Wikipedia talk:Substitution

Closed discussions have been archived by chronology: 2005.

User signature templates

I've just removed

all user signature templates, often named user:name/sig or something similar

This is something that should not be substed without the user's permission, especially by a bot. People tend to take exception to editing of their signatures, and without the user's cooperation, substing the signatures is futile: they'll just keep adding them. Instead, these users should be contacted on their talk page and encouraged to list their individual signature templates here themselves (as well as adding the subst to their signature in preferences, or just putting the code there). —Cryptic (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, favor a policy requireign people to use subst in thier sigs, if they use signature tempaltes, and banning the use of templates if not listed here for auto-replacement. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the policy on signature templates, really should be that they must always be substed; in particular, pages from user space should not regularly be transcluded into other namespaces or other users' pages. Otherwise, one user updating their signature places an undue load on the system, AND their signature is a potential target for vandalism, since an active editor's signature would appear on potentially hundreds or thousands of talk pages.

In other words, by no means should user templates be listed as something that shouldn't be substed.... it's just going to encourage users to use plain transclusion; actually subst'ing their signature instead, seemed to be more sensible. --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggested templates:

What about Template:shortcut (links, talk)? 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)[reply]

old conversations about why the use of subst

the project page should explain why the use of subst as a technical issue. -- Zondor 04:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoose has merged Help:Subst with this page, and I subsequently expanded on the information. // Pathoschild 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{vfd}} vs. {{subst:vfd}}

Sorry for being ignorant, but what's the difference between {{vfd}} and {{subst:vfd}}? I've gotten myself into the habit of doing {{vfd}} for speed. Am I causing a problem by doing this, and what is it? The only difference appears to be that {{vfd}} stays as a template link (which is easy to remove from a kept article), and {{subst:vfd}} actually inserts the text of the template into the article. Other than that, they both do the exact same thing. - KeithTyler 23:44, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Several reasons, all of them relatively minor. It really doesn't hurt anything if you use {{vfd}} instead of {{subst:vfd}}. The benefits of using subst include:

Allows you to edit the tag itself. Useful for special cases where you're listing multiple pages for deletion, since [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|its entry on that page]] doesn't work unless the VfD subpage is an exact match.
Discourages vandalism, a little. The average newbie who has just created an inappropriate page will be less apt to remove the entire wikicode for the tag, rather than a short "{{vfd}}".
Extremely minor benefit: less strain on the database as it doesn't have to access Template:Vfd when rendering the article.

Hope this helps... • Benc • 06:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess that answers some of the rationale. Although...

I could see doing it that way, in that uncommon special case.
But the average newbie might more easily accidentally corrupt part of the tag, meaning more cleanup work for the non-newbie to reinsert the tag.
Of course, if the VFD tag is changed/updated/improved, the subst: method won't reflect the improvement.

- KeithTyler 18:49, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

What does "subst" actually stand for? Joyous 23:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Substitute. • Benc • 00:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{subst:vfd}} is a pain in the ass for mirrors and violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
using subst makes it impossible use "what links here" to find articles where the tag was kept after delisting from vfd (both valid and malicious delisting).

anthony (see warning) 05:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I want to bring this up again. I think the {{subst:vfd}} has more disadvantages than advantages. Apart from what Anthony mentioned in the previous post, the large and scary subst block has the potential to scare away a newbie from editing the article. Perhaps that same newbie would be able to bring the article above deletion standard. The subst has the same effect as a really large HTML style table at the beginning of an article. I suggest we go back to recommending {{vfd}}. — David Remahl 20:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Newbies are not children, and we shouldn't base our policies on the possibilities of scaring people off. The only duty we have to newbies is not to be rude to them. The same thing goes for mirrors -- while it's great they exist, we shouldn't be bending over much to make them easy. Their existance is a fringe benefit. The subst use of the template serves a valid and good purpose -- to discourage people from trivially removing it, and to serve as a really good visual cue that it's important. --Improv 20:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- To a computer-literate person who knows a bit of HTML etc, it is not scary. But a newbie who is not used to markup, who clicks edit and sees a lot of things he/she does not recognise from the article, may think that editing Wiki is too difficult for him/her. To counter bias in Wikipedia we need to attract more non-technical users. Besides, is it really that much more difficult to remove ten lines compared to removing one? I usually select the whole block and press the backspace button in both cases. If we want to make it clear that the tag serves a purpose and is important, why not use:
  {{vfd}} 
- — David Remahl 17:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - I doubt people will actually put that in, although it's not a bad idea. There are, by the way, a huge number of articles that newbies can edit -- why should we assume they should gravitate towards those on VfD? And yes, it is much more difficult to remove 10 lines -- making sure one removes the right, and only the right, lines is a bit tricky -- it takes more effort. --Improv 21:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Making sure one removes the right lines may be hard, but removing half the VFD notice is no worse than removing all of it. Removing the VFD notice and some other text is even worse than just removing the VFD notice. In any case, it's quite trivial to revert in any of the cases. This reason doesn't really make much sense to me. subst:vfd violates Wikipedia policy, and when I see it I will replace it with the template. anthony 警告 02:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You just said that use of "subst:vfd violates Wikipedia policy". That's news to me. Which policy does it violate? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 12:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
vfd also violates policy, as stated on the VfD page. When I see it, I will replace it with the substitution. --Improv 16:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

subst:vfd -- why subst?

Why should one add {{subst:vfd}} instead of {{vfd}} to pages? —msh210 19:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What it effectively does is replace {{vfd}} with the actual template text (enclosed with <div> and </div>). The reason why we prefer this is that template substitution reduces load on the template. If you just add {{vfd}} to the article, the original template is still linked to the article, but if you use {{subst:vfd}}, it just substitutes the contents of the template and there is no longer any link between the template and the article. That reduces the number of articles linking to the template and helps for performance issues. --Death phoenix 19:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It also makes things easier to fix when someone moves an article despite the big, shiny "Please do not... move this article while the discussion is in progress" notice. (See also [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/September-December 2004#{{vfd}} vs. {{subst:vfd}}]].) —Korath (Talk) 19:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

{{vfd}} vs.{{subst:vfd}}

Why must we advocate one over the other?? It seems POV, considering there are advantages to both. Jesse's Girl 13:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? POV only applies to encyclopedia articles, not policy pages. We don't have a policy page that says "vandalism is a bannable offence, although some people think we should have more of it". Anyway, I don't see the advantage to {{vfd}} - since the message is only supposed to be there for a few days, there should be no need to pick up changes to the template. sjorford →•← 13:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been extensively discussed here. The overwhelming conclusion was that the benefits of {{subst:vfd}} outweigh the advantages of mere transclusion for this particular template. Most of those discussions have since been moved to the archives of this page. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this, but I do not know where to find those...Could you point me to the exact discussions? Jesse's Girl 15:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a partial list based on what I found by quickly scanning the archives. I also remember other discussions that I have not yet been able to find. I think some of the better discussions have been moved over to Meta where I can't find them. Note: Some of the older discussions need to be read in light of the technological capabilities which were in place at the time. WikiMedia has made significant changes to how templates are handled. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text#Shorthand
Template talk:Vfd/Archive01#Hidden Link (See Angela's comment half-way down)
Template talk:Vfd/Archive01#Recent changes to the template
Template talk:VfDFooter#Subst must be used for calling VfD warning
Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2004#Boilerplate text
Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/September-December 2004 and scroll down to {{vfd}} vs. {{subst:vfd}}
Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2005 Part Two#subst:vfd -- why subst?
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#"Listed for deletion" notice

Subst must be used for calling VfD warning

Subst?

Is there any reason why this footer advocates the use of {{subst:vfd}} instead of {{vfd}}? I thought we were moving towards templates, and I would have changed it myself, but I figured there might be an database implementation consideration why this was better for a highly used template like vfd. Can anyone say which is better? I'd rather have the template, because our vfd anchor format changes so frequently. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:34, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text#Shorthand for old discussion of this. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why

(Added bcz (not knowing already mentioned) i promised to when i changed it back to subst, and bcz it may help prevent the next well-intentioned breaking of the system.)

Because only 5 expansions of the same template get done per page. (I think true even if they're in subst format, but with subst the restriction only comes into play if you nominate 6 or more pages in the same edit -- since a subst expansion permanently becomes text (and ceases to be a subst) when it's saved.)

It's not a bug, it's an important security feature, so don't bother asking to change it. The link above probably goes into the details, for those interested.
--Jerzy (t) 01:11, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Why would you have more than 5 VFD notices on the same page? Using subst: violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. And if one wants to stop people from changing it simply protecting the page is available. anthony (see warning) 10:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

nowiki test

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Why is {{sofixit}} 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)[reply]

Ah. That would be because it's often used as a meme, by simply listing {{sofixit}}. Come to think of it that's not really a good reason, now is it? Ok, change it back. Radiant_>|< 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to invoke the meme, not the text, s/he should write {{tl|sofixit}} or just "sofixit", neither of which the bot wioll touch, i presume. DES ^(talk) 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed -> guideline

If we are about to start actign on thsi, shouldn't the "proposed" tag be changed to {{guideline}} or even {{policy}}? DES ^(talk) 20:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say it is a guidline now. Martin 20:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline is fine, but then we should probably move the page to a more comprehensive title. How about "template substitution"? R adiant _>|< 23:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Probably. Might I add, {{sofixit}}? :) R adiant _>|< 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disageee with ther merge, Help:Subst is about how to use subst, and ewhat it does, this page is about what templates must be subst'd, adn wil be auto-subst'd. But I will add a link. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

strikeout?

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 {{tfd}} and the umbrella versions of {{cfd}}. R adiant _>|< 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{cfdu}} {{cfr}} {{cfru}} {{cfm}} has some no include information. -- Zondor 14:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. However, they shouldn't have noinclude sections - since it's a longstanding tradition that {{afd}} must always be subst'ed, people have a tendency to also subst related templates such as these. Last week I removed the noinclude parts from {{cfd}} among others because it screwed up some cats; looks like I missed these. R adiant _>|< 14:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Document use in Edit summaries?

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 {{test2}} 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 {{subst:test2}} in the History, then I get the info much quicker. Waterguy 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already do this (although I'll use {{test}} even though my tag was actually {{subst:test}}), 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uncategorised

Of the uncategorised ones I think {{sub}} and {{sup}} 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)[reply]

{{delete}} and other speedy delete tags

Someone suggested {{delete}} 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 artiles are deleted, if one of the reason-sepcific tags (such as {{nonsense}} or {{db-bio}} is used and not substed, the tag nam will generally appear in the deletion log, thus clearly documeting the deletion reason. This doesn't apply to {{delete}} 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.

I hope that others will agree with my reasoning here. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]