Wikipedia talk:TestTemplates/old grid

I've added in a couple of extra templates with specific wording for dealing with specific problems such as obscene edits, people jumping between IPs to vandalise (to ensure other users aren't puzzled as to why an apparent "new" user has received a final warning. The wording makes clear that while it is the first vandalism using that IP there latest vandalism is just part of a series of numerous IPs), deliberate breaking of Manual of Style rules or specifically the adding in the royal styles (one of the more annoying bits of repeat vandalism lately). All these tend to crop up and rather than have to type new messages every time to each user there is now a clear list to dip into. So once the template command is added a standard message comes up.

One problem, though. Some templates block on number 4. Most use number 4 as the final warning. We should arrange them all to follow the same order. It should be

• 1 = polite request to experiment using the sandbox.
• 2 = advice not to make such edits as they are considered vandalism.
• 3 = stronger warning to stop.
• 4 = last warning with message "you will not receive another warning before being blocked"
• 5 = You have been blocked message. You can come back but could be blocked if you continue such edits after you return.
• 6 = You have been blocked with blunt message that as you have a history of abusing Wikipedia after returning in the past, if you return again and vandalise a much longer ban may return and Wikipedia may report your activities to your server or educational establishment. (Rarely to be used, but has worked in extreme cases to put frighteners on kids to have been vandalising for months. The last thing they want is their school to be told what they have been up to. Some perpetual vandals have I believe had complaints made about them.

We should also use two graphic images.

For Number 3: The stop sign, to make it quite clear visually that the time has come to stop those sort of edits. The sign would stand out on a user's page to ensure that they cannot miss the message. (Users have said they missed out the importance of the message when it was just text alone. This way it won't be just text. They will see it as well as read it.)

For Number 4: The handraised stop sign (already been used successfully on many number 4s), used again for visual impact to mean stop now. Again the message cannot be mistaken.

For Number 5/6: The handraised stop sign, again making sure people get the message that they have been blocked and for what reason. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut

I am planning to introduce a shortcut (WP:TT) to this template. Your objections are welcome until color red turns into blue... ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. FearÉIREANN 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Depreceated Templates

Should I remove depreceated templates from the page, such as {{test4a}}? Sycthos 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As it doesn't do anything or offer anything different to {{test4}} I'd say go ahead. I think we are starting now to have a pretty good set of templates that cover most eventualities and so can allow users to react to vandalism with a focused message pretty quickly. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This template is an alternate to {{test4}}, which is different because it doesn't have an image to consume server resources and bandwidth. I think it's fine in the "other" category. JYolkowski // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

These templates have no practical effect on neither server nor bandwidth resources - "a drop in the ocean". Dan100 (Talk) 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Template deleted. If anyone still has any disputes, please post here. Sycthos 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject user warnings

It might be worth noting Wikipedia:Wikiproject user warnings here. Dan100 (Talk) 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Permanently banned? That's a bit too strict in my opinion.... Also, I believe these templates are still in its developmental stage, and is not yet suitable for official use. Sycthos 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they were :-). I was just highlighting the fact that people want to change templates. Dan100 (Talk) 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Order of Templates

I have noticed that the templates from top to bottom are arranged in no particular order, except the most common ones, Testing and Testing with Page, are on the topmost portion of the chart and Other is losted on the bottommost portion of the chart. Is there any way to organize the rows of this chart? Sycthos 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe by

• general topic
• specific topic

With both sections being alphabeticalised. It might work. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea.... There could be two headings, General and Specific, which will allow the user of this table to easily find the template needed. Sycthos 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:TestTemplatesNotice

I have created a small banner that links to Template:TestTemplates, just in case some people find it hard to fit on any page. Sycthos 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

defamation warning needed

Some editors jump in on their first edit to change articles or create articles to defame various minority groups. There is no "defamation" template. I suggest something like:

Please stop. If you continue to alter pages by deliberately introducing a point of view that contains defamatory or otherwise disrespectful attacks on individuals due to their belonging to ethnic or other such groups, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One of the prime requirements of Wikipedia articles is that they should represent a neutral point of view.

P0M 19:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

subst: edits

The edit by AzaToth completely destroyed this page as useful for anyone using a respectable screen resolution, so I reverted the template back to Cryptic, the last reasonable edit. Although the idea of using text substitutes for all of these is one made in good faith, it makes this TestTemplates useless to use on any pages. If necessary, we can add a note at the top of the box stating something like, "Please use '{{subst:template}}' in place of these templates so the text of the template is put on the page to diminish the strain on the servers in case of vandalism or any change in the templates used. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This was AzaToth's edit summary for his revert of my revert, "Sorry, but please change that page instead of rollback, there should be shown that they all should sbe subst'd, otherwise {{}} should be removed totaly." I absolutely disagree. The use of "subst:" is a Wikipedia guideline, not a policy, so users are not required to use "subst:", even if it is reccomended. The idea that we should completely eliminate this template simply because it hasn't got the note about "subst:" is ludicrous. In the spirit of the guideline, this note should probably be added to the top of this template, as I stated above, as a suggestion. Note what the guideline says: "This page lists templates that should always be subst'd when used in the article or user namespaces.". Later on the page, it lists templates that must be substituted, so there is clearly a distinction. Given the size of this template, adding "subst:" to every single template on this page is out of the question. We should add a note at the top, and that is it. Can you imagine how cluttered things would get if we never used acronyms either? Replace NHL with "National Hockey League" in this whole passage "Wayne Gretzky (National Hockey League, NHL, player) represented the NHL in the Winter Olympics. He has the NHL record for goals, assists, and points, and the NHL has recognized him as an NHL Hall of Famer." JHMM13 (T | C) 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I know there are should and must, I personaly added the must-thing, because should didn't apply, because in the active case, the template only worked if it's subst'd: Template:Doctl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). _→AzaToth 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm only emphasizing those points because you seem to be working under the assumption that the average User has a 1280x1024 monitor resolution when a significant number of us have 1024x780. This is a matter of display, and since it is absolutely not required of a user to use "subst:", it does not absolutely have to be on every template on "TestTemplates." It's just absurd if you repeat it so many times. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think this template is to big as it is, therefor I did in the process add a linebreak after each link. Perhaps it's better to use Template:Ti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) instead of Template:Tl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or Template:Tls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?. (O.T. I'm used to screen resolution of 1600x1200). _→AzaToth 21:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I should note that I do agree that people should use "subst:" as often as possible, but regardless of what either of us think, this template fit onto a 1024x780 screen before the "subst:" edits. I think you should find a way to make your edits fit with the template before it is used as the standard. In the meantime, this template should be reverted back to the old version, perhaps with a note at the top about "subst:". Please consider the display of the template. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please look at User:Jtdirl or User:JHMM13 to see examples of user pages which have a scroll bar now, but did not have it before. The standard for these boxes is to keep it at or below 1024x780. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have understand, according to WP:SUB, all those templates should always be substed. I do not understand what you men by "useless" _→AzaToth 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by "useless" is that I can't have this thing on my user page now because I don't want to scroll to see the entire thing. This template was originally made just tight enough to fit an average screen size: 1024x768. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted, but added a strong note about the use of subst at the top of the template, before teh table. Perhaps this will solve the matter? if not, perhaps some other useful compromise can be found? DES ^(talk) 21:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think this should solve the dispute, but it is entirely up to AzaToth. What do you think? Also, perhaps we should consider using this (which is the template {{subst}}, instead of the one you wrote, even though I do like what you wrote:

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

JHMM13 (T | C) 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Template talk:TestTemplates — Template:TestTemplates → Wikipedia:TestTemplates – It's to big for a template, it's not a template per se. _→AzaToth 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• I oppose this proposed move. This is being used as a template -- that is it is being transcluded on multiple pages. Consider other tempaltes such as {{Deletiontools}} and {{Deletiondebates}} (which used to be much larger). DES ^(talk) 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose since no explanation has been given for the use of this as a template after the move. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• How will this affect my ability to use this as a template on my user page? JHMM13 (T | C) 06:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't close this yet, but if there's no news in the next day or two, I'll assume noone's interested and not move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Who Can Use These?

Is there any limitation on who can use these, and which ones they can use?

I'm under harrassment and personal attack by a wikistalker who has issued two false warnings on my User Talk page. I am concerned that this person, a Wiki user for less than two months, has the ability to Ban or Block me. Are there no safeguards against abuse of these warnings? Or can anybody use them to harrass anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkevin (talk • contribs) 07:29, January 28, 2006 (UTC)

Anyone may use the templates if they feel there is vandalism going on, but only administrators can block people, and if you think you've been warned inappropriately, they should check the situation. A list of administrators is available here; you can search for a name in the box near the top. Looking at your talk page, it looks like User:Srleffler has already answered this question. --AySz88^-^ 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A various number of redundant templates

There are a bunch of user talk templates that are redundant; especially among the blanking/testing/with page at the 1 and 2 levels. Personally, I think the "with page" option should be used whenever possible. I'm all for deprecating/deleting/redirecting some templates into others to cut down on the confusion. -- Avi 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We could combine the with-page/without-page templates through more-intelligent use of template parameters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 08:06Z

Good point. An example of this is {{welcome3}} which has logic to determine if a talk-page link should be added. If I have some time, I will try and re-do the standard templates to allow for this, and then the "-n" ones can all be deprecated. Great idea. -- Avi 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion continued at Template talk:test)

Final warning for returning vandals

I feel there should be a separate 'final warning' template for returning vandals, since {{test4}} can seem inappropriate. I understand that returning vandals can sometimes be blocked without leaving a warning, but it's a bit unclear; WP:AIV, for example, says that a {{test3}} or {{test4}} template must have been left within the past 24 hours. Perhaps this variant or something like it could be turned into another template? Plus it makes clear that longer blocks than 24 hours can be issued, where currently only {{test6}} says that (which is applied at blocking). --Malthusian (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with {{test4im}}?-- Avi 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it still ignores the possibility the user has been blocked already, but I guess in that case we don't need another. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Using {{qif}} in warning templates

Cesar has brought up the point that using this template on a newbies page can lead to confusion. On the other hand, it allows us to combine all the named page/not named page warnings into one. Any opinions? :) -- Avi 20:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain a little better? When would you use this on a newbie page? JHMM13 (T | C) 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam warning template names

The {{spam1}} .. {{spam4}} warnings should be named {{spam2}} .. {{spam5}}. Thoughts? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-10 10:12Z

Agreed, and "-n" varaints should be made. I can make the "-n" ones on Sunday, sometime, I hope. -- Avi 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection to re-mapping the spam templates? -- Avi 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Slight objection. {{spam1}} is worded assuming good faith (editor thinks he is helping by adding links). I think just {{spam2}} to {{spam4}} should be renamed, and a new {{spam2}} written that is between the current templates. Suggestion:

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

That way, the assume-good-faith template stays at level 1 and the real warnings start at level 2, as with {{test}}. Kusma (討論) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If a week passes without objections I propose we subst all existing uses and make Kusma's change. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-12 12:43Z

Fine here. Is there a way to automate the subst: process or will we do this manually? -- Avi 14:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As no one objects, and I was just thinking that this should be done as well, shall we get on with this? I think Tawkerbot can do subst'ing. Petros471 11:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about adding "subst:" onto each tag, please see the above discussion which ended in the decision to keep that off this page with a message at the top instead. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was more talking about moving the spam series of templates into the correct number slot to be inline with the standard, but before this can be done all the spam templates that have already been placed on talk pages need to be subst (or else the message given will change on 100's of talk pages). So that's why I mentioned subst, I don't think it's really related to the above debate that you mentioned? Petros471 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved spam2,3,4 to spam3,4,5 respectively, and created spam2 as proposed above. Petros471 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

drmspeedy levels

{{drmspeedy}} lacks levels, something I noticed after falling into an edit war over speedy delete tags on a few pages.

This behavior is in violation of the three revert rule, yet there are no appropriate templates for warning the user in such situations.

I would like to add {{drmspeedy3}}, {{drmspeedy4}}, and {{drmspeedy5}}. I have the text prepared already, just a simple and obvious alteration of {{drmafd3}}, {{drmafd4}}, and {{drmafd5}}. But I thought community concensus might be required before adding new templates to the WP:WARN grid. Should I just be bold and do this? I thought I'd ask first, as there might be a good reason why these templates don't exist yet. Vslashg 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. I actually created the drmspeedy tag, and I'm awfully sorry I didn't make the others like I promised, but university's been quite the drag this semester and I've got practically no time. I modeled the drmspeedy after drmafd, so I think it's fair to do the others in the same way. So try to model the 2, 3, etc. after the drmafds and the first drmspeedy. See you around, JHMM13 (T | C) 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I added them. Please let me know if you have any concerns with my entries.

I'm actually a bit curious about drmafd4 and drmafd5, as they refer to the 3RR. They would then not apply to users removing notices from multiple pages. In practice, though, the normal usage will almost certainly be a user defending a single page, so I modeled the drmspeedy4 and 5 notices after them. Vslashg (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think these templates work fine. Nice job, JHMM13 (T | C) 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

{{testTemplatesList}}

I think this is a rather neat template, but should it be added to this one? It pushes the main content down the page, making it look a bit messy (to me at least). I think this should be on a separate page, as an alternative format for viewing the test templates. What do others think? Petros471 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, but I'm thinking after first level it should just expand. Having to click twice to reach a template isn't efficient enough for me. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why this template is stuck onto the top of TestTemplates. I do think it is a neat template, but does it need to be hidden onto this one? I'm strongly suggesting its removal from the template as template advertising, if there is such a thing. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support adding a line below "See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for an expanded page." that reads something along the lines of "For an alternative page that presents the templates by category in an expanding format...", and removing the template from here. That way it advertises it's presence for people who prefer the expanding view, without imposing its presence of the grid view. (btw, I don't think my proposed wording is very good, but if we agree on the principle someone else can write the exact phrase!) Petros471 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I don't have a problem with the link being in "See also," but as it is, it's kind of odd. I'm going to remove it for now from the top of the page since there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it to be there. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blank templates

I think that {{Template:Blank2}} is too assuming good faith. Once in a while I come across editors with history of vandalism that blank a page, but are not quite deserving of {{Template:blank3}}. I propose we rename it to {{Template:blank}} and list it under the "Good faith" or "Use sandbox" columns. I think that Blank2 needs to be more equivalent to {{Template:test2}}, with a message such as:

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. It is considered vandalism. 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. Thanks. ~~~~

What do you think of the idea? any suggestions on wording? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Put renamed blank2 (i.e. what will be blank/blank1) under use sandbox to be in line with test1, and change blank2 to your proposed wording. The only thing is that I'm not sure the signature should be included in the template (it's not a bad idea to include the sig in the template, to save those few extra characters of typing but the others don't so this one shouldn't- or else we'll probably end up signing twice...). Petros471 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the signature should be in the template, as I sometimes add a personalised message after the warning and before my sig. MartinRe 13:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I'd say leave out the tildes. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The tildes were merely a cut and paste error. I'll make the change now. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The bot was later abandoned, and this discussion is now closed. Wuzzy 15:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation of prod

With the creation of the {{prod}} template for cases between AfD and speedy deletion, is there a need for additional templates to deal with people who remove prod templates? There's two opinions to be had on this, since I've seen more than a couple of cases of vandalism where the template is removed without cause, though on the other hand, removal of the template is supposed to lead to an automatic move over to AfD (in theory). --DMG413 15:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Even an unwarranted removal of the {{prod}} tag is supposed to lead to AfD. Prod is for uncontested deletions only - if the creator's around we should use an AfD to get their input. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

-n templates revisited

A while back there was discussion about making the -n versions of the test/spam/etc templates redundant by having an optional parameter to the template. Am I right in thinking this was ultimately rejected because it used qif? If so there is now build in m:ParserFunctions available, so I wondered if it would now be possible to re-write the templates with this? Petros471 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense template?

I can't seem to find the template asking editors not to add "nonsense" to Wikipedia. Is it still there? Badagnani 05:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

{test2} mentions not adding nonsense, perhaps this is the one you're looking for? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I understand why Template:TestTemplates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should stay separate. The transclusion is an elegant way to keep the page maintainable. But there seems to be a great deal of overlap between the Talk pages. Personally, I am confused which talk page should be used for which topics. I recommend merging the Talk pages (only) and redirecting one to the other. Rossami (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You should either Merge the talk pages or have the two talk pages link to each other in a {{Notice}} on the Top of the page--E-Bod 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New template proposal

I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under {{db-nocontent}}). I've written something to this effect on several occasions, and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content, but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂

I like it. In fact, I think we should have warning templates for each of the speedy delete criteria. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. I have some minor suggestions: Instead of "marked for deletion" make it "marked for speedy deletion" with "speedy deletion" a piped link to WP:CSD. Also, instead of "you created at [[{{{1}}}]]" , make it "you created, [[{{{1}}}]],". The at sounds awkward to me. Suggested names: Template:dbnocontent-warn or Template:dbempty-warn (similar to {{nn-warn}}) and then each csd criteria template can follow the same naming convention--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Table formatting messed up

Urgent notice! The table is messed up and needs to be fixed. ;) -- œ^™ 00:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)