Template talk:Unicode

message: I've removed a use of this template from . This was the only use of this template I could find in any football related templates and pages. "What links here" still lists many more uses, but they may just be cached and disappear in a while. Wouldn't it be better to fix the actual templates (ab)using this one, instead of adding a hack here? —Ruud 11:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole load of templates that aren't showing up in what links here that transclude this template. For instance, . There's over 200 of them, I believe. Why don't they show up in "What links here"? No idea. But they don't. Previously, this was gotten around by using . Your solution works, and it's what we'll almost certainly do eventually, but someone has to go through all of the templates in :Category:Fb templates to find the few hundred that need the fix. This can be done with AWB, but it takes time. I'll get to it eventually. In the meantime, the hack is the most effective way to go about things. ~ RobTalk 11:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, it seems there was a bit of miscommunication on various other talk pages. So if I'm understanding this correctly, the hack Izkala added (the second time, when they used the correct syntax) will not cause any spurious spaces to be inserted or substituted on pages where they shouldn't be, right? In that case, I'd be okay with leaving it in place until those football templates have been fixed. —Ruud 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, Izkala's fix will either (a) simply pass-through the parameter of unicode if one is given or (b) pass-through a single space if no parameter is given. So "" becomes "blahblahblah" while "" becomes a single space. No spaces will be added if a parameter is supplied, which should be the case in 100% of templates where this fix is not needed. ~ RobTalk 12:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  Not that it made much of a difference I misplaced the pipe the first time - the template wasn't being substituted, nor is it now being substituted.  We seem to take pleasure from making a kerfuffle over every little thing; 24-hour ultimatums are a timeless classic.  Izkala (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why it's a good idea to leave a note on the talk page (and test changes in a sandbox), it's not always clear to others what you're trying to do based on just an edit summary and (slightly broken) edit. If the current version of this template does what it's supposed to do in all cases, can't the bot just continue to expand and substitute this template? (Instead of someone having to go through it by hand.) —Ruud 12:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot won't touch things outside of the mainspace to avoid exactly the type of issues I had to rollback. The bot completed its substitution of everything it's programmed to do already. There's no reason not to have the automatic substitution reactivated to catch any new uses, but it also won't do anything as of now. ~ RobTalk 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The bot won't touch things outside of the mainspace to avoid exactly the type of issues I had to rollback."  It did subst  in templatespace but stopped on 20 April: .  Does it subst templates in templatespace selectively?  Izkala (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I think the reason it's not substituted the rest is they're not output on the original template page itself and thus won't show in Special:WhatLinksHere (or whatever the API equivalent is).  But yeah, it definitely does subst in templatespace.  Izkala (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be clear: the substitution notice is required to stay to catch any future transclusions that may occur for whatever reason (like copying from old revisions or other wikis). They should be substed as soon as possible. That is why I am set on allowing the bot to continue its job. -- User:Edokter  15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The bot has been disabled because the notice is removed. And it should not emit a space in any circumstance. You should have a bot replace those instances with a separate task. -- User:Edokter  10:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, 'we' aren't doing anything beyond this point.  You can revert if you think that's better.  Izkala (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now there is Module:Unicode? This template is supposed to be deprecated, not extended! If a space is lost due to the template abuse, I can't really be bothered. Fix them by hand if you have to, but I have no interest in keeping support for such a hack in place. Or take it up with , as technically, the bot is broken. -- User:Edokter  16:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The module adds a space in more restrictive circumstances to address your concerns about spaces being added needlessly. You may not be concerned about lost spaces, but those lost spaces would break several hundred articles. The module is a temporary solution while this template is being substituted. I'm not quite sure what your rush is. There is no deadline, and more importantly, this template is being kept after orphaning to preserve the page histories of over a hundred thousand pages. Give it time, and this will be fixed. Or you're welcome to fix it yourself using a different method if you find the module that objectionable. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page histories are not a concern (they never are for deleted templates). I'm just afraid this isn't temporary and that goes against the TfD outcome. But I'll wait until the templates are fixed. -- User:Edokter  18:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is precedent for preserving templates for historical purposes when they were once used on an extremely large number of pages. In this case, the TfD was closed as deprecate and make non-functional, but do not delete. ~ RobTalk 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  To reiterate, this is intended to be a temporary fix.  I've substituted 50 or so by hand, and if somebody with AWB access would do the remaining 250, we can revert to what we had before.  But I see no rush either.  Izkala (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 transclusions remain, 2 on protected pages of inactive users, 1 on admin-protected page of an active admin which is then  transcluded on the remaining 1. for (;;) (talk)  20:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

text: 2 transclusions remain on protected pages of inactive users. The transclusion counter still reports 16. for (;;) (talk)  07:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count, all transclusions should be cleared now. -- User:Edokter  10:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks all!  , feel free to delete the module now.  Izkala (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecation 

message: I think it's worth adding a See also section with a link to .  The reader might well be looking for that template or one of the templates it lists.  (Does this "template" still need TE protection?  It now has only two transclusions, both in user space.)  Certes (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020 

message: So I was looking at old revisions of several articles while trying to figure out where some article text had gone due to an article reorganization, and I popped up a revision that had a whole lot of chaotic garbage displayed.  All the similar-age revisions of the article had a similar problem. I eventually tracked the problem down to this template.  The old revisions invoked the template to show single unicode characters (as had once been de rigueur), which caused the current display of the old revisions to have the text of the "disambiguation" inserted, and to cause error messages in the display.
While figuring out what changes had been made to this template, I saw that it had once been used on many articles ("over 60,000" and "over 100,000" were figures I encountered).  This implied there were millions of old revisions which were subject to this display issue.  It looked to me that the problem was unnecessary, as the template if changed modestly could both display these revisions coherently and serve the existing "disambiguation" purpose of presenting related template alternatives.  I am boldly going ahead and making such a change. The template has no invocations (expansions) among current pages, just links to the template (which would show the disambiguation text if followed).  (Actually, there sort-of are such invocations used on en wiki, but those happen in the Media Viewer extension, which executes  in the context of mediawiki.org, which has had a working (identity) definition of the template.) After sandbox testing, etc., I don't expect any problems because of this template change. See the "Documentation" section of the template for further detail. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with old article revisions