Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates

Portions of this page come from comments made by User:Jamesday and myself on Template talk:Sisterproject. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

---

Doesn't most of this apply to any popular template? In other words, if Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting had not begun, or were to be called off, wouldn't this apply to the original {{stub}} template as well? — Itai (f&t) 14:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, the potential for vandalism exists, and the template could be protected for those reasons. The server load problem still partially exists because of the use of the category in that template. Meta-templates are worse though. -- Netoholic @ 16:00, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Could be. Basically, what I'm saying is this: are we sure this is not part of a greater problem? Seems that the problem is not meta-templates per se, but rather any template that is used on more than n pages. — Itai (f&t) 16:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfair discrimination against registered users?

It seems to me that a large part of the problem stems from the different treatment given to anonymous users, who are served by massive caches which must be invalidated every time an edit is made. Registered users do not reap the benefit of these caches, because of the way the software implements the "logged-in-ness" of a given user.

Maybe some effort should be applied to making the software more efficient for registered users, if necessary at the expense of worse performance for anonymous users, which would encourage more people to log in.

I'm not expert enough in the whys and wherefores of XHTML/CSS to understand quite why anonymous users should be able to use caching—and logged-in users cannot—when I thought the real difference is in the CSS "wrapper" which should be independent of the "real content".

Enlighten me, someone, please!

--Phil | Talk 11:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

This policy is still being considered

Just in case anybody was not clear on the subject - this policy is, at the moment, being considered. It has not been endorsed by the Wikipedia community. No decisions should be based on it. — Itai (f&t) 22:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not intended to be "policy". The Be bold guideline isn't "policy" either, but that doesn't mean we should ignore its wise guidance. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

The wiseness of this non-policy is being debated as well. In other words: don't point people, through edits summaries or directly, to this page as an explanation for actions without pointing out that this is not an official policy, merely the opinion of some Wikipedians. — Itai (f&t) 17:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no debate refuting the points made in this page. Your argument on other talk pages seems to be about templates in general, but that doesn't mean the assertions of this page are incorrect. Beyond simple vandalism, meta-templates have other technical problems, which are documented here. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Possible page split

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure most of the content of this page is directly related to meta-templates. How about moving everything that is not directly related to, for instance, Wikipedia:Problems with frequently used templates (along with a note saying that meta-templates often fall under this criterion), and keep on this page (which I would rather have moved to Wikipedia:Problems with meta-templates, but this really isn't important) only what relates to meta-templates (along with a note pointing out that meta-templates are often frequently used). — Itai (f&t) 19:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever is true of regular templates is twice as true for meta-templates. Please don't split out sections of this page, and don't rename it. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

I've had no intention of taking any such actions unilaterally. However, I still maintain that this page is misleadingly named. This is like a Ford advertisement saying: "you shouldn't buy Hondas because Hondas can't fly." True, but the same can be said of all other automobiles. Wouldn't it be better to have a site-wide policy regarding all frequently used templates (say, those having over 10,000 occurrences), and keep this page for problems restricted to meta-templates? (Along with a note saying that some meta-templates also have the misfortune of being frequently used, and thus pose the problems mentioned on the newly created page.) — Itai (f&t) 21:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you like, I'm sure that when template parameters were first considered, there was a lot of discussion regarding what's wrong with parameters. You can add the arguments against allowing parameters to this page. (Meta-templates generally use parameters.) In fact, if you wish to make this page longer still, you can even include bits about what's wrong with wikis in general - which applies, admittedly, to meta-templates as well. — Itai (f&t) 21:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Itai, stop trolling. This page presents many of the major issues of meta-templates. Vandalism is only one, but it's impact is felt even harder than when using one template. For example, if I have meta-template that governs 20 other templates used on 100 pages each (2000 pages affected), it is more damaging to vandalise the one meta-template than it would be to vandalize a single template used on those 2000 pages. -- Netoholic @ 21:48, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Netoholic, stop murdering infants. (You're not, but neither am I trolling.) If using a meta-template-generated templates for these 2000 pages is indeed worse than using a single template, list the reasons for this on this page. You've still to provide one good reason why it wouldn't make more sense to list the problems with all frequently used templates on one page, and keep this page, which has "meta-templates" in its title, for problems specific to meta-templates. (Including, for instance, the reasons for your above statement.) — Itai (f&t) 02:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Use lists, not templates and categories?

As I discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:us-geo-stub, using lists, because of the large number of entries, and the large amount of human maintenance that would be required, is an unworkable alternative for trying to deal with stub articles. The topic stubs were created because the Category:stub had grown so huge that it had to be disabled because of the hit on system performance. The Category:substubs was also growing to an unmanageable size. Regrouping the stubs into smaller stub categories allows individuals who are interesting in those topics, plus the Regional notice boards and Wikiprojects, to find and expand those stubs into larger articles. As far as I can see, the best solution for handling the topic stubs may be to quit use the metastubs except that the text for the metastubs is saved somewhere so that they can be used as text templates for creating topic stubs with a standardized format. BlankVerse 09:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask this... why are unsorted stubs such a problem? Take us-geo-stub, for example - I can guarantee there is noone sitting around saying "Gee, I think I'll see what random U.S. locations are stubs, and improve one". Let's leave them to be happy little stubs, sitting out there doing no harm and not being referenced, until someone actually interested in that subject comes along and improves it. Sorting stubs is busywork. For any specific topic area, wouldn't it make more sense to just make a list of the needed articles, and prioritize them for work? I'm not saying you must maintain a list of every related stub, but why go out searching for them just to categorize them? The problem is, the stub message should never have had the Category:Stub added to it. We only needed a simple text to encourage people to come in and edit. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

I can guarantee there is noone sitting around saying "Gee, I think I'll see what random U.S. locations are stubs, and improve one". Can you now? I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at the geo-stubs, but I do check in occasionally to see if there are any that I recognize and can help out. However, while I find the geo-stubs marginally useful, I'm really not convinced about the entire elaborate new stub sorting apparatus. Seems unnecessarily complex to me, but then there may be others who, like me, check for stubs in their areas of interest from time to time. So count me as decidedly ambivalent. I can see how a *simple* stub sorting method is superior to making lists (it is trivially easy for a random editor to add a stub tag to an article, while adding the article to an appropriate list is considerably more involved). older≠wiser]] 16:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Scope creep

Netoholic: Your description was overblown as well as incorrect. I still left your basic points intact. Without the exaggerations that were in your original version, people will actually probably believe your position more. BlankVerse ∅ 17:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)