Wikipedia talk:Substitution/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Infobox Templates

I'd like to add Category:Infobox templates to the list of templates that should not be subt'd. Not least of my reasons is that many infobox templates have dynamic parameters which need to be changed, added, or removed, and subst'ing makes this very difficult. There's also a question of uniformity. If noone replies in a day or two I'll just go ahead and be WP:BOLD. Adam McCormick 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Being familiar with templates in general, but not being heavily involved in any specific infobox area, I would say you'd be in the right to do so. BigNate37_(T) 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, going ahead. Adam McCormick 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to get ParserFuncs to output straight Wikitext?

Without having to go use the ExpandTemplates page, is there a way to get a template to expand with {{subst:}} such that ParserFuncs output actual WikiText instead of the ParserFunc code? Here's the situation:

When putting Fair Use Rationales on hundreds of images that all read very similarly to each other, it's inconvenient to have to copy the FUR from one image, paste it to another image, then modify the things that vary between the two images (like the title of the image's content or the page it's being used on). I created a user template to take care of this, which takes several parameters to customize the output. Because the fair-use patrol bots don't accept user templates, I'm using subst with the template. But since there are ParserFuncs in the template code, those parserfuncs end up in the subst'd output.

Meta talks about ways to do "optional substitution" and composite templates, but I tried the techniques they described there, and I still ended up with the same result.

If someone wants to look at my template code and give me some feedback, it's here: User:KieferSkunk/furvg . If you want to test the function, feel free to use User talk:KieferSkunk/furvg as a sandbox. Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - User:Patrick helped me figure it out. Turns out my attempts to use the Meta techniques were only part of the solution - I missed some syntax stuff. Got it now. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Marking templates

Has there been any discussion about marking which templates should always be substituted, either with a blank template or a category? Some of these templates don't have any transclusions; as I'm trying to clean out the Template namespace over at WP:DOT, it makes things much more difficult when I'm unable to know if a template is supposed to have no transclusions or is plainly orphaned. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete template

Album Image is now obsolete. Is there a relevant replacement that should go in the image section or should it just be taken out? JoshuaZ 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Skiptotoctalk

Template:Skiptotoctalk

Should this template be substituted? There is a discussion here: Template talk:Skiptotoctalk.

I don't care either way. I was just under the impression that substitution was to be encouraged. I copied this template to the commons too, so I need to know for that template also: commons:Template:Skiptotoctalk

There is also a discussion at Template talk:Skiptotoctalk about putting a hidden note in substituted template code. To tell people how to correctly substitute the template elsewhere (with the latest code). I can't seem to get a hidden note to show up in the substituted code without problems (such as a "template loop" warning in the code).--Timeshifter 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Per talk on other page, substing this template is an actively bad idea because it increases the amount of crud occupying the top of talk pages, and there's definitely no consensus that substituting templates is general is to be encouraged. Chris Cunningham 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a problem to skip past the substituted code. There are edit buttons for each talk section. The crud is usually concentrated at the top of talk pages. There is a long list of required or suggested substitutions at Wikipedia:Template substitution. So obviously some substitution is encouraged. I thought that substitution lowered the server loads. I keep seeing server slowdown messages. You know, the ones about a watchlist being behind so many seconds or minutes. I know of WP:PERF, too. So how about some guidance from others. --Timeshifter 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you need to re-read the Template substitution page and see what exactly it actually says. Not only does it explicitly link to WP:PERF itself, it also explains why it is that some templates are always substituted, and it isn't for performance reasons. Chris Cunningham 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Here is part of Wikipedia:Template substitution#Benefits of substitution:

• Substituting en masse may speed up the site, though the amount and significance of this is the subject of frequent debate. Every time a page is modified, the server must get text from a separate page for every template used. Although each individual template has little effect, the vast number of templates used on Wikipedia is one factor affecting server load and article load times. Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber (who "maintain[s] overall responsibility for all technical functions of the Foundation, including both hardware and software") has said: "'Policy' should not really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." (See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.)

See Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits for further details.

See the next section for related questions.--Timeshifter 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem often loads very slowly

I think it is because of the many minor templates in that page. Any ideas?

See the talk page discussion also about the slow-loading problem. It is discussed here:

• Talk:Jerusalem#Editing problems

I see this in the HTML source code for the page:

Pre-expand include size: 1115797 bytes
Post-expand include size: 354264 bytes
Template argument size: 197507 bytes
Maximum: 2048000 bytes

Does that help at all? --Timeshifter 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Done

I've left a note on the templates talk page, but shouldn't this template be substed? CO₂ 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Substituting multiple templates at once?

Is there a way to substitute a few templates at once, with one tag, something like

{{subst:{{CURRENTDAY}}{{CURRRENTMONTH}}{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

? Because I can think of quite a few uses for it, but can't find one, so I'm doubting weather it exists. Thanks! Yamakiri 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you can paste a bunch of text and templates into Special:ExpandTemplates to expand everyting into plain wikicode. --Sherool (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, well it'll do. Thank you! Yamakiri^T_C 09-26-2007•10:45:52

Use something like {{subst:DATE}}} {{DATE}} was created for this very purpose, but is just month/year. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32 27 September 2007 (GMT).

You can use {{now}} --Nukeless 10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2, 2007 Deletion-related edit explained

The differences and explanation respectively. – Conrad T. Pino 12:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation and contradiction

I'm not sure I understand why {{archivebox}} is listed as something that "must" be substituted. If it is substituted then that makes it hard to add more archives later on. Can someone explain why it should be substituted? Also, I note with some irony that the archive box on this talk page is not substituted. I think {{archivebox}} should be removed from the "must" list, and moved into the "not" list. Does this sound reasonable? I note that I am not the first to make this suggestion here, see the archive here. -- HiEv 07:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Update?

It seems as though this page should get an update. I just did exactly as it says, and a lot of them got reverted. Could somoen who knows more about what should and what shouldn't update this? Thanks! Soxred93 has a boring sig 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Axem Titanium just removed {{archivebox}} from the "must" list with the note "has been superceded by Template:Archive box which does not require substitution" in his edit summary. -- HiEv 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. But one of the templated listed too, {{WP:RM}} was reverted. Soxred93 has a boring sig 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic substitution

Is there any way to automagically substitute a template when it must be substitued.

I.e. templatexample1 could containt subst:templatexample2. So, when user includes {{templatexemple1}} it would include (subst:) the content of templatexample2. --Nukeless 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned

What about signing an unsigned comment? Are you supposed to subst or leave it as a template link? -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. If you are adding the template it should be subst (to reduce server load)ɺ but there is no point in changing transclusions of it to substitutions.-- maelgwn - talk 04:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion and substitution

I think I understand the difference between transclusion and substitution now; but IMHO this page is not very good in explaining their relationship. Would you consider it correct and helpful to add

(see: Wikipedia:Transclusion)

right after

Ordinarily, a template will be expanded "on the fly"; that is, the template code calls a separate page for the text every time someone edits a page it is used on.

? -- 790 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This directions aren't easy to find

Actually, I fist used "subst:" when I was a rookie and was trying to create a wikiproject (which was't even my intention back then anyway). Now, years later I needed to do a template substitution but forgot how to do it. I actually came to think that it was a characteristic of certain templates "programmed" to be substituted.

The pion is, I tryed to figure out how to create a substitutable template, I wasn't able to find this help article!!

It took me long but I figured out how to use subst by finding the original example I knew from the guide to create wikiproject, which was all changed. then I searched subst in wikipedia pages.

Yuo guys need to make this help article more reachable.

--20-dude (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same exact thing. I still don't know how how subst works. Maybe you could add a quick example? OptimistBen (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Copyvio

There is discussion at WT:CP regarding whether to substitute {{copyvio}} or create a subst template that includes it, in order to avoid listing at Special:Shortpages. Interested editors please comment there.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been implemented. {{copyvio}} is now always substituted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Template:Unsigned, has in really big letters that {{unsigned}} must be substituted. Here it lists the template as under debate. Should the documentation of the template be changed, or the page here updated? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen /Archive_5#Unsigned_and_Unsigned2, but was looking to make everything read the same. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowrap

{{Nowrap}} is listed as a template that should be substed but in practice it rarely is. Do we want this template to be substed everywhere? --T-rex 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be substed? -- maelgwn - talk 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. However it is listed on this page as such. --T-rex 03:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I am probably the resident nowrap expert and stumbled upon this discussion I guess I should comment. I coded up most of the nowrap related templates used here at Wikipedia, except the old {{nowrap}} itself, and I wrote the how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling.

I think that {{nowrap}} should be transcluded, not substituted. Compare these two lines of wiki code. The first one is the substituted version, the other is the usual transcluded version:

<span style="white-space:nowrap;">This text will not wrap</span>

{{nowrap|This text will not wrap}}

• Which one is the easiest for normal Wikipedia editors to understand and use? Remember that most Wikipedia editors are not experienced web masters that understand CSS code, since Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.
• Which one gives the users a link below the edit window, a link to the {{nowrap}} template, where there is documentation telling how to do nowrap handling?
• Which one makes it easier for us to later add fixes if we get a better way to do nowrap handling?

I think the answer to those questions is that the transcluded version is the better option. Also, {{nowrap}} is only used on about 220,000 pages. The servers handle updates to such templates without any problems nowadays. And besides, that template is only very rarely edited.

I looked around. Long ago the {{nowrap}} template apparently was called {{nobr}}. I searched the archives of this talk page for "nowrap" and for "nobr" and the only other discussion I could find was Wikipedia talk:Template substitution/Archive 6#No quite sure the benifit of replace "Nobr" template. In both these discussions all editors have said the same, that there is no need to substitute {{nowrap}}. So I have now removed it from the list here at Wikipedia:Template substitution.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Substing and GFDL?

I have a question about how substing works with the GFDL at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Substing and GFDL?. delldot ∇. 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot substitute all {{RS500}}

Could we list {{RS500}} to have a bot subst all uses of it? The template is a shortcut for

• In 2003, the album was ranked number {{{1}}} on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time.

See also the templates talk page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree; this should be gotten rid of and probably wasn't needed in the first place. Doesn't look like any bot owners are patrolling this talk page, unfortunately. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sfp templates?

On April 4, a whole bunch of {{sfp bottom}}s on the Feb 2009 SFD page were subst'd by a bot. WP:SUBST says this template should always be subst'd; this is news to me, and I wonder if there's a change we stub sorters should know about. I can't find a discussion on it. I have no problem subst'ing; I'm just looking for information. Thanks - Pegship (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have also been a good idea to bring it up on my talk since my bot was the one which had done the substing. This happened because I gave my bot a list of all of the deletion archival templates and templates which are redirects to them (so for example {{afdtop}} would be handled correctly by it). It seems that sfp bottom got caught because it redirects over to {{sfd bottom}}, a deletion archival template for for WP:SFD. I can however exclude that redirecting template from it in future runs if desired. FunPika 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tidying up this guideline

It strikes me as futile to try to maintain a list of templates on this page which should or should not be substituted. Every day templates are deleted and new ones are created. It will be impossible to keep such a list up to date. Therefore I removed the whole lot.

Instead we should try to give some general guidelines about which templates generally get substituted. I will try to work on it in the next few days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Like the US Constitution Bill of Rights, the list is important. The BoR was not present in the original, because the framers thought them too obvious, and already well-established in precedent and common law. Yet we need them to cite. The same here: I've often needed to cite these, and that's one of the reasons they are listed. Let's not try to list all of them — a general rule might be that the requirements be specified in their /doc pages. But the common ones (or controversial ones that required a consensus in the past) should be listed here.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that it should be stated in each template's documentation whether it is to be substitued or transcluded. That's the obvious place where people are going to look for that information. If you want to have the common ones on here, then I also agree, but let it just be the very common ones which every editor will come across, e.g. {{afd}}, {{prod}}, etc. Specific ones like chemical abbreviations and all the techinal ones which only administrators use (e.g. {{mfd-top}}) do not need to be here and just distract. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not so sanguine. By my memory, many were listed after some debate. Those should remain listed, maybe with a cite to the debate? Much better than wholesale deletion!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• As to the administrative templates, I suppose that we could carefully check the documentation for each, and remove them only after we are sure that they have been properly documented (with a good edit summary on the delete). I'll help.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Subst doesn't work within <ref>...</ref>

Trying {{subst:!}}

outside of <ref>...</ref>: |
inside <ref>...</ref>:

Does anyone know anything about this bug? Hgrosser (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be a bug. See mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php#Templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting that this page be moved to Wikipedia:Substitution because substitution does not only apply to templates. -- IRP ☎ 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can you elaborate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Substitution applies to all pages except for mainspace pages, just like transclusion does. If this page is not moved, then it is incorrect and inconsistent with Wikipedia:Transclusion. -- IRP ☎ 21:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense I suppose. Shall I be bold? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you should be bold or not. I would say that there would be no harm in being bold. -- IRP ☎ 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)