of blocks. Regardless, I'm not going to bow to consensus until we actually have it. ;) Wikibofh_(talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

-n definitely stands for article name. This page (before any modifications by me) says "Most test(n) templates take a single optional parameter: the name of the page to which the template applies. [...] The second is the name of the page to which the template applies". The page name makes the template less generic and more useful. All of the other test-n's do produce an article link. E.g {{test4-n|Microsoft}} is:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Microsoft, you will be blocked from editing.

If you don't want to type 4 characters, click on the sig link in the toolbar, or add a key macro for it using your monobook.js . That just isn't what test-n is for. Superm401 - Talk 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)