Template talk:Always substitute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ambox version

I've hidden an ambox version of the message on the template page. if no one has any objections, I'm going to replace the non-standard box with the standard template. --Ludwigs2 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Converted to {{ombox}}. PC78 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From Template talk:Substituted

Template:Substituted was merged into this template. The following discussion is from that talk page. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Substitution

I would add the option s to indicate the reason is substitution and no other one. --Mac (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly this template and {{transclusionless}} should be split, to make that distinction explcit. Alai (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of templates

RE where it says "– use {{subst:Subst only}}." <-- It would be cool if it didn't automatically tell people they need to capitalise that, since a lot of people probably don't realise there's no need for people to capitalise the name when typing a template, it saves a little bit of time and effort for everyone, not much but in the end ads up to a lot (along the same lines as Blackle though I prefer Scroogle) :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say so?Or do you mean it is implied by the capital "S"? Well, after all, names of templates are capitalised, just that it is not mandatory. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Substitution in archives

I think it may be a good idea to have an option like "archive=yes/no" which would put a note that a particular template should be substituted in archives. For example, see discussion on substitution of {{talkback}} here: Template talk:Talkback#Substing_Talkback. --DixonD (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Which bots

Which bots are currently subst:ing templates based on this one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 45. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2018

Please substitute with sandbox. The purpose of this template message is for use in template documentation. If transcluded (on a rootpage other than that of this template itself), this template message includes the text "(i.e., use {{subst:Template name}})". For templates utilizing a documentation subpage, this functions correctly when the documentation subpage is transcluded on the template basepage. However, when the documentation subpage (or the sandbox page, for that matter) is viewed directly, the template reads "(i.e., use {{subst:Template name/doc}})". The inclusion of "/doc" is an error. The primary purpose of this requested edit is to eliminate the "/doc" (or "/sandbox") from being included in the template message text by displaying the basepage name instead when these subpages are viewed. It also deprecates code that changed pagename to a demonstration "{{subst:Template name}}" when the template is viewed on its own page, in favor of creating a demo using the existing variable "actualtemplate", already implemented in the template documentation. Additionally, this proposed edit places this parenthetical in small text. Additionally, this requested edit makes a code improvement by eliminating unneeded #default from switch. Bsherr (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done except for what appears to me an unnecessary font size change Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Above fix was flawed

There are templates to be substituted that are not root templates. For example, {{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/impheader}} is substituted by {{WPBannerMeta/templatepage/preloadimp}}. (they don't currently invoke {{Subst only}}). The test for root only is problematic. I suspect filtering out the sandbox and documentation templates may be required. Or updating the description and suggesting manual categorization. Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

This is very minor, but please adopt the sandbox version, in which I have made an edit that removes an unneeded line of code that is causing an old icon to display. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Please could the template itself be put into <include only> tags, such that it doesn't appear itself on its page. An example is given directly below in the documentation anyway, and having three templates almost stacked on top of each other just creates confusion. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.

It is generally appropriate for the template page to demonstrate the template, even if the documentation also does so. --Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why was this template moved?

The code to subst a template is "subst:", so the name of this template was "subst only". It made perfect sense. Was there a discussion prior to the move from "subst only" to "substitute only"? Pinging Mclay1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Most people using Wikipedia aren't going to know that. I suppose it's arguable whether they would even be using this template, but it's generally better for templates to have names that make sense to everyone rather than using insider abbreviations. Either way, the old name still works as a redirect. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If people think the old name is easier to understand (which is the only thing I care about here), then I don't oppose it being moved back (so long as the current name remains a redirect). But {{nosubst}}, which I also moved, is a much worse name. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates are already showing up incorrectly within their documentation. See Template:Uw-disruptive2. Magitroopa (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Mclay1, please revert this move, which has broken the template's use in multiple places. I am fine with a redirect existing, and I am fine with a move discussion if you feel strongly about the name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why that is happening, so I'll move it back for now. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have initiated a RM at Template talk:No substitution#Requested move 24 July 2020 to resolve the current inconsistency. --Bsherr (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:No substitution which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Warn/prevent substitution for unknown parameters?

This template needs to come with prominent warnings that using it on a template which is invoked with unknown parameters will cause loss of information, including non-trivial amounts of encyclopedic information lost in the last couple of years (see Template talk:Lien web).

(Background:

I still think the underlying issue should be fixed; most (but not, apparently, all) current subst-only templates simply shouldn't be substed if there are unknown parameters. One way of achieving this would be to use something like {{Subst if possible}} on those template pages, and to modify AnomieBOT to check, for those templates only, that unknown parameters aren't used.

For an example of what's currently happening, look at this diff. The problem is that since it was a substitution that happened, there's no way for template authors to fix the problem retroactively: someone is going to have to go through the edits and find those where information was lost (this part is easy to automate), then go to the current revision of the article and perform the necessary corrections (this part is usually very hard).

Everyone keeps telling me "this is not a bot issue", but it's easy to fix by modifying the bot (and, obviously, adjusting Wikipedia policy to make clear that such a modification is legal and required), and impossible to fix for the future without doing so, so I remain unconvinced.)

Anyway, since the underlying issue doesn't look like people are interested in fixing it, please at least warn users of this template that they shouldn't use it unless they've verified that all parameters they are likely to be invoked with, particularly in the case of templates that simulate foreign Wikipedias' reference templates, are actually handled.

Eelworm (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of this template

I noticed a critical flaw with this template. The template not only advises users to subst this template, but also can control whether the template should be substed by a bot. If placed on documentation pages of templates that are transcluded on many pages, the template could have the potential to cause substantial load on the servers. These templates are almost always protected, but by the open nature of this wiki, most of the doc pages can be edited by anyone. This means anybody could cause a template to be substed when it is not necessary, perhaps even breaking wikicode. Templates that use the unsubst module may be perpetually substed. Users may also categorize templates into Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted manually. I suggest removing the code that causes the category addition to make it harder for the template to be used maliciously. I don't know if protecting the category would help. I hope I didn't violate WP:BEAN. --JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC) updated 03:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The bot refuses to substitute templates with many transclusions, for this very reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:Exactly how many template transclusions (or pages the template is transcluded on) is required to prevent the bot from substituting it? Also, does the bot refuse to substitute any and all templates which use Module:Unsubst? Why doesn't the category description mention this? JsfasdF252 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

See this example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusing wording

The template itself displaying "should always be substituted" and then documentation saying the template itself should never be substituted is awkward phrasing. I will think more how to better word it, but I suspect the ambiguous reference to "Template" could be improved, or even provided with an example to make it clearer. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not always?

Since subst: doesn't work inside extension tags like <ref> or <gallery> (phab:T4700), perhaps the instruction to always substitute should have a qualification, or at least the option to add one for templates likely to be used in such a context, e.g. {{Format ISBN}}. In such situations, editors need to use the template unsubst'ed and rely on the bot to perform the substitution. Kanguole 11:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

see Template talk:Never substitute#Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023 79.185.142.163 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Icon

The templates {{May be substituted}} and {{Never substitute}} now use and as icons. Likewise, this template can switch to , like {{Formula semper substituenda}} does on Latin Wikipedia. --Grufo (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not inclined to do so; those images are almost impossible to read and I have undone them. Please gain consensus to use these new images. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that counts, but at least @TheGoodAndHolyLord: had thanked me for this edit. Hoping to bring improvements, now I have also slightly edited the three images on Wikimedia Commons. --Grufo (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Request: More alerting?

Hello,

I hope the template editors watching this talk page don’t mind my request that this template be made more alerting. Perhaps the colors brighter like red?

The reason being that new editors wishing to use templates that require substituting may not pick up on the notice or disregard it — as I did many time and am only just realizing the importance of substitution.

I, myself, am still a very new editor on Wikipedia and I figured I would share insight on that. It took me a while to realize and I would’ve definitely noticed a lot sooner if the notice had been bolder/louder.

I have an example on a WikiLove template that I made here!

Respectfully,
4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested in something like I described, I have created a bolder/absolutely impossible to miss alternative/compliment to this template: Template:Substitute alert
4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not too many page watchers, might want to cross-post to WT:WPT. If your suggestion is to replace this template with your new one, I am a firm no. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My next mission is to make a notice warning of unsolicited votes as if I had asked. I clearly stated that I am not a template editor but something more noticeable would prevent a lot of confusion amongst new editors. A lot of times, I find the seniority on Wikipedia to be very frat-like and probably a solid contributor to the dying interest amongst new editors.

Seeing Wikipedia borderline beg for donations (I do, of course) breaks my heart, but there’s absolutely no consideration for editors trying to understand the format and the rules.

I have got a lot of it covered, but I found the concept/requirement for substitution very under-discussed and on the pages for templates requiring it any new editor is absolutely going to miss this fantastically plain and unextraordinary template. When the entire functionality of the template relies on it, you’d think the insight from someone who literally went months having no idea why my templates were switching the username to the pages latest editor rather than remaining the editor who posted the template. I searched all over and I was having an extremely hard time finding the answer, and I have been coding for a decent amount of time.. and the source code of Wikipedia is relatively straight-forward.. but when it comes to templates.. it’s like nobody cares to even explain or try to resolve the matter.

If you need evidence of that, look no further than your own response to me simply making a suggestion.

No, my template is extreme for a reason. I was hoping someone could find middle ground. Thank you for your input, Primefac. You really saved the day. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. That was a bit uncalled for. I have just been very frustrated by the community on here. It’s crazy to me that nobody really cares to help. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please slow your roll. I appreciate your energy and enthusiasm, but it is often best to find out how and why things are done a certain way before jumping in with both feet and trying to shake up the system. The templates that you have created thus far are visually obnoxious and not in keeping with the encyclopedic style that has been developed over a couple of decades here. I have tidied up a bunch of syntax errors in your new templates and documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I am absolutely willing to have a conversation about substitution and how to make it more obvious to new editors that substitution is often required. Personally I have the opinion that if {{subst only}} is used, it should always have |auto=yes enabled - in other words, if the template should always be substituted, then we should have a bot do so if the user does not. For one reason or another I cannot ever get consensus to implement this. Maybe I'll try again now that you've brought this issue up.

For the record, my initial reply was intended to increase participation in your initial discussion. My second sentence was simply to indicate that I did not think your proposed solution was tenable. Primefac (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Primefac, Thank you for replying so level-headed to my absolutely nasty reply. It’s telling of your character and I admire that.

I apologize. Thank you for considering my voice. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. That's fine. I don't think it'd be bad. SWinxy (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)