Wikipedia talk:Substitution/Archive 3

message: *What about ? Unfortunately, I can see many people complaining that it would make a page look messy when editing if that template gets substituted. BlankVerse 09:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other suggested templates: 

message: Of the uncategorised ones I think  and  are good to subst:, but I am not sure about the others, I don't think any more of them should be subst'ed, what do you think? Martin 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorised 

message: I think that  should be subst's, judging from comments here and here unless anyone objects I will start this soon. Martin 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prettytable 

message: ...but  and  do not actually produce a lot of wikicode. Radiant_>|< 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I still oppose ever subst'ing them. Their explicit presence makes the subsequent discussion in cases where tempales are being mentioned, rather than used, much easier IMO, and also serves as a model for new editors. i learned to use  by seeing it used on discussion pages -- others should learn it in the same way. DES (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a big deal, but 

message: I just found Template:Cthu-cat all it does it put articles in certain categories, this is silly because the articles have to be "touched" if the categories change, and I don't think it is a correct usage of a template. Should we subst: it to death, then delete it? There must be many more like it as well. Martin 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular template is bad in other ways, IMO; the categories it places articles into are already subcategories of each other, making all but one redundant and cluttering up parent categories with stuff that should be relegated to children. I was just about to remove it from all the article's it's used in anyway because of that. Bryan 01:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In the process I just came across Template:Cthu-intro and Template:Cthu-intro2, which look subst:able to me. There isn't likely to be any great value in making the first sentence of each Cthulhu-related article completely standardized like this. Bryan 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have templates like these? 

message: Some flow control templates should not be substed. those are
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
if they are substed, they generate unreadable (for most wikipedians) code --AzaToth talk 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow control templates 

message: Should  be included among this list? --AllyUnion (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion... 

message: After some trials, we have found that subst can have a inconsistent behaviour, that can be a good or bad thing, please add a comment on WP:VPT#subst expansions ?AzaToth 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subst hidden behaviour 

message: I just came across a number of templates which are being used to insert Hebrew letters in articles.
I'm in the process of adding as many as I can find to :Category:Hebrew letters.
I think they ought to be SUBSTituted automagically: they're great for typing in Hebrew but they don't need to be kept around once the text is entered.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get Bluebot on it. Martin 12:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew letters 

message: I was just looking around, and I noticed that although it is recommended that chemical symbols always use subst here, it is also said on each individual template page that "this template is not suitable for use with subst".  I thought I'd just point out the contradiction for those who work here (so I won't be coming back to check this thread) — if I'm mistaken, please accept my apology and ignore me completely.  Neonumbers 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know why someone wrote that, it clearly should be subst'ed. In fact it should be deleted as totally pointless, imagine if we had a templat for every simple wiki link. Martin 10:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree on just deleting the templates entirely.  --Kenyon 04:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on deleting the templates. On chemistry and materials pages, one ends up typing in chemical formulas quite often. These templates allow one to quickly put in the element symbols in a chemical formula, while making each link to the page for that element. I wish I had known about these sooner. On the other hand, these should absolutely be subst'ed. If the templates aren't suitable for subst, they need to be fixed so that they are.--Srleffler 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The instruction not to subst: these seems to have come originally from User:Physchim62. I left a note on his talk page asking for clarification.--Srleffler 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no reason was given not to substitute them, I will list them as "Should be Substituted." Someone must also remove the instruction not to subst them. Polonium 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already removed the instruction for elements up to letter F. It is very easy to do this using tabbed browsing with mozilla firefox. Polonium 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical symbols 

message: Should  be included in the list that should be subst:? Courtland 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion-related templates that should be subst: 

message: Someone created templates for table layout, e.g. Template:Col-break, that are far longer than the actual wikicode they translate to. Allegedly this makes tables easier to use - however in my opinion it makes tables harder to use than the simple {| |- | |} syntax. Also, per WP:AUM, they cause unnecessary server load when used in other templates, and developer Jamesday has asked us to cut down on that. Are there any objections to subst'ing these? Radiant_>|< 15:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it envisaged that wiki-code might be expanded to include a way to specify that a given section should be shown in multiple columns? Certainly this seems to be something people might want, in which case it would be much better if these templates were in place to show where the columnisation should occur. If they are SUBSted away, it would make it much more difficult to find where multiple columns have been used: at the very least you should be careful to leave some sort of comment marking the spot. As to whether they make editing simpler, I would imagine that some editors find "start a table", "use 3 columns", "break to a new column", "finish the table" simpler than the "hieroglyphics" involved in wiki-tables. I would be inclined at first to confine your attention to usage inside other templates, if WP:AUM is indeed your actual concern. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Visual formatting should be done with css, not tables. Yuck to these templates. — Omegatron 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table templates

message: There's ben a little bit of discussion about subst'ing at WP:WSS, and the gereal consensus is that substing stub templates is a bad move, so I've added the stub templates to the "do not subst" section of the page. These tewmplates are edited frequently and are also frequently replaced or removed from articles. Substing these would create far more work for editors and stub-sorters. Consider an example: A stub template is used on 250 articles, then the scope of the template is changed and its wording needs to be edited. Which is easier - editing the one template, or editing the template and re-substing all the articles? If I've been too bold in adding it to the page, feel free to remove it, but FWIW I thought the opinions of those who use them most frequently should be noted. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: d'oh. they were already there - I just hadn't noticed because they weren't "tl" linked. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: Does template:disambig count as a stub template for the purposes of the subst/don't-subst decision?The Literate Engineer 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig? 

message: Staring at all the double-braces on Wikipedia:Template substitution makes your eyes go funny. TerraGreen 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squiggles 

message: Would it be a good idea to subst the templates used to force correct character display, such as , , and ? --Angr (tɔk) 14:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, in the interests of using wiki-text rather than raw HTML, and in case we come up with a better or different method of doing it in future. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for character display 

message: I have been bold and moved these to "do not substitute".
Given the recent introduction of  I am going to attempt to unify these templates, and to fix them so that if a date of death is not specified the article is added to that category.
In the meantime, it would be handy if the templates were not substituted out from under my feet.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using templates to populate categories is a bad mechanism. It cause maintenance problems (bots), suprise factor ("Where is this category coming from?"), learning curve for new editors, and is an avoidable extra database call.  If those templates aren't to be subst'd, then they'll just go on TFD. Placing bio articles in those categories is usually a one-time operation... a perfect example of what should be subst'd. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are ignoring the fact that people who are now living are almost certain to die at some point, at which time they will be changed. You are also ignoring the point of having templates simultaneously populating multiple categories, which is to ensure that sort keys remain consistent, and in some cases that the categories are displayed in a sensible order. This isn't even WP:AUM since you can hardly suggest that these templates in their current form are meta-templates: it's simply another aspect of your anti-template crusade. —Phil | Talk 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Template talk:Lived- "If there is not a date of death, do not use this template".  Sort keys remain consistent after subst'ing.  This has nothing to do with AUM, but may inspire "avoid using categories in templates".  Your last statement is based on a false premise that I am on an "anti-template crusade", so I can't comment on it.  I suppose I could accuse you of being on a "over-templatization" crusade, but that too would be of little value when discussing the merits of this specific template. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan-related templates 

message: * (maybe should just be substed then deleted?)
** There's a bunch of related templates: brace yourself. And there might be more still… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New suggestions

message: It has been recommended to me that project notices not be subst'ed.  I didn't see that on the list. Maybe it should be added. ~ ApolloCreed 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project notice templates 

message: I believe this definition is not very clear for the average person. I can usually figure out enough coding to do what I need (e.g. create a new template based on an old one) but I don't understand this topic. The article says: 
:The subst: keyword (short for "substitution") is used as a prefix inside a template code. It changes the way the software expands the template. Ordinarily, a template is expanded "on the fly"; that is, the template code calls a separate page for the text every time someone edits a page it's used on. Placing "subst:" inside the curly brackets tells the software to permanently substitute the template with text of the template (that is, the text that is on the template's article page). Therefore  becomes {{}} and the full text is expanded when you save the page.
I can't follow that. --Singkong2005 01:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer definition please.  

message: when subst'ing user talk pages like this, perhaps it is a good idea to include a friendly personal message with every subst. it may be quite rude to disturb someone with "you have new messages" alert when they don't really have any messages to be received. the personal message should be something like: "Hello, sorry to disturb you but we would like to subst this template to increase Wikipedia's performance. Thank you for your understanding." -- Zondor 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst'ing user talk pages 

message: The idea of  is apparently no
SUBST, I've noted this on its new talk 
page (= documentation).
While I'm at it, what about 
and the other Wikipedia header templates? Omniplex 22:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my opinion that no template should be substituted on project pages. These pages document Wikipedia, and should remain standardised as much as possible.  on one page should not be different from  on another. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plausible, maybe somebody is bold and adds them to SUBST - after a day of editing I'm lazy and not bold ;-) Omniplex 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Style}}</nowiki> 

message: This page says that  &  should not be subst. However, Wikipedia:Deletion process states that they should. This conflict should be resolved. I would note that the rationale given on this page (Templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted.) is incorrect for these two as they remain on the record of the deletion debate and are not temporary. So, if the desire is not to subst them, that should be updated as well. -- JLaTondre 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect all of the top/bottom templates should be in the other section. I'll move them in a few minutes here (soon as I find them all). -- nae'blis (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this was my mistake.  I was not familiar with all the templates and did not see any warnings that they had to be subst. when I moved the other temporary templates.  My apologies. -- Samuel Wantman 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Afd top}} & {{Afd bottom}}</nowiki> 

message: Hatnotes like , , and  should all be on the list of templates that should not be subst'd, for the same reasons as , right? --AySz88^-^ 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to create another section: should templates like  or  be subst'd (like the test templates are subst'd), or is it too much code? --AySz88^-^ 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bump-down to try to get an answer.... --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|dablink}} and other [[Wikipedia:Hatnotes|Hatnotes]]