Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 2

message: It occurs to me that the current version of  is pretty benign (ending with a "Thanks", no stop sign icon), especially considering that it's meant to be a last warning to the user before they get banned. Perhaps the current version could get moved down to a "level 3" and a more severe one created that makes sure the vandal knows that they'll get blocked if they do it once more could be created? Molimo 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  and put them into the main table at levels 2 and 4 respectively. Also, I created and added the  and  templates because of the increasing amount of misguided censorship of swear words and such I've been noticing. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, the censorship ones will be highly useful. JoshuaZ 05:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I recently encountered the opposite situation, so I created the milder  in the good faith column. Feezo  (Talk) 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More severe version of <nowiki>{{Wr}}</nowiki>?

message: We currently have (some) deletion notification messages both here at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Deletion_notifications and at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion. We should concentrate them in one place, IMHO, but I'm agnostic as to where. Any suggestions? Sandstein 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion notifications 

message: What is the best template to use when someone reposts deleted material?  Vegaswikian 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reposted material 

message: :this discussion was originally posted on Template talk:TestTemplates.  merged here
A while back there was discussion about making the -n versions of the test/spam/etc templates redundant by having an optional parameter to the template. Am I right in thinking this was ultimately rejected because it used qif? If so there is now build in m:ParserFunctions available, so I wondered if it would now be possible to re-write the templates with this? Petros471 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  -n templates revisited 

message: I see the , ,  etc. series of templates used on anonymous vandals instead of  all the time. Is the overlap in the templates due to the fact that  is only to be used on registered users or is it up to the discretion of the RC patroller to use anon vandal instead?  savidan(talk) (e@) 08:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Wikipedians prefer the "test" templates for pretty much *all* vandalism, for reasons that have been discussed and debated elsewhere. (I can't easily give you a pointer, sorry).--Srleffler 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  test vs anon vandal 

message: I like Behave better than joke becose Behave seems more fiendly.  I would sugest you add :Template:Behave-n (it took me a while to find and this might same other's the trouble (ok the problem wasn't finding it the problem was i asumed it it existed it would be included in the project page))--E-Bod 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behave 

message: Hey, I'm trying to fix this template, there's a spelling error in it. Can someone tell me where to go to fix it?
Template:AOLdos 
Thanks. IronDuke 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: :this discussion was originally posted on Template talk:TestTemplates.  merged here
I can't seem to find the template asking editors not to add "nonsense" to Wikipedia.  Is it still there?  Badagnani 05:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: {test2} mentions not adding nonsense, perhaps this is the one you're looking for? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense template? 

message: I'd like to propose the addition of Template:vandalism watch and Template:repeat vandal to this page.  They seem as appropriate as the SharedIP warning.  But I can't quite figure out where in the table they might fit.  I've tentatively added them to the "Others" line/"Blocked" column.  Rossami (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Vandalism watch]] 

message: :this discussion was originally posted on Template talk:TestTemplates.  merged here
I understand why Template:TestTemplates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should stay separate.  The transclusion is an elegant way to keep the page maintainable.  But there seems to be a great deal of overlap between the Talk pages.  Personally, I am confused which talk page should be used for which topics.  I recommend merging the Talk pages (only) and redirecting one to the other.  Rossami (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger completed.  Rossami (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under ). I've written something to this effect on several occasions, and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content, but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but I don't think it is needed.  There is already Template:AFDNote, and Template:AFDWarning, for a regular AFD.  I don't see the point in warning a person for a speedy delete.  Most likely the person isn't online then and will only see the message after the article has been deleted.  And if they are online then there is a good chance that they would see the notice on the page they (probably) just created.  If so, they will know they can use a hangon because it says so in the speedy delete tag.  In rare situations it would help, but most of the time it would just lead to confusion.  Jon513 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mean for speedies - in the line of Template:nn-warn and Template:vanity. -Goldom (t) (Review) 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template proposal

message: There seem to be no test-templates available for users who consistently post advertising information to Wikipedia. I had to improvise a level-3 warning to a user who was creating multiple advertising pages with the same content (copied from the companies' websites), the second one created after a copyvio warning, because no templates existed. (Both pages are now tagged for speedy deletion). Is this enough of a problem that new templates are needed? --Ais523 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do it often enough I usually just post on the admin noticeboard recommending a block. Spammers make me mad. --Liface 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat advertisers

message: Is there any way to display the templates without adding the page to the relevant categories (:Category:Requests for unblock etc) without substing them all and doing it manually? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we definnatly don't want to subst them.  We want to see what the template is currently not a month or year ago!  Jon513 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  The categorization can be dependent on the namespace of the page the template is on.  I've modified Template:SharedUnknownEDU, Template:Sharedipedu, and Template:SharedIP to only add the page to :Category:Shared IP if it's a User talk page.  The rest can be done similarly (although most of them will take an admin to change). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is in a bunch of unrelated categories

message: I don't think there should be any redirects on this page.
How about this.  
#Templates should moved until it is Properly named
#*Not a Properly named template redirecting to the original
#Only the Correctly named one goes onto this page.
#Old Version will redirect to the new ones.  On the talk page of each template we should list the other templates that redirect to them in case people want to use them
#*However only the correctly named one should be on this page.
=== don't remove redirects ===
Copied from User talk:Yskyflyer#don't remove redirects by --E-Bod 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Thanks for reverting me. It's Just that  linked to  and that template Already Existed. You are right. At the time i was thinking Why give somebody a NPA and then a NPA2 if they are the same message I didn't think we wanted redundant messages. If their is no NPA2 people would use NPA3 or NPA. I will not do that again. Thanks for Clarifying this to me.--E-Bod 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Copied from User talk:Yskyflyer#don't remove redirects by --E-Bod 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Thanks for reverting me. It's Just that  linked to  and that template Already Existed. You are right. At the time i was thinking Why give somebody a NPA and then a NPA2 if they are the same message I didn't think we wanted redundant messages. If their is no NPA2 people would use NPA3 or NPA. I will not do that again. Thanks for Clarifying this to me.--E-Bod 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't remove redirects 

message: :this discussion was originally posted on Template talk:TestTemplates.  merged here
I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under ). I've written something to this effect on several occasions, and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content, but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂
:I like it.  In fact, I think we should have warning templates for each of the speedy delete criteria. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too. I have some minor suggestions: Instead of "marked for deletion" make it "marked for speedy deletion" with "speedy deletion" a piped link to WP:CSD. Also, instead of "you created at " , make it "you created, ,". The at sounds awkward to me. Suggested names: Template:dbnocontent-warn or Template:dbempty-warn (similar to ) and then each csd criteria template can follow the same naming convention--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template proposal

message: I'm not sure if this message belongs here or WP:UW (where I've been inactive) but anyways, here goes: With reference to issues such as these, it may be better to have a template for copyright infringement - text. Any ideas? Can someone do the honours as well? TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What parameters are needed that are not already covered by ?--Fuhghettaboutit 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for copyrights 

message: Hi. I've just created this template in response to a recent collateral damage incident with User:202.6.138.34. I haven't created a template before so I'd appreciate any input, including whether we already have a template for this. Thanks TigerShark 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on the template's Talk page.  Rossami (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:CDamage]]

message: I have created Template:Welcomemos (mos=manual of style) to welcome user who add a lot of work for those involed with :Category:Articles that need to be wikified.  I based it off Template:Welcomenpov.  Jon513 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  welcomemos 

message: Could someone please add  and  to the second column of misinformation on the warnings grid. I can't work out how it works.
Thanks --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Verror templates. 

message: Calling someone a vandal is wrong.  Therefore templates such as Template: test3 which calls you a vandal is wrong.  Such a template encourages harassment by those inclined to do that sort of thing.  --Chuck Marean 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling someone a vandal 

message: I noticed that with image1 and image2, the signatures get put in a box unlike every other warning template as so:
----
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia.  Your test of inserting inappropriate images into an article worked, and has been reverted or removed.  Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do.   Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 
 -- signature would be here
Please refrain from adding images into articles where the intent is to provoke, offend, or push a POV agenda.  It is considered vandalism.  If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.  Thank you. 
 -- signature would be here
----
I'm not knowledgeable enough about how templates work to fix it. Can somebody else look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image1/image2 templates broken? 

message: Is there a template that you can use to ask somebody who uploaded a fair use image to provide rationale for the image on its description page? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template requesting fair use rationale for an image 

message: I've created a new template Template:Firstarticle and listed it on this page.  It's intended for use when a new user creates an article which is then marked for speedy deletion.  The idea is that the template is placed on the new user's talk page, both to inform them and to encourage them to create more new articles which conform to the criteria.  I made it because I realise how it must affect new users when their first contribution is delted, and I know for a fact that many users leave immediately because of such an experience.  I hope this helps wikipedia - let me know what you think Martinp23 15:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Can someone tell me whether: (a) a new template ought to be developed; or (b) which template already fits -- the following case?  It's an edit-content war where a single user contintally reverts, every day (taking care not to violate 3RR) _and_ refuses to discuss his edits, despite repeated requests on his talk page?  One "advocate" suggested that with refusing to discuss, this might be considered vandalism.  Any other ideas?  Anything here fit?  Or do we need a new one?  Thanks. -- Sholom 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it is still a 3RR violation. WP:3RR states that "In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." This line addresses "letter vs. spirit" of the law issues. Be clear when applying to an admin that this is the part of 3RR you are referring to when listing the violation, and expect to have to provide evidence that this is indeed an excessive case. BigNate37T·C 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing you may do is list it (name escapes me at the moment) to have other users take a look at the situation and essentially get a broader perspective. BigNate37T·C 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with above - the 3RR rule still applies, WP:3RR also states "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement... It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. " I would think a new template isn't warranted --Trödel 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content/behavior warnings? 

message: I've seen a fair amount of misinformation vandalism. test2 seems OK for blatant cases but is there one that is more appropriate when the change is at least plausible, but no source is provided? (The particular situation involves changing population and demographic statistics for countries and US states.) If there is not an appropriate template, I propose creating a level-one warning template for reminding users to provide a source for numerical and statistical data. Gimmetrow 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try . BigNate37T·C 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't have thought of this as an OR issue. It seems to me either the editor has a source (and didn't provide it), or the editor is vandalizing the numbers. I think  will work for now. Gimmetrow 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation template? 

message: Here's a suggested template. I don't know the politics of creating a template so here's my suggestion.
  
  
Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics. 
Thank you.  
 
----
  
  
Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics. Thank you.  
  
----
--Chuck Marean 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page headers 

message: The table of contents includes an unintended header at "Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia".  This is from the  template.  Other templates that generate the "==" header cause a ToC entry too; see , for example.  Is there a way to fix this? Mike Christie 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed these.  Moving the header line to be the first line of the template apparently inhibits the heading processing if the template is used within a table entry. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintended header from template 

message: Is there any reason why there isn't a template for indefinitely blocked spam-only accounts?  I recently blocked , which was solely used to insert "datasheet4u.com" spam into Datasheet, and realized that  doesn't exist.  Is there any particular reason?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone??  Anyone??  Bueller?? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just use the test6 template for this since spam is a form of vandalism. If you really feel it needs to have another template go ahead and make one. It would should be easy to use using the test6 template as a template (bad choice of words I know). JoshuaZ 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam6? 

message: In an effort to be a bit friendlier to well-meaning new users, who may add links to their own website, etc. I created a  based on .  I am not quite sure, however, of the syntax needed to add it to the table.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as we do it, shouldn't you put it in the  form? Michael 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow the question.  The template can be subst'ed like any other.  As I understand it, substing just replaces the bracketed expression with the contents of the template.  --TeaDrinker 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it is advised that we do that or bots will need to do that, slowing down Wikipedia and its processes. Michael 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's actually expected of a user when posting a template. Michael 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, not all templates are to be subst'd, but as far as I've seen this is true for all User talk namespace templates. BigNate37(T) 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is true for many templates, but certain ones are expected to be (i.e. warnings or welcome messages). Michael 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:welcomespam]] 

message: Hi!  I frequently do new page patrol and always try to use appropriate warning tags.  However, there seem to be an abundance of articles in the fashion of "John Smith is teh AWESOME" and I really don't want to use  or  on their creators.  The former is more appropriate for something that could actually be a notable entry but doesn't yet establish it, and the second one seems to encourage users to post their meaningless content in their userspace (and I'm fairly certain none of them will read the rules about what's appropriate for their user page).  I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies and assume good faith and all that, but I want a better warning--one that perhaps directs them to adding useful content to Wikipedia, instead of encouraging them to use the userspace as a free web host for their sophomoric vanity.  Is there a better templated warning I could be using?  -- Merope 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much!  I can't believe I missed that one.  -- Merope 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to always add "subst:" prior to the template name on the inside of the brackets. Michael 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity/Userfy warning 

message: I am unsure about what kind of situations would justify using . I have used it 2 or 3 times after e.g. extreme/gross racist content of a vandal's act. Is this one of the situations that may justify using this warning? WP:Vandalism does not specify what exactly is an "extreme case of vandalism". Thank you. --Húsönd 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for severe cases.  It's a subjective thing, but you can usually tell when you need to use it.  If someone makes tremendous personal, racial, or prejudicial remarks, those are grounds for giving the warning, though in some cases, those may just result in indefinite blocks by admins on a basis of severity. Michael 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only warning 

message: I've encountered some new users who have repeatedly attempted to add huge blocks of plain (unwikified) text to articles, or to create entirely new articles consisting of plain text.  I believe these edits may have been made in good faith, since they were on-topic and not obvious copyright violations.  However, it ruins an article when you add hundreds of words of text with no wikilinks, section headers, paragraph breaks, etc.  Is there some warning template which welcomes new users and asks them to please familiarize themselves with wiki markup before adding massive amounts of content to articles? —Psychonaut 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure any such template would be compatible with WP:BITE. We don't want new users to be perfect, because that would really flatten spirits and dissuade new users who are still wide-eyed and excited about Wikipedia. Perhaps you just need a direct line to the wikignomes for when this sort of contribution comes in. What you could do is fix the text. Leave a note for the editor explaining how you fixed it, which parts of the MOS you brought the article up to snuff with, and show a diff of your actions. Sure, this work is slower in terms of fixing poor content in the 'pedia, but it is far richer in terms of developing rookie editors into great ones. BigNate37(T) 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for unwikified contributions

message: I noticed  was in the Images thingy section but doesn't mention images at all. I'd edit it myself but it's too hard --WikiSlasher 10:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by removing it from that section of the warning grid. That template is only useful for text, as  does not provide for temporary subpage creation.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nothanks-drm in Image warnings 

message: Should this page list templates that are already listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace? I'm mainly concerned about the consistancy of these templates. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to place the overlapping ones there and mention that fact at the top of this one. --Swift 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any duplicates can you give examples? --WikiSlasher 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   --Swift 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just removed the mentioning of the archive templates and added links to Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. --Swift 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication with Talk namespace 

message: Per a discussion on an AfD, I created User:ConMan/Notyet as a way of telling people "thanks for the article, but it's about something that isn't notable yet". How does it look? Confusing Manifestation 10:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not-yet-notable creation 

message: Because of the recent changes to criteria for speedy deletion A7 to include web content, I have created two draft templates to replace (or supplement) .
User:Irongargoyle/Draft_Nn-warn
User:Irongargoyle/Draft_Nnweb-warn
Let me know which option is prefered, or if you have other ideas. It would be nice to keep one template, but including the extra language makes the first option ungainly I think. Irongargoyle 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New [[WP:CSD|CSD A7]] templates

message: Can people please give their opinions on this template I made, . It asks the user to update the public domain tag for the image they uploaded. --WikiSlasher 10:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete public domain image tag notice template 

message: Would there be any opposition to me adding the five unsigned comment templates to the About participating in discussions section?  The unsigned comment templates appear to be the only commonly used user talk templates not already included.  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These would rather belong in Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace since they are used in various talk namespaces, generally. --Swift 06:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add unsigned comments? 

message: Does one need to be an Admin. to put warning pages on a talk page, or is that only for ones where the user would probably be blocked? I spend a lot of my WP time lookiing through recent edits and new pages and I think I would be a greater help if I could actually put these onto UserTalk pages. Thanks. Paragon12321 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't need to be an admin to give template warnings to people, Wikipedians are encouraged to warn people when they're doing the wrong thing. --WikiSlasher 07:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding templates to UserTalk pages 

message: I just came across the discution page for Template talk:Non-admin fwarn and I wanted to know if it had been considered to add it on the list of the test templates (maybe changing its name to something like test4final, testfw or test5non) ? -- lucasbfr talk 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sure is nice, but I agree, it's a real cumbersome name. I would agree that one of those others should be created and added to this page. I would encourage you to create a redirect template, seeing as you thought of it first. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-admin fwarn 

message: Is there a test template reminding users who post contributions to English Wikipedia in a foreign language that all contributions should be in English (either UK or US)? — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See .--Fuhghettaboutit 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language template 

message: I have created  for articles tagged under CSD A1. We have templates useful for warning users about articles tagged for speedy deletion for most CSD criteria but nothing useful for empty articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty articles 

message: As a user pointed out on Centrx's talk page, templates with ParserFunctions shouldn't be substituted. This isn't a policy, but certainly something to consider. Why shouldn't they be substed, anyway? (No, I haven't done any "research" on why this is not preferable – I'm halfway out the door at the moment.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if you subst them, you get ugly wikicode in the edit box, like  (displaying as "foo").  The parser functions don't get substed, only the template itself.  In extreme cases this can lead to pages of worthless junk in the edit window. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think it simply isn't worth it to leave unparsed code fragments on countless talk pages per day just for not having to maintain separate templates. Any chance to get these changes reverted, at least until the discussion is over and there is clear consensus? Femto 12:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reson why they should not be subst'ed with the ParserFunctions. The reason why WP:SUBST says that is because it adds complex wikicode to pages, which makes it harder for them to be edited by new users. However, in this case they are self-contained and in any case would not normally be edited. For this reason, even with the ParserFunctions, they should still be subst'ed. Polonium 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem regarding [[WP:SUBST]] guidelines