![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
The page lists {{
tl}} under do-not-subst, with a note that it has complex code. I fail to see how the code is at all complex; it's a wikilink surrounded by curly brackets: {{[[Template:name|name]]}}
. Use of {{
tl}} on a very few project pages such as this one might be better unsubst'd, but in most cases theres no need to use a unsubst'd template. Would anyone object to moving it to the subst list? //
Pathoschild (
admin /
talk) 10:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So you agree that markup should be made as obfuscated and confusing as possible, to alienate newcomers and [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]? [...]
" That's the substituted form of {{
wikilink}}.The confusion I meant isn't complexity but the non-intuitive result - one would expect {{[[Template:blah|blah]]}} to try to find the article named [[Template:blah]] or even the template named Template:[[blah]] with the parameter blah. It's also possible that the behavior of {{[[ might eventually change since it really isn't intuitive, so one wouldn't want all of its uses breaking on us. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the substituted form of {{ wikilink}}.
{{subst:wikilink|Systemic bias|those without technical expertise}}
; I typed [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]
. It would be absurd to use a template to create a simple link.The best way to understand wikisyntax is to see it in use and try it for yourself.
I argue primarily that they're not complex, being nothing more [than] decorated wikilinks.
Secondarily, I argue that newcomers learn wikisyntax by example, which isn't provided the likes of {{ tl}} and {{ wikilink}}.
PLEASE stop substituting {{ tl}} and {{ cl}}! They are deliberately used rather than Template:xx and Category:xx! They were both deliberately listed as "do not substitute" - for some reason someone has deliberately changed this and is now substing them! STOP IT!!!!!! 04:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
See also the new topic I started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More template server load debate. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, there's clearly no consensus, so please don't put it in the subst pile. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Automated tools ( bots) which do such replacements will never be used on the original template pages.
I think, it is better to have the anonymous talk pages temporary and just delete them after several days. In this way we save even more resources. There is a bot, User:Terminatorius, that blanks anonymous pages if they contain one of these two vandalism warning templates and are older than 10 days (since the last editing session). The substituted message is much larger and remains in the editing history even if blanked in the current version.
Also, the "what links here" for the unsubstituted template provides the very good list of pages that may potentially be blanked (otherwise a lot more scanning is required). I would prefer to blank vandal warnings only, leaving the anonymous pages with various other messages intact. If the vandal warnings are substituted, the bot needs to look into the page to check if it contains the vandal warning message (and the message detection is not trivial after substitution). Audriusa 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Never subst the esoteric Template:See also ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
Some of these have been augmented to include an optional parameter which allows the quantity to be specified (e.g. {{carbon|6}}
⇒
C6).
Substituting templates in this form can produce ugly code, which is better left as the template.
I would therefore like to propose that these templates be removed from the SUBST section.
HTH HAND —
Phil |
Talk
23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
H+
could be something like {{hydrogen|ion=+}}
). HTH HAND —
Phil |
Talk
10:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved to the do-not-subst list per the above. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
The template above is used on user pages containing many warnings. It reminds users to subst templates, links to help pages on using warning templates correctly, and provides useful links for editors leaving warnings and administrators intervening.
The WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation recommended that it be subst'd, but an anonymous user change the main page to recommend that it not be. I personally think it should be subst'd, as there's little need to update instances when the template is changed. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Should {{ impostor}} be substituted? I seem to think so. But I'm awaiting other users' input before I take any definitive actions. -- Cyde Weys 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
{{ afd top}} and {{ afd bottom}} are theoretically supposed to be substituted, yet if you check their "What links here" pages you'll find many occurrences of when they aren't. I could very easily have Cydebot ( talk · contribs) go through and subst all occurrences in the Wikipedia: namespace. Does anyone see any potential problems with that? There are a lot of them so I want to get some input before I go ahead with it. -- Cyde Weys 21:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Should cleanup templates, like {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}, be substituted? If not, could they be added to the "Templates that should NOT be subst'd" section? Very few wikify templates are substituted, but it makes it more difficult to work on the article when they are, especially when other cleanup templates have been substituted and there is a mess of code at the top of the article. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The guideline for infoboxes seems rather vague. Under 'Templates that should NOT be subst'd':
Does this mean that all infoboxes should never be substed, or that only certain infoboxes should never be substed, or what? I tend to think that substition should be avoided if at all possible, just because of the mess of code it leaves in the article, but I don't know if certain infoboxes need substing, for whatever reason? Flower party☀ 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What about the substing of templates which contain statements like #if:
? As I understand it, this gets included unparsed, that is, all code verbatim if necessary or not. I'm asking because of
this bot edit. Has this issue been mentioned yet?
Femto
12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently revamped {{ Archive}} and {{ Talkarchive}} with a new categorization scheme, such that pages tagged with one of them will be placed in one of the subcategories at Category:Wikipedia history based on their namespace.
I don't think that either of these templates should be substed as is suggested in this guideline. My reasoning is that the template is not actually part of the archive, and as such does not need to remain static. It's used to mark the archive. Not substing these templates will lead to more static archives, because if the categorization scheme ever changed, the archives would be automatically updated without changing the pages.
Anyone mind if I move the two templates to the Do Not Subst section? ~ MDD 46 96 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
The page lists {{
tl}} under do-not-subst, with a note that it has complex code. I fail to see how the code is at all complex; it's a wikilink surrounded by curly brackets: {{[[Template:name|name]]}}
. Use of {{
tl}} on a very few project pages such as this one might be better unsubst'd, but in most cases theres no need to use a unsubst'd template. Would anyone object to moving it to the subst list? //
Pathoschild (
admin /
talk) 10:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So you agree that markup should be made as obfuscated and confusing as possible, to alienate newcomers and [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]? [...]
" That's the substituted form of {{
wikilink}}.The confusion I meant isn't complexity but the non-intuitive result - one would expect {{[[Template:blah|blah]]}} to try to find the article named [[Template:blah]] or even the template named Template:[[blah]] with the parameter blah. It's also possible that the behavior of {{[[ might eventually change since it really isn't intuitive, so one wouldn't want all of its uses breaking on us. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the substituted form of {{ wikilink}}.
{{subst:wikilink|Systemic bias|those without technical expertise}}
; I typed [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]
. It would be absurd to use a template to create a simple link.The best way to understand wikisyntax is to see it in use and try it for yourself.
I argue primarily that they're not complex, being nothing more [than] decorated wikilinks.
Secondarily, I argue that newcomers learn wikisyntax by example, which isn't provided the likes of {{ tl}} and {{ wikilink}}.
PLEASE stop substituting {{ tl}} and {{ cl}}! They are deliberately used rather than Template:xx and Category:xx! They were both deliberately listed as "do not substitute" - for some reason someone has deliberately changed this and is now substing them! STOP IT!!!!!! 04:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
See also the new topic I started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More template server load debate. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, there's clearly no consensus, so please don't put it in the subst pile. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Automated tools ( bots) which do such replacements will never be used on the original template pages.
I think, it is better to have the anonymous talk pages temporary and just delete them after several days. In this way we save even more resources. There is a bot, User:Terminatorius, that blanks anonymous pages if they contain one of these two vandalism warning templates and are older than 10 days (since the last editing session). The substituted message is much larger and remains in the editing history even if blanked in the current version.
Also, the "what links here" for the unsubstituted template provides the very good list of pages that may potentially be blanked (otherwise a lot more scanning is required). I would prefer to blank vandal warnings only, leaving the anonymous pages with various other messages intact. If the vandal warnings are substituted, the bot needs to look into the page to check if it contains the vandal warning message (and the message detection is not trivial after substitution). Audriusa 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Never subst the esoteric Template:See also ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
Some of these have been augmented to include an optional parameter which allows the quantity to be specified (e.g. {{carbon|6}}
⇒
C6).
Substituting templates in this form can produce ugly code, which is better left as the template.
I would therefore like to propose that these templates be removed from the SUBST section.
HTH HAND —
Phil |
Talk
23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
H+
could be something like {{hydrogen|ion=+}}
). HTH HAND —
Phil |
Talk
10:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved to the do-not-subst list per the above. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
The template above is used on user pages containing many warnings. It reminds users to subst templates, links to help pages on using warning templates correctly, and provides useful links for editors leaving warnings and administrators intervening.
The WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation recommended that it be subst'd, but an anonymous user change the main page to recommend that it not be. I personally think it should be subst'd, as there's little need to update instances when the template is changed. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Should {{ impostor}} be substituted? I seem to think so. But I'm awaiting other users' input before I take any definitive actions. -- Cyde Weys 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
{{ afd top}} and {{ afd bottom}} are theoretically supposed to be substituted, yet if you check their "What links here" pages you'll find many occurrences of when they aren't. I could very easily have Cydebot ( talk · contribs) go through and subst all occurrences in the Wikipedia: namespace. Does anyone see any potential problems with that? There are a lot of them so I want to get some input before I go ahead with it. -- Cyde Weys 21:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Should cleanup templates, like {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}, be substituted? If not, could they be added to the "Templates that should NOT be subst'd" section? Very few wikify templates are substituted, but it makes it more difficult to work on the article when they are, especially when other cleanup templates have been substituted and there is a mess of code at the top of the article. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The guideline for infoboxes seems rather vague. Under 'Templates that should NOT be subst'd':
Does this mean that all infoboxes should never be substed, or that only certain infoboxes should never be substed, or what? I tend to think that substition should be avoided if at all possible, just because of the mess of code it leaves in the article, but I don't know if certain infoboxes need substing, for whatever reason? Flower party☀ 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What about the substing of templates which contain statements like #if:
? As I understand it, this gets included unparsed, that is, all code verbatim if necessary or not. I'm asking because of
this bot edit. Has this issue been mentioned yet?
Femto
12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently revamped {{ Archive}} and {{ Talkarchive}} with a new categorization scheme, such that pages tagged with one of them will be placed in one of the subcategories at Category:Wikipedia history based on their namespace.
I don't think that either of these templates should be substed as is suggested in this guideline. My reasoning is that the template is not actually part of the archive, and as such does not need to remain static. It's used to mark the archive. Not substing these templates will lead to more static archives, because if the categorization scheme ever changed, the archives would be automatically updated without changing the pages.
Anyone mind if I move the two templates to the Do Not Subst section? ~ MDD 46 96 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)