Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates

message: Netoholic and Thebainer want to have the sentence "One of the most common reasons meta-templates are created is to add functions that mimic conditional expressions". I disagree with having this sentence in his guideline and I don't see why we need a section for conditionals at all. This might have been true before we had m:Parserfunctions. But nobody needs metatemplates for conditional logic anymore, so WP:AUM doesn't have to do anything anymore with conditional logic. How are metatemplates needed to implement conditionals? Could you show me where metatemplates are needed or used for conditional logic, let alone as "most common reasons"? --Ligulem 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the section describing the use of metatemplates for conditionals as historic. But I don't think this section is needed anymore, as conditionals now don't have anything to do with metatemplates anymore. --Ligulem 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That version's better, it emphasises the historical use. Although they aren't used for that purpose now, it makes perfect sense for this page to explain why that is so, and what is to be used instead. --bainer (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point. While YOU may not create meta-template schemes... it is still a very common practice by template neophytes who don't know a thing about m:Parserfunctions, and so "One of the most common reasons meta-templates are created is to add functions that mimic conditional expressions". That statement, and the mention of the practice here is not an endorsement... the page title says to avoid such things. The point is to describe the practice so that people can recognize what's being discussed and be shown alternatives. In other words "Here's a common practice, and it should be avoided in favor of x, y, & z". -- Netoholic @ 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me such practice? --Ligulem 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template:Flag.  Please to enjoy. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well known. Anything else? But Template:Flag does not serve as an example of "common practice". --Ligulem 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those teeny-tiny flags are on hundreds pages, and there are several variations of the basic flag template. :Category:Flag templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template cover all the related ones (Olympic, ISO, etc.).  An extremely common practice (relatively on an encyclopedia of almost 1.5 million articles), and still is a convoluted meta-template scheme. You can see some of the hundreds of related templates here. Because of how these are set up, Whatlinkshere is highly unreliable. The flag templates were my main inspiration for WP:AUM. I'd help fix them, but... -- Netoholic @ 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Overall, I don't think there is enough of a 'problem' here to require a policy/guideline. If individual templates (e.g. the flags) could be better structured then we should address that directly on a case by case basis rather than setting up an 'official policy'. The latter can only serve as a 'club' to force people to change something which has consensus... and, as I said, I don't see any problems here which I think would necessitate that. The fact is that people generally aren't creating "convoluted meta-template schemes" since the introduction of parser-functions. The flags are a relic from pre 'conditional template' days that have never been updated to more recent methods. Maybe there are reasons for that... or maybe it is just that nobody ever put in the effort, but that is one of a handful of cases and not any sort of widespread or significant problem. --CBD 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'd probably be surprised with just how many conditionally-based nested template schemes there are out there. This page can be a guideline which explains the issues, so that the same arguements aren't repeated.  -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So point them out and I'll be happy to talk with the people there about simplifying them. Heck, you could talk to them yourself, work out a consensus, develop an alternative in your user space, and get someone to implement it. Which would probably go a long way towards getting your ArbCom probation on the matter rescinded. I just think it is a bad idea <tm> to go down the road of 'this type of template is a bad design... see there is a page which says so... so you have to change/abandon/delete it' again. There is not enough of a 'problem' here to justify ANY sort of cudgel... whether it be labeled 'guideline' or not. If there is really a way to simplify things people will usually jump at the chance. --CBD 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So feel free to add a summary on that page, but let this be the expanded -guideline- (not "policy"). I cannot tell from the above whether YOU YOURSELF reject this page, or are only acting out of some sense of obligation becuase you believe that it oresently is rejected.  IF you say the wording is fine, and Ligulem does, and me, and CBDunk doesn't have major objections... then what is the problem?  It is a proposed guideline, nothing more. LEt it evolve, let more people read it without the stigma of that giant red "X" on the top. -- Netoholic @ 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditionals 

message: I believe there are a few pages that were edited in anticipation of WP:AUM.  Some (probably not all) of these pages may warrant reverting.   Are there any guidelines, or priorities or concensous was to what to revert first?  I am of the mind to simply  do the ones I know about.
Sumburgh 08:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course other pages should reflect the fact that this is rejected, but can you give some more concrete examples of what you're talking about?  — Omegatron 09:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: People who rejected this page 9 months ago did so because they felt that it threatened a poorly implemented hack involving Template:If and such.  Now that scheme is deprecated in favor of ParserFunctions, and all RECENT indications about are that the main people who lead the rejection of this page are now of the mind that, with some updates to reflect the present situation, that the content of it is good.  To repeatedly say this page is rejected while ignoring recent consensus is not accurate.  I do not care about the past, I care that this page makes some excellent observations and suggestions.  People "get" what this page is about, as I see the subject come up often and I see people working under the principles given here.  Nested "meta-template" schemes are being wiped out. This page is current, and reflects wide consensus. I remain open to discussing specific parts, but Omegatron is not the decider of what is rejected or not. To do so he needs to show this page does not currently hold consensus. -- Netoholic @ 09:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this is a very touchy subject, so I suggest further discussion before making any changes on the actual project page. -- Ned Scott 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And discussion is happening.  It is only "touchy" because people assume it must be "touchy". In reality, the page's function is simple and generally agreeable. -- Netoholic @ 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would help if you gave some examples of this "general agreement" you keep talking about.  Who has said they want this page revived besides you? — Omegatron 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you're not getting is that you and other people are "saying" that this page has no agreement, but not speaking for yourself.  Do you yourself believe that meta-template schemes should be avoided?  I really want everyone on this talk page to answer this question, rather than assume they are acting on behalf of some shadowy faction that oppses this page. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you can't? — Omegatron 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: instructions creep, because it's not a big issue in the first place? -- Ned Scott 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Because we've been down that road before, and this is the right title and place to discuss this very minor consideration in the template space. Besides, the content of the page is largely uncontroversial, except when people assume it is controversial. -- Netoholic @ 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AUM had been rejected... Is it time to revert some of the "forward looking"  edits?