Template talk:Test
![]() | Template:Test is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit semi-protected}} to notify an administrator, template editor, extended-confirmed editor or autoconfirmed editor to make the requested edit. This template does not have a documentation subpage. You can create the documentation subpage here. If the template page contains categories or usage notes, move these to the documentation subpage. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permanently protected}}).
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Documentation
Vandalism |
---|
{{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}, {{uw-vandalism4im}} |
Content removal |
{{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-delete4}} |
Testing |
{{uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}}, {{uw-test3}}, {{uw-test4}} |
Spam linking |
{{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}} |
Other behavior |
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace |
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:
- Assumes good faith
- No faith assumption
- Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
- Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
Usage
Usage | Output |
---|---|
{{subst:Test}} | ![]() |
{{subst:Test|Article}} | ![]() |
Archives
See the Archives index.
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)
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).
- 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)
- 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's a simple fix, just put
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Another link
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at Template:Test. (edit · history · last · links · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
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)
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)