Template talk:Test2a

Please

I'm all for politeness, but two please and one thank you is a bit much isn't it? Femto 12:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading, and open to abuse

Resolved

 – Updated to "Please do not gratuitously remove content ..."

The text of this template is seriously misleading. "Removing content" is not automatically "considered vandalism" (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism). Anything done in the belief that it makes an article better is not vandalism, and there are multiple possible reasons (misguided or not) why an editor may think that removing content, even sourced content, makes an article better (balance, relevance, organisation, undue weight, BLP...). The existence of this template is probably the source of the widespread policy myth that removing content, or sourced content according to some versions of the myth, is illegitimate in principle. It is not.

This template is far too often misused to make "vandalism" accusations in what are really just content disputes. When an editor repeatedly removes content from an article, in 99% of the cases it's really a POV dispute, and should be treated as such.

This template should at least be reworded (to include something like "...removing content without stating a reason"). Better still, it should be deleted. In the rare cases where repeated blanking is genuine vandalism, one of the generic vandalism warning templates is quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia"? This template should not be deleted, however, as it is the most accurate template that exists for section blankers. --tjstrf 08:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the new wording:

While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism. (emphasis my own)

Ikip (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved documentation

Resolved

 – Code for displaying /doc was added to template.

Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test2a/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. It is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2a (Second level warning) --><noinclude>
{{protected template}}
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks. +mwtoews 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Uw-delete2

This template is redundant and should be redirected to the recently created Template:Uw-delete2. Squirepants101 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This template works if someone blanks a user page, for instance; uw-delete2 doesn't. --ais523 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the request because I just found out that at some period, some of the templates are going to be redirected. Squirepants101 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree too: as long as the uw templates won't implement the contextual diff= param in the same way the Test series does, the Test series will be useful and preferred. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade

Resolved

 – New code for handling the diff= param was added

{Editprotected}

Please replace the first line:

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}.

with this line (code pulled from {{Test2}}):

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|with [{{{diff}}} this edit]}} to the [[:{{{1}}}]] page|{{#if:{{{diff|}}}|, as you did with [{{{diff}}} this edit]}}}}.

So that {{Test2a}} has the optional diff= parameter like {{Test1}}, {{Test2}}, etc. Thank you. — Komusou ^talk @ 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, and tested. Sounds like a good idea. Also made the content clarification discussed further above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And indeed, that's why it's reverted every time they try to redirect the old Test series. Since the newfangled uw-Test seems unable or unwilling to implement the diff=, a lot of people prefer the old ones. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)