Template talk:Qif

message: The summary says both "then" and "else" need  "code if true or empty".  Some clarification is needed. (SEWilco 03:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've updated the "Documentation" trying to clarify. Thanks! – Ligulem | Talk 08:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Then/Else same summary 

message: See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_meta-templates#Logic_templates. – Ligulem | Talk 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic templates on WP:AUM 

message: It has been proposed to protect qif against changes . Would you agree? I do. (I can't do that, I'm not an admin, maybe Phil)? I would propose to wait on AzaToth's ok and then protect. – Ligulem | Talk 09:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I did propose before that all logical templates should be protected, but they thougt that was not the wiki way.→AzaToth 14:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I could protect these templates, but we need a good reason from policy to do so. Also remember, you'll have to either ask an admin or become an admin to make an alteration! A while back,  was vandalised: it had a really horrible effect. --Gareth Hughes 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why not protect just qif as a first step (I think this one is really stable), and see how we can live with that. Yes, I know that we need an admin. I think this is not that of a problem. We can ask. It's not that bad if someone keeps an eye on what happens. – Ligulem | Talk 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *There seems to be precedent for protecting these kind of things. I've protected this template, and listed it on wikipedia:protected page. --Gareth Hughes 15:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting 

message: Carl (aka AzaToth) has started work for implementing logic in code. See m:user:AzaToth/Logic (talk). Many thanks to Carl! – Ligulem | Talk 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code 

message: How is the move to deprecate this template going? Phil Sandifer 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the what links here of qif – namespace main of this wiki is free of qif (no page in main depends on qif). Lots of templates that now use #if: have been added to :Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. --Ligulem 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status check

message: See User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason#Regarding template default parameters and nesting. I assume this would break qif (see als bugzilla:364). Ligulem 08:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter default 

message: *This template was listed on templates for deletion.  The result of the discussion was keep.  The full discussion may be found here. →AzaToth 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Despite this please note that using qif is in violation of WP:AUM and qif is thus now phased out in an orderly manner. I hereby call all participants to help remove uses of qif in an orderly non-disruptive manner. --Ligulem 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually, consensus more like "keep, until all uses are replaced". This will happen quickly, and the minute that happens, this will be deleted. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are working for weeks now under that "quickly" banner. It would actually happen much faster if you would cooperate with the people around each template instead of constantly wasting your and the Wikipedians time in warring for your preferred replacements. People are actually implementing WP:AUM and it would be wise to help them and instruct them how to do it in a friendly and calm manner (as you finally did on template:book reference by providing a fully functional WP:AUM compliant replacement – something which you would have been able to do much earlier instead of threatening people with the needless partial destruction or even removal of template calls). Please leave the crusade mode now. It's no longer needed. WP:AUM stands and is implemented by Wikipedians. --Ligulem 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Brion VIBBER's newest statement on WP:AUM. It's no longer a policy. --Ligulem 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brions comment has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Brion's comment. --Ligulem 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tfd 

message: See also Wikipedia:HiddenStructure for an alternate hack to suppress text on the client side (has accessibility problems, see respective talk). --Ligulem 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS hiddenStructure  

message: I was told that qif is heavy on the servers and its use is not recommended. Is that true? Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on who you ask. See the whole story on WT:AUM (warning: long). See also user talk:Brion VIBBER#The future of qif. Brion wrote to me in PM that "qif is an ugly piece of crap" (But he did not say why). But it's the best piece of crap we have at the moment (the alternatives like weeble code or Wikipedia:hiddenStructure do have their own drawbacks). Best thing would be to have a conditonal function in Media-Wiki Software, as Brion suggests. I use qif until then. --Ligulem 10:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As Ligulem says, see WP:AUM (and the talk page WT:AUM). If you absolutely must have conditionals in templates though, this is the best option available right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay guys, thanks for explaining. For now I managed to remove the conditional in a template by making two separate templates, although it's not as easy to use as a flexible one. I look forward to having conditionals, booleans and some mathematical functions implemented in the software. Cheers. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Server load?

message: AUM is not policy; many of the assertions it makes about server load are specious and have been contested by a broad range of Wikipedians. Suggest we not judge {qif} by this "standard". John Reid 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note the CTO Brion Vibber explicitly asked not to care about server load at a policy level if that load is required to improve this Encyclopedia and editors agree that a solution is less ugly than anything else. qif serves quite well as a stop gap measure and it is not as brittle as some might fear. But it is not the best solution for all times. We should get a Mediawiki built-in replacement rather sooner than later. qif is definitely better than WP:HIDE. It is ridiculous how some people invest their time to hinder things like a simple hiding function to find their way into the Mediawiki software. Templates and especially a conditional function help building a better Encyclopedia. Sure we can do everything without templates if we are forced to. But we also could write all pages in html ourselves. But we don't. qif uses current straightforward functionality of the Mediawiki software. It doesn't matter that the inventors of the underlying Mediawiki functions did not expect that those features can be used like done in qif. It is not a hack, despite the lack of documentation for the used features. It uses template inclusion with parameters and parameter default. Sure, if the devs remove that, it will break. But it would be better they announce that in advance, as removing existing functionality from a life system should be coordinated with its use. --Ligulem 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it will play out like this: templates using broken methods to hide data (like WP:HIDE) will get temporarily ported to qif. When conditionals are added to the software, we'll use Special:Whatlinkshere to find and replace all uses of qif. Then, assuming there's still a reason to "break" qif, the developers will do whatever it is they have planned to break it (but at this point it should be irrelevant because we won't need qif anymore). Anyways, well said and agreed. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AUM not policy 

message: Is that correct?   produces bar, and  produces baz.  That seems like working to me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The resultant wikicode in the first case (namely bar) does look a bit odd, granted.  Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this whole problem with substing fixed with a software update that allowed substed parameters to be handled correctly? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't work when substed? 

message: I need some help with qif.   I'm trying to set it up for a personal template so if I put something in parameter , it shows up, but if I don't, it doesn't.  I tried reading the examples, but they didn't really explain.  please help.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. qif does not use "numbered" (or "unnamed") template parameters. qif uses only "named" parameters ("test", "then" and "else"). Could you explain a bit more what you want to do? May I ask you to post on my talk page, (if you like and need more help)? I'll promise to help you building the template you are up to. --Ligulem 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this: . The | after 1 causes it to default as nothing. For example: OneIsNotDefined will show OneIsNotDefined if there isn't any .  will default blank if there is nothing in  . -Xol 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help with this template 

message: Please delete Category:Pages containing deprecated templates in the first line of the template and Adds pages to :Category:Pages containing deprecated templates near the end of the template. That category is being deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 29. Thanks.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A thousand thanks. Have good days.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template includes category that's being deleted 

message: Substed out  here. A historic moment?  Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Last occurance of qif?