-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Maybe something like {{Special:ExpandTemplates}}.

X!

On Apr 19, 2009, at 2:29 PM [Apr 19, 2009 ], Aryeh Gregor wrote:

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM, William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson@gmail.com wrote:

...

It's hard to document ("subst" doesn't seem to translate well or mean anything to many folks), harder to remember, and hardest to type:

{{subst:TEMPLATE|P1|P2|subst=subst:}}

I'm often forgetting that final parameter, and conscientiously have to edit again. Others don't bother subst'ing at all!

Is there a solution proposed anywhere already?

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2777

It seems like this exists in an extension. I don't know whether the extension is good enough to enable on Wikimedia and/or just add to core; I haven't looked at it.

...

If not, here's my rough idea:

Leading {{:: -- easy to type (already holding the shift key) -- same as {{subst: -- only happens in edit parsing, no change to database.

Leading {{## -- easy to type (already holding the shift key) -- obviously must be different than {{:: -- used inside templates, tells the edit parsing to "subst:" only subst'ing, otherwise ignored and treated as concatenation. Same as C pre-processing operator.

I think an actual keyword like "substall" is better. It's possible to Google the term to find documentation.

---

Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Hello,

2009/4/19 William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson@gmail.com:

Soxred93 wrote:

...

Maybe  something like {{Special:ExpandTemplates}}.

That doesn't seem to apply.  It doesn't allow parameters. And doesn't seem particularly editor friendly.  What would be the single line edit syntax?

For

{{subst:uw-v1|Article|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

I'm thing about something like

{{::uw-v1|Article}} ~~~~

Also

{{::USD|1.23}} or {{::CAD|1.23}} or {{::Yen|1.23}}

That is, something that editors would _actually_ use regularly.... ;-)

I would disagree with trying to use a symbol combination to achieve what you want here, there are already so many and this will simply add to the confusion that currently exists. I think the earlier suggestion of substall would be satisfactory.

Thanks, MinuteElectron

Casey Brown wrote:

It does, just don't "subst" it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates?input={{uw-v1|Article|subst=subst:}}+~~~~

<sarcasm> Wow, I'm thinking, the edit box has gotten a lot more sophisticated than ever, parsing long URLs and all that.... So, I copied that link, pasted it into an edit box, hit preview, and I'm pretty sure that's not what folks expect to put into a user Talk page! Did you try that before posting? :-(

When handling vandalism, the first step is to undo the problem, then copy the name of the article, then click the user talk link, then type some nice template shortcut, then paste the article name into the template, and then click save.

Perhaps you could explain how this ExpandTemplates feature helps?

You expect folks to type that long URL from memory? </sarcasm>

And then take a look at AfD or CfD or RfD or TfD, noting that the subst: is required to make the date constant, but that other templates inside the XfD templates cannot be subst: at the same time, so substall: won't work....

Anyway, it appears that nobody here knows a feature that handles the issues cleanly, and I'll probably post a bug/RFE later this week.

Aryeh Gregor wrote:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4484

That should do what you want.

Yes, this might be the equivalent of "{{<substonly>subst:</substonly>".

That RFE has been around for years, and I was aware of it. The problem is, interactions between two different kinds of markup parsing (<> and {{}}) are often unpredictable, and have changed.

In the beginning, {{subst:# didn't work. It does now?

Having thought about such issues on more than one occasion, I'm proposing clean markup that's easier and predictably parsable, and fits well with current practices and syntax:

{{# function (existing) {{## substitute-only subst:, otherwise is transclude {{ {{### substitute-only subst: for function, otherwise is {{#

Obviously, a lot easier to document and for editors to type!

And I've given it a cute neologism.

This is also worth considering:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5453

If {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>foo}} worked as {{foo}} on transclusion and {{subst:foo}} on substitution, that would also accomplish what you want (eliminating the need for the subst=subst:).

But it doesn't (or didn't) and it's already used as a hack, for example:

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}} | | {{error:not substituted|cfd}} }}

To be honest, I'm not sure how that even works, but it does....

Obviously, <nosubst> would handle that more elegantly.

Should <substonly> and <nosubst> become standard, we could use them.

NB:I'd prefer <substituteonly> and <nosubstitute>, spelled out like include.

Aryeh Gregor wrote:

Again, personally I don't like magic symbols. Distinctive keywords are much better for grepping/Googling/etc.

That thinking would take us back to <b>, <bold>, etc. But I'll often take rough consensus and running code over "purity".... At least sometime in the past there was some running code.

...

NB:I'd prefer <substituteonly> and <nosubstitute>, spelled out like include.

Since the existing keyword is "subst:" and not "substitute:", I think <nosubst> would be better.

Yeah, I'm not too happy that keywords were sometimes chosen because they match the name of a function provided by the underlying software.

How about allowing synonyms, "{{substitute:" => "{{subst:" => "{{::"?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM, William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson@gmail.com wrote:

And looking back at that RFE, which had a fairly simple patch, Brion decided "strongly inclined to WONTFIX this."

So, what do we have to do to change his mind?

Well, I already tried and he never responded, so maybe he already has.

And, who would re-code the patch for the significantly revised parser?

Ah, now that's a good question.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

2009/4/19 William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson@gmail.com:

...

{{subst:TEMPLATE|P1|P2|subst=subst:}}

I've never seen that syntax before, what does the last bit do?

They add a named parameter {{{subst|}}} (defaults null) at strategic places. You can add it after any positional parameters. The "subst:" substitutes during transclusion.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-vandalism1 and its siblings for simple examples.

The problem with {{substall: is that it substitutes everything, and {{subst: doesn't substitute enough.

I'm proposing the template designer have more control, using {{## only at similar strategic places. This is needed for templates that make tables inside templates, and such.

As I mentioned, the use of parser functions has exploded. Folks are getting *very* creative!