Wikipedia talk:Template substitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2004 2005

[edit] Older discussions

Debates before the introduction of parser functions

[edit] User signature templates

I've just removed

• all user signature templates, often named user:name/sig or something similar

This is something that should not be substed without the user's permission, especially by a bot. People tend to take exception to editing of their signatures, and without the user's cooperation, substing the signatures is futile: they'll just keep adding them. Instead, these users should be contacted on their talk page and encouraged to list their individual signature templates here themselves (as well as adding the subst to their signature in preferences, or just putting the code there). —Cryptic (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would, however, favor a policy requireign people to use subst in thier sigs, if they use signature tempaltes, and banning the use of templates if not listed here for auto-replacement. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• It seems like the policy on signature templates, really should be that they must always be substed; in particular, pages from user space should not regularly be transcluded into other namespaces or other users' pages. Otherwise, one user updating their signature places an undue load on the system, AND their signature is a potential target for vandalism, since an active editor's signature would appear on potentially hundreds or thousands of talk pages.

In other words, by no means should user templates be listed as something that shouldn't be substed.... it's just going to encourage users to use plain transclusion; actually subst'ing their signature instead, seemed to be more sensible. --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the user signature templates from do-not-subst to subst as per the reasoning above. Particularly with the severe strain Wikipedia servers are under lately, propagating a user signature—nothing more than a stylised name and links—across perhaps hundreds of talk pages seems entirely unjustifiable to me. They should preferably be subst'd by the users themselves, but the same goes for every other template listed. // Pathoschild 02:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is also important in archived discussions. If people are talking about someone's signature, and it hasn't been substed, how are we ever going to know what it looked like when we browse the archives? ~MDD4696 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other suggested templates:

• What about {{shortcut}} (t/l)? Unfortunately, I can see many people complaining that it would make a page look messy when editing if that template gets substituted. BlankVerse 09:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorised

Of the uncategorised ones I think {{sub}} and {{sup}} are good to subst:, but I am not sure about the others, I don't think any more of them should be subst'ed, what do you think? Martin 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prettytable

I think that {{Prettytable}} should be subst's, judging from comments here and here unless anyone objects I will start this soon. <font color=darkgreen>'''''Martin'''''</font> 12:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a big deal, but

...but {{tl}} and {{cl}} do not actually produce a lot of wikicode. Radiant_>|< 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but I still oppose ever subst'ing them. Their explicit presence makes the subsequent discussion in cases where tempales are being mentioned, rather than used, much easier IMO, and also serves as a model for new editors. i learned to use {{tl}} by seeing it used on discussion pages -- others should learn it in the same way. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should we have templates like these?

I just found Template:Cthu-cat all it does it put articles in certain categories, this is silly because the articles have to be "touched" if the categories change, and I don't think it is a correct usage of a template. Should we subst: it to death, then delete it? There must be many more like it as well. Martin 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This particular template is bad in other ways, IMO; the categories it places articles into are already subcategories of each other, making all but one redundant and cluttering up parent categories with stuff that should be relegated to children. I was just about to remove it from all the article's it's used in anyway because of that. Bryan 01:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

In the process I just came across Template:Cthu-intro and Template:Cthu-intro2, which look subst:able to me. There isn't likely to be any great value in making the first sentence of each Cthulhu-related article completely standardized like this. Bryan 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flow control templates

Some flow control templates should not be substed. those are

• {{if}}
• {{booland}}
• {{boolor}}
• {{boolxor}}
• {{boolnand}}
• {{boolnor}}
• {{boolnxor}}
• {{booleq}}
• {{boolne}}

if they are substed, they generate unreadable (for most wikipedians) code --AzaToth ^talk 16:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion...

Should {{imdb title}} be included among this list? --AllyUnion (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. It's easier to maintain consistency across pages without substing. Also if IMDb changes the base link we can easily correct all of ours. Eric119 19:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subst hidden behaviour

After some trials, we have found that subst can have a inconsistent behaviour, that can be a good or bad thing, please add a comment on WP:VPT#subst expansions _→AzaToth 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew letters

I just came across a number of templates which are being used to insert Hebrew letters in articles. I'm in the process of adding as many as I can find to Category:Hebrew letters. I think they ought to be SUBSTituted automagically: they're great for typing in Hebrew but they don't need to be kept around once the text is entered. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get Bluebot on it. Martin 12:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical symbols

I was just looking around, and I noticed that although it is recommended that chemical symbols always use subst here, it is also said on each individual template page that "this template is not suitable for use with subst". I thought I'd just point out the contradiction for those who work here (so I won't be coming back to check this thread) — if I'm mistaken, please accept my apology and ignore me completely. Neonumbers 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont know why someone wrote that, it clearly should be subst'ed. In fact it should be deleted as totally pointless, imagine if we had a templat for every simple wiki link. Martin 10:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree on just deleting the templates entirely. --Kenyon 04:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on deleting the templates. On chemistry and materials pages, one ends up typing in chemical formulas quite often. These templates allow one to quickly put in the element symbols in a chemical formula, while making each link to the page for that element. I wish I had known about these sooner. On the other hand, these should absolutely be subst'ed. If the templates aren't suitable for subst, they need to be fixed so that they are.--Srleffler 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The instruction not to subst: these seems to have come originally from User:Physchim62. I left a note on his talk page asking for clarification.--Srleffler 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no reason was given not to substitute them, I will list them as "Should be Substituted." Someone must also remove the instruction not to subst them. Polonium 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already removed the instruction for elements up to letter F. It is very easy to do this using tabbed browsing with mozilla firefox. Polonium 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This task is finished. On 21:15, 20 March 2006, Template: Zirconium was finished by instruction change. Polonium 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• As of today, the chemical symbols section is in the "should NOT be substed" section of this page, and some of the templates say to use subst, and some of them say to not use subst. — brighterorange (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion-related templates that should be subst:

Should {{rfd}} be included in the list that should be subst:? Courtland 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to. Radiant_>|< 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table templates

Someone created templates for table layout, e.g. Template:Col-break, that are far longer than the actual wikicode they translate to. Allegedly this makes tables easier to use - however in my opinion it makes tables harder to use than the simple {| |- | |} syntax. Also, per WP:AUM, they cause unnecessary server load when used in other templates, and developer Jamesday has asked us to cut down on that. Are there any objections to subst'ing these? Radiant_>|< 15:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it envisaged that wiki-code might be expanded to include a way to specify that a given section should be shown in multiple columns? Certainly this seems to be something people might want, in which case it would be much better if these templates were in place to show where the columnisation should occur. If they are SUBSted away, it would make it much more difficult to find where multiple columns have been used: at the very least you should be careful to leave some sort of comment marking the spot. As to whether they make editing simpler, I would imagine that some editors find "start a table", "use 3 columns", "break to a new column", "finish the table" simpler than the "hieroglyphics" involved in wiki-tables. I would be inclined at first to confine your attention to usage inside other templates, if WP:AUM is indeed your actual concern. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, that is not envisaged. I agree that the problem lies mostly in meta-templates. But note that creating a table can still be done using these templates; if they're then auto-substed, that's not a problem for the creator - and any editor can simply duplicate the existing formatting. Honestly, I'm rather familiar with the "hieroglyphics" (just the symbols {, {|, |- and |, really) and when I first saw these tls my reaction was a big 'huh?' Radiant_>|< 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Visual formatting should be done with css, not tables. Yuck to these templates. — Omegatron 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

There's ben a little bit of discussion about subst'ing at WP:WSS, and the gereal consensus is that substing stub templates is a bad move, so I've added the stub templates to the "do not subst" section of the page. These tewmplates are edited frequently and are also frequently replaced or removed from articles. Substing these would create far more work for editors and stub-sorters. Consider an example: A stub template is used on 250 articles, then the scope of the template is changed and its wording needs to be edited. Which is easier - editing the one template, or editing the template and re-substing all the articles? If I've been too bold in adding it to the page, feel free to remove it, but FWIW I thought the opinions of those who use them most frequently should be noted. Grutness...wha? 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

d'oh. they were already there - I just hadn't noticed because they weren't "tl" linked. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig?

Does template:disambig count as a stub template for the purposes of the subst/don't-subst decision?The Literate Engineer 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squiggles

Staring at all the double-braces on Wikipedia:Template substitution makes your eyes go funny. TerraGreen 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for character display

Would it be a good idea to subst the templates used to force correct character display, such as {{IPA}}, {{Unicode}}, and {{Polytonic}}? --Angr (tɔk) 14:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, in the interests of using wiki-text rather than raw HTML, and in case we come up with a better or different method of doing it in future. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifespan-related templates

I have been bold and moved these to "do not substitute". Given the recent introduction of [[Category:Living people]] I am going to attempt to unify these templates, and to fix them so that if a date of death is not specified the article is added to that category. In the meantime, it would be handy if the templates were not substituted out from under my feet. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Using templates to populate categories is a bad mechanism. It cause maintenance problems (bots), suprise factor ("Where is this category coming from?"), learning curve for new editors, and is an avoidable extra database call. If those templates aren't to be subst'd, then they'll just go on TFD. Placing bio articles in those categories is usually a one-time operation... a perfect example of what should be subst'd. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that people who are now living are almost certain to die at some point, at which time they will be changed. You are also ignoring the point of having templates simultaneously populating multiple categories, which is to ensure that sort keys remain consistent, and in some cases that the categories are displayed in a sensible order. This isn't even WP:AUM since you can hardly suggest that these templates in their current form are meta-templates: it's simply another aspect of your anti-template crusade. —Phil | Talk 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From Template talk:Lived- "If there is not a date of death, do not use this template". Sort keys remain consistent after subst'ing. This has nothing to do with AUM, but may inspire "avoid using categories in templates". Your last statement is based on a false premise that I am on an "anti-template crusade", so I can't comment on it. I suppose I could accuse you of being on a "over-templatization" crusade, but that too would be of little value when discussing the merits of this specific template. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objective of this page

The page currently refers to vandalism and server load as the reason to substitute most of these templates.

I don't understand the vandalism concern. Transcluding templates is clearly preferable to substituting them in this case. If the template is vandalized while transcluded, a quick revert of the vandalism is all that's needed to correct the problem. If the template is vandalized and then the bad version substituted, the revert doesn't propagate to all the template instances, and there is no easy way to find them to correct them by hand.

As for server load, lead developer Brion Vibber has said that the load caused by templates is not as bad as it might seem at first glance. In fact, he said, "you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level." So this page really shouldn't be advocating substitution of templates for technical reasons; those should be addressed by the developers with technical solutions. He did make a special exception for signature templates.

So really, the only reason any of these templates should be substituted is if non-updatability is the intended behavior, which isn't even mentioned except in parentheses in the disadvantages section. This would apply to things like {{prettytable}} and {{doctl}}, but not things like {{clear}} or {{ed}}.

This page should be updated; I think a lot of these templates are being substituted unnecessarily. — Omegatron 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of templates that only survived TFD with comments like "useful shortcut, but should be subst'd". I think you're taking Brion out of context with that quote, and if you ask him directly, I think he'd support this page's purpose. There are just some things that are never worth any server load or vandalism risk. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of templates that only survived TFD with comments like "useful shortcut, but should be subst'd".

There should be a link next to those going to the TFD

I think you're taking Brion out of context with that quote, and if you ask him directly, I think he'd support this page's purpose.

How is a quote about the server load implications of templates out of context?

There are just some things that are never worth any server load or vandalism risk.

Did you even read what I wrote? The "vandalism risk" is worse when the templates are substituted. — Omegatron 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some templates are subst'd needlessly, for example, subst'ing AFD templates causes the article to look very messy even to a seasoned editor. For a start I think no template that is temporary should ever be subst'd. I do however think that certain templates are absolutely pointless, and even if the reason to subst them can be argued as weak, there is absolutely no reason not to. Martin 12:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! As someone who routinely changes {{cfr}} templates into {{category redirect}}, I am glad that nobody usually use subst. It would just make things more difficult. I've changed the page to reflect this. I don't know about all the deletion templates. If there are good reasons to subst some of them, please move them back. I've also reorganized things a little and added some basic examples for those that might not infer the obvious reasons for subst'ing or not. -- Samuel Wantman 10:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestions

• {{PATH}} (maybe should just be substed then deleted?)
  • There's a bunch of related templates: brace yourself. And there might be more still… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• {{nothanks-afc}} ({{nothanks-sd}}, on which this is based, is already on the list). Thryduulf 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project notice templates

It has been recommended to me that project notices not be subst'ed. I didn't see that on the list. Maybe it should be added. ~ ApolloCreed 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer definition please.

I believe this definition is not very clear for the average person. I can usually figure out enough coding to do what I need (e.g. create a new template based on an old one) but I don't understand this topic. The article says: :The subst: keyword (short for "substitution") is used as a prefix inside a template code. It changes the way the software expands the template. Ordinarily, a template is expanded "on the fly"; that is, the template code calls a separate page for the text every time someone edits a page it's used on. Placing "subst:" inside the curly brackets tells the software to permanently substitute the template with text of the template (that is, the text that is on the template's article page). Therefore {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} becomes {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} and the full text is expanded when you save the page. I can't follow that. --Singkong2005 01:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC) - Better now --Singkong2005 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subst'ing user talk pages

when subst'ing user talk pages like this, perhaps it is a good idea to include a friendly personal message with every subst. it may be quite rude to disturb someone with "you have new messages" alert when they don't really have any messages to be received. the personal message should be something like: "Hello, sorry to disturb you but we would like to subst this template to increase Wikipedia's performance. Thank you for your understanding." -- Zondor 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Style}}

The idea of Template:Style (edit talk links history) is apparently no SUBST, I've noted this on its new talk page (= documentation). While I'm at it, what about Template:Style-guideline (edit talk links history) and the other Wikipedia header templates? Omniplex 22:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that no template should be substituted on project pages. These pages document Wikipedia, and should remain standardised as much as possible. {{policy}} on one page should not be different from {{policy}} on another. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plausible, maybe somebody is bold and adds them to SUBST - after a day of editing I'm lazy and not bold ;-) Omniplex 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Afd top}} & {{Afd bottom}}

This page says that {{Afd top}} & {{Afd bottom}} should not be subst. However, Wikipedia:Deletion process states that they should. This conflict should be resolved. I would note that the rationale given on this page (Templates related to renaming or deleting pages are used temporarily, and thus do not need to be substituted.) is incorrect for these two as they remain on the record of the deletion debate and are not temporary. So, if the desire is not to subst them, that should be updated as well. -- JLaTondre 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect all of the top/bottom templates should be in the other section. I'll move them in a few minutes here (soon as I find them all). -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my mistake. I was not familiar with all the templates and did not see any warnings that they had to be subst. when I moved the other temporary templates. My apologies. -- Samuel Wantman 08:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{dablink}} and other Hatnotes

Hatnotes like {{dablink}}, {{otheruses}}, and {{this article is about}} should all be on the list of templates that should not be subst'd, for the same reasons as {{main}}, right? --AySz88^-^ 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to create another section: should templates like {{schoolip}} or {{sharedip}} be subst'd (like the test templates are subst'd), or is it too much code? --AySz88^-^ 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bump-down to try to get an answer.... --AySz88^-^ 03:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{tl}}

The page lists {{tl}} under do-not-subst, with a note that it has complex code. I fail to see how the code is at all complex; it's a wikilink surrounded by curly brackets: {{[[Template:name|name]]}}. Use of {{tl}} on a very few project pages such as this one might be better unsubst'd, but in most cases theres no need to use a unsubst'd template. Would anyone object to moving it to the subst list? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 10:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to move it to the subst list. Why would you? — Omegatron 17:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say the code is somewhat confusing, as it looks like a malformed template transclusion when subst'd, but isn't. --AySz88^-^ 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that markup should be made as obfuscated and confusing as possible, to alienate newcomers and those without technical expertise? That's certainly the purpose of a wiki, last time I checked...

You've made an argument for why substitution of templates is not bad, but I don't see an argument for why substitution is good. — Omegatron 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The wikicode is not complicated. Whether or not a newcomer will understand a decorated wikilink is irrelevant; they learn by example, which a template doesn't provide. I understand the need to simplify things for new users, but there's a limit beyond which lies absurdity.

Next you'll suggest we create {{wikilink}} to protect the poor newcomers from those labyrinthine double-brackets. Oh, looky, we already have that; imagine my shock! I see you used a substituted wikilink in your previous post; that's bound to confuse the newcomers, shall I unsubst it for you? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did?
• I still don't see an argument for why we should subst tl. Do you have one? — Omegatron 04:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ironic confusion at what you mean by, 'I did?'. Full sentences tend to be helpful in that respect. Were you referring to my statement that you were using a substituted wikilink? If so, look right here: "So you agree that markup should be made as obfuscated and confusing as possible, to alienate newcomers and [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]? [...]" That's the substituted form of {{wikilink}}.

I believe I've presented my arguments a few times already. I argue primarily that they're not complex, being nothing more decorated wikilinks. Most substituted templates are much more complex; just look at {{welcome}}, which includes nine wikilinks, two HTML entities, a magic word, and three other wiki syntaxes. Secondarily, I argue that newcomers learn wikisyntax by example, which isn't provided the likes of {{tl}} and {{wikilink}}.

You argue that they're complicated ("as obfuscated and confusing as possible"), and throw in some sarcasm to pad your arguments. Perhaps you could lay off the sarcasm a little and actually discuss; your attitude is hardly inviting civility on my part. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The confusion I meant isn't complexity but the non-intuitive result - one would expect {{[[Template:blah|blah]]}} to try to find the article named [[Template:blah]] or even the template named Template:[[blah]] with the parameter blah. It's also possible that the behavior of {{[[ might eventually change since it really isn't intuitive, so one wouldn't want all of its uses breaking on us. --AySz88^-^ 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just spoken with a developer on IRC, who tells me that they will never change the page title behaviour to accept double square brackets. This would cause complications with wikilinks; how, exactly, would one link to [[Example]]]]?. It's almost exclusively unlikely that MediaWiki will drastically change the way it links pages together.

The result is non-intuitive if one doesn't understand wikisyntax very well. The best way to understand wikisyntax is to see it in use and try it for yourself. Editors won't learn this kind of syntax if all they ever see are templates like {{tl}} and {{wikilink}}. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the template should be moved to the subst'd list. {{[[Template:name|name]]}} is not excessively complicated; any editor curious as to the behavior can view the resultant page. "The best way to understand wikisyntax is to see it in use and try it for yourself" echoes my sentiments perfectly; if anything, it should encourage novice users, not intimidate them. ~ PseudoSudo 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the substituted form of {{wikilink}}.

No it's not. It's a wikilink. I didn't type {{subst:wikilink|Systemic bias|those without technical expertise}}; I typed [[Systemic bias|those without technical expertise]]. It would be absurd to use a template to create a simple link.

The best way to understand wikisyntax is to see it in use and try it for yourself.

Wikipedia:How to edit a page.

I argue primarily that they're not complex, being nothing more [than] decorated wikilinks.

How is the non-complexity of {{tl}} an argument in favor of substituting it?

Secondarily, I argue that newcomers learn wikisyntax by example, which isn't provided the likes of {{tl}} and {{wikilink}}.

Now there's an actual argument. I could say in return, "How are newcomers supposed to learn template wikisyntax if you substitute all the templates?" Those are both pretty far-fetched, though, don't you think?

I've looked at this {{wikilink}} template that you keep referring to, and it's meant for special applications inside other templates, where regular wikilinks won't function correctly. It's not for general use. Read the talk page:

In articles use Wiki link syntax instead of this. This template was created for use within templates due to behavior of bracket and pipe characters.

It would be absurd to use a template to create nothing more than a standard wikilink, and it would be deleted quickly if that was its purpose. And, once again, it's completely unrelated to a discussion of whether {{tl}} should be substituted. — Omegatron 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote my arguments directly from the accompanying project page and denote how each applies to this template.

• Reasons to substitute
  • Substitute (doesn't need to be updated): Templates are often modified or deleted. If the template is boilerplate text, consider if you want the text to vary as the template is improved. If your answer is no, then substitution is warranted.
  • N/a: If there is a template you would like to modify for a single occasion...
  • Substitute: Substituting en masse may speed up the site. Every time someone views a page, 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. This creates bottlenecks and slows down Wikipedia. The problem is solved by subst'ing templates on pages where they don't need to be kept up-to-date. This is particularly true on talk pages. If a template isn't subst:, any editing of that template causes each page that has the template to be uncached and reloaded, which slows down the Wikipedia servers further. Whether this is a significant problem is the subject of debate.
  • N/a (protected): Templates are also a prime target for vandalism.

• Reasons not to substitute
  • N/a (doesn't need to be traced): Once a template is substituted the result is no longer linked to the template.
  • N/a (doesn't need to be traced): If a template is substituted, no references are registered to which template is used.
  • N/a (Not complex): A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically-inclined.
  • N/a (permanent): If the template is just being used temporarily, it is usually better not to substitute.
  • N/a (protected): When a vandalised template is substituted...

I count two reasons to substitute, none not to. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Any further comments? Unless there's any opposition, I'll update the page appropriately. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding So you agree that markup should be made as obfuscated and confusing as possible, to alienate newcomers and those without technical expertise?, that is a straw man, we could achieve the goal of {tl} with a much more obfuscated code, and we're not aiming to that. There are plenty of complicated code out there, a newcomer learns simple sintax first, like using nowiki tag, if somebody needs to be disucssing templates in a heavy form (which tl is for), then they're likely not to be newcomers anymore. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tl; and cl

PLEASE stop substituting {{tl}} and {{cl}}! They are deliberately used rather than Template:xx and Category:xx! They were both deliberately listed as "do not substitute" - for some reason someone has deliberately changed this and is now substing them! STOP IT!!!!!! 04:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above ("{{tl}}"). If you have a reason you believe they should not be substituted that was not addressed, please note them here. We are aware that {{tl}} and {{cl}} are deliberately used rather than a template or category link, but that is merely a description of their purpose, not a reason not to substitute. Since you haven't presented any reason not to subst, I've moved it back to the substitution list. My bot will temporarily ignore them pending further discussion. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There being no response from the user, and considering previous discussion, I'm moving the templates back to the subst list. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no response because there was no discussion on the talk pages of those templates! The reasons were all given when tl and cl were first added to the "do not subst" list. STOP IT. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

since you clearly couldn't be bothered checking the archive for the reasons, I've added a link: Wikipedia_talk:Subst/archives/2005#Disputed. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to included a single argument, which was addressed above. Since you clearly can't be bothered to read the discussion under this heading, I've added a link:

"{{tl}}"

Please note that civility begets civility. Thank you for your valuable contributions to this discussion. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against substing {{tl}}. The server load issue is a non-issue. --Ligulem 08:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tl}} should not be substituted. — Omegatron 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you two gave reasons. Substing it reduces server load (70,000 pages currently used tl unsubsted!) and still allows you to easily write out a template link (just {{ subst:tl|param }} instead of {{[[Template:Param|Param]]}} and not strain the servers unnecessarily. What reason is there for not substing it? --Rory096 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Others can then learn about it, and it's shorter. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Shorter where? When entering it in? Slightly. In the wikimarkup? Yes, but who's editing that anyway? Others can learn about it in other ways too, like when it's not substed or when somebody mentions it. --Rory096 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's shorter both when entering it and in the wikimarkup. People regularly edit talk pages. And people will be way, way slower to learn about it if it's always substed, unless you add a comment to it.

See also the new topic I started at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More template server load debate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

brion was slightly unhelpful when I asked about server load, failing to answer my question. But he has said previously that we shouldn't be concerned with server load, in general. Tl is not comparable to a signature template, because it will be changed very, very rarely—it's received three edits in the approximately seven months since it was full-protected.

In any case, there's clearly no consensus, so please don't put it in the subst pile. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate is odd, why should a bot not subst Template:tl? Comparison:

123456789012345678901234

{{tl|abc}} (10 characters)

{{[[Template:abc|]]}} (21 characters, bad)

{{[[Template:abc|abc]]}} (wikitext for the latter)

{{[[Template:xyz|]]}} (delete 7 + add 4 = 11 to change the name)

{{tl|abc}} (delete 3 + add 3 = 6 to change the name)

11 - 6 = 5 more is IMO acceptable, and it's a rare case to replace a template name in existing text. But always 11 more right from the start, that's bad, templates are designed to be shorthands. 6 more always using {{ subst:Tl|xyz }} is also bad, because it's always, unlike rare changes if a bot subst'ed it. -- Omniplex 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing by bots (which wasn't really being discussed above, at least not specifically) clogs up page history unnecessarily. I would like to know why anyone wants to subst it, on the other hand, other than the hopefully-killed-by-now server load rationale, which would quite possibly be outweighed by tens of thousands of extra edits even if it were significant. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing by bots loads down the servers. — Omegatron 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is not a valid rationale, except if you're going to use the server-load rationale that seems to be people's only objection to {{tl}} and friends. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bots will not?

Automated tools (bots) which do such replacements will never be used on the original template pages.

What does that mean? — Omegatron 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

{{wikilink}} is on the subst list, but although it's used in the template {{Book reference}}, the bots won't change it there. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 ??? It's not on the page. — Omegatron 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, bad example. Oops. Regardless, it means that templates inside of templates will never be automatically substituted. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion not to substitute bv and vw in anonymous talk pages

I think, it is better to have the anonymous talk pages temporary and just delete them after several days. In this way we save even more resources. There is a bot, User:Terminatorius, that blanks anonymous pages if they contain one of these two vandalism warning templates and are older than 10 days (since the last editing session). The substituted message is much larger and remains in the editing history even if blanked in the current version.

Also, the "what links here" for the unsubstituted template provides the very good list of pages that may potentially be blanked (otherwise a lot more scanning is required). I would prefer to blank vandal warnings only, leaving the anonymous pages with various other messages intact. If the vandal warnings are substituted, the bot needs to look into the page to check if it contains the vandal warning message (and the message detection is not trivial after substitution). Audriusa 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated when I opposed your request for permissions for your bot I disagree with this due to the fact that the templates serve as an informative medium for those who want to quickly see the history of a user and multiuse IP's are marked with specific tags to alert people who might be potentially confused that they might be accidentally seeing these notices due to other users' actions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:See also

Never subst the esoteric Template:See also (edit|talk|history|links|logs).

--William Allen Simpson 12:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

After you've fixed it to use #if: it might now work, test:

-- Omniplex 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical symbols redux

Some of these have been augmented to include an optional parameter which allows the quantity to be specified (e.g. {{carbon|6}} ⇒ C₆). Substituting templates in this form can produce ugly code, which is better left as the template. I would therefore like to propose that these templates be removed from the SUBST section. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the templates use this relatively complex code. Even for those that do, substitution will reduce server load, and the code is not extremely complex. At least those templates without the code should be substituted. Polonium 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The mantra about server load has largely been discredited (if you want to see the whole sorry saga, take a deep breath and dive into WP:AUM and the associated talk-page) and the developers have said that if it should ever become a problem they will take steps to inhibit templates (partially or wholly) until the problem is fixed.
I'm also intending to make all of these templates work the same way. If I can hack it, I'm looking for a way to express ions in a similar manner (eg H+ could be something like {{hydrogen|ion=+}}). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. These people must think that substituting templates by editing thousands of pages with a bot doesn't use any server resources at all.

See Category talk:Chemical element symbol templates for a proposal to create shortcut templates like {{e-Na}}{{e-Cl}}. — Omegatron 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the do-not-subst list per the above. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{s/wnote}}

Note: Remember to always substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | page moves | block log | block list]

The template above is used on user pages containing many warnings. It reminds users to subst templates, links to help pages on using warning templates correctly, and provides useful links for editors leaving warnings and administrators intervening.

The WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation recommended that it be subst'd, but an anonymous user change the main page to recommend that it not be. I personally think it should be subst'd, as there's little need to update instances when the template is changed. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be substed. Not only is it a derivative of {{subst}}, which is substed, even if it changes, the old version is perfectly fine to have anyway, so it doesn't matter. Tons of templates have minor changes, does that mean we should abolish template substitution? --Rory096 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impostor template

Should {{impostor}} be substituted? I seem to think so. But I'm awaiting other users' input before I take any definitive actions. --Cyde Weys 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that template as more of a categorizational template than a message template, so I wouldn't subst it. In the future, if someone slightly changes the wording of the template (without changing meaning) there wouldn't really be a problem, because the message is for users now. If it has been a message for people back then, when it was placed there, then I would subst it because users now would be looking for the exact message that was placed there. ~MDD4696 05:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD templates

{{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} are theoretically supposed to be substituted, yet if you check their "What links here" pages you'll find many occurrences of when they aren't. I could very easily have Cydebot (talk • contribs) go through and subst all occurrences in the Wikipedia: namespace. Does anyone see any potential problems with that? There are a lot of them so I want to get some input before I go ahead with it. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't foresee any problems as long as you stick to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages. ~MDD4696 05:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Should cleanup templates, like {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}, be substituted? If not, could they be added to the "Templates that should NOT be subst'd" section? Very few wikify templates are substituted, but it makes it more difficult to work on the article when they are, especially when other cleanup templates have been substituted and there is a mess of code at the top of the article. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I add them to the article? -- Kjkolb 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They should definately not be substed. These are temporary categorizational templates. ~MDD4696 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Substing them makes it a lot more difficult for a bot to sort them into month specific categories. Don't subst them...it's more typing for you and tons more work for whoever's checking the cleanup and wikify. --Alphachimp ^talk 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

The guideline for infoboxes seems rather vague. Under 'Templates that should NOT be subst'd':

various infoboxes, which should look consistant on various pages.

Does this mean that all infoboxes should never be substed, or that only certain infoboxes should never be substed, or what? I tend to think that substition should be avoided if at all possible, just because of the mess of code it leaves in the article, but I don't know if certain infoboxes need substing, for whatever reason? Flowerparty☀ 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IF statements

What about the substing of templates which contain statements like #if:? As I understand it, this gets included unparsed, that is, all code verbatim if necessary or not. I'm asking because of this bot edit. Has this issue been mentioned yet? Femto 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the guideline. Templates that contain #if & co should not be substed. Also templates with defaulted parameters should not be substed. (See bugzilla:2777 for a proposal that would fix these issues). --Ligulem 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think {{Archive}} and {{Talkarchive}} should be substed

Hi all. I recently revamped {{Archive}} and {{Talkarchive}} with a new categorization scheme, such that pages tagged with one of them will be placed in one of the subcategories at Category:Wikipedia history based on their namespace.

I don't think that either of these templates should be substed as is suggested in this guideline. My reasoning is that the template is not actually part of the archive, and as such does not need to remain static. It's used to mark the archive. Not substing these templates will lead to more static archives, because if the categorization scheme ever changed, the archives would be automatically updated without changing the pages.

Anyone mind if I move the two templates to the Do Not Subst section? ~MDD4696 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion re: deletion templates

{{afd2}} is listed under "Do NOT substitute". However, when I hover over it, my popup shouts at me to substitute the template. ... discospinster 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page has it wrong. Both {{afd2}} & {{afd3}} are shown as subst on WP:AFD. Since afd2 & afd3 are not temporary, the rationale provided for listing them in the "do not subst" section is incorrect. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

These templates should not be substed. ~MDD4696 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? The instructions for their use say to subst. -- JLaTondre 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They definitely should be substed. Otherwise we'd have AfD noms saying {{afd2|Reason}} instead of "===Header===<br>reason" and the deletion log would read "{{afd3|Pagename}}" instead of "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagename}}." --Rory096 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add HTML commenting to Usage

I propose an expansion to the Usage section. One of the "Arguments against substitution" reads:

Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation.

I think that adding the following to the end of the Usage section would be helpful.

... Additionally, when creating or editing templates that are commonly subst'd, adding an HTML comment to the template page helps article editors to see how templates are being used (e.g. <!-- Created from Template:Doctl -->).

There have already been a few couple discussions about this topic, but it doesn't look like anyone has thought to include the idea on this guideline page. Anyone else agree with my reasoning?

On a side note, is it necessary to have the Definition and Usage paragraphs indented? --J. J. 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completed

Just a note that I went ahead and made the above changes on June 5. --J. J. 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about sockpuppet?

Should {{sockpuppet}} be substituted? I'm thinking so, seeing as how it's used exclusively on user pages. --Cyde↔Weys 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think {{Sockpuppet}} should be substituted since it can and is sometimes remove if someone is wrong but I definitely think {{SockpuppetProven}} should be substituted since pretty much all accounts tagged with it have been perm blocked. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{wi}}

Should {{wi}} be substed? It's a rather high use template unlikely to change too much (and, being just 6 bytes per page, it clogs up Special:Shortpages). Should it be substed? --Rory096 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I'd guess that it's short on purpose: that way users with a non-zero stub threshold see those articles as brownlinks. Also, the pages it is used on are rarely if ever edited, except to remove the template and replace it with new content. Thus, the same arguments (regarding server load, deletion summaries, etc.) as used for the speedy deletion templates should apply. Besides, would you be willing to fix all the pages it's used on if it ever does need to be changed? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subpages

Arguments against substitution mentions "...should be deleted with a link to the subpage where the deletion was discussed". Didnt it get changed so that wikipedia no longer has subpages? I dont know what the new style should be, and I'm not even sure about the subpages. Just thought i'de mention it.

Subpages are still enabled in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is where deletion discussions are located. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk header templates

Why are User talk header templates such as {{SharedIP}} listed as "must be substed"? These (usually protected) templates are used on many user talk pages — but generally only once on each page — to provide standardized information about the IP address or account in question to those leaving or receiving messages on the page. These templates do get edited from time to time, either to reflect changes in our treatment of shared IP addresses and the like, or merely to improve their appearance. The fact that they're being substed means we have countless user talk pages with outdated or incomplete notices on them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they were added by accident, because someone confused them with user talk messages. I've moved them to "under discussion"; does anyone think they should ever be substed? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{booland}}, {{boolor}}, {{boolxor}}...

These templates are in the not to be substituted list, but several have instructions on them that they are to be substituted because they are deprecated. I assume that when the instructions say "substitute" it means that a different template should be used, not that they should be substituted with the process described on this page. I think that this should be made clear to avoid confusion. -- Kjkolb 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The templates now work differently than they used to. I believe they should be substituted now, yes. Any objections? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates that contain calls to m:ParserFunctions or use default params cannot be substed, as noted on the project page: [1]. Whether you want/can replace them with something else at the calling side is something entierly different and has nothing to do with "Template substitution" as described here. --Ligulem 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, most of these functions shouldn't simply be substituted. They need to be manually replaced if we want to avoid excessive mess. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bogus text from Tdeprectated, maybe write {{Tdeprecated|use=[[m:ParserFunctions]]}} to get "use m:ParserFunctions instead". Don't try subst:boolxyz, the code isn't state of the art. It's backwards compatible with the older Qif-style solutions, "true" instead of "1" etc. -- Omniplex 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template to describe whether templates should be substed or not

It would be handy to have a template that says that a template should be substed. It could:

• explain how to subst it
• link to this page
• add it to a category "Templates that should be substed".

Incidentally, there is a major conflict between all the chemical symbols, which are listed on this page as being not for substitution, but on each of their pages it says they should be substed. Stevage 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea (especially having a category that contains all templates that should be subst'd). The big question is, of course, do we substitute this new template or not? ;-) Martin 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst'ing using {{#switch:}}

How would I do this? For example, on this page I plan on using for personal voting proceedures, I am trying to make it so that I can subst the result from the switches. If I just do a regular subst, the parameter values are just put into the whole switch and all of that text is put onto the page. Rather, I just want what comes out as a result of doing the switches. Does anyone know how to do this/want to do it for me?! Thanks. → JARED ^(t)  00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See m:Help:Substitution, there are several traps and pitfalls. For a working example check out m:Template:YMD2MJD. One trick is to split "all params defined" from "use defaults everywhere". -- Omniplex 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Jared, is this really helpful to you? I'd think memorizing the symbology you've got set up there would be more difficult than just making some macros/typing in by hand, but maybe that's just me... -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not at all useful. I was just trying to do something neat with ParserFunctions. I had just found them and though of them to quite intruiging. I was just trying to figure out how they worked, and I though by creating this page I could practice with them and see how to use them. It sounds kind of stupid, but just bear with me! → JARED ^(t)  20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone who codes all KINDS of stupid crap because it might, conceivably, someday, somehow, help me with a different project, or just because it looks like a Neat Idea, all I have to say is... Godspeed You Black Emperor. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean Godspeed You! Black Emperor... — Omegatron 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what that is supposed to mean... → JARED ^(t)  21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Do not subst" flag

Simple "do not subst" flags for bots could be msg: and int:. -- Omniplex 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optional substitution

Templates using ParserFunctions just survived its CFD. How about a new subcategory "optional substitution" for templates using parser functions, which can be substituted by adding subst: in front (resulting in working but horrible wikitext), and result in clean text if additionally |subst=subst: is added (typically at the end).

Optional substitution is a new technique for recursive substitution, it evaluates all colon functions, variables, and templates within a given template, the result is the "plain" wikitext.

At the moment it's difficult wrt parameter defaults, some templates support it only if all their parameters are defined. The category would be only for templates where it works under all conditions (some optional parameters undefined), it is possible to get this right, but slighty esoteric. Templates in this category could be substituted by bots, adding subst: and subst=subst: is simple.

We might need a separate class for cases, where the user intentionally does not wish to substitute them, e.g. if a template does something interesting with CURRENTTIMESTAMP, and it's meant to reflect now and not some old timestamp when a bot mutilated it.

Template:Pagelog (edit talk links history) is an example working with 0, 1, or 2 parameters. -- Omniplex 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gigantic ugly red 'you forgot to subst this template' messages

Ick, when did these start? I was prodding an article for deletion, and got a huge red warning message. If it's that important, is there not some way to just have the template automatically subst? Proto///type 08:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. They must be substed for correct automatic date-sorting, and there's no way to do it automatically except possibly by bot. Vote for Mediazilla:2003 (but don't comment on it, please, if all you're going to do is say you support it). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned and Unsigned2

I moved those 2 templates to the list of the ones that need substing, for the very same argument that applies to templates in signatures. After all, those templates become "the signature" of all unsigned comments. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Signature templates are now automatically substed, because the developers decided they should be. {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} are both protected, which signature templates are not; the latter might be changed regularly, these aren't. Until brion says otherwise, please don't change any policies for server-load concerns. See WP:PERF. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this thread will get many more replies, maybe you should consider creating a new section for better visibility? As for substituting, I would like to think that templates used in talk pages need to be substituted, if not for performance, to keep the full text in the talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, moved down. But why do we need the contents of the template on the talk page, any more than in articles? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because talk pages, once they are archived, are supposed to be "snapshots" of discussions that happened at a determined time. In example, this section has a snapshot of a conversation that happened in March where it was agreed to substitute the unsigned templates, and will be kept for historical purposes in an Archive. Having transcluded templates would make the page vary depending on when the Archive is being accessed and the template current "look and feel". Also, signatures are meant to be static, not to change once written. We aren't supposed to use transclusion with our signatures, so why should we use transclusion with a template that, for all means, is equivalent to a signature? Finally, per WP:TCB, we should never use templates in our signatures. For all means, I believe the unsigned family of templates is equivalent of signatures, with the only difference that they are used when someone does not use his own. -- ReyBrujo 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the {{unsigned}} template isn't changing what anyone says. Likewise, if a boilerplate template is added to a discussion for some reason, it need not be substed. As for signature templates, those are very different from {{unsigned}}, simply because they're unprotected: they can be changed any time by a vandal or just on the user's whim, potentially forcing hundreds or thousands of pages to be recached. Therefore, the developers decided to make it impossible to transclude templates in them (try it, it substs them).

As for WP:TCB, that's an essay by User:Xiong (who is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation), if you look at the page history; on the other hand, see WP:PERF, which quotes Wikimedia's Chief Technical Officer as saying not to worry about server load. So: talk page continuity we can talk about, but don't worry about performance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems nobody is interested in discussing this topic. Maybe we should contact Drini (talk • contribs) as the last who modified the template guidelines? If there is really no need to substitute, then I won't do that. However, others will. We won't be reverting these substitution, just informing the user in his/her talk page about the modified guide, right? I guess we should also post a note at the templates to discuss here, I notice a thread about something similar here. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be substed; the unsignedness is the signature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for not subst'ing? Why should this repeated, sufficient text, in discussions, not be static? Also note that this template has been changed four or five times since it was protected. When I use, I specifically mean to add the current text. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you specifically mean to add the current text, you can subst. If someone else wants to automatically incorporate any refinements that are made by general agreement, they can transclude. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And if unsigned/unsigned2 change later, that's that many more transclusions that need to be fixed. I don't see the compelling reasons for not substituting them, and several benefits to doing so. I do subst them when I remember to, already. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that substing them makes sense when remembered. I'll try to do that from now on. Why can't someone run a bot that goes through every couple of weeks and substs them. Save on a lot of manhours. e.g. template:category redirect automatically grabs article pages, substitutes the new category name for the old, and so on down the list at some regular interval. Other bots forage for typo snacks and devour common misspellings, double word usages, etc. This seems awfully like those tasks. // FrankB 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Running a bot clogs up edit histories, as well as the watchlists of those who haven't enabled the (non-default, as far as I can tell) option to hide them from watchlists. I, personally, find it annoying when something gets bumped up on my watchlist due to an unflagged bot correcting a typo or something, and presumably I would be equally annoyed if I didn't have the "hide bot edits from watchlist" option on (which most probably don't) and had to sift through all the bots we have running today. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why any transclusion would need to be "fixed". What do you mean by that? And when you mention "several benefits", are you referring to the idea that talk-page archives should remain unchanged? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG already says that signatures should be substituted; by extension, I feel that applies to unsigned(2). If we ever change the parameters, for example, all unsubstituted instances will have to be corrected at some point in the future. The benefits seem like (to me): less transclusion load on talk pages, and no risk of desyncing the template from its usages when the template changes. I saw one disadvantage when I started, in that I couldn't figure out what nifty template people were using to put a signature note in for someone who forgot, but that was quickly fixable (they have very easy names to remember). It does make for a slightly longer talk page, but that argument has been firmly rejected when it comes to user signature templates, so I don't find it compelling here either. For the record, I don't think a bot is necessary at this time, and I almost always use unsigned when I'm already making an edit to the page. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found this discussion and feel that I should weigh in. Although it might not be a pressing immediate concern, we should definitely consider the possibility that sometime in the future the parameters of the unsigned template will be changed. Although the difference in server load is apparently not notable (according to the chief technical officer), it should still be considered over the many thousands of talk pages on which this template is used. So yeah, subst the unsigned template. If people agree, my bot could do it, but I don't want to go around making a massive change that isn't accepted. Alphachimp ^talk 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Substing a template brings a net loss of information - as a trivial example, if this template is substed, there's no way for us to find out how often it is used, and to compare that with the number of all comments or talk pages, or do any such thing. There would have to be a substantial improvement in other departments for this loss to be worth it, and until our technical department says that this is needed, templates shouldn't be substed into other pages for server concerns. Note: substing templates into other templates can speed up the parsing substantially, but sometimes it also slows it down, if it removes a point where the template could be cached. Zocky | picture popups 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to substitute these templates except server load, and server load is not a valid reason to substitute templates. — Omegatron 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that we've been told elsewhere that edits are relatively expensive, so surely the possibility of having to re-edit a static template like Unsigned/Unsigned2 when/if the parameters/template name/MediaWiki namespace/whatever changes is a load we could avoid by substituting it on first use? I'm not arguing we go back and subst them all now with a bot, for exactly that reason, but there's no reason to continue using them unsubstituted, is there? They're just designed to correct a lack of signature, not convey any information by themselves. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement you link to was added this January by User:TreyHarris, who is not a developer, and who furthermore only said "don't worry about performance here because if anything you're only going to make things worse". Compare, however, to Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, which includes statements not only by developers but by the Chief Technical Officer. I've clarified your link. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have stated above, I used to use the templates as-is, until I learned I should substitute them. Now I am being told not to do it. I am fine with both ways. However, shouldn't it be substituted in archives? (In fact, shouldn't all templates be substituted when archiving a page?) -- ReyBrujo 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Templates are used for standardizing and marking pieces of info, and they remain useful in archives. However, if a discussion depends on the then-current version of the template, it should be substed in the first place, regardless of archiving concerns. Zocky | picture popups 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain this? Wikipedia:Template substitution strongly indicates that non-header templates on discussion pages should be substituted, and WP:SIG says the same for signatures. How do templates in comments remain useful in archives? Why not just archive them when there is nothing unclear about "this comment was unsigned, it was by this guy"; the template is not going to be able conjure up any more information than that. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What if the template is changed to fix a bug? Or Mediawiki is changed so that the old substituted templates no longer link to the correct place? If there's no compelling reason to substitute them, then why do it? — Omegatron 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The only sort of bug that would be relevant would be a bug with piping, which is very unlikely and in which case these templates would be the least of the problem. If the location of Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages or Special:Contributions changes, there will be a redirect. Any sort of bug or change that affects this template would also be a bug or change that either affects all user signatures, or all pages on the whole wiki; it would be dealt with in that light and is moot for this discussion. It is far more likely that the template arguments will be changed, for example to have parsing of a single argument that includes both the date and the IP. Another reason is that discussion archives must remain static, that the contents of the archive is as much as possible precisely the same as its content when it was created. —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are templates for which this is important, and there are those for which it is important that they stay unsubsted in archive pages: if there's a series box for archived pages or a automagic categorizing template for them, substing would break it. Zocky | picture popups 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not the contents of the archive; it is headers, which are added as a container or navigator for archival in general, not a discussion that took place on a particular date. —Centrx→talk • 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it looks like additional comments are being requested: Speaking personally, I use this template quite often as I cleanup after new users. My general feeling has been that when in doubt, I'll subst a tag, so as to reduce server load. If the techies say that that's not a problem though, then I'll stop subst-ing. I understand the other arguments here (like the changeability v. permanence of the format, and the ability to count the frequency of use), but I have no strong preference on it, either way. --Elonka 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we call a poll to see general feelings about this? Also, making a public call at the Village Pump may bring some more eyes here. I hate when discussions just stop without a clear definition. -- ReyBrujo 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'Strongly disagree These clog up the edit screen (as if long username's with pics, multiple links, etc) weren't enough - there is no server performance issue with using them - and the template is protected from being changed unnecessarily. --Trödel 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, should we replace them or not? Or leave to the user's criteria? -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit needed

Both templates need {{Commonstmp}} added inside a nesting noinclude block. Thanks. // FrankB 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{deletedpage}}

Should it be subst:ed, or not? – Gurch 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind, this seems to have been discussed already (though people don't seem to be sticking to the decision) – Gurch 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{oldafdfull}}

Subst? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? I don't think so; doing this will just add a bunch of wikicode semi-permanently to thousands upon thousands of talk pages for no obvious benefit. (Apart from giving a bored bot something to do, naturally :) )-Splash - tk 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what of {{test}} then? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At least in how it is mostly used now, {{oldafdfull}} is a header that remains separate from any talk page discussion and is not archived. If, at the end of an AfD, {{oldafdfull}} were inserted in a new section at the bottom of the Talk page, then it would be part of the contents of the discussion page and would warrant subst'ing for preservation. As it stands, it remains at the top so that anyone wondering why it remains or whether it should be deleted can easily find the discussions about it. The vandalism warnings for users are part of the moving comments that are the contents. If there were to be a vandalism header, like the block notices, that remained on a user page as a warning to all, then that would not necessarily warrant subst'ing. —Centrx→talk • 07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the benefit in substing those, either. The spread of substing is largely a consequence of everyone wanting a bot, and not wanting said bots to be idle (what good is code that can't be run?). Substing uses up server storage resources in terms of thousands of new revisions and the devs have told us often enough not to worry about server-side load issues since they will either a)stop us doing bad things or b)make them less bad. </opinion> -Splash - tk 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to when a template is newly added. If most people subst, for example, the unsigned templates, and a few bots change the leftovers, I don't see a problem with that. Anyway, the reason is not dependent on server load issues. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No subst: / always subst:

I have noticed that often templates are subst'ed that really should not be (mainly maintainance ones like stubs and cleanup tags), I therefore think it would be nice if it was possible to put a keyword (e.g. _NOSUBST_) on a template that would mean that it could not be subst'ed, and if someone did try to subst it nothing would happen.

The reverse of this is the (more annoying) situation where some templates should - apparently - always be subst'd (e.g. all the user test templates), so I suggest there should be another keyword (e.g. _FORCESUBST_) that could be put on a template that would mean that the template is always subst'd (when used in certain namespaces, e.g. {{test}} in the user talk namespace). The positive effect of this would be no need for any more bots to go around wasting lots of bandwidth and inflating the database and giving users false new messages (and of course whatever the other benefits are of substing templates).

This would of course need changes to the software, but I don't see it being anything more than fairly trivial. What do you think? Martin 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. It would put my bot out of a job, but would really cut down on a lot of the issues surrounding subst'ing templates and user misunderstanding (there must be hundreds of editors who have never heard of subst, yet use templates. Alphachimp ^talk 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Then we should say that bots aren't allowed to handle substing. Maybe one bot for the few exceptions, with a lot of attention paid to it, but that's it. Otherwise it's just a waste of server resources. — Omegatron 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a need for bots to subst if this change was in effect. Even if bots tried, there would be nothing to do. That's the whole point of it. Alphachimp ^talk 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a lovely idea, but I wonder if it would be susceptible to edit warring as people disagreed over certain templates. This is not even to mention the potential disruption if someone fiddled with a template in common use… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think actually rather than using keywords, it could be implemented in a similar way to page protections, this would mean only adins could set the option, which would stop any edit wars and malicious users, though this may make its implementation a bit harder, I suppose the best thing is to ask the devs. Martin 11:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea in principle (the BIG RED WARNINGS to not forget substituting things like {{prod}} amuse me, but they're genuinely helpful. I wonder if it's even possible to prevent subst: from working, though. And you have to consider the occasional situation where it might be helpful to substitute a template (for example, to customize a particular instance more than is possible with parameters). But for a narrowly defined set of templates that were blacklisted? Probably helpful. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Mediazilla:2003. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative idea

Since we're talking about software upgrades anyway, what if, instead of substituting the entire content of a template into the article, you could just specify the version of that template to substitute? So if you typed {{unsigned}} it would result in

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

But if you typed {{20050714|unsigned}} or something like that, it would substitute the version of the template from that date:

• (preceding unsigned comment by  [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] {{{2}}})

You could also type some shortcut like {{now|unsigned}}, and it would convert to the current date and time on save. This would be helpful in the situations where you want the output to reflect the state of the template when it was inserted, but avoids cluttering up the articles with complex code, increasing the size of articles, not being able to find instances of the template, etc. Just an idea. — Omegatron 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subst in monobook.js

Does any one know why subst command doesn't work with monobook.js? Some people who have developed tools to be used inside monobook.js say you should subst their tool's js page for once. When I do, it remains as {{subst..... and doesn't change to the code. Is it I'm doind something wrong? huji—TALK 08:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to this answer: It happens when people put the subst inside a PRE they have used for their monobook.js page.

[edit] Auto-subst in sig

It automatically turns my {{User:Death_motor/signature}} into {{SUBST:Death_motor/signature}}. This is very annoying when the source for your signature is quite long, like mine, and instead of showing {{User:Death_motor/signature}} in the source, it now shows the whole source. I think that this should be changed, so you have the option of substing your signature or not.--❊Đâěţĥ ɱøťőŕ↔☎ 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For one, I believe your signature is just too long. The signature guide says you should not use such long signatures, nor transclude them. Have you considered shortening it a bit? :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcluding your signature makes it a vandalism target, increases server load on loading pages, and is generally not advisable, as ReyBrujo mentioned. Please consider using a more compact signature, perhaps without (as much) color. Also, whatever the first character is (before Daeth) does not show up correctly in my browser. -- nae'blis 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I'll work on it some more.--❊Đâěţĥ ɱøťőŕ↔☎ 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature templates, unlike other potentially high-use templates, cannot currently be protected effectively for most users, so they're auto-substed to prevent them from becoming vandalism targets. Plus, Rob and Brion dislike fancy signatures, I think. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't subst warning?

Templates already have the ability to display very angry messages when you forget to use Subst inside their template (Hence the red text after a new AFD that you made or PROD that you left behind).

So, there are, obviously, some templates that should not be subst'ed. Is it possible to code those templates to leave behind angry text when they are subst'ed? I'm not sure what bit of Wiki goes to doing that, but it might be something someone could look at/ Inform me on? Logical2u 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try {{#ifeq: <includeonly>{{subst:empty template}</includeonly>} | {{empty template}} | This is substed! | This is not substed!}}. Actually, that's a better way to do it than it's currently done for templates that should always be substed, if I do say so myself . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just beware of Wikipedia:template limits. Adding fancy checks adds to these limits. So such a check would certainly be unacceptable in a template like {{cite web}}. --Ligulem 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

An extra hundred fifty bytes doesn't make much of a difference. Even a hundred inclusions would bring the page only 0.7% closer to the limit, and a hundred inclusions is pretty dramatic. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you take a closer look at pages like AIDS. And wishes for features on templates like cite web keep piling on. But I'm more than happy if you tell me I'm too paranoid ;-). The good side of your code snippet I see is that its size is independent of parameter lengths. Which is good. --Ligulem 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substituting move templates

I suggest that move templates, like {{move}}, not be substituted. There are not that many articles on requested moves at one time, so there is little benefit, and it is easier for the admin to remove afterwards if the template has not been substituted, especially when there is other stuff near the template, especially other substituted templates. -- Kjkolb 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to under debate, as you may have a point there.--Andeh 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do a lot of Requested moves and none of them subst. I don't see any reason for subst'ing the move template. In line with the rest of the templates that aren't subst'ed, it is a header and will not be archived. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The {{moved}} templates, with a d, don't even seem to be used. —Centrx→talk • 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also do moves and I see it substituted on some of them. -- Kjkolb 02:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting guidance

The page says that {{lifetime}} should be subst:, but also that templates with parser functions should not be subst:. Here is the code for the lifetime template (notice the ifndef). I propose that it be removed from the list of "shoulds" (and a review of the others on that list is probably in order). Neier 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

{{{1{{{1|}}}|[[Category:{{{1}}} births|{{{3}}}]]}}}
{{Ifndef|{{{1}}}|[[Category:Year of birth unknown|{{{3}}}]]}}
{{{2{{{2|}}}|[[Category:{{{2}}} deaths|{{{3}}}]]}}}
{{Ifndef|{{{2}}}|[[Category:Living people|{{{3}}}]]}}

I removed {{lifetime}} and {{lifespan}} from the list because edits like this yield nonsense like this.

{{{11736|[[Category:1736 births|Watt, James]]}}}
{{Ifndef|1736|[[Category:Year of birth unknown|Watt, James]]}}
{{{21819|[[Category:1819 deaths|Watt, James]]}}}
{{Ifndef|1819|[[Category:Living people|Watt, James]]}>

I'm all for replacing overused templates, but, the page should be left readable. Neier 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but it is a pain because these templates are pointless and confusing beyond belief, and only used by one editor as far as I can tell. We should definately discourage the use of them. Martin 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone complain if I put the {{tdeprecated}} on this template? Martin 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect templates need to be substituted

Not sure if this is a "must" or "should" case, but according to Wikipedia_talk:Redirect, redirects may now contain multiple lines (by design) and categories, but an unforseen side-effect is that the developers did not know redirects contained templates such as {{R from misspelling}} and the other contents of Category:Redirect templates (and they may break this functionality in the future). This entire class of templates should be substituted in the future (I have just submitted a bot request to deal with the ~15,000 current instances). -- nae'blis 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we please hold off on setting the bot loose? Let's give a bit of time for some discussion and consideration of alternatives before we go making massive changes. –RHolton≡– 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One more reason not to subst: Templates provide structure

In what is now section 4.1 (Templates that should NOT be substituted; List), "various citation/reference templates" and "various infoboxes" are listed on the grounds that they "contain very complex conditional code" and "should look consistent on various pages". These are indeed good arguments for avoiding template substitution, but there is one more reason: Even if these templates didn't encapsulate complex code and even if they didn't need to preserve appearance, the template calls provide a semantic markup that adds structure to the included information. The wiki source text {{cite book|title=George Orwell|author=Gordon Bowker}} says which name is the title and which is the author of a book. If the text was substituted as Gordon Bowker, ''George Orwell'' this would not be half as obvious. This distinction is not available to those who only read the rendered web page, but Wikipedia also has an audience in those who parse the downloadable dumps. For the task of locating book references to see which are missing information about publisher, publishing year, ISBN, etc., this is nearly impossible if the text is substituted, because this structure is lost in substitution. --LA2 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative interpretation is this: Template complexity is indeed the only guarantee to keep your templated information from being substituted into flat text. If you create a template for the purpose of providing structure (and persondata would be the most extreme example) somebody might come around and substitute it (which in persondata's case results in nothing), unless you make the template complicated enough. Therefore, make every template complicated enough, so it doesn't get removed and substituted into flat text. --LA2 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a summary of your extremely long comment if you want anything to be done about it. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Concise: Quit subst'ing things for the hell of it. You lose information. There is no offsetting benefit. Derex 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template substitution in page histories

It's really annoying to look at page histories (such as [2]) and see the templates demanding substitution and blanking everything in the rest of the article. Is there anything that can be done about that? Nardman1 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a change to the {{afd}} template here. --Trödel 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No quite sure the benifit of replace "Nobr" template

There's bot running around converting this nice simple syntax to some clunky html-ish syntax. If the native syntax was simple I'd say translate it but its not. The reason wiki has been successful is the simpler than html syntax. I sure i am going to get a response saying "ohhh its so much faster inlining the template" but I thought I was protest it anyway. --MarsRover 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that {{nobr}} should not be on the list of templates that should be substituted. There is no technical reason it needs to be substituted and, as you say, the syntax is cleaner than the clunky HTML. Mike Dillon 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluate on a Subst

Looked around, maybe this is answered somewhere. If I subst a template like {{subst:test|Example}} what I get in the text (in the edit window after submitting the edit) is:

Thank you for experimenting with {{#if:Example|the page [[:Example]] on}} Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

is there a way to get it to evaluate the conditional statement and instead put this in the page?:

Thank you for experimenting with the page [[Example]] on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

I'm not interested in the test template particularly, it's just an easy example. Thanks. *Spark* 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)