Template talk:Test

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Test redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 29 January 2022, see discussion. Redirect, 2020 May 21, see discussion. No consensus, 2018 November 26, see discussion. No consensus, 2017 April 11, see discussion. Keep, 2015 April 26, see discussion. Keep, 2013 March 3, see discussion. Speedy keep, 2007 March 17, see discussion.

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Go for it. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Surprisingly often, when {{test}} is used the person receiving it is actually just testing. Directing them to the sandbox is often all that is needed to prevent them unintentionally disrupting articles. Accusing them of POINTing is not going to help the situation. --ais523 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected change not carried out. Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Why do you get mad at that wiki isaiahs01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Crazyhors

I'm not mad. I mostly like Wikipedia, I just don't like how people "warn" others. --71.138.128.14 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did something wrong, we shouldn't be thanking them for it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We want to encourage them to edit Wikipedia, so even if they're a little misguided in how they do that, we still appreciate that. JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• _ _ (It should be noted that a sufficient reason for ruling out addition of {{test2}} and {{test3}} is that such escalation is for repetition after each of two previous warnings, not simply for multiple offenses; "silly" is far from the right word for that.)

_ _ (I also note than {{test-n}} Rdrs to {{test}}.)

_ _ I want this too; my current application, & proposed arg scheme, are e.g.

{{subst:test|<Presumable n-n-Teen-autobio title>|<Presumably nubile female-titled n-n-bio>}}.

with all arguments thru the first 5 listed; for more than 5, the conditional markup would evoke the rest by adding ", etc." (I'll not bore you with the careful generation of English syntax that i picture.)

IMO the value to be gained is shock and awe: not just

someone noticed your unsuitable article, and cares enuf to comment on it

but

the pattern of your editing has been noted.

Careful patrollers could sequence the arguments, as above, to demonstrate human insight, undercutting any tendency to infer the notice comes from a bot.

_ _ I am about to do a backward-compatible prototype in a private Tl sandbox. If i'm missing something, stop me before i glance thru the protection rules and install it over the existing version.
--Jerzy•t 17:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Luna Santin 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The cordial wording serves the following purposes:

• It assumes good faith. (Keep in mind that many of the edits in question are well-meaning tests, not vandalism).
• It denies vandals the angry reaction that they often seek. ("They're thanking me for my test? This is no fun.")

—David Levy 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was just referring to uses of the test template in the case of outright vandalism, but your points are noted. I'll continue using these templates as-is for now. However, is there an alternate template I should use in the case of outright vandalism (i.e. patent nonsense, personal attacks)? --DDG 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace has lots of various warning templates to suit different situations. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

I'm not convinced that's a good idea; not everyone seems to like the new templates. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what's there not to like about them besides slightly different wording? Anyway, if that's the problem, can't we call this {{uw-test1sdw}}, thereby making it more sensibly a part of the system?

If OTOH it's the names of the new templates that people don't like, then they don't have to use them. -- Smjg 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's general agreement -- or at least understanding -- that the newer templates will eventually deprecate the older ones. When and how that should happen, though, still seems to be in the air; I'd prefer we have this discussion somewhere more central, such as the village pump or community noticeboard. Also WT:UTM is another option, for a smaller audience (testing the waters, say). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the coding and appearance of the new templates I don't like. I prefer the older, simpler templates; having to write subst=subst: to reduce the code is something that people aren't going to do, practically speaking. Also, for me the lower-numbered warning templates are a time-saving aid to prevent having to handcraft a message (and to create a message with better links and more thought than a handcrafted message), rather than something that's obviously boilerplate with a little icon by the side. I would expect the prose messages in the old test1,test2... system to be more effective in vandalfighting. --ais523 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"having to write subst=subst: to reduce the code" - what on earth are you talking about? Besides, my proposal was about sticking to one structure for the warning message system, rather than about how the messages look. When/whether to consolidate the two versions of the messages into one and which version we should keep are two separate matters. -- Smjg 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this, but it seems I didn't. Compare the following:

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

and

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page [[:the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on]] on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you have a look at these on the edit screen, you'll notice the difference. The second one has |subst=subst: added, to reduce the ParserFunctions in the output, so that's what I was talking about. (At the moment, it seems that uw-test1 is broken, actually, because the output is different between the two versions.) Still, I prefer {{test}} to {{uw-test1}} anyway (especially as the image on uw-test1 falls foul of the well-known IE6 PNG bug, so the background looks strange around it). --ais523 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. With {{test}}, the #if always remains in the code, and in {{uw-test1}}, you can add |subst=subst: to the template parameters to get rid of it. But the only real difference in this respect is the presence of {{{subst|}}} in {{uw-test1}} to enable this, and I don't see this as bloating the resulting code much more than the #if (which you can't get rid of using {{test}}, except by manual editing after saving) already does. -- Smjg 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected change not carried out, there doesn't seem to be consensus to do so. Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:UW and this strawpoll regarding redirects. --Geniac 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

There was a poll about this, and there was no consensus for the redirection there; therefore, I'm removing the {{editprotected}}, unless you know of some reason why the poll's results don't apply. --ais523 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because polling is evil? – Gurch 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, add iwiki to ru:Шаблон:Тест.--193.124.238.46 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You might ask those people who patrol Recent Changes. You are supposed to use {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test1}}, etc. and wait until the newbie figures out his/her error. It is all part of Assume Good Faith until it is abundantly clear that the newbie is malicious. Then you have justification to act against a known vandal with {{subst:test2}}, etc.. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Still prefer this one and use it. No reason to redirect it. Garion96 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's in use, I can't argue with that. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]