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)
Okay, I've read it. The first point brought up there, about possible mass vandalism, is interesting. On the one hand, I don't see vandalism of MediaWiki pages as a special problem, because there must be people watching them, and even if not, the vandalism will show up in many articles, so it would quickly be noticed and reverted in the usual way. On the other hand, I don't like the idea that an article can now change (whether by vandalism or not) without it showing up as a change to the article itself, either on "Recent changes" or on people's watchlists. I want to know what's happening to articles without having to remember which messages they contain and watching those message pages too.
Eloquence's point about easy modification of messages in one fell swoop is valid, but I don't think it's especially important. Messages for stubs, Vfd, disambiguation, etc. are unlikely ever to change radically, and even if they do, editors can always just wait until they next edit the article, and re-"subst" the message. Piecemeal improvement over a long period of time is the norm in a wiki, and for most articles lacking up-to-date messages will be a small problem compared to their usual incompleteness, NPOV problems, and the like. They'll have to be edited many times for those things anyway, so one more thing to edit them for is, I think, trivial in comparison.
The next point, about finding stubs, seems to be only a technical matter rather than a policy one, and I have no comment on that. Have I missed any other points?
It seems that no-one brought up the main point I'm making, which is that the "msg" concept takes away the whole basic idea (and indeed the joy) of a wiki, enabling anyone to see and edit the full text of an article with just one click. It makes the editing process a lot more counterintuitive, difficult to learn, and generally off-putting, and all for what I consider to be a very small benefit. Now, any comments...? :) -- Oliver P. 03:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It's possible, and probably should be recommended, to explain in an html comment how to edit the msgs contained in an article. Other people argue for msgs rather than large infoboxes on articles, as they believe that a big chunk of table html or wiki table markup is more disconcerting for a newbie to find when they click "edit this page". I think you're dismissing the importance of central editability. Many of these messages (article series etc) which need to be edited and maintained appear on hundreds of pages each. No one wants to have to correct hundreds of pages each time they need to make a change. fabiform | talk 03:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oliver, I think you have some good points in your arguments. I was (and am) in favor of using msg in limited ways. For example, I think stub:msg makes perfect sense. Same thing for msg:disambig. These are long-term, short messages where consistency is definitely desireable.
- As for the rest, I'm not certain. We do want to keep Wikipedia simple to edit, and based on that alone, your argument has merit.
- Your argument that using msg is completely against the "wiki idea" is much less compelling for me. The objective/goal of Wikipedia is the creation of a great, free encyclopedia. As far as I'm concerned, whether it is in keeping with the "wiki idea" is a secondary question. The first question is whether the feature provides a net positive contribution to the making of a great, free encyclopedia.
- In many cases, consistency from article-to-article (especially in a series) is very desireable in an encyclopedia. Given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, some aspects of that consistency will change over time. msg is an important method of maintaining such consistency.
- Wikipedia is breaking new ground, given its size and its objectives. We may need to tweak how msg is being used, but I'd be firmly against abolishing it.
- -Rholton 03:56, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
But it is actually easier to edit using messages. You edit one page, and the change happens across hundrends, or thousands of articles. Messages shouldn't be used for content, but rather for small messages and tables. Can you imagine redoing all sort of pages just to make a small change. People would be opposed to it, just because it's become "convention". Also for pages that use tables, not only would you have to paste all the table code in the articles where it's used, but you would have to customize them (i.e. bold the current link, instead of having it done automatically). Eventually, there could be links in articles to edit the messages that are contained in it, and perhaps have a link to their histories as well, but right now messages a too useful to be gotten rid of. Dori | Talk 04:01, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- I've only been around a very short time and I picked up on how msg worked very easily. I haven't not seen people asking many questions about them either. I think the standard messages like VfD, stub, etc. are all more useful as msg than as subs. I do not consider those to be part of the content of an article. I don't see it as a problem if new users are not able to edit that part of an article -- it's not supposed to be edited.
- On the other hand, it seems some messages are getting more elaborate and I don't even know anything about parameterized messages. I'd have to see examples before I ventured an opinion about them. It seems that if someone wanted to edit something in a msg, they would ask about it, either on the talk page or the Village Pump. Which is probably a good thing, no? I mean, if the message is used for purposes of standardization, then presumably (I would hope) that there had been some discussion and consensus about the content of the message before it is put into widespread use. And if someone wants to make changes to it, it should be discussed first, no? Or is that contrary to the spirit of Wiki as you see it? Bkonrad | Talk 04:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)