Wikipedia talk:Substitution/Archive 4

message: Automated tools (bots) which do such replacements will never be used on the original template pages.
: What does that mean? — Omegatron 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   is on the subst list, but although it's used in the template , the bots won't change it there. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ??? It's not on the page. — Omegatron 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, bad example. Oops. Regardless, it means that templates inside of templates will never be automatically substituted. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bots will not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: As I stated when I opposed your request for permissions for your bot I disagree with this due to the fact that the templates serve as an informative medium for those who want to quickly see the history of a user and multiuse IP's are marked with specific tags to alert people who might be potentially confused that they might be accidentally seeing these notices due to other users' actions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion not to substitute bv and vw in anonymous talk pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Of course it should be substed.  Not only is it a derivative of , which is substed, even if it changes, the old version is perfectly fine to have anyway, so it doesn't matter. Tons of templates have minor changes, does that mean we should abolish template substitution? --Rory096 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{s/wnote}}</nowiki> 

message: Should  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)
replies: text: I see that template as more of a categorizational template than a message template, so I wouldn't subst it. In the future, if someone slightly changes the wording of the template (without changing meaning) there wouldn't really be a problem, because the message is for users now. If it has been a message for people back then, when it was placed there, then I would subst it because users now would be looking for the exact message that was placed there. ~MDD4696 05:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impostor template 

message: and  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  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)
replies: text: I don't foresee any problems as long as you stick to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages. ~MDD4696 05:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD templates 

message: Should cleanup templates, like  and , 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)
replies: text: Does anyone mind if I add them to the article? -- Kjkolb 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should definately not be substed. These are temporary categorizational templates. ~MDD4696 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Substing them makes it a lot more difficult for a bot to sort them into month specific categories. Don't subst them...it's more typing for you and tons more work for whoever's checking the cleanup and wikify. --Alphachimp talk 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup templates 

message: The guideline for infoboxes seems rather vague. Under 'Templates that should NOT be subst'd':
:various infoboxes, which should look consistant on various pages.
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? Flowerparty☀ 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've updated the guideline. Templates that contain #if & co should not be substed. Also templates with defaulted parameters should not be substed. (See bugzilla:2777 for a proposal that would fix these issues). --Ligulem 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IF statements 

message: Hi all. I recently revamped  and  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? ~MDD4696 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think {{tl|Archive}} and {{tl|Talkarchive}} should be substed