Wikipedia talk:Template substitution/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This 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.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Confusion re: deletion templates

{{afd2}} is listed under "Do NOT substitute". However, when I hover over it, my popup shouts at me to substitute the template. ... discospinster 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page has it wrong. Both {{afd2}} & {{afd3}} are shown as subst on WP:AFD. Since afd2 & afd3 are not temporary, the rationale provided for listing them in the "do not subst" section is incorrect. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
These templates should not be substed. ~MDD4696 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? The instructions for their use say to subst. -- JLaTondre 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
They definitely should be substed. Otherwise we'd have AfD noms saying {{afd2|Reason}} instead of "===Header===<br>reason" and the deletion log would read "{{afd3|Pagename}}" instead of "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagename}}." --Rory096 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Add HTML commenting to Usage

I propose an expansion to the Usage section. One of the "Arguments against substitution" reads:

Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation.

I think that adding the following to the end of the Usage section would be helpful.

... Additionally, when creating or editing templates that are commonly subst'd, adding an HTML comment to the template page helps article editors to see how templates are being used (e.g. <!-- Created from Template:Doctl -->).

There have already been a few couple discussions about this topic, but it doesn't look like anyone has thought to include the idea on this guideline page. Anyone else agree with my reasoning?

On a side note, is it necessary to have the Definition and Usage paragraphs indented? --J. J. 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Completed

Just a note that I went ahead and made the above changes on June 5. --J. J. 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about sockpuppet?

Should {{sockpuppet}} be substituted? I'm thinking so, seeing as how it's used exclusively on user pages. --Cyde↔Weys 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think {{Sockpuppet}} should be substituted since it can and is sometimes remove if someone is wrong but I definitely think {{SockpuppetProven}} should be substituted since pretty much all accounts tagged with it have been perm blocked. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

{{wi}}

Should {{wi}} be substed? It's a rather high use template unlikely to change too much (and, being just 6 bytes per page, it clogs up Special:Shortpages). Should it be substed? --Rory096 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I'd guess that it's short on purpose: that way users with a non-zero stub threshold see those articles as brownlinks. Also, the pages it is used on are rarely if ever edited, except to remove the template and replace it with new content. Thus, the same arguments (regarding server load, deletion summaries, etc.) as used for the speedy deletion templates should apply. Besides, would you be willing to fix all the pages it's used on if it ever does need to be changed? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

subpages

Arguments against substitution mentions "...should be deleted with a link to the subpage where the deletion was discussed". Didnt it get changed so that wikipedia no longer has subpages? I dont know what the new style should be, and I'm not even sure about the subpages. Just thought i'de mention it.

Subpages are still enabled in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is where deletion discussions are located. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk header templates

Why are User talk header templates such as {{SharedIP}} listed as "must be substed"? These (usually protected) templates are used on many user talk pages — but generally only once on each page — to provide standardized information about the IP address or account in question to those leaving or receiving messages on the page. These templates do get edited from time to time, either to reflect changes in our treatment of shared IP addresses and the like, or merely to improve their appearance. The fact that they're being substed means we have countless user talk pages with outdated or incomplete notices on them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they were added by accident, because someone confused them with user talk messages. I've moved them to "under discussion"; does anyone think they should ever be substed? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

{{booland}}, {{boolor}}, {{boolxor}}...

These templates are in the not to be substituted list, but several have instructions on them that they are to be substituted because they are deprecated. I assume that when the instructions say "substitute" it means that a different template should be used, not that they should be substituted with the process described on this page. I think that this should be made clear to avoid confusion. -- Kjkolb 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The templates now work differently than they used to. I believe they should be substituted now, yes. Any objections? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Templates that contain calls to m:ParserFunctions or use default params cannot be substed, as noted on the project page: [1]. Whether you want/can replace them with something else at the calling side is something entierly different and has nothing to do with "Template substitution" as described here. --Ligulem 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, most of these functions shouldn't simply be substituted. They need to be manually replaced if we want to avoid excessive mess. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Bogus text from Tdeprectated, maybe write {{Tdeprecated|use=[[m:ParserFunctions]]}} to get "use m:ParserFunctions instead". Don't try subst:boolxyz, the code isn't state of the art. It's backwards compatible with the older Qif-style solutions, "true" instead of "1" etc. -- Omniplex 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template to describe whether templates should be substed or not

It would be handy to have a template that says that a template should be substed. It could:

  • explain how to subst it
  • link to this page
  • add it to a category "Templates that should be substed".

Incidentally, there is a major conflict between all the chemical symbols, which are listed on this page as being not for substitution, but on each of their pages it says they should be substed. Stevage 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea (especially having a category that contains all templates that should be subst'd). The big question is, of course, do we substitute this new template or not? ;-) Martin 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing using {{#switch:}}

How would I do this? For example, on this page I plan on using for personal voting proceedures, I am trying to make it so that I can subst the result from the switches. If I just do a regular subst, the parameter values are just put into the whole switch and all of that text is put onto the page. Rather, I just want what comes out as a result of doing the switches. Does anyone know how to do this/want to do it for me?! Thanks. → JARED (t)  00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See m:Help:Substitution, there are several traps and pitfalls. For a working example check out m:Template:YMD2MJD. One trick is to split "all params defined" from "use defaults everywhere". -- Omniplex 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Jared, is this really helpful to you? I'd think memorizing the symbology you've got set up there would be more difficult than just making some macros/typing in by hand, but maybe that's just me... -- nae'blis (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, not at all useful. I was just trying to do something neat with ParserFunctions. I had just found them and though of them to quite intruiging. I was just trying to figure out how they worked, and I though by creating this page I could practice with them and see how to use them. It sounds kind of stupid, but just bear with me! → JARED (t)  20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As someone who codes all KINDS of stupid crap because it might, conceivably, someday, somehow, help me with a different project, or just because it looks like a Neat Idea, all I have to say is... Godspeed You! Black Emperor. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely you mean Godspeed You! Black Emperor... — Omegatron 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand what that is supposed to mean... → JARED (t)  21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Do not subst" flag

Simple "do not subst" flags for bots could be msg: and int:. -- Omniplex 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Optional substitution

Templates using ParserFunctions just survived its CFD. How about a new subcategory "optional substitution" for templates using parser functions, which can be substituted by adding subst: in front (resulting in working but horrible wikitext), and result in clean text if additionally |subst=subst: is added (typically at the end).

Optional substitution is a new technique for recursive substitution, it evaluates all colon functions, variables, and templates within a given template, the result is the "plain" wikitext.

At the moment it's difficult wrt parameter defaults, some templates support it only if all their parameters are defined. The category would be only for templates where it works under all conditions (some optional parameters undefined), it is possible to get this right, but slighty esoteric. Templates in this category could be substituted by bots, adding subst: and subst=subst: is simple.

We might need a separate class for cases, where the user intentionally does not wish to substitute them, e.g. if a template does something interesting with CURRENTTIMESTAMP, and it's meant to reflect now and not some old timestamp when a bot mutilated it.

Template:Pagelog (edit talk links history) is an example working with 0, 1, or 2 parameters. -- Omniplex 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gigantic ugly red 'you forgot to subst this template' messages

Ick, when did these start? I was prodding an article for deletion, and got a huge red warning message. If it's that important, is there not some way to just have the template automatically subst? Proto///type 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. They must be substed for correct automatic date-sorting, and there's no way to do it automatically except possibly by bot. Vote for Mediazilla:2003 (but don't comment on it, please, if all you're going to do is say you support it). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned and Unsigned2

I moved those 2 templates to the list of the ones that need substing, for the very same argument that applies to templates in signatures. After all, those templates become "the signature" of all unsigned comments. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't. Signature templates are now automatically substed, because the developers decided they should be. {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} are both protected, which signature templates are not; the latter might be changed regularly, these aren't. Until brion says otherwise, please don't change any policies for server-load concerns. See WP:PERF. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this thread will get many more replies, maybe you should consider creating a new section for better visibility? As for substituting, I would like to think that templates used in talk pages need to be substituted, if not for performance, to keep the full text in the talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, moved down. But why do we need the contents of the template on the talk page, any more than in articles? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Because talk pages, once they are archived, are supposed to be "snapshots" of discussions that happened at a determined time. In example, this section has a snapshot of a conversation that happened in March where it was agreed to substitute the unsigned templates, and will be kept for historical purposes in an Archive. Having transcluded templates would make the page vary depending on when the Archive is being accessed and the template current "look and feel". Also, signatures are meant to be static, not to change once written. We aren't supposed to use transclusion with our signatures, so why should we use transclusion with a template that, for all means, is equivalent to a signature? Finally, per WP:TCB, we should never use templates in our signatures. For all means, I believe the unsigned family of templates is equivalent of signatures, with the only difference that they are used when someone does not use his own. -- ReyBrujo 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the {{unsigned}} template isn't changing what anyone says. Likewise, if a boilerplate template is added to a discussion for some reason, it need not be substed. As for signature templates, those are very different from {{unsigned}}, simply because they're unprotected: they can be changed any time by a vandal or just on the user's whim, potentially forcing hundreds or thousands of pages to be recached. Therefore, the developers decided to make it impossible to transclude templates in them (try it, it substs them).

As for WP:TCB, that's an essay by User:Xiong (who is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation), if you look at the page history; on the other hand, see WP:PERF, which quotes Wikimedia's Chief Technical Officer as saying not to worry about server load. So: talk page continuity we can talk about, but don't worry about performance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems nobody is interested in discussing this topic. Maybe we should contact Drini (talk · contribs) as the last who modified the template guidelines? If there is really no need to substitute, then I won't do that. However, others will. We won't be reverting these substitution, just informing the user in his/her talk page about the modified guide, right? I guess we should also post a note at the templates to discuss here, I notice a thread about something similar here. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they should be substed; the unsignedness is the signature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for not subst'ing? Why should this repeated, sufficient text, in discussions, not be static? Also note that this template has been changed four or five times since it was protected. When I use, I specifically mean to add the current text. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you specifically mean to add the current text, you can subst. If someone else wants to automatically incorporate any refinements that are made by general agreement, they can transclude. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And if unsigned/unsigned2 change later, that's that many more transclusions that need to be fixed. I don't see the compelling reasons for not substituting them, and several benefits to doing so. I do subst them when I remember to, already. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree that substing them makes sense when remembered. I'll try to do that from now on. Why can't someone run a bot that goes through every couple of weeks and substs them. Save on a lot of manhours. e.g. template:category redirect automatically grabs article pages, substitutes the new category name for the old, and so on down the list at some regular interval. Other bots forage for typo snacks and devour common misspellings, double word usages, etc. This seems awfully like those tasks. // FrankB 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Running a bot clogs up edit histories, as well as the watchlists of those who haven't enabled the (non-default, as far as I can tell) option to hide them from watchlists. I, personally, find it annoying when something gets bumped up on my watchlist due to an unflagged bot correcting a typo or something, and presumably I would be equally annoyed if I didn't have the "hide bot edits from watchlist" option on (which most probably don't) and had to sift through all the bots we have running today. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear on why any transclusion would need to be "fixed". What do you mean by that? And when you mention "several benefits", are you referring to the idea that talk-page archives should remain unchanged? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:SIG already says that signatures should be substituted; by extension, I feel that applies to unsigned(2). If we ever change the parameters, for example, all unsubstituted instances will have to be corrected at some point in the future. The benefits seem like (to me): less transclusion load on talk pages, and no risk of desyncing the template from its usages when the template changes. I saw one disadvantage when I started, in that I couldn't figure out what nifty template people were using to put a signature note in for someone who forgot, but that was quickly fixable (they have very easy names to remember). It does make for a slightly longer talk page, but that argument has been firmly rejected when it comes to user signature templates, so I don't find it compelling here either. For the record, I don't think a bot is necessary at this time, and I almost always use unsigned when I'm already making an edit to the page. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I just found this discussion and feel that I should weigh in. Although it might not be a pressing immediate concern, we should definitely consider the possibility that sometime in the future the parameters of the unsigned template will be changed. Although the difference in server load is apparently not notable (according to the chief technical officer), it should still be considered over the many thousands of talk pages on which this template is used. So yeah, subst the unsigned template. If people agree, my bot could do it, but I don't want to go around making a massive change that isn't accepted. Alphachimp talk 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Substing a template brings a net loss of information - as a trivial example, if this template is substed, there's no way for us to find out how often it is used, and to compare that with the number of all comments or talk pages, or do any such thing. There would have to be a substantial improvement in other departments for this loss to be worth it, and until our technical department says that this is needed, templates shouldn't be substed into other pages for server concerns. Note: substing templates into other templates can speed up the parsing substantially, but sometimes it also slows it down, if it removes a point where the template could be cached. Zocky | picture popups 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to substitute these templates except server load, and server load is not a valid reason to substitute templates. — Omegatron 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that we've been told elsewhere that edits are relatively expensive, so surely the possibility of having to re-edit a static template like Unsigned/Unsigned2 when/if the parameters/template name/MediaWiki namespace/whatever changes is a load we could avoid by substituting it on first use? I'm not arguing we go back and subst them all now with a bot, for exactly that reason, but there's no reason to continue using them unsubstituted, is there? They're just designed to correct a lack of signature, not convey any information by themselves. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement you link to was added this January by User:TreyHarris, who is not a developer, and who furthermore only said "don't worry about performance here because if anything you're only going to make things worse". Compare, however, to Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, which includes statements not only by developers but by the Chief Technical Officer. I've clarified your link. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have stated above, I used to use the templates as-is, until I learned I should substitute them. Now I am being told not to do it. I am fine with both ways. However, shouldn't it be substituted in archives? (In fact, shouldn't all templates be substituted when archiving a page?) -- ReyBrujo 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Templates are used for standardizing and marking pieces of info, and they remain useful in archives. However, if a discussion depends on the then-current version of the template, it should be substed in the first place, regardless of archiving concerns. Zocky | picture popups 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain this? Wikipedia:Template substitution strongly indicates that non-header templates on discussion pages should be substituted, and WP:SIG says the same for signatures. How do templates in comments remain useful in archives? Why not just archive them when there is nothing unclear about "this comment was unsigned, it was by this guy"; the template is not going to be able conjure up any more information than that. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What if the template is changed to fix a bug? Or Mediawiki is changed so that the old substituted templates no longer link to the correct place? If there's no compelling reason to substitute them, then why do it? — Omegatron 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The only sort of bug that would be relevant would be a bug with piping, which is very unlikely and in which case these templates would be the least of the problem. If the location of Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages or Special:Contributions changes, there will be a redirect. Any sort of bug or change that affects this template would also be a bug or change that either affects all user signatures, or all pages on the whole wiki; it would be dealt with in that light and is moot for this discussion. It is far more likely that the template arguments will be changed, for example to have parsing of a single argument that includes both the date and the IP. Another reason is that discussion archives must remain static, that the contents of the archive is as much as possible precisely the same as its content when it was created. —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There are templates for which this is important, and there are those for which it is important that they stay unsubsted in archive pages: if there's a series box for archived pages or a automagic categorizing template for them, substing would break it. Zocky | picture popups 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this is not the contents of the archive; it is headers, which are added as a container or navigator for archival in general, not a discussion that took place on a particular date. —Centrx→talk • 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it looks like additional comments are being requested: Speaking personally, I use this template quite often as I cleanup after new users. My general feeling has been that when in doubt, I'll subst a tag, so as to reduce server load. If the techies say that that's not a problem though, then I'll stop subst-ing. I understand the other arguments here (like the changeability v. permanence of the format, and the ability to count the frequency of use), but I have no strong preference on it, either way. --Elonka 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we call a poll to see general feelings about this? Also, making a public call at the Village Pump may bring some more eyes here. I hate when discussions just stop without a clear definition. -- ReyBrujo 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'Strongly disagree These clog up the edit screen (as if long username's with pics, multiple links, etc) weren't enough - there is no server performance issue with using them - and the template is protected from being changed unnecessarily. --Trödel 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, should we replace them or not? Or leave to the user's criteria? -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)