Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

message: *  No it is not The below is copied from the most recent TFD I started and I think really lays out the arguments. 
:Storing data in a template like this creates a number of problems. 
:1) Ease of access What this means is that if a user wants to update the information (say for example the population), rather than editing the page, just like every other article on Wikipedia, they have to track down the sub template that is being called and then understand how the switch statement works and find the right value to change. For those of us experience with template editing, this is no problem. But Wikipedia is meant to be open for anyone to use. Storing data in this way just makes it more difficult to update. 
:2) Outdated references with invalid dates If right now I update the value of Imatra's population, I have to update it on . First, lets assume I am using the same reference as the one that is provided. Well now my access date needs to be updated to today's date. But I'm only updating one value... If I change the reference, I am saying that ALL the values are current as of today's date. But that isn't the case, I'm only updating one value. Furthermore, what if I'm using a different source? I am locked in to using the same source as every other value on the page because that is the source that is being returned by the template. 
:3) Dangerous precedent Additionally this sets a dangerous precedent. Should we next create a  that contains a massive switch statement with the boiling point of every chemical? Or  with a switch statement containing the current coach of every NFL team? That isn't how this works. If you want to change the data, you change it on the article in question. 
:4) Performance issues With the current implementation of 20 different subtemplates, that means that any time one of these articles loads, it has to parse 20 different switch statements. In somecases, because of the way the error handing is written, the switch statements are parsed multiple times. All to return plaintext numbers or references that can and should be included directly on the page. 
:The only reason I have heard for keeping these templates is that it makes it easier to update. Well that is just false. It may make it easier to BULK update, but how often are you updating EVERY value in one go? Rarely... And if it needs to be done, WP:BOTs are your answer for bulk updating pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If thousands of boiling points or NFL coaches were changed at least once a year on the same day by the same organization, probably we would have a meta template for them. --eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , read that as boiling points of NFL coaches. cygnis insignis 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: There is a spectrum of abilities and of needs in curating data for use in Wikipedia articles. Our most valuable resource is committed editors and we should retain the flexibility to use whatever solution is preferred by the editors curating that data. It's not our place to impose our own preferences on them. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: *Very clearly put; I entirely agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *I find some of the examples and justifications used in this RfC so far to represent naive "cleverness" rather than good sense, and give no consideration to the long-term health of the project. This RfC as worded does not make a clear recommendation as to the overall direction use of this namespace should head. The choice is this: do we acknowledge that some data is currently in the template namespace but that the long-term plan is to move toward deprecating such uses in favor of other methods ("list of" articles, wikidata, bot updates, etc.), or are we saying that we should encourage moving more and more data into templates?  Well, I think only the first of these options is in alignment with the intended use of templates. The template namespace is not a database, and our policy should be to constantly move toward eliminating article content from it. This has been the stated purpose in this guideline for almost 15 years. We have deleted templates which contained whole paragraphs of prose to be used on multiple articles. We have deleted a whole system of citations being stored in templates. And now we've already got many templates with individual data points (populations, planet counts, etc.) which change over time. The problem is, where does that end? Do we create #switch templates to cover the current head of state in every country, the current roster of every sports team, the current Billboard top 100, the current outdoor temperature in every city?  This RfC has developed no guidelines, limitations, or recommendations which would prevent the creation of any of these or for any data set imaginable. In fact, if the present trajectory holds, it would almost seem to encourage them. But I will point out that in the cases I mention above deprecating prose and cite_ templates, the first instinct of the community was to support them, their use and scope grew over time, and then the problems became apparent and the community rejected them, but not after a lot of effort and clean-up - all of which could have been avoided by sticking to the proper scope of the template namespace in the first place. Article content (and the citations that support them) belong in the articles themselves. We have no requirement that such data be "current", only WP:Verifiable, and there is no deadline. Let's not go down the wrong path again. -- Netoholic @  12:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is watching a single page on Commons really not possible? If that is the only hurdle, it wouldn't be difficult to create a public watchlist program that logs a page on Enwiki every time the Commons page is changed (filtered for bots). Then anyone can watchlist the log page. BTW I love your idea to "move toward a situation where data is stored in a central location and is processed by an efficient, fully-featured language" .. unfortunately we have a minority who believe a "fully-featured language" is a detriment for the majority. -- GreenC 15:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I note the use of Wikipedia:Excerpts conflicts with Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines which says "Templates should not normally be used to store article text".  doesn't store the text in a template per se, but it seems the guideline should be updated to mention this practice as an exception, if there is consensus to do so. -- Beland (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an exception; it's just a template that makes labelled section transclusion a little easier. "Using a template to store article text" can be seen in places like Special:Diff/660435790, where the entirety of the text was replaced by a template that had the same content. Using an excerpt (via the template or LST) can be seen at the 2011 version of the same article family - the opening paragraph is copied from the pre-2009 article instead of being stored in a template or needlessly duplicated on the article itself. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpts 

message: Is it possible to have this, as we do with H: for Help: and others? Facts707 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: we kind of do as can be seen at :Category:Redirects to template namespace, but there are some problems with the practice in that they technically are in the article namespace meaning they show up in search results when they shouldn't. You can also not use them like you would expect for transcluding a template with a normal redirect in template space being better for that. --Trialpears (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: In addition, the issue has been discussed in the past and consensus is that introducing more abbreviations would be confusing and undesirable. Use  if appropriate, otherwise write "Template" if that is what is meant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a side comment to John's post, but I don't understand why everyone insists on using  when  is a character shorter and points to the same template. Also, this gets you essentially the same number of characters, as your hypothetical T:Example becomes  (plus you don't need to worry about piping the "T"). Primefac (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: These sort of redirects were effectively deprecated in in 2014 for the reasons that Trialpears has laid out. The problems could be resolved if the T: shortcuts got hard-coded into the wiki software (the way WP: and WT: are), but this seems unlikely to happen. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: There are a few redirects of this type. But T:MP is not a template, nor are T: The New York Times Style Magazine and t:kort. Except for the DYK related ones, there is very little reason to type them in and to ever use a shortcut.  is longer than , so why would you want a T: shortcut that makes you type more when you transclude it? —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit of such a shortcut would not be in transcluding templates or in referring to them in discussions like this one, but in edit summaries and search boxes. But because T:, unlike C: and D:, is already used widely for other purposes, that's not going to happen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries are the best use case. Your C: and D: links go to Commons and Wikidata. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the searchbox when searching for the documentation of, say, , would also be simpler with T: . The point of showing those links (C:, D:) was indeed to demonstrate how some single-letter "shortcuts" have been implemented; M: and S: are others, but the train for T: has left the station. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut T: for Template:  ? 

message: The templates  and  have been nominated for deletion for storing article text, per WP:TMPG. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Review aggregator prose templates. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article text-storing templates 

message: WP:TMPG states at the beginning, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." A recently-closed TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Review aggregator prose templates keeping such a template by default indicates that this guideline is no longer applicable. Templates storing article text are created in good faith, to centralize content, in spite of the presented difficulty in editing it. If there are no examples of templates being deleted under this guideline, then the guideline should not exist any longer. It can be left to the community to determine a consensus or lack thereof to use such templates on a case-by-case basis. Editors are welcome to comment about this point. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it indicates that in one specific case enough people who are not regularly involved with templates moaned enough that the rule wasn't enforced. If you do a search for "article text" in TfD archives, then you can see that the rule is generally enforced. One discussion that goes against an established consensus does not nullify the future applicability of that consensus in other discussions. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These discussions are always limited to a handful of already-involved editors, and this particular template had extraordinarily high visibility. The lack of deletion validates this kind of template in spite of the guideline. The next article text-storing template (especially in regard to film and television) can point to the preceding one on the same grounds, and so forth. There's no reason to keep a law on the books, so to speak, if it is irrelevant in the face of large-scale use across popularly-trafficked articles. The guideline simply did not apply for an ideal example that warrants it in the first place. It's time to simply remove it and let templates' existence be determined by the community for each template. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not time to delete common-sense rules. A few exceptions for any rule can always be found. Further, "no consensus" is hardly a ringing endorsement and the text involved is short and a good argument for consistency can be made. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The review aggregator prose templates and others like  that I don't anticipate will be challenged anytime soon indicate that there's at least some level of support for prose templates in some circumstances where text format can be highly regularized. The current guideline acknowledges that with ; I might weaken that slightly, but I don't see a huge issue.  talk 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that this outcome (which defaults to keep, which is the actual outcome) sets a precedent that ultimately contradicts the guideline. This is what will happen. This high-visibility template will appear on more and more film articles (which are some of the most highly trafficked on Wikipedia) because certain editors are obsessive with proliferating shiny new features. The above editor and others like them will come up with more kinds of article text-storing templates. I can see them being empowered to create such templates for CinemaScore, Box Office Mojo, etc. where any related TFD attempted will have WP:TPMG be irrelevant because the Rotten Tomatoes template already exists. Why would any of these be truly deleted (not kept, not "no consensus") if RT survived and continued to be used? When these templates became more and more prevalent, this part of the guideline will become more and more obsolete and unquotable. It didn't apply when it was most relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline about storing text 

message: This page states that  Is this still community consensus? I recently opened a RM at , citing that sentence. The vibe I got from that discussion was that this may not be in line with current community consensus. Is this the case? Courtesy pings for everyone who participated in the discussion:    HouseBlastertalk 20:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template titles 

message: Templates should not normally be used to store article text. However, article tables (especially with detailed data) seem to be a common use for templates. See, for example, Template:Low melting point alloys and :Category:Materials science templates. I'd like to propose clarifying the template guidelines with respect to stand-alone tables, please. Either permitting this particular use or making it explicit they are also discouraged. Just like any other type of article content, it's still difficult to edit content segregated in templates. (BTW, couldn't this issue be ameliorated with a standard template header/footer with View, Edit, Talk links?). If the banning of templates for article tables is ratified, should this updated guideline be pro-actively enforced on all current cases (with nominations for deletion or merging)? fgnievinski (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tables? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?.   talk 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose#RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?|Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose §&nbsp;RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?]]