Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace/Archive
I like this stuff! If I understand this right, do we get to have like substitute-text with $1 and $2 and stuff? How is it done? (Perhaps I should have asked this first before creating MediaWiki:Vio :/// ) Dysprosia 06:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a way to specify what $1 and $2 are, so the vio page isn't going to work. Also, that might be a bit too long to be allowed. Angela. 06:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
- Darn. Maybe it can be broken up, something like {{subst:vio1}}[site]{{subst:vio2}}...? Otherwise I'll get rid of it... Dysprosia 07:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think I'm gonna delete it until a developer makes happy-vfd-substitutey-stuff :) Dysprosia 07:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I was also thinking about how it would be if we could specifyi parameters, like { {SUBST name|param1|param2} } in the article text, and use { {$1} }, { {$2} } in the message definitions. With some expansion it could become a useful templating tool for many things. But, that would probably require changes to software to keep it fast enough. OTOH, if the maximum number of parameters were to be kept down to a reasonable number for use in messages (say 5), it shouldn't be too hard to do. Zocky 19:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Since this page is almost entirely about MediaWiki and not really about anything specific to Wikipedia, I think this page should be moved to meta and become part of the meta:MediaWiki User's Guide. --mav 07:36, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You're right. I've moved most of it to m:Meta-Wikimedia:MediaWiki namespace. Angela. 07:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you would just copy it to meta. Are you going to delete Wikipedia:How to edit a page as well? -- Tim Starling 00:55, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think that Wikipedia:How to edit a page should be moved to meta, only copied. The copy on meta should be more general and the one on wikipedia should be more wikipedia-specific, above all in examples. Also, I don't think new users should of wikipedia should be immediately bothered with the whole notion of meta, interwiki links, etc. Zocky 19:13, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Powerful and handy stuff, now if only I could figure a way to keep track of all of them (that user's guide will become more important, no doubt). Or maybe I'll just wait until Angela adds them all to her stash :) Dori | Talk 00:07, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I've been keeping a list at Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages but it does depend on people remembering to add any new ones they create. Angela. 01:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, this is powerful. Where do we discuss changes? Martin 04:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I would suggest Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki custom messages to discuss changes to custom messages and Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text for changes to the default messages. Angela. 04:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
msg considered harmful
Is this a good place to rant about the use of these "{{msg}}" things? I don't want to discuss changes to custom messages or changes to the default messages, but just the policy about their use. I thought about bringing this up back in January, but then decided it wasn't that important. But now they're getting out of control, and I've changed my mind.
Basically, I think that these "{{msg}}" things go completely against the wiki idea: that anyone can come along to a page, click on "edit", and change the text however they want. Nowadays, if they find a page full of text and click on "edit", they'll quite likely get an edit box that just contains something like "{{msg:flgb_start}} {{msg:flgb_middle}} {{msg:flgb_end}} {{msg:flgb_blgddyblg}}", with the text that they wanted to edit nowhere to be seen. When someone tries to edit an article, they should be able to see the text they are editing, shouldn't they? Isn't that a fundamental point about what a wiki is? The fact that what is shown in the displayed article bears so little resemblance to what is in the edit box is just going to confuse most people, and turn them away from Wikipedia. Even if "{{msg:flgb}}" doesn't put them off completely, unless they are computer geeks who are intrigued by goobledegook, they won't know what to do with it. There is no intuitively obvious way of getting from a "msg" in an edit box to editing the message itself. Maybe someone is going to come up with a solution to that, involving yet more intrusive links all over the pages, but we have too many of them already. Wikipedia is a mess...
The place seems to be turning more and more into a haven for computer geeks, and becoming less usable for the vast majority of people. And this is a bad thing! -- Oliver P. 08:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I thought {{subst}} would be useful as a shortcut, but that people would avoid msg for basically the reasons you outline. I was quite surprised that so many people jumped on the bandwagon, with so little dissent. Now people want argument substitution as well. I'm afraid that this will make wikitext look like a programming language. -- Tim Starling 09:52, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Hurray! I thought everyone would disagree. :) I have nothing against programming languages, but please, not for editing encyclopaedia articles... -- Oliver P. 11:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well! No-one has disagreed with my "msg considered harmful" thesis. Can I take it that no-one has any counterarguments? Can I take this as a consensus? ;) If no-one can answer my arguments, I might just start going round replacing all the "msg" tags with "subst" ones... -- Oliver P. 00:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's just that this has been discussed before, and probably no one really feels like re-hashing it all again. Also, you haven't given people enough time to respond. Old arguments should be somewhere on Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text Dori | Talk 00:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
The previous argument is at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text/Archive 1#SUBST vs MSG. User:Tim Starling
- Thanks. I'll go and read that now... -- Oliver P. 02:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)