Wikipedia talk:Substitution/Archive 2

message: :The following discussion has been copied from a different article. -- Zondor 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaks the link to the VfD subpage. Goplat 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why you use subst:, so that it doesn't.  JYolkowski 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will whether you use subst: or not, although if you used subst: you can just fix the link without having to manually copy the template's text into the article first. Goplat 02:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I got somewhat confused there.  Thanks, JYolkowski 03:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes to the template

message: User:Zondor replaced all the 's with 's, which results in "" instead of "". This being a list of templates, the only difference seems to be a messier page with more visual clutter. I've reverted the replacements (but left his other changes); if he (or anyone else) prefers , please discuss. // Pathoschild 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: &#123;{tl|template}} versus &#123;{tls|template}}

message: Oppose subst : It contributes a certain appearance to part of an article.  If the appearance of the template changes again, updates to an article may produce inconsistent appearance for such article links.  (SEWilco 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ~~ N (t/c) 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This one is so common in the article space that it should probably be excluded from any bot actions until a consensus is reached on subst-ing it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  main 

message: Keep in mind that the "include" wiki markups clash with subst:.  Various templates are having things moved into template space which don't work with subst:.  (SEWilco 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps anything currently in <noinclude> tags could be moved to the talk page, as per meta:Template talk pages. // Pathoschild 06:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i wonder why does not the mediawiki software accomodate this by ignoring includeonly and noinclude when subst'ing. this would seem to be more appropriate. -- Zondor 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it is because *include are very new and subst: behavior was overlooked.  Hard to know, as features are often not being documented nor announced well.  (SEWilco 13:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "include" vs "subst"

message: and  (which i drafted) specify the invariable use of subst in the usage section on their talk pages. therefor auto-substign them would probably be appropriate. DES (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Nn-warn}} 

message: I oppose the use, much less the auto-use, of subst with ,  and their successors and varients. i find it useful, when seeing a talk page, to see exactly what level the wrnings have reached, without needing to consult the exact wordign of the warnings, particuarlly wjhen that wording sometimes undergoes significant changes (such changes were recently proposed). As a result i never use subst with any of these templates, and I urge other people using them not to sue subst either, and I stringly oppose them being targets for auto-subst. DES (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had this problem, too. At the very least, it would be nice if templates like this would include their name in a comment (), so that when they're substituted, you can still tell where they came from. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tht would serve the purpose, since one would only see the name when editing anyway. DES (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits, the server strain caused by not substing templates as oft-used as the user warning templates may well be overwhelming. Although I've never had trouble deducing the warning levels from the output text, I see no problem with adding  to the output if it helps others do so from the edit view. May I interpret DES's above comment as retracting his opposition if the names are commented in the templates? // Pathoschild 17:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may. in fact I think i'll go add such comments myself. DES (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed they are not. I intend on adding them once we're agreed on adding user_talk templates. // Pathoschild 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  test (warning) templates 

message: What will happen with templates that reside outside of the Template: namespace, (i.e. in the user namespace)? Will things like  be subst'ed in them? If so, how can it be prevented? – ABCDe✉ 01:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates themselves would not be not touched; only their occurances in the article namespace (other namespaces are possible, but I doubt it). In that case, it doesn't make a difference whether the template originates in the user or template namespace. Further, if the bot will be a user-controlled bot, the user will decide. // Pathoschild 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates outside the Template: namespace

message: I suggest that the bot not do any replacements in pages which contain <nowiki>.  This is used in replace.py as a way to detect pages which are discussing templates or presenting them in examples.  (SEWilco 14:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it'd be more reasonable to ignore template tags that are actually between <nowiki> tags. That sounds rather difficult to do, though. // Pathoschild 05:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nowiki test 

message: Why is  listed as something not to substitute. I generally substitute this when I use it, and it seems like this is proper bot fodder. What am i missing here? DES (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|sofixit}} 

message: Before my bot starts subst'ing thousands of templates, can I confirm that we think it's a good idea to subst user talk pages, as it means thousands of users are going to get a "you have new messages" notice, and possibly be confused by the fact they have no message. Martin 19:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst'ing user talk pages 

message: If we are about to start actign on thsi, shouldn't the "proposed" tag be changed to  or even ? DES (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd say it is a guidline now. Martin 20:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Whatever we call it, it should be merged with Help:Subst, I dont like having seperate pages on the same thing. Martin 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: **Probably. Might I add, ? :) Radiant_>|< 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge. Help:Subst explains subst, while this page lists templates that should be subst'ed. The fact that two bots now use this list as a reference point for subst'ing isn't what most readers will be interested in, and therefore no split is necessary. Bluemoose merged the two pages and added some information, which I then expanded somewhat. // Pathoschild 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed -> guideline 

message: the project page should explain why the use of subst as a technical issue. -- Zondor 04:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluemoose has merged Help:Subst with this page, and I subsequently expanded on the information. // Pathoschild 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  old conversations about why the use of subst 

message: Some deletion-related templates were struck out on the main page, but no reason for that was given. I've restored them for now, maybe we should discuss it? It concerns  and the umbrella versions of . Radiant_>|< 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: has some no include information. -- Zondor 14:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  strikeout? 

message: It seems like Wikipedia:Template_substitution should strongly encourage editors following this guideline to document the specific message they subst'd in the Edit summary whenever they do it. For example, if I look at a user Talk page and see  I know exactly what level of warning they are on. But if I just see a bunch of text, I don't know unless I look it up (no, I have not memorized the exact text of all the various {test__} messages). If I see  in the History, then I get the info much quicker. Waterguy 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already do this (although I'll use  even though my tag was actually ), and comments were recently added to the test templates' text so that you can see what level it if if it does get subst'd. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically for the test tempaltes, they all now include an HTML comment showing the anme of the templte, so if you edit the page you can see exactly what tempalte was used, adn need not depend on any edit summery. Any other tempalte on the auto-subst list can include a similar comment. Still encouraging an explicit mention in the edit summery is not a bad idea. DES (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Document use in Edit summaries? 

message: Someone suggested  for substing. I think this is a bad idea -- in fact I think all the speedy delete tags should be listed in the "do not subst" section. My reasons are:
#All these templaates contain "noinclude" directives and "include only" direcives which are not well handled by subst.
#If a patroller considers the nomiantion invalid, the normal remady is to remove the tag, which is much harder if it has been subst'ed
#These tages will rarely if ever stay on an articel long -- either they are removed or the article is deleted, and the articels in question are usually not frequently viewed. Therefore these tags contribute little to server load.
#When such articles are deleted, if one of the reason-sepcific tags (such as  or ) is used and not substed, the tag name will generally appear in the deletion log, thus clearly documeting the deletion reason. This doesn't apply to  but it does to most of the otehr speedy tags.
#The expanded code is fairly lengthy and includes significant formatting which burdens possible future editing.
#In a diff the un-subst'd tag makes particualrtly clear what the tagger did. 
I hope that others will agree with my reasoning here. DES (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't subst'ed them for those reasons. Martin 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|delete}} and other speedy delete tags 

message: I need some help watching over :Category:Internal link templates. This category tag should in almost all cases be on the template's talk page, because people have a tendency to subst those templates. Noinclude sections can be considered harmful in many cases and its use should not be automatic. I think it may be worthwhile to get a SQL-queried list of all templates that have a 'noinclude' section, because they are already screwing up a number of categorizations. Radiant_>|< 10:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent software fix corrected this problem, and <noinclude> are no longer a problem for subst'ing. // Pathoschild 02:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request 

message: , , , and  all contain both noinclude and includeonly directives at the current time. Perhaps i was mistaken, but I understood these not to work well with subst. I think that either these tempaltes should be removed from the "always subst" list, or they should be edited not to use the include feature, until and unless the software is altered to improve the interaction between noinclude/includeonly and subst. DES (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD related tempaltes and include tags 

message: Lots of UK Parliament constituency articles e.g. Clwyd South (UK Parliament constituency) are on the what links here of the prettytable template, yet they do not contain the prettytable template. Now you're all thinking that is because the prettytable template is in another template in the mentioned article, well it isn't (afaict). I can't tell how these articles contain the prettytable template at all, so I can't subst: them. Anyone know what is going on? Martin 16:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see, I'll null edit them soon, thanks Radiant! Martin 13:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious pretty table usage