This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pre-MW-1.3 Talk

[Clueless Question based on Confusing Two Pages that could be named "Template:Sandbox]

The following is a cut and paste from MediaWiki:Sandbox.

The text

To use the sandbox, click on Edit this page, scroll down to find where to make your changes, and click Save page when you are finished.

not refers to an "Edit this page" link that does not exist (at least for non-sysops), and a "Save page" link they can't reach. The damage to my self-respect at not managing to make use of it is now restored; the time i spent trying is another thing. [shrug]

The fact that it does nothing i want to do, that i can't do alrady with the regular sandbox doesn't necessarily make protecting it a bad thing, but it should at least acknowledge that it is unsuitable for experiments by non-sysops, that require actually using the page in a subst or msg. Something about what further it can do for non-sysops might be worth the effort, just to reduce the number of scratch-trash pages that get added to the namespace. (As long as i don't get confused by the irrelevant names, i don't have the need to create them, since i created at least one addressable but otherwise useless page yesterday, and i know no one will try to use the useless redirect between the time i overwrite it to experiment and the time i revert it.) --Jerzy (t) 02:22, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

I liked the old version. - Woodrow 02:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not the sandbox

The sandbox is found here: Wikipedia:Sandbox. This page contains the boilerplate text for the sandbox.

Oh, duh! "This is not the sandbox" (which i knew) but it's not even a sandbox. Sorry, i went looking for a page in the MW name-space that could serve for that namespace (which has importantly different properties) the function that Wikipedia:Sandbox serves for the other name-spaces, and hey, i found it, or thot i had. Maybe what i really want should exist ~~, with a name like MediaWiki:Sandbox for MediaWiki-name-space tests. Name critiques welcome before i create.~~ --Jerzy (t) 03:20, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Proposal

Ah, Sleep, that knittes upp the ravvelled sleave of Care; that washeth cleen the clouded ey of Insight!

Change "use the sandbox" to "use this sandbox".
Change "The sandbox is" to "The sandboxes are".
Optionally, add " or [[Wikipedia:List of sandboxes|one in another name space]]".
Move "MediaWiki:Sandbox" to "MediaWiki:Sandbox message".
Protect MediaWiki:Sandbox message.
Change the content of Wikipedia:Sandbox to "{{Sandbox message}}".
Overwrite the resulting redirect in Template:Sandbox to read "{{Sandbox message}}".
Unprotect Template:Sandbox.

--Jerzy (t) 13:24, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

A mediawiki namespace sandbox is a great idea. I've wanted to experiment with them before and have created new ones, which was ok as I could delete them afterwards, but for non-sysops, a practice page is definitely needed. I think the title should be Mediawiki:sandbox, and this page should become something else. Maybe Mediawiki:sbox just so it's short and quick to type whenever the message needs to be re-added to the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Angela . 17:32, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

slight change

"Feel free to try out your skills at formatting here" makes some new users think that they are supposed to try there skills at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Check out how many episodes of IP edits that we think are vandalism. It is most probably people coming from the Sandbox.

I am changing "the sandbox" to "this sandbox" to further the idea that THIS is the sandbox, not any other place. Secondly, I removed the embedded link in "skills at formatting." Lastly, I encouraged the users to come back to the sandbox to do their tests. Kingturtle 02:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a question:

"You can also visit a sandbox in another language. Note that content added here will not stay permanently."

Is this so? If you look at the page history you can find everthing even back to two years ago. -- Taku 02:14, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't cover everything. The page was moved to Raqs al sharqi last November and deleted, removing 6055 edits from the history. [1] Angela . 10:28, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Small addition

Could an admin add this to the top of the message:

<div style="float:right;border-style:dashed;border-color:blue;border-width:1px;text-align:center;padding:2px;margin:2px;"> [[Wikipedia:WP|Shorthand:]]<br> [[WP:SB]] </div>

Or, preferably, could an admin unprotect the page so I can add it? Or, even more preferably, could a beaureaucrat sysop me so I can add it?

Hoping for the latter option, Woodrow XXIII^II, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 21:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I carried out the first request. The second is a bad idea as the page is likely to be confused with the real sandbox and people will just put nonsense in it. No comment on the third request. :) Angela . 03:10, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

MW 1.3 and on to the Future

Two More Suggestions

I have two suggestions of changes to make to this template. First, I generally think the shortcut template is a good idea, but there are certain pages where I see it as more of a distraction than something helpful. For a newcomer to Wikipedia, I think the it would be more confusing than helpful (since understanding it would mean clicking on the shortcut link, reading through the redirects, understanding redirects, etc. -- more things to overwhelm them and scare them away). I propose removing it from this particular page. Second, is newcomer googlebombing on the sandbox really a big enough issue to be included in this template message? Again, I see that as more of a distraction than something the needs to be stated. Just my two cents... – Jrdioko (Talk) 17:15, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sandboxing in the Template: Namespace

I had started to write:

I admit, from my now exalted [wink] perspective as an admin, that there might be something to the idea that only admins should be mucking about with Templates. [wink]

Despite that, and although no one has carried it out, i still think the idea of a Sandbox in the Template namespace is cleaner and more efficient than creating disposable sandboxes and then deleting them.

And then i recalled that the main thing that is special abt the Template: namespace is that it is the default when no namespace is specified inside a "transclusion operator" (which may or may not be the right term). So for anyone else who's slow at thinking it through: prototype templates in the WP namespace's Sandbox, or on a User: namespace subpage, and don't waste time worrying about having a Sandbox in the Template: namespace.

Thanks for your time. [smile]
--Jerzy (t) 14:14, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I would like to propose a change to the Sandbox template. I'd like to see something like the following:

Proposed version start

This page is for editing experiments. Feel free to try your skills at formatting here, where no one will criticize your edits. If you are new to Wikipedia, consider reading the tutorial to learn how to edit pages.

To use the Sandbox, click on edit this page, make your changes, and click Save page when you are finished. Note that content added here will not stay permanently.

For more information about the Sandbox and testing, see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox.

Proposed version end

Now, the changes I made and their justifications:

Removed the shortcut message — I feel that the Sandbox (as well as other "newcomer pages") should be as user-friendly and simplified as possible. If a newcomer visits this page before they get used to working with the site (as they hopefully should), they won't be familiar with the system of shortcuts, and clicking on the shortcut link and viewing related pages, in my opinion, is likely to overwhelm them with information they don't need to see so early. While I think the WP:SB link should still exist and can be used by those familiar with the site, there's no need to introduce shortcuts to someone who just wants to test how the site works.
Changed "This sandbox" to "This page" at the beginning ("This sandbox" as opposed to what other sandboxes? What is a sandbox? etc.)
Replaced the second half of the first paragraph — The tutorial has a link to Wikipedia:How to edit a page at the end, and is more of a user-friendly introduction to the site, so I feel that's the only link that's needed. The new wording emphasizes that the tutorial is used to learn how to edit pages, and is a good first stop for new users.
In the second paragraph, "this sandbox" -> "the sandbox" — Again, "this sandbox" instead of what other sandboxes?
Reword the "how to use the sandbox" section to sound better, reflect the Monobook changes, and allow a direct click on "edit this page"
Removed the sentence regarding googlebombing — Unless we've had a major problem with the Sandbox being used for this before, I again feel it's not something that's necessary for all new users to see, since it almost suggests it's necessary for them to follow the googlebombing link and understand that concept before they can use the Sandbox. Also, if the community agrees, this information would be included on a separate page (see the last point in this list).
Capitalized "Sandbox" — In my opinion, "sandbox" refers to a sandbox, and "Sandbox" refers to a Sandbox.
Removed the last two paragraphs — I see more information being added to this Sandbox template every time I look at it, and each one is helping to make it more confusing and potentially frustrating for new users, in my opinion. I'd like to see the basic template contain only the text I proposed above. However, to explain the other concepts associated with it, I'd suggest creating a page entitled something like Wikipedia:About the Sandbox or Wikipedia:Sandbox/About (although I prefer the former because of Wikipedia:Do not use subpages). This page would include all the encoding information as well as what is currently on the "International" page. I've created a suggestion of what this page would look like at User:Jrdioko/Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. For consistency, please put any comments about that page here rather than on that talk page.

Please put all comments below rather than under each point above to avoid confusion. Thanks! – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good work.

I think Preview should be mentioned: its use is not needed on this page itself, but one should learn things correctly from the beginning.

"click on edit this page" is ambiguous, may be change to

"click on edit this page (this link or the one on the edge of the page)"

On the other page:

use skin-independent descriptions, not "on the side", but "on the edge".
links to other projects are possible, but work differently.

--Patrick 07:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good! As a full-time tech writer, I know that people don't read much at all--they read a little and jump in, unless they're *very* inexperienced, n which case they read everything carefully and either die from info overload or give up because there's too much to read. And everyone pretty much knows about clicking buttons and such, so it's possible to label them too much. So I propose more simplification:

This page is for editing experiments. Feel free to try ~~out~~ your skills at formatting here, where no one will criticize your edits. If you are new to Wikipedia ~~and haven't done so already, you might want to read~~ consider reading the tutorial to learn how to edit pages.

To use the Sandbox, click on ::edit this page, make your changes, and click ~~on the~~ Save page ~~button~~ when you are finished. Note that content added here will not stay permanently.

Elf | Talk 20:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. I made Elf's changes to the proposed version above, although I'm not sure if she was suggesting removing the "About the Sandbox" link (I still think that should be in there). As far as Patrick's ideas, I agree that preview is important, but disagree that it's important enough to be mentioned on this message. It is mentioned in the tutorial, and anyone who follows that link will learn about it. The same goes for the "edit this link" ambiguity. The first section of the tutorial has a nice description of that link, and I think it's fine if Sandbox users click directly on "edit this page" until they read the tutorial and learn about the other options for editing (again going on the philosophy that less is more). As for the other page, I agree with Patrick's suggestions and will head over there now to make those changes. – Jrdioko (Talk) 22:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right; I didn't include the last sentence because I wasn't suggesting any changes to it. Elf | Talk 23:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been here for awhile with no other comments, so I've made the change. – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sandboxpaste

I changed {{sandboxpaste}} to {{Sandbox}} on Wikipedia:Sandbox since I can't see why this change was made. It seems to defeat the purpose of having a protected template in the first place. However, if I'm missing something, feel free to revert/discuss. – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point is you need to {{subst:sandboxpaste}} when you use it, not just leaving it as a transcluded message. If you do that, you get {{Sandbox}} AND a html comment asking not to remove the line. The header can then be replaced in one line. Dysprosia 06:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence's version

Hmm... interesting changes, but I'd have to say I don't like this wording at all. I think that the original version was much too long, but don't feel shortening it more and more will help any. As long as the template isn't taking up paragraphs and paragraphs, it's better to have a quality message rather than losing that just for the sake of shortening it. I personally think this version sounds much too intimidating for new users. The extra wording that was removed, in my opinion, makes the template sound more friendly. I also strongly feel the tutorial needs to be in the message itself rather than in a table on the side. It's much better to explain what the tutorial is and that it might be a good place to start for new users rather than having a link on the side. Finally, once again, I don't see the need for a link to the test wiki. The "About" link explains this already, and the vast majority of Sandbox users just want to edit a page, not create a new page (the ones that create new "test pages," I believe, are doing so because they want to practice editing and didn't know about the Sandbox, not because they saw the Sandbox and felt the needed to learn how to create a page as well). Also, at least on my computer, the table on the right extends down past the horizontal line, making the template less separated from the rest of the Sandbox. I think the current format is more likely to frustrate newcomers with excess information (clicking on the Test Wiki link and being overwhelmed with everything there) and could be a little more inviting.

Finally, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the protected page guidelines instructed sysops to discuss any major proposed changes on the appropriate talk page and wait for comments before making changes to a protected page. I understand the concept of being bold, but I thought consensus was required to edit a protected page (since non-sysops can't just go in and make bold changes). The above comments are obviously just my opinion, but I'd like to see a little bit of community input before changing this. I don't mean to be overly passionate about this template, but I feel strongly about the impression Wikipedia gives to newcomers (that's why I've put welcome messages on the talk pages of hundreds of them). If this Sandbox is one of the first pages they visit (as it should be), this template is going to play a part in deciding what the user thinks of Wikipedia and whether they decide to stay. – Jrdioko (Talk) 04:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The longer the text, the less likely it is that people will actually read it. Furthermore, if it occupies too much screen space, newbies will get confused because their changes are not immediately visible.

"How do I start a new page" is one of the most frequent questions that people ask, and it's important to give them an easy way to explore this functionality - the sandbox alone is not sufficient for this purpose. That's what the Test-Wiki is for, and that's why it should be prominently linked. The "About" link, on the other hand, is rather pointless - most people don't follow such links because they are too vague.

The idea of the sandbox is for people to first of all play around with the basic wiki idea -- recognize that they can edit pages, create new pages etc. When they want to learn the details, the "Tutorial" and "Help" links are virtually everywhere.Eloquence * 15:46, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that many newcomers want to know how to start a new page, but I believe our response should be to actually answer that question; that is, to point out Wikipedia:How to start a page, rather than directing them to another testing space. That's great if they go to the Test-Wiki, but that doesn't tell them how to create a page any more than going to our Main Page does (actually, I'd argue, less, because it lacks the appropriate links). If I were a newbie and followed the Test-Wiki link that would apparently let me test and create new pages, I believe my reaction would be: "Now what?" Nothing on the Test Main Page gets them any closer to knowing how to create pages or contribute to Wikipedia.

The purpose of the About link was to make that information available somewhere so that it could be deleted from the main template. The encoding explanation would be useful to many, but not to the newcomers who would be visiting the site for the first time.

The Tutorial link is on several pages, but that isn't really relevant. If someone finds Wikipedia, comes directly to the Sandbox, and makes a test, that's all of Wikipedia that they're going to see at that point. I think it's much better to clearly show them there how to continue the learning process with the next logical step rather than expecting them to go searching for a tutorial or a page that links there. Finally, just as most people don't follow "About" links because they are too vague, I'd argue that the same people wouldn't follow "Tutorial" links for the same reason if it's not clear that that tutorial is for new users who want to contribute and learn how to edit pages. I think having an inviting, clear message here is much more important than getting it so small that we satisfy the one-in-one-hundred who is so new to computers that they don't understand how to scroll down the page.

Finally, I would appreciate a response from you regarding the policy for editing protected pages. Wikipedia:Protection policy states: For [semi-permanently protected pages], admins must be cautious about editing and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In many cases it is appropriate for a sysop to first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, as a non-sysop would have to do. I'm curious why you felt it wasn't appropriate to first discuss this on the talk page. Thanks! – Jrdioko (Talk) 17:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is a fallacy that a long text will somehow be "clearer". I believe that in this case and in many similar ones, a prominent link -- which is clearly labeled "editing tutorial" -- will in fact be more useful. A tutorial is almost per definition directed at newcomers, so wrapping the link inside some additional text is going to do nothing but waste more screen space and possibly intimidate newbies.

The link to the Test-Wiki is important so people have a clearly designated space where they can experiment with creating new pages. Wikipedia proper is not that space, and if we only make people aware of that fact behind a vague "About" link, we can't complain if they go around creating nonsense pages from the sandbox which we have to clean up. In the current version, the text "creating new pages" points to the howto, so your criticism that users don't actually learn about how to do it is invalid.

As for editing protected pages, that's really only an issue if the page is in an edit war. This is not a sensitive page. I don't really see why it is protected in the first place, as it only used on one page and any vandalism can be quickly fixed.Eloquence * 18:34, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that making it longer would automatically make it clearer, but possibly more friendly. I liked the "where no one will criticize your edits," for example. I have no idea how text like this could possibly intimidate newbies. I see being taken to the Test-Wiki and being confused about how the two sites are related and how they both work as much more likely to intimidate and confuse than a line saying "If you are new, you might want to..." or "no one will criticize your edits." Unless you have a very small screen and giant font size, even adding an entire extra paragraph to the template won't "waste" a significant amount of screen space, and, again, I feel the quality of the message should be more important than an effort to squeeze it down to as minimal a description as possible.

I didn't notice that "creating new pages" link, so I see now how this makes more sense. However, there is still much lacking. For example, take a look at that howto itself. There are three ways listed to start a page. The first is to create it from an existing link which doesn't apply since any red links here would direct to en:, not the test wiki. The second is to directly edit the URL, but the http://www.wikipedia.org link explained on the howto would create an en: page, not a test: page. Finally, creating a link from the Sandbox would work if the user understood the distinction between the en: and test: Sandboxes, which I doubt they would at the first visit to the site. If we're afraid of intimidating new users by putting too much text on the screen, we should be even more worried about intimidating them by directing them to an entirely different Wikipedia and expecting them to understand how to use it. I can see how information on how to create a test page is important to include, but I don't feel your edit solves the problem. Perhaps a start would be to include the Test-Wiki information on Wikipedia:How to start a page (perhaps at the top). Then the Sandbox template could link to that page alone (and not the Test-Wiki directly), with explanatory text like you already have along the lines of: "To experiment with creating new pages...." I think this would be much more helpful than a direct link to test:, since it would show at least a minimal explanation of what the Test-Wiki is an how to use it rather than throwing them in headfirst. In fact, the current version is probably more likely to result in "newbie tests" on en: since following the howto link will tell them how to create pages on en:, not test:.

If I understand correctly, this page was protected for several reasons. First, and most obviously, if the people that are testing in the Sandbox find this template message, they'd be likely to vandalize/test here as well. I think it's much easier to protect it than deal with constant vandalism. The other reason that I saw discussed above is the fact that some would think Template:Sandbox was a Sandbox for testing with templates rather than an in-use template itself. Lastly, I don't mean this in an accusative way, but have you read Wikipedia:Protection policy? That page (which is linked to when you edit this page) makes it pretty clear in my opinion that editing protected pages isn't only an issue when there is an edit war. There are more strict rules when dealing with temporarily protected pages, but it states that sysops must still must be cautious about editing and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject when dealing with pages such as this. It seems that, to edit a semi-permanently protected page, a sysop should either discuss it on the talk page or have a good reason why that wasn't necessary. – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) I'm fine with moving the test-wiki link to the "How to start a page" tutorial, as long as that link itself is still prominently included in the sandbox. 2) I can agree with making the preface slightly more friendly, but I think we should set a limit for how long we want the whole thing to be. Right now without the sidebar links it's about 350 chars. I'd say a maximum of 400 chars would be fine. 3) The advice to be cautious is there to warn sysops against making controversial edits. This was not by any reasonable definition a controversial edit. This is a wiki, people will edit what you write. Get used to it.--Eloquence *

I'll make the change to Wikipedia:How to start a page and see if there is a succint way to make the message more friendly when I have a bit. However I would like to respond to your criticism and comment on protected pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've interpreted Protection policy as that, a policy, rather than simply advice to be cautious as you put it. I understand the concept of a Wiki, and I'm perfectly fine with people being bold and editing what I write. I disagree, however, with your interpretation of protection policy. In the section on editing semi-permanently protected pages (such as this), that policy states that sysops must edit in accordance with consensus and "in many cases" raise the issue on the talk page. I believed that this was a case when that was appropriate (since non-sysops can't be bold and make changes themselves, so proposing a change on the talk page is the only way they could contribute their points of view). Even if it is, as you say, only a warning against making controversial edits, I disagree that your edit was not "by any reasonable definition a controversial edit." My dictionary defines controversial as "marked by or capable of arousing a dispute where there is strong disagreement." I'd say your edit was capable of arousing strong disagreement (although the only part about which I can say I strongly disagree is the Test-Wiki link).

However, I think it's rather pointless for us to discuss such insignificant points since the important point has been resolved. I'd just like to pass along a suggestion. I feel that sysops and developers on Wikipedia should act as an example to their fellow editors. It is generally advisable to adopt a policy of kindness and gentle explanation towards those you disagree with or feel are incorrect. In my humble opinion, I feel it's a bit immature to resort to a response like, "people will edit what you write, get used to it." Thank you for your comments and explanation on the above issues. – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even an absolutely literal reading of the policy (and Wikipedia policies, being changed daily by people like you and me, aren't meant to be taken literally but are supposed to be flexible, cf. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) does not allow for my actions to be interpreted as a violation. The policy specifically states that in many cases prior discussion is appropriate. It does not state in which cases, so we have to think for ourselves. We have to think about matters such: When is there any harm? How important is the page in question? How many people might be offended? How significant is the desired edit?

This is a sandbox template. The interest and stake in this page is minimal. My edit was a minor reorganization. This is exactly the kind of change a sysop is supposed to boldly make, in order to move Wikipedia forward. If we followed your advice, we'd still be stuck in the year 2001 - because we'd never get anything done, with people too afraid to step on anyone's toes over entirely trivial matters.

Matters like this can be discussed in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. That's what talk pages are for. Compromise happens, it works, and we'd already have reached one to our mutual satisfaction if you had left out your entirely unjustifiable accusation. You yourself are a sysop and are as empowered to edit this page as I am. You can easily work with me to resolve any differences of opinion you have. Being anal and accusing others of violating rules which you evidently do not fully understand is not a good way to make friends. If you care so much about courtesy, then you should stop attacking people who share your goals and are trying to improve your work.--Eloquence *

I believe you misunderstood me if you viewed my discussion of Wikipedia:Protection policy as a personal attack on you - I certainly didn't intend it as such. I suppose I just hold a different view of how policy should be interpreted. Obviously Wikipedia:Ignore all rules can't be taken literally either, since it wouldn't be fine for me to go around vandalizing all protected pages just because I didn't feel like following the rules. I agree that they are meant to be flexible, but I saw that flexibility in a different way. I'm not trying to imply that all changes to all pages should be discussed for weeks. I just feel that, for a template such as this that is seen much more than other pages, non-sysops should get at least a chance to get their two cents in before a change. I think it's worth it to give them that chance beforehand, and you think people should edit boldly and discuss afterwards. I think these are both valid philosophies on editing, and we should leave it at that. – Jrdioko (Talk) 19:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Test wiki does not seem to exist anymore.

I get Wiki does not exist.--Patrick 23:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's only a temporary disappearance. It should be back soon. Angela . 18:38, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox Message Disappearance

Please add something about not removing the {{Sandbox}} message. It is REALLY annoying (or just a ginormic pet peeve). Also, can somebody stop the anon who's putting one three-mile long line of y's which are impossible to select completely forcing one such as me to go back at least 5 revisions (with other anons) to restore the sandbox to relative order. (Punctuation errors may ensue because this is a rant and I forgot which punctuation to place at the end.) Ilyanep (Talk) 19:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use {{Sandboxpaste}} instead of this template. That includes the message about not removing it. Angela . 10:19, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. But I think people still like to move it even with that comment line. That's what I was here about Ilyanep (Talk) 12:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget you need to subst: it. Otherwise you don't get that benefit. Dysprosia 07:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

InterWiki's

Please add at least [[ar:Wikipedia:Sandbox]] [[bg:Уикипедия:Пясъчник]] [[bn:Wikipedia:Sandbox]] [[ca:Viquipèdia:Pàgina de proves]] [[cy:Wicipedia:Bocs_swnd]] [[cs:Wikipedie:P%C3%ADskovi%C5%A1t%C4%9B]] [[de:Wikipedia:Spielwiese]] [[eo:Vikipedio:Testejo]] [[es:Wikipedia:Zona de pruebas]] [[el:Wikipedia:Αμμοδοχείο]] [[fi:Hiekkalaatikko]] [[fr:Wikipédia:Bac à sable]] [[ga:Vicipid:Clár dubh]] [[gd:Tigh-cluiche]] [[hu:Wikipédia:Homokozó]] [[he:ארגז חול]] [[ia:Wikipedia:Sabliera]] [[ja:Wikipedia:サンドボックス]] [[ko:위키백과:모래상자]] [[la:Wikipedia:Pagina experimentalis]] [[mg:Wikipedia:Fasika toerana]] [[ms:Sandbox]] [[nl:Wikipedia:Zandbak]] [[no:Wikipedia:Sandkasse]] [[pl:Wikipedia:Brudnopis]] [[pt:Wikipedia:Caixa de Areia]] [[ro:Wikipedia:Cutia cu nisip]] [[ru:Wikipadia:Песочница]] [[si:Wikipedia:Peskovnik]] [[simple:Wikipedia:Sandbox]] [[sq:Wikipedia:Livadhi]] [[sv:Wikipedia:Sandldan]] [[th:Wikipedia:Sandbox]] [[zh:Wikipedia:沙盒]] to the template and if possible links to other languages as well. Regards Gangleri 19:51, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

This was done some time ago.

Instruction

I think it's starting to verge on instruction creep with having to keep asking users not to remove the message line from the sandbox. Either it's mentioned in the template, or in a comment when edited. It's a little too much otherwise,and it will encourage narky people to just delete the line anyway. Dysprosia 11:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't noticed the commented line in the sandbox. So either the commented line and/or the notice in the template is fine for me. Sorry for the revert. :) --Conti|✉ 22:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Message

I suggest we add this text to this template:

Also, please do not remove this template.

A common habit I've seen lately in Wikipedia is to remove this template. 66.245.3.195 17:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

{{Sandbox}} should not be used directly. If you add {{Sandboxpaste}} instead, you'll get the sandbox message along with a  message. Angela . 10:46, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

You need to use {{subst:sandboxpaste}}, not just {{sandboxpaste}}. —AlanBarrett 19:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please add vi:

The Vietnamese Wikipedia now officially has a sandbox. Could a sysop please add the interwiki link? Since this wiki gets indigestion with Vietnamese Unicode characters, you'll need to add [[:vi:Wikipedia:Ch%E1%BB%97 th%E1%BB%AD]], instead of the normal HTML character entities. Thanks. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 00:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela . 10:46, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Please add nn

nn:Wikipedia:Sankasse --Dittaeva 14:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. 10:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forbid redirection

It should be forbidden to create a redirect in the Sandbox. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 16:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please add da

The Danish Sandbox is located at Wikipedia:Sandkassen, hence please add [[da:Wikipedia:Sandkassen]] to the template. Thanks, ∫e^b²+1_[talk] 15:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This has been done.

Edit link

Is it possible that changing the edit link in Template:Sandbox to action=edit&section=1 would decrease the no. of newbies messing up with the message? An appropriate section title could be added to Template:Sandboxpaste. -- Paddu 15:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small layout change

I moved the grey box to below the shorthand box, instead of beside it. I think it looks better this way. ?Josh Lee 02:06, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

No problem having it below, but on my screen, the grey box runs into the text about the Test-wikipedia and extends beyond the horizontal rule. I'll see if I can tweak it. (FWIW, I'm using Firefox). --Theodore Kloba 21:59, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hey cool that looks even nicer and cleaner. (BTW that question mark is the reason wikipedia should switch to UTF-8. I was aiming for an em dash.) --Josh Lee 04:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Games

Do they have to be subpages of the sandbox? Why not Wikipedia:Games/Hangman, etc? Dysprosia 09:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think they should be user subpages. Wikipedia: is for infrastructure needed in creating an encyclopaedia, and I think it's rather hard to argue hangman is… --fvw * 18:32, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Changes

I've changed the look of this, a bit. Sorry if you people don't like it. ✏ OvenFresh ☺ 01:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)

Wikipedia:Introduction 2 is another sandbox-like place. I haven't measured carefully, but it appears to me that the page heading over there gets modified by newbie tests much less often than happens at Wikipedia:Sandbox. I suspect that the more easily understandable heading is responsible for this; Wikipedia:Introduction 2 uses a template called Template:Please leave this line alone, so people editing the page see:

 {{Please leave this line alone}}
 <!-- CHANGE THE TEXT BELOW THIS LINE -->

whereas people editing Wikipedia:Sandbox see:

 {{sandbox}} <!-- Do not remove this line -->

I suggest renaming Template:Sandbox to Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) in an attempt to get a similar benefit for Wikipedia:Sandbox. —AlanBarrett 19:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have renamed the page. —AlanBarrett 16:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genius! --Theodore Kloba 21:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think Introduction 2 is going to have its header modified less for other reasons, as people who arrive at Introduction 2 will probably be more cautious and intent on contributing instead of just "ooh, can I edit this?". Still, this is worth a shot, and as long as we don't have to type out the template name when raking (but can instead just use sandboxpaste), I think it's worth a try. --fvw * 22:33, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

A novel idea. -- Itai 01:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis renamed it from Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) to Template:Sandbox. Was this move discussed anywhere? I didn't see any discussion, and am inclined to revert. —AlanBarrett 10:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, he moved it back (thanks). —AlanBarrett 11:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modular use

I have changed the edit link so that it may be used on any sandbox within the Wikipedia namespace.

Additionally, for any other sandbox, you may use: Template:Please leave this line alone (personal sandbox heading)

-- AllyUnion (talk) 10:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:TemplateSandbox

I suggest that Template:Sandbox be redirected to the sandbox for templates: Template:TemplateSandbox Or is Template:Sandbox supposed to be used to label every sandbox page (how many are there?). I did not examine doing the rename myself because I do not know the behavior of the bot which automatically replaces the contents of Wikipedia:Sandbox and did not want the wrong default being copied. (SEWilco 14:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC))

Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)

Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading) is a version without interwiki links. Please do not redirect that template to this template or include this template into Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading). Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)'s primary purpose is to be placed on the Talk pages since interwiki links do not work on the Talk namespace. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice! Wikipedia talk:Sandbox...

The Wikipedia talk:Sandbox will be using Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) due to the problems with interwiki links. Furthermore, it can not use Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading) since Wikipedia talk:Sandbox is cleaned every 12 hours. Please do not include Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) into Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) due to technical reasons. See Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)