Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates/Archive 3

message: If this is a policy for technical reasons, why is it an enwiki-only policy? --Pjacobi 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. My best guess is that meta-templates haven't been implemented as extensively on other wikis or the server load is just less in general. --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: plus en is just a lot bigger and busier than the others, so meta templates there are less likely to get hit. I guess on the other sites they are hoping that perfomance issues can be fixed in mediawiki before it becomes a problem for them. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because I haven't translated it into Latin. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters: devitatote subformulae! --Gareth Hughes 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only on enwiki? 

message: I've come up with two (related) ways of building a 'random number' generator in Wiki-markup. However, one method would require thousands of parameters to be evaluated (with all but one being unpassed). The other method could cut that to hundreds of parameters, but would require the template to be manually updated every few days. Is evaluating hundreds (or thousands) of unset parameters in a template resource intensive? That is, if I had a template which lists parameters 1 to 1000, returning a different number for each, but I only passed in parameter 732 would the template take significantly longer to evaluate than if 732 were the only parameter it was anticipating? Assuming that parameter switching isn't a computational drain... do I dare go there? Once something like this is developed it could easily be converted to a generic  template which might then be called by other templates (meta-templating) or fed into other templates as a parameter (multi-templating). Is this too much of a 'genie out of the bottle' issue or can it be implemented in a limited fashion without hurting anything? And yes... I know I'm evil. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no use for this.  Go write an encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the usual pleasant attitude... I disagree. I think this could be useful to 'us' in building an encyclopedia. Part of our effort is showcasing the work we have done. That's why we have a 'Main Page', 'Portals', and 'Featured' content. The ability to randomly display different 'showcased' material each time someone views a page would unquestionably be beneficial in promoting the encyclopedia. The question is whether it is computationally sound or not. --CBD ☎ ✉ 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1000 Parameters? This is definitely "over-egging the pudding". I agree with Neto, though as usual he could have been a little bit more diplomatic :-). Ligulem 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uncyclopedia solves this problem the way it should be solved, with an extension. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would undoubtedly be the very best solution. Ligulem 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random 

message: OK, now that this has escalated to an official policy then what are the plans for transitioning and converting existing meta-templates?  One alternative to m:Help:Array may be the data storage tool which Jimbo mentioned last year; what is the implementation status of that?  I think one example was to store information such as the current capitol or president of a country.  (SEWilco 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of 'in the works' changes which might allow meta-templates to be replaced with a built-in implementation. However, no clue when/if those will happen. In the mean-time two methods of replacing meta-template functionality have been developed. However, neither is perfect and both have benefits/drawbacks the other does not. Unfortunately, they might both break if the default handling for unset parameters changes. Extensive commentary on the 'CSS trick' and 'WeebleCode / parameter default trick' can be found on this page. There are also a number of more flexible variations on each (inline CSS, doing 'or/and/not' parameter checks, et cetera) which probably ought to be collected somewhere for reference. Several major meta-templates have already been transitioned over to these methods. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transitioning and alternatives 

message: Can we start calling them "nested templates", "conditional templates", "style templates", and so on instead of "meta-templates"?  "Meta-templates" would technically be templates about templates; not within, and it's being used for every different type at the same time.  "Nested" is a much better word for the term meant here. 
And yes, that's an article name change request, too, regardless of whether we prepend it with "avoid", "never use", or whatever. 
I'm itching to just move it to Wikipedia:Avoid using nested templates, but I fear even this small change would lead to a vicious edit war.  If another admin agrees, just move it, and the severity of the title can still be fought about in the above section.  "Nested template", though, is a more accurate term for the object described in the first paragraph. — Omegatron 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Avoid nested templates would be more succint, but yes, I agree.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the rename to "Avoid nested templates". "Avoid using nested templates" is also ok. I would prefer "Avoid nested templates" over "Avoid using nested templates".--Ligulem 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it an insect or a female relative? --Gareth Hughes 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Fun with acronyms. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: prefer the female relative :) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the insect. That also describes quite well my position in relation to WP:AUM :-). --Ligulem 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. reverting myself. Sorry. --Ligulem 10:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer 

message: I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion.  I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.  
This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS.  This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers.  This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility.  Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:51 Z
: Having web sites which are inaccessible also violates assorted corporate policies and laws, which might affect who is able to host mirrors.  A related side effect is that if the MediaWiki does not support an accessible version of a desired feature then MediaWiki will be less likely to be used for non-Wikipedia sites.  (SEWilco 19:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS hack reduces accessibility 

message: Somewhere way up there on this talk page — someone who doesn't find the whole debate headache-inducing can find exactly where — it was remarked that the Babel templates break this rule/guideline/sharp note from the developers. Simply substing the Babel templates does not appear to break them — does this solve the problem, and if so, who volunteers to go and gently explain this to the folks over at the relevant WikiProjects, taking into account the fact it has, briefly and fruitlessly, been brought up before? ～J.K. 08:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that the Babel templates aren't really any worse than other userboxes in terms of server load.  In fact, using the Babel-N metatemplates even saves one template call compared to using  and  and directly including the Babel boxes in between.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That said, an underlying problem is that Babel boxes on the English Wikipedia have their styles hardcoded into the templates.  On some other Wikipedias (such as Italian) the styling is done with CSS classes, which makes the boxes much more cleanly substable.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As Ilmari Karonen explains, this is an example of a situation where something is a 'meta' (nested) template, but it really doesn't cause any notably greater strain to the servers than a non-meta template would. The difference between  and  (or the 'boxtop' / 'boxbottom' method) in terms of server load is infintessimal. I'd like to see the numerous 'Babel-#' templates cut down to just a few, but in terms of server load I really don't see a significant problem with them. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Babel 

message: I think this policy needs to be re-written. The way it is currently written and applied are completely different and the issues are not spelled out properly. For instance, the policy defines meta-templates as "those that are created and used to keep other templates in a standard format". The 'meta' acutally makes sense for that definition, but it has since become common to call virtually any 'nested' template a 'meta-template'. The original true "meta" templates were generally just double transclusions like those on the Main page to keep templates being called in a standard size/format. At that time this was just a 'guideline' because there were some concerns that excessive use of such might cause problems if some standard formatting template were changed. Since then much bigger issues have been introduced by templates which don't 'format' anything, but instead handle conditional logic. Technically, these aren't even covered under the policy as currently worded... though they were actually the reason for upgrading it to a policy in the first place.
Further, the root problems driving the policy really have nothing to do with 'meta' or 'nested' templates per se... it is only the utility of those applications which makes them somewhat more likely to run afoul of the server issues. A 'simple' template can cause 'update' and 'rendering' problems every bit as great as any 'nested' template. As such, I'd suggest redoing this policy as something like Use templates wisely and specifically explaining the problems caused by updating templates which are linked from numerous pages and rendering templates which contain alot of template calls and/or parameter conditions. We should be working towards making less server intensive templates in general rather than trying to eliminate a certain (incorrectly defined) class of templates which are often, but not always, the biggest problems. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. — Omegatron 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite 

message: {moved from main page)
There's a lot of talk about this 'policy' which attempts to divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details.
Complicated templates-within-templates generally ought to be thought twice about before being used, because they can be confusing and fragile. There are some good notes about that on this page; please don't go all willy-nilly with illegible code just because it sort-of works.
There are other notes on this page about server performance which are not necessarily clear or well-supported. In particular, there's no known evidence that moderate usage of meta-templates has any noticeable impact on server performance.
While there are potential issues with cache invalidation, that's a separate issue which can be separately solved -- and is little better with "regular" templates.
I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility. Please don't go around claiming "the developers" laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true. --Brion 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i have restored this statement to the main page and imo it should stay there until such time as the process arround this is restarted from scratch based arround the other issues. If developers really need us to change something they have direct contact with jimbo and the board so it should be a non-issue for them to implement it through proper channels with official statements. lets do as brion suggests and stop self crippling based arround vauge statements from a single developer or guesses by users as to what causes server load. Plugwash 04:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to take it off once it's served its purpose, but I think this page desperately needs some rewrite lovin', so replace it with something appropriate... --Brion 04:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your statements here. Though they have clarified some things, I think a lot of things are still heavily unclear. I have been forced by this policy and important wikipedians to work implement it (which I did working quite hard). I have started doing that by using the proposal of Netoholic, which has had his ArbCom ban lifted to push this to the "misguided masses". Now, could you please guide us? Abstract statements do not help here. We have ben said to be "wanna be" coders because we put up template:qif. Now we use the trick most favored by Netoholic as described in my doc. I agree that qif is ugly and I also agree that the CSS is ugly and I also agree that the weeble code trick is ugly. So which one shall we take? What shall we do with template:book reference? What with template:Infobox President and what with template:language? Your's puzzled and tired out, --Ligulem 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer statement

message: I really, really think we should push for support of one of the ideas presented here. This would likely make templates (such as Template:Language) easier to read, and perhaps even provide a way for MediaWiki to optimize page creation. I'm not sure how we'd handle other forms of meta-template use, but this would probably address the most offensive use to those concerned. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility (though the syntax is ugly IMO): m:User:AzaToth/Logic. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to "logical" or "conditional" meta-templates

message: We tried unprotection. Now we're back to an edit war. Work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll unprotect. Might've been a bit hasty. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: There's a lot of talk about this 'policy' which attempts to divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details.
Complicated templates-within-templates generally ought to be thought twice about before being used, because they can be confusing and fragile. There are some good notes about that on this page; please don't go all willy-nilly with illegible code just because it sort-of works.
There are other notes on this page about server performance which are not necessarily clear or well-supported. In particular, there's no known evidence that moderate usage of meta-templates has any noticeable impact on server performance.
While there are potential issues with cache invalidation, that's a separate issue which can be separately solved -- and is little better with "regular" templates.
I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility. Please don't go around claiming "the developers" laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true.
--Brion 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brion's comment

message: I was reviewing the different ideas for implementing conditional logic in the codeset and noticed a common issue which should be considered. They all put the conditional identifier in the template call. This is similar to the current '|if=' parameter method and will have the same issues. Namely, it is increasing the complexity (granted by a relatively small amount) on the article side and it would require all existing template calls to be updated. If possible it would be better to implement the conditionals on the template side to avoid these two issues. For instance, we could make , , | 'magic word parameters' available to every template to evaluate (respectively) whether parameter 'A' exists, whether 'A' does not exist, and whether both 'A' and 'B' exist. Et cetera. Same concepts, but I think it would be much better to have all the logic on the template side to avoid needing to teach general users how to set up conditionals and having to update all the existing calls. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Trying to understand: if we  have a template X that contains "". When I then write "" the transclusion results to? --Ligulem 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The format really doesn't matter, but keeping with the idea of basing it on a 'magic parameter' setup it would actually be something like: Text to show if 'A' exists, Text to show if 'A' does not exist, Text to show if 'A' and 'B' exist. However, the markup could be done any which way (|Text to show if 'A' exists or ##purple#A#Text to show if 'A' exists)... I wasn't trying to show a complete markup system here. Just suggesting that the markup changes should be in the template rather than the article. --CBD ☎ ✉ 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel I haven't synced my slow stupid brain onto your idea (which does not mean your idea is bad or should be changed - I just can't say anything about it if I haven't understood it completely). I have especially problems with your "They all put the conditional identifier in the template call" (scratching my head). Very strange. If we take Phil's proposal for a qif function in MediaWiki: I think this is intended to be used in, for example, template:book reference (my beloved example :-) instead of calls to that much debated qif. So as soon as we have a MediaWiki-built-in qif we just need to change template book reference, not the calls to book reference. I do not think that a single article that  includes book reference would need to be changed. What am I missing? --Ligulem 17:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, ok ignore me... both Phil's and AzaToth's versions could be used in the template rather than the article. They just looked like 'template calls' so I was thinking they were 'top level' settings. The idea (which I wasn't understanding) is to have the markup in the template (as I was suggesting)... the markup is just written so that it looks like you are calling a template. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's it. it looks like template calls but they are built-ins. Maybe we could even have templates built into MediaWiki (but I do not mandate that, I will happily use any syntax we can have from the devs :-). I will certainly not ignore you as I am always on the lookout for new ideas. If I say no to something I haven't understood, I'm a plain idiot. Thanks for your presentation anyway. I think we really need every idea and must carefully check we have understood everything. Never mind. --Ligulem 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditionals in codeset 

message: I propose to stop working on this page here and on the talk for all that do not agree with Netoholic on this. This page here is simply Netoholics private pamphlet and he will continue to use it at as a banner to remove templates and push his CSS hack. It's best to ignore him and this page here. The discussion with him will never end until he has reached his goals. It's simply a waste of time and harddisk space. Good luck to all! --Ligulem 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring him would be good for our wikistress levels; but harmful for the encyclopedia. — Omegatron 17:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Provided conditional logic is built into the system some time soon this will all be largely irrelevant. I'd prefer to get rid of the 'hiddenStructure' method in the interim because we know it is bad for accessibility (as opposed to 'qif' which is only hypothetically a 'server load' issue), but if the change is going to be "sooner rather than later" as Brion says the short-term disenfranchisement of users shouldn't do too much damage. If/when conditionals are built in, most 'meta' templates will simply go away as they are replaced by single level 'conditional' templates and even the hypothetical need for this page will end. So, based on the hope that we will get built-in conditional logic soon, I agree with Adrian that we should just ignore it. This page is an issue desperately attempting to achieve relevance as it slides into obscurity. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Introducing conditional logic will help in some cases to "Avoid using meta-templates", but there are plenty of other awful implementations out there that have nothing to do with "conditionals".  This page will be relevant as long as it's possible to nest templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your view on this matter is decidedly in the minority. Let it go. There's no shame in having one's policy proposal rejected by the community. As long as productive discussion happened, then something worthwhile was accomplished. However, this particular discussion is no longer productive at this point, and the same old points are being rehashed ad infinitum. That's why I favor archiving and protection to avoid more sterile arguments. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It will never end 

message: This page is still an active proposal, contrary to whatever tags are being inserted or removed by the non-neutral opponents of it. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revert back to the one Brion OK'd above. (I see also that Radiant has protected this page) Brion said there are some things that could be improved, and I'm willing to unlock it to that end, but tagging it as historical is simply unacceptable. Raul654 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempts to improve it (for one, by moving it to a less damning page name) have met with fierce resistance by Netoholic. One need only peruse the talk above and the page history to see that Netoholic is simply pushing AUM as an agenda despite Brion disputing the server load argument (and thus reducing the argument against meta-templates to the more subjective "they're ugly" (can be difficult to read/understand) or "they're fragile" (can break easily if vandalized). If you haven't kept up with the discussion here (or the edits to the page), I strongly suggest you do so before calling the  tag "nonsense". —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Brion disagrees with the specific reasons (avoid using metatemplates because they create an undo load on the servers), but agrees with the general principle (avoid using metatemplates) for other reasons. If that is in fact the case, then I agree with Netoholic that the name should stay. (and, for the same reason, that the historical tag is absolutely inappropriate) Raul654 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is a deliberate misinterpretation pushedadvocated by Netoholic. The crux of Brion's statements (which actually were initially about image use on userpages; WP:AUM came up later in that conversation) was that editorial considerations should not be driven by speculation on server load or other technical issues. Brion said (paraphrasing) "Let me worry about the servers, and you worry about creating a great encyclopedia." He went on to say that if specific meta-templates were ugly or fragile, then argue against them on that ground, not just because they're meta-templates. Netoholic simply refuses to accept this. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Brion also acknowledged that there are still non-subjective technical problems with meta-templates, that being related to the Template links problems. He read the page, and directly said he had no strong objections, so it's not appropriate to say Brion has done anything to "vaporize" this proposal. For example, you interpret "they're fragile" as "can break easily if vandalized". I read his comments and it seemed to me he means "very likely to break if template syntax changes".  Stop saying what you think he means and get his actual input.  He seems very responsive. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your fixed views. The most important part of Brion's statement, IMO, is that editorial considerations shouldn't be driven by speculation about server loads, that this was the job of the developers and that our job is to create an encyclopedia. If nested templates help us do that, then we should use them. It should be possible to reduce their use soon when we get conditionals in the software, but until then,  is the best solution we have. The community does not want this as either a policy or a guideline. We can either use , , or , but any tag that suggests that this has any binding effect on Wikipedians is wholly inappropriate. You are already using this page as an excuse to make changes against consensus . So far, you've gotten your way on this issue by making a lot of noise and refusing to take "no" for an answer. This must stop, and immediately. You aren't in charge here - the community is. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is expressly against templates, and Neto won't let it be altered to anything else.  The only reason this page was ever accepted or made policy was because of the server load issue, which wasn't really an issue in the first place.  It should be marked as historical.  Anything still related to nested templates or conditionals belongs on Help:Advanced templates. — Omegatron 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not anti-template, and neither am I.  The page is a style/usage recommendation, not a "how to use" Help: page.  -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From main page 

message: I have suggested that we perform a test to settle once and for all whether edits to widely used templates pose a significant server load risk. If we edit several 'high risk' templates (and then revert them right back) we will see once and for all the truth of the situation. Please share your views on the talk page linked above. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of stress testing isn't the best thing to throw at a production system just to prove a point.  The developers can try this on a test system if they want to benchmark. xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  That's pretty obvious disruption to (test) a point, isn't it?  We certainly wouldn't want someone "testing" whether the system could handle DoS attacks.  Brion said to leave server load problems to the developers and not concern ourselves with them.  They can run benchmarks on a test wiki. — Omegatron 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't this already happen, when  was "blanked" back in December 2005? IIRC the time taken for the servers to recover from the hit caused by that was about 15 minutes. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test 

message: How long goes it this time until we have a policy tag on this instruction creep: "All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise"? Please do not anser me. I'm a troll. I usually try to vote away server load. This is round #2. --Ligulem 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Red herring]] 

message: I see this is again tagged as a proposal. if this is an active proposal, we all have had lots of time to see the implications and effects. I call for an immediate poll on it, and the application of  should consensus not be achieved. DES (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal? 

message: I'd just like to point out that this page was created on February 4th, 2005.  
We've been fighting about this for an entire year now.  How time flies...  :-)  — Omegatron 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Anniversary! 

message: I'm sure we all have something better to do than argue over whether this is policy, guideline, essay, historical, rejected, controversial, or smelling faintly of roses. Kindly stop edit warring about it. >Radiant< 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits were to re-add the changes which Brion suggested after he reviewed it.  CBD changed the premise and substantive content of the page in several places.  LockeCole is just baiting a revert war (read the edit summaries). -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you were engaging in a revert war.  You always have a choice.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  We don't need your, or Brion's, permission to modify this page. Please keep that in mind. Brion did not rubber-stamp your version, nor did it get stamped with some magical gold seal that stops others from being able to contribute. You do not own this page. Maybe you missed it, but there's a lot of people who disagree with the basic premise of this page. I see now that your request for a review by Brion was just an attempt to get that "developer mandate" back that you lost two weeks ago... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So which is it.... is this page my essay (if so, why are you worried about what it says?).  Criticisms were raised that several people were misinterpreting the devs words, so I asked for his input directly.  -- Netoholic @ 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict-twice) Netoholic, please stop 'interpreting' Brion, speaking for him, and/or claiming to be acting on his behalf or instructions. If Brion wants something done or said I'm certain he is more than capable of doing so himself. As to my edits... I was correcting what appear to me to be inaccuracies and biases in the page. I listed the page as a proposed policy and left in place the suggestion that nested templates be 'avoided' just not to the extent (excessive in my view) you are arguing for. In any case, please AGF and follow NPA. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not speaking for Brion. I asked him to review this, and he did.  He also suggested some changes, which my edit incorporates. Your edits are designed to muddle this page, and change the the focus away from the suggestion to "avoid using meta-templates". Go write up a Wikipedia:Weeble page and expound on its virtues, don't use this page to advertise a technique which is in opposition to the premise. -- Netoholic @ 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is to be a focused essay with a single premise, then fine. but then it cannot be a proposed guideline. A guideline is soemthing seeking broad community consensus, adn is open to changes, even fundamental changes in persuit of consensus, IMO. DES (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Setting aside the usual claims of 'nefarious motives'... Netoholic, I was not seeking to 'promote' weeble. I barely touched the 'weeble' section of the page and, at that, added information about it's most significant drawback. Your statement that it is "in opposition to the premise" of 'avoid using meta-templates' is incomprehensible to me, as you are well aware that the '|if=' parameter (aka 'weeble') method can vastly reduce or completely eliminate meta-template usage. That and my other edits were entirely consistent with 'avoid' using meta-templates. I think meta-templates should be avoided... but not banned for all but the rarest of circumstances. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Avoiding meta-templates by using a more complex and harder to implement method is not a recommendation this page should make.  As I said, please document that method somewhere else, and add a link here. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cease the ownership campaign you've undertaken on this page. It's not your playground. Telling people to "go to another page" is being ignorant of your opposition and is totally unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How nice.  People have accused me of promoting hiddenStructure, and yet what I wrote on this page was critical of the method.  By splitting the arguments about that method out of this page, it makes things much better.  If Weeble were so documented, this page would be critical as well, but provide a link to that documentation. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Note: This has been posted both to Template talk:Infobox and WT:AUM. I've done several reverts on Template:Infobox, and I want to make my own position on the matter clear, rather than just blindly reverting without an explanation.
Most of the general talk about "meta-templates" obscures a simple fact. The overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates, chiefly , and the overwhelming majority of conditional usages are for one single purpose: to hide empty sections in infoboxes. According to Brion, there is currently work underway to add native support for conditionals into the MediaWiki software; when this is done, it will clearly be the preferred way to do this, and  can then be deprecated. Until that happens, though, we need to have a backup plan. There are currently three primary options:
#Use qif.
#Use the hiddenStructure hack.
#Fork a single infobox into multiple templates.
(2) is unacceptable because it generates horrendous HTML and breaks some client software, including screen readers. (3) is even more unacceptable because it results in a maintainence nightmare (whenever someone wants to change the base infobox design, they have to remember to do so across multiple pages). Furthermore, (3) places more of a burden on article editors. With a well-designed conditional infobox, empty fields will simply be ignored, so users of the infobox need only omit the parameters that are unused; this is quite intutive. In contrast, forking means that editors must remember multiple template titles and spend time figuring out which one to use. By optimizing for ease of editing on the templates themselves (and, as pointed out above, it doesn't even do that very well) we are hurting ease of editing on articles, which affects far more editors.
Therefore, option (1) is the best alternative we currently have. It's not that difficult for an intermediate HTML programmer to understand, and it offers by far the best experience to the article editor and end user - who ultimately must take precedence. This will hopefully all be moot before long, but this is why the references to qif should stay in Template:Infobox. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid a MeatBall:ForestFire, please follow-up discussion about whether to use conditionals at Template talk:Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As a wanna-be coder and consensus fool I support this. But I have said this numerous times already. This eassay here is just a masterpiece of techno-FUD, desinged to be used to win edit wars on templates with edit summaries like "rm meta-templates per WP:AUM. Don't revert! This is a policy!". Make some unproven FUD claims ("meta-templates are evil"), hack them up on an WP page, slap "proposal for guideline on it", let the fools fight and demonstrate how they are unable to prove that your claims are wrong, wait until some admin slaps "policy" on it and then you have the perfect sledge hammer. Neto, I must say you are a genious, honestly. But you fail on one important point: the duty of prove is on your side that this essay here is needed. Until then it is pure instruction creep. This whole thing is no longer about writing an encyclopedia. Happy birthday WP:AUM! --Ligulem 08:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also, on the basis of the evidence available at the time, fully justified.  Your incivil tone may be indicative of the level of the controversy and of the dispute, but it is not thereby justified.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the tone. But not for the content. The leniency that has been shown in the past on tonality was indeed remarkable. One might even argue that tonality does not count when enforcing policy. Thank you for reminding me that this is not the "house" style. I'm confident that you will keep an eye on this aspect on all involved parties equally well. Per the evidence, I could say that in fact there was none. The whole crusade was based on hearsay like "the devs have said: beat qif with a stick", which seems not to be much of a convincing evidence. Deriving policy from ugliness on a technical matter is not such a good idea. But that would be rather something for the wiki-forensic departement, given the willingness of Brion to incorporate a conditional function into MediaWiki. I think we have enough fuel for this perpetuum immobile here even when restricting our views to the future only. --Ligulem 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Developer User:Jamesday said directly - "Please instead work at reducing the use of qif to reduce the harm.".  There is no hearsay, and he spoke specifically about Qif.  I know for a fact that I have pointed this out several times, so will you please confirm that you've read this?  This was the mandate we had at the time.  If I hear anyone say anything different, I am going to (FIGURATIVELY) stamp this quote onto my shoe and kick them in the face until they can read it in a mirror.  Before we can move forward on this page, people need to stop assuming bad faith on the part of the Arbitrators that promoted this to policy-status, and those that worked to educate people and enforce the policy, based on this direct developer request.  You are flat out wrong that any "hearsay" was involved. That being said, we have new information and are trying to move forward.  Dredging up an incorrect version of the past in order to fuel current disagreements is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, wiki-forensic again: Yes, Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. But may I ask you to look carefully when this happened and what happended before? And what did I do after he had said this? And as per Jamesday: what is the harm caused by qif? It is not the fact that it is a meta-template as Brion said we shall not care about server load and templates. And as per the tonality: thank you for your "kick in the face" (I dispense with further evidences from my talk page as I do not waste my time with this kind of kindergarten). As per "Dredging up an incorrect version of the past in order to fuel current disagreements is unwelcome": besides the "incorrect" I agree with you. May I ask you to stop taking this thing here personally? I have saveral times explicitly agreed with you on technical claims that you brought up. I'm looking forward to having conditionals in MediaWiki as Brion has announced (and which you oppose). In the mean time, please do what ever you think is needed for the well-going of Wikipedia. I reserve the right to review your work as soon as we have built-in conditionals. Thank you. --Ligulem 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Everyone who worked based on the "server load" directive from Jamesday was absolutely correct in that what they did at the time.  The fact that Brion later provided new information does not suddendly discredit or devalue that previous work.  Using new information to attack old actions is the historian's fallacy. Please stop bringing it back up over-and-over again, because you are misinforming new readers of this page, and just plain being divisive. -- Netoholic @ 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of conditionals in infoboxes

message: In this edit, CBD removed a section describing a problem which has not been fixed.  While recently improvements were made to how Whatlinkshere works, in general, with templates, this does not change when speaking strictly about meta-templates.  Please read the section carefully, and do your own experiment.
In this edit, he removed several bits about server load.  The processing that is required on the back-end is completely supported by dev comments -- what is unclear is to what degree that extra processing actually affects things, please don't confuse the two ideas.  The current page already touches very lightly on the server load subject, without going overboard.
In this edit, CBD changed the "POV" of the section.  NPOV rules only apply to articles, not this page which is describing a specific position.  The difficulty "to implement in conjunction with Wiki table markup" is tangential at best.  In the "Blank parameter (aka "Weeble")" section, CBD changed this from being critical of that practice to one describing how easy it is to implement.  That is the wrong perspective for this page, since we are seeking to keep both article source and template source as simple as possible.  I've ask CBD many times to create a descriptive page (like Wikipedia:hiddenStructure), which we could then link from here. -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *still amazed you think you can drive your opposition off to another page when it's clear there's little, if any, consensus for this page* —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you going to just attack me and revert war, or actually present some argument about the topics above?  I would not be posting here on talk if I wasn't seeking consensus. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it your intent to continually bring this "issue" up every few days/weeks until you get your way? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which issue are you referring to - one of the ones I posted above about the content of the page, or my comment about you? -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content of the page, of course. I'm not the one with a problem here.. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no point in creating another page for the '|if=' method. That, like the 'hiddenStructure' writeup and this page itself, would eventually be made obsolete by true conditionals. In the meantime I was simply correcting inaccuracies and biases in how information was presented on this page. Even if another (redundant) page were created there would still be no reason to show false or slanted information here. You say 'NPOV' doesn't apply because this is a 'position' document... how can a biased position be made policy? If it isn't balanced/accurate there is no point. If you want this page to simply reflect your opinion rather than facts or consensus then don't list it as a proposed policy... it is an essay and really belongs in your user-space. On 'Whatlinkshere' the remaining issues seem fairly trivial. The continued insistence on including (and exaggerating) the 'server load' issues seems wholly contrary in the face of your prior claim to no longer be concerned with those in regards to WP:AUM... if you no longer think they are a reason driving this proposed policy then why are they such a major, and inflated, part of the write-up? --CBDunkerson 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's really impractical to reply to multiple things at once.  How about picking one issue at a time and discussing it?  One general point that I want to reply to is your idea of "bias".  While I agree a policy page should be accurate, I disagree that policy must be balanced.  Take WP:NPA, some people, I'm sure, have different opinions on what constitutes a personal attack and what is tolerable (from rudeness to swearing to threats).  Should a policy page describe all the opinions?  I think that would make any policy page's message most confusing. This page's assertion is focused on saying solidly "Don't use confusing and fragile meta-template schemes. Here's why. There are other methods, but they all have problems too. Consider carefully."  I do not ultimately care whay "status" (guideline/policy/nothing) people will eventually assign this ... all I care is that its position is clearly presented. Your "balanced" ideas might be better on Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits - a page that is descriptive and takes no position. -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  No one has replied to this last comment above in 10 days, so I've re-done my changes.  I remain willing to discuss them point-by-point to find common ground. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 11 changes by CBD 

message: This policy is too extreme. Crazy even. I agree with using meta-templates as little as is practical - but sometimes it is much better to use them than not. For instance,  is in templates necessary because it so much better than the alternatives. Any CSS-hack like Wikipedia:hiddenStructure is not an option, since it breaks the site for many browsers. Every other alternative makes templates even harder to maintain. ··gracefool |☺ 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're working off a broad assumption that conditionals are "necessary" and that the only alternative is the CSS hack. We all want templates that are easier to maintain, but the solution is not going to be the same across the board. Each case is different and requires solid planning and investigation. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I was thinking of complex meta-templates (which should be as easy to read as possible). Yes, I think complex meta-templates are a good idea. ··gracefool |☺ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you've kept up with recent changes, but this is no longer policy, it's not even a guideline. Any changes made with this page as justification should be disputed for the reasons you set out above. (Read up this talk page for details on how this page was demoted from policy, as well as the arguments since then addressing your concerns with browser breakage/accessibility). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've read it. It's a proposed policy — a kind of policy, though disputed :p ··gracefool |☺ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy is too extreme 

message: I've hacked out the inaccurate stuff from this page and set it to guideline - simply put, there is widespread concern and sense that making pages uneditable except to experienced users and vandalism magnets is BAD. If the sole problem with the page is that Netoholic is using it inappropriately, the page is not the thing to change. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it's established that this page is backed by consensus, it is not a guideline.  I'm not certain, but I believe that some of the remaining claims are disputed.  —David Levy 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see some dispute - transparent editing and avoidance of disastrous vandalism seem to me very fundamental issues. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are editorial decisions. Since this page is no longer a developer mandate, it's inappropriate to elevate it to "guideline" (much less "policy") status without any community consensus. I'd like to see some actual evidence of the "widespread concern" that Snowspinner cites. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall someone claiming that some or all of the statements from the "Template links" section are outdated and no longer applicable.  —David Levy 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd killed that section. There. :) Phil Sandifer 19:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like your tag quite a bit, actually. Phil Sandifer 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Now let's see if it cools off Netoholic's disruptive editing. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reworded it to be less clunky.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So you agree that using templates to simplify complex markup and insertion of content is a good thing? :-) — Omegatron 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  is *less* opaque than its alternatives. Obviously, native conditionals, when implemented, will be better still. Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline

message: #Accept as guideline only. The harmful effects cited are reasons to be careful about meta-templates and to be reasonably certain that the benefits of a particular meta-template are justified by its risks. These do not justify (as I have seen done) the speedying or automatic vote to delete of any possible metatemplate. 
#* Clear coding and clear documentation by "what links here" are good things. They are not the only good things, and they do not trump all other virtues.Septentrionalis 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accepted (guideline or policy)

message: # →AzaToth 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected

message: #The portions of this that are relevent are not a matter for voting - we do avoid opaque pages, we do avoid pages that make high-speed vandalism a trivial effort, we do avoid permanantly protected pages. Therefore we avoid meta-templates where we can. That doesn't mean we replace them with CSS hacks, but it also doesn't mean that it's up for a vote that they're bad. Phil Sandifer 21:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls are still evil

message: There are two ways I have seen for doing conditionals - using  (or similar conditionals) or using subtemplates (like , where Interstate is an argument of the main template). Which way is better on the servers? Or can these not be easily compared, as they have different uses? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any 'server load' issues with this are generally insignificant, but for templates which vary on a single parameter I like the '/' method. The 'User wikipedia' templates are a good example. These used to be 'User Wikipedia|RCP', 'User Wikipedia|NPA', et cetera. They were replaced with 'User Wikipedia/RC Patrol' and the like. This allowed some minor reduction in server load, but also made the templates easier to update/maintain... users can just create a new template with the right name rather than having to work it into the switching logic at the single 'User Wikipedia' template. On the other hand, for templates with multiple parameters like :Template:Taxobox multiple sub-templates is messy and conditionals work better. --CBDunkerson 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I favor whatever is easiest for the article editors, as they vastly outnumber template editors and the articles is what this project is all about anyway. In many cases, using  to hide empty parts of boxes or structures makes things far easier for article editors since all they then have to do is omit the unused fields, not juggle around different templates for different purposes.  Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL> 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur strongly with the first sentence of this; the rest seems reasonable. Septentrionalis 18:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite the noise about the server load, that does not appear to be the current concern of this policy, which has changed to other issues. Per CBDunkerson on the rest, good question. But hopefully the developers will continue to make mediawiki easy and easier for editors to edit I think. Augustz 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Subtemplates in infoboxes are a historical legacy, they were invented because nothing else was possible at the time. I see no reason not to replace them with . _R_ 01:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transparency; consider example below. This page is in any case an attempt to deprecate , so _R_'s comment resolves very little. Septentrionalis 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is better: {{tl|qif}} or subtemplates?

message: Netoholic has created a similar version of WP:AUM at Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates, which I have listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as a fork.  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's resolved (= deleted) now. Unrelated, my removal of :Category:Wikipedia templates was wrong, the articles there are in fact also about templates, the subcategories are only for templates. Omniplex  16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates]]

message: * Endorse John Reid 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected 

message: I've created two pages recently that people concerned with AUM (or more specifically, hiddenStructure) may find worth watchlisting:
* WP:QIF — This page contains examples of using  in infoboxes/templates.
* WP:DUH — This page (formerly at User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure, now at Wikipedia:Don't use hiddenStructure) describes reasons to not use hiddenStructure.
I suspect those who favored WP:AUM may attempt to inject their own point of view into one or both of these pages, and would appreciate it if people could keep an eye on them in my absence. And of course, if you can think of ways to improve the pages (make them easier to understand, or correct anything that is (later proven) incorrect, etc.) do that too. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages to watch

message: The protagonists here may be interested in ,  and this. Or they may not be. Or they may already have heard. -Splashtalk 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, heard about it on IRC last night. But thanks for the handy collection of links. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical expressions and conditional constructs