Archives
February 2005 — November 2005 December 2005 January 2006

I propose to stop working on this page here and on the talk for all that do not agree with Netoholic on this. This page here is simply Netoholics private pamphlet and he will continue to use it at as a banner to remove templates and push his CSS hack. It's best to ignore him and this page here. The discussion with him will never end until he has reached his goals. It's simply a waste of time and harddisk space. Good luck to all! --Adrian Buehlmann 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring him would be good for our wikistress levels; but harmful for the encyclopedia. — Omegatron 17:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided conditional logic is built into the system some time soon this will all be largely irrelevant. I'd prefer to get rid of the 'hiddenStructure' method in the interim because we know it is bad for accessibility (as opposed to 'qif' which is only hypothetically a 'server load' issue), but if the change is going to be "sooner rather than later" as Brion says the short-term disenfranchisement of users shouldn't do too much damage. If/when conditionals are built in, most 'meta' templates will simply go away as they are replaced by single level 'conditional' templates and even the hypothetical need for this page will end. So, based on the hope that we will get built-in conditional logic soon, I agree with Adrian that we should just ignore it. This page is an issue desperately attempting to achieve relevance as it slides into obscurity. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing conditional logic will help in some cases to "Avoid using meta-templates", but there are plenty of other awful implementations out there that have nothing to do with "conditionals". This page will be relevant as long as it's possible to nest templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your view on this matter is decidedly in the minority. Let it go. There's no shame in having one's policy proposal rejected by the community. As long as productive discussion happened, then something worthwhile was accomplished. However, this particular discussion is no longer productive at this point, and the same old points are being rehashed ad infinitum. That's why I favor archiving and protection to avoid more sterile arguments. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still an active proposal, contrary to whatever tags are being inserted or removed by the non-neutral opponents of it. -- Netoholic @ 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revert back to the one Brion OK'd above. (I see also that Radiant has protected this page) Brion said there are some things that could be improved, and I'm willing to unlock it to that end, but tagging it as historical is simply unacceptable. Raul654 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to improve it (for one, by moving it to a less damning page name) have met with fierce resistance by Netoholic. One need only peruse the talk above and the page history to see that Netoholic is simply pushing AUM as an agenda despite Brion disputing the server load argument (and thus reducing the argument against meta-templates to the more subjective "they're ugly" (can be difficult to read/understand) or "they're fragile" (can break easily if vandalized). If you haven't kept up with the discussion here (or the edits to the page), I strongly suggest you do so before calling the {{historical}} tag "nonsense". —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Brion disagrees with the specific reasons (avoid using metatemplates because they create an undo load on the servers), but agrees with the general principle (avoid using metatemplates) for other reasons. If that is in fact the case, then I agree with Netoholic that the name should stay. (and, for the same reason, that the historical tag is absolutely inappropriate) Raul654 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is a deliberate misinterpretation pushedadvocated by Netoholic. The crux of Brion's statements (which actually were initially about image use on userpages; WP:AUM came up later in that conversation) was that editorial considerations should not be driven by speculation on server load or other technical issues. Brion said (paraphrasing) "Let me worry about the servers, and you worry about creating a great encyclopedia." He went on to say that if specific meta-templates were ugly or fragile, then argue against them on that ground, not just because they're meta-templates. Netoholic simply refuses to accept this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Struck out statement that was on the borderline of WP:CIVIL. Sorry about that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion also acknowledged that there are still non-subjective technical problems with meta-templates, that being related to the Template links problems. He read the page, and directly said he had no strong objections, so it's not appropriate to say Brion has done anything to "vaporize" this proposal. For example, you interpret "they're fragile" as "can break easily if vandalized". I read his comments and it seemed to me he means "very likely to break if template syntax changes". Stop saying what you think he means and get his actual input. He seems very responsive. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your fixed views. The most important part of Brion's statement, IMO, is that editorial considerations shouldn't be driven by speculation about server loads, that this was the job of the developers and that our job is to create an encyclopedia. If nested templates help us do that, then we should use them. It should be possible to reduce their use soon when we get conditionals in the software, but until then, {{qif}} is the best solution we have. The community does not want this as either a policy or a guideline. We can either use {{historical}}, {{rejected}}, or {{essay}}, but any tag that suggests that this has any binding effect on Wikipedians is wholly inappropriate. You are already using this page as an excuse to make changes against consensus [1]. So far, you've gotten your way on this issue by making a lot of noise and refusing to take "no" for an answer. This must stop, and immediately. You aren't in charge here - the community is. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Comment redacted; it is not likely to help advance this discussion in a productive way. My apologies for this ill thought out statement. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Brion's comments cited by Crotalus (esp "You should avoid metatemplates if they're ugly, hard to use, or fragile. That's just common sense; don't worry about "server load" for them.") I've unprotected this page. I don't think a historical or rejected tag is in order, but a major cutdown probably is. Raul654 18:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is expressly against templates, and Neto won't let it be altered to anything else. The only reason this page was ever accepted or made policy was because of the server load issue, which wasn't really an issue in the first place. It should be marked as historical. Anything still related to nested templates or conditionals belongs on Help:Advanced templates. — Omegatron 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anti-template, and neither am I. The page is a style/usage recommendation, not a "how to use" Help: page. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anyone mind changing "It fails if CSS is disabled or not supported" to "It fails if CSS is disabled, not supported or simply fails to load due to server/network issues". Browsers (at least firefox) don't seem to throw any error if the stylesheets fail to load but simply go right ahead and render the page without css! Plugwash 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails to load"? How often does that happen? I suppose much of the website would not work properly if that happened. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the web site would work if that happened (apart from templates using the CSS hack)—it's called Myskin.

It has happened to me on individual page loads on very rare occasions. —Michael Z. 2006-02-03 06:59 Z

If you access wikipedia for the first time from a machine whilst its in its glacial state it seems to be pretty likely for the first page load. its rare after that because once in the browser its cached for quite some time. Plugwash 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a fairly minor/rare issue that isn't directly related to the hiddenStructure method itself. Adding it would require even more clarification on how it "fails to load", which distracts from the real point - that not all browsers support CSS. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that we perform a test to settle once and for all whether edits to widely used templates pose a significant server load risk. If we edit several 'high risk' templates (and then revert them right back) we will see once and for all the truth of the situation. Please share your views on the talk page linked above. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This type of stress testing isn't the best thing to throw at a production system just to prove a point. The developers can try this on a test system if they want to benchmark. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's pretty obvious disruption to (test) a point, isn't it? We certainly wouldn't want someone "testing" whether the system could handle DoS attacks. Brion said to leave server load problems to the developers and not concern ourselves with them. They can run benchmarks on a test wiki. — Omegatron 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who develops production server applications for a living and routinely performs 'live' stress tests this seems very strange to me, but it also appears to be the common reaction so... oh well, we will continue 'reading tea leaves' on whether nested-templates cause significant server load issues or not, hypothetically 'unsafe' numbers of transclusions, et cetera. On the 'POINT' bit... look around. We've got disruption. Rather a lot of it. Any disruption caused by a stress test would be insignificant in comparison and might serve to finally settle the matter... and that's only assuming the test failed and actually caused some noticable level of disruption. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this already happen, when {{if}} was "blanked" back in December 2005? IIRC the time taken for the servers to recover from the hit caused by that was about 15 minutes. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long goes it this time until we have a policy tag on this instruction creep: "All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise"? Please do not anser me. I'm a troll. I usually try to vote away server load. This is round #2. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is again tagged as a proposal. if this is an active proposal, we all have had lots of time to see the implications and effects. I call for an immediate poll on it, and the application of {{rejected}} should consensus not be achieved. DES ^(talk) 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote away the server load as instruction creep. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A poll right now would probably be a bad idea: the page presents the lopsided view that meta-templates are still evil. It would be nice if the page owners would let another view be shown besides their own. FWIW, I strongly support {{rejected}} being on the page.. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's a propoal that eitehr it should be editable to find a consensus view (which it seems it is not at the moment) or else it is ribe to determine whether consensus currently exists for this. (I think it alomst surely does not.) If anyone can suggext a better way to determine consensus in this isntance than a poll i am very intersted. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my objection to a poll. Feel free to set one up, anything to put an end to this (for good or ill) would be warmly welcomed. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer we wait on hold a poll until the page can be stabilised on a version which represents the premise in all its glory. Let me and others who actually support the proposal work on it without interference. If people think it is doomed to fall on its face, then there is no harm in letting us misguided folks work on it. We can only make it worse, right? -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From only having a slight interest in this page, it seems that:

• There is not a consensus or foundatin issues for making this a policy.
• There are at least some portions of this page that describe best practices.
• There are portions of this page that may no longer be needed.
• This page belongs in a category related to our proceedures.
  • There is no consensus as to what category this may be.
  • This categorization may be dependant on edits relating to the prior bullet points.

xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that what ever is not disuted by the developers still makes sense (ie. using a meta tempalte where equal functionality can be had without using it is a good thing) should be left in, and this should be a style guideline for templates. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The only problem I see with complex templates is their complexity (and the imaginary server load problem, which Brion has said is not our responsibility anyway). I think the benefits (simpler article source code) far outweigh the complexity argument. — Omegatron 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about server load... no one is pushing this based on server load anymore, so that's a false premise. You're also making a hasty generalization about how this guideline proposal applies and presenting a false choice between article source simplicity and complex template code. Template come in many varied forms, and the solutions to template complexity do not always lead to complex article source. Each template use must be examined on its own, and the options weighed based on some general good practices. The option of using nested meta-templates has some drawbacks that are not immediately apparent, and if we are going to accept those drawbacks it needs to be after we've examined many alternatives. That's all this page is meant to suggest as an approach. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see any of the other issues as particularly serious. Drawbacks yes, but I'd take them over the decreased accessibility of 'hiddenStructure' any day. Also, the page seems to have rather alot about the 'server load' that no one is pushing anymore. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Brion didn't ask to remove all of the server load section. He's confirmed that certainly two templates use more database reads than one, and that any edit of a high-use template could cause short-term problems. Jamesday, who is a database developer and really shouldn't be ignored, also expressed this. Brion hasn't seen proof of a problem, and he wants to own the problem if it presents itself. The question is one of scale and it is still not answered fully, so still has a (tasteful) place on this page. It is no longer #1 reason to AUM, but it's in there as a concern. Templates aren't vandalised too terribly often either, but the concept is one to be wary of... the same goes for server load. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each template use must be examined on its own, and the options weighed based on some general good practices.

This looks like a veiled attempt to shift this debate to every template you come across and dispute. Forest fires anyone? No thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption of bad faith. The best way to prevent a ForestFire is to have a central place to talk. This page serves that purpose, or a "Template workshop" WikiProject could work, too. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've exhausted all good faith I had in your intentions, I'm sorry I didn't specify earlier: I am no longer assuming good faith in regard to any of your actions. And you're right, the best answer is a central location, but you insist on owning it with your favored version. That is unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your best practices aren't needed. Use my common sense. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that this page was created on February 4th, 2005.

We've been fighting about this for an entire year now. How time flies...  :-) — Omegatron 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we all have something better to do than argue over whether this is policy, guideline, essay, historical, rejected, controversial, or smelling faintly of roses. Kindly stop edit warring about it. >Radiant< 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were to re-add the changes which Brion suggested after he reviewed it. CBD changed the premise and substantive content of the page in several places. LockeCole is just baiting a revert war (read the edit summaries). -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you were engaging in a revert war. You always have a choice. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need your, or Brion's, permission to modify this page. Please keep that in mind. Brion did not rubber-stamp your version, nor did it get stamped with some magical gold seal that stops others from being able to contribute. You do not own this page. Maybe you missed it, but there's a lot of people who disagree with the basic premise of this page. I see now that your request for a review by Brion was just an attempt to get that "developer mandate" back that you lost two weeks ago... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it.... is this page my essay (if so, why are you worried about what it says?). Criticisms were raised that several people were misinterpreting the devs words, so I asked for his input directly. -- Netoholic @ 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict-twice) Netoholic, please stop 'interpreting' Brion, speaking for him, and/or claiming to be acting on his behalf or instructions. If Brion wants something done or said I'm certain he is more than capable of doing so himself. As to my edits... I was correcting what appear to me to be inaccuracies and biases in the page. I listed the page as a proposed policy and left in place the suggestion that nested templates be 'avoided' just not to the extent (excessive in my view) you are arguing for. In any case, please AGF and follow NPA. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speaking for Brion. I asked him to review this, and he did. He also suggested some changes, which my edit incorporates. Your edits are designed to muddle this page, and change the the focus away from the suggestion to "avoid using meta-templates". Go write up a Wikipedia:Weeble page and expound on its virtues, don't use this page to advertise a technique which is in opposition to the premise. -- Netoholic @ 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be a focused essay with a single premise, then fine. but then it cannot be a proposed guideline. A guideline is soemthing seeking broad community consensus, adn is open to changes, even fundamental changes in persuit of consensus, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the usual claims of 'nefarious motives'... Netoholic, I was not seeking to 'promote' weeble. I barely touched the 'weeble' section of the page and, at that, added information about it's most significant drawback. Your statement that it is "in opposition to the premise" of 'avoid using meta-templates' is incomprehensible to me, as you are well aware that the '|if=' parameter (aka 'weeble') method can vastly reduce or completely eliminate meta-template usage. That and my other edits were entirely consistent with 'avoid' using meta-templates. I think meta-templates should be avoided... but not banned for all but the rarest of circumstances. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding meta-templates by using a more complex and harder to implement method is not a recommendation this page should make. As I said, please document that method somewhere else, and add a link here. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease the ownership campaign you've undertaken on this page. It's not your playground. Telling people to "go to another page" is being ignorant of your opposition and is totally unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice. People have accused me of promoting hiddenStructure, and yet what I wrote on this page was critical of the method. By splitting the arguments about that method out of this page, it makes things much better. If Weeble were so documented, this page would be critical as well, but provide a link to that documentation. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, seriously, some people really need to take a step back and chill the hell out before this is discussed anymore. This isn't about who won x and x a fight x and x weeks ago and who's interpreting for whom or any of the venom that is being back and forth here. Take a step back from the keyboard, grab a beer, a shot, Pepsi, I don't care what the heck it is but just friggin relax. You would think the Earth would tumble off its axis if this was one way or the other if you took the time to kill brain cells reading this. --Wgfinley 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has been posted both to Template talk:Infobox and WT:AUM. I've done several reverts on Template:Infobox, and I want to make my own position on the matter clear, rather than just blindly reverting without an explanation. Most of the general talk about "meta-templates" obscures a simple fact. The overwhelming majority of meta-template usages are conditional templates, chiefly {{qif}}, and the overwhelming majority of conditional usages are for one single purpose: to hide empty sections in infoboxes. According to Brion, there is currently work underway to add native support for conditionals into the MediaWiki software; when this is done, it will clearly be the preferred way to do this, and {{qif}} can then be deprecated. Until that happens, though, we need to have a backup plan. There are currently three primary options:

1. Use qif.
2. Use the hiddenStructure hack.
3. Fork a single infobox into multiple templates.

(2) is unacceptable because it generates horrendous HTML and breaks some client software, including screen readers. (3) is even more unacceptable because it results in a maintainence nightmare (whenever someone wants to change the base infobox design, they have to remember to do so across multiple pages). Furthermore, (3) places more of a burden on article editors. With a well-designed conditional infobox, empty fields will simply be ignored, so users of the infobox need only omit the parameters that are unused; this is quite intutive. In contrast, forking means that editors must remember multiple template titles and spend time figuring out which one to use. By optimizing for ease of editing on the templates themselves (and, as pointed out above, it doesn't even do that very well) we are hurting ease of editing on articles, which affects far more editors.

Therefore, option (1) is the best alternative we currently have. It's not that difficult for an intermediate HTML programmer to understand, and it offers by far the best experience to the article editor and end user - who ultimately must take precedence. This will hopefully all be moot before long, but this is why the references to qif should stay in Template:Infobox. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a MeatBall:ForestFire, please follow-up discussion about whether to use conditionals at Template talk:Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a wanna-be coder and consensus fool I support this. But I have said this numerous times already. This eassay here is just a masterpiece of techno-FUD, desinged to be used to win edit wars on templates with edit summaries like "rm meta-templates per WP:AUM. Don't revert! This is a policy!". Make some unproven FUD claims ("meta-templates are evil"), hack them up on an WP page, slap "proposal for guideline on it", let the fools fight and demonstrate how they are unable to prove that your claims are wrong, wait until some admin slaps "policy" on it and then you have the perfect sledge hammer. Neto, I must say you are a genious, honestly. But you fail on one important point: the duty of prove is on your side that this essay here is needed. Until then it is pure instruction creep. This whole thing is no longer about writing an encyclopedia. Happy birthday WP:AUM! --Adrian Buehlmann 08:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was also, on the basis of the evidence available at the time, fully justified. Your incivil tone may be indicative of the level of the controversy and of the dispute, but it is not thereby justified. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tone. But not for the content. The leniency that has been shown in the past on tonality was indeed remarkable. One might even argue that tonality does not count when enforcing policy. Thank you for reminding me that this is not the "house" style. I'm confident that you will keep an eye on this aspect on all involved parties equally well. Per the evidence, I could say that in fact there was none. The whole crusade was based on hearsay like "the devs have said: beat qif with a stick", which seems not to be much of a convincing evidence. Deriving policy from ugliness on a technical matter is not such a good idea. But that would be rather something for the wiki-forensic departement, given the willingness of Brion to incorporate a conditional function into MediaWiki. I think we have enough fuel for this perpetuum immobile here even when restricting our views to the future only. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developer User:Jamesday said directly - "Please instead work at reducing the use of qif to reduce the harm.". There is no hearsay, and he spoke specifically about Qif. I know for a fact that I have pointed this out several times, so will you please confirm that you've read this? This was the mandate we had at the time. If I hear anyone say anything different, I am going to (FIGURATIVELY) stamp this quote onto my shoe and kick them in the face until they can read it in a mirror. Before we can move forward on this page, people need to stop assuming bad faith on the part of the Arbitrators that promoted this to policy-status, and those that worked to educate people and enforce the policy, based on this direct developer request. You are flat out wrong that any "hearsay" was involved. That being said, we have new information and are trying to move forward. Dredging up an incorrect version of the past in order to fuel current disagreements is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, wiki-forensic again: Yes, Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. But may I ask you to look carefully when this happened and what happended before? And what did I do after he had said this? And as per Jamesday: what is the harm caused by qif? It is not the fact that it is a meta-template as Brion said we shall not care about server load and templates. And as per the tonality: thank you for your "kick in the face" (I dispense with further evidences from my talk page as I do not waste my time with this kind of kindergarten). As per "Dredging up an incorrect version of the past in order to fuel current disagreements is unwelcome": besides the "incorrect" I agree with you. May I ask you to stop taking this thing here personally? I have saveral times explicitly agreed with you on technical claims that you brought up. I'm looking forward to having conditionals in MediaWiki as Brion has announced (and which you oppose). In the mean time, please do what ever you think is needed for the well-going of Wikipedia. I reserve the right to review your work as soon as we have built-in conditionals. Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who worked based on the "server load" directive from Jamesday was absolutely correct in that what they did at the time. The fact that Brion later provided new information does not suddendly discredit or devalue that previous work. Using new information to attack old actions is the historian's fallacy. Please stop bringing it back up over-and-over again, because you are misinforming new readers of this page, and just plain being divisive. -- Netoholic @ 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, CBD removed a section describing a problem which has not been fixed. While recently improvements were made to how Whatlinkshere works, in general, with templates, this does not change when speaking strictly about meta-templates. Please read the section carefully, and do your own experiment.

In this edit, he removed several bits about server load. The processing that is required on the back-end is completely supported by dev comments -- what is unclear is to what degree that extra processing actually affects things, please don't confuse the two ideas. The current page already touches very lightly on the server load subject, without going overboard.

In this edit, CBD changed the "POV" of the section. NPOV rules only apply to articles, not this page which is describing a specific position. The difficulty "to implement in conjunction with Wiki table markup" is tangential at best. In the "Blank parameter (aka "Weeble")" section, CBD changed this from being critical of that practice to one describing how easy it is to implement. That is the wrong perspective for this page, since we are seeking to keep both article source and template source as simple as possible. I've ask CBD many times to create a descriptive page (like Wikipedia:hiddenStructure), which we could then link from here. -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*still amazed you think you can drive your opposition off to another page when it's clear there's little, if any, consensus for this page* —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to just attack me and revert war, or actually present some argument about the topics above? I would not be posting here on talk if I wasn't seeking consensus. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your intent to continually bring this "issue" up every few days/weeks until you get your way? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which issue are you referring to - one of the ones I posted above about the content of the page, or my comment about you? -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the page, of course. I'm not the one with a problem here.. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in creating another page for the '|if=' method. That, like the 'hiddenStructure' writeup and this page itself, would eventually be made obsolete by true conditionals. In the meantime I was simply correcting inaccuracies and biases in how information was presented on this page. Even if another (redundant) page were created there would still be no reason to show false or slanted information here. You say 'NPOV' doesn't apply because this is a 'position' document... how can a biased position be made policy? If it isn't balanced/accurate there is no point. If you want this page to simply reflect your opinion rather than facts or consensus then don't list it as a proposed policy... it is an essay and really belongs in your user-space. On 'Whatlinkshere' the remaining issues seem fairly trivial. The continued insistence on including (and exaggerating) the 'server load' issues seems wholly contrary in the face of your prior claim to no longer be concerned with those in regards to WP:AUM... if you no longer think they are a reason driving this proposed policy then why are they such a major, and inflated, part of the write-up? --CBDunkerson 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really impractical to reply to multiple things at once. How about picking one issue at a time and discussing it? One general point that I want to reply to is your idea of "bias". While I agree a policy page should be accurate, I disagree that policy must be balanced. Take WP:NPA, some people, I'm sure, have different opinions on what constitutes a personal attack and what is tolerable (from rudeness to swearing to threats). Should a policy page describe all the opinions? I think that would make any policy page's message most confusing. This page's assertion is focused on saying solidly "Don't use confusing and fragile meta-template schemes. Here's why. There are other methods, but they all have problems too. Consider carefully." I do not ultimately care whay "status" (guideline/policy/nothing) people will eventually assign this ... all I care is that its position is clearly presented. Your "balanced" ideas might be better on Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits - a page that is descriptive and takes no position. -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has replied to this last comment above in 10 days, so I've re-done my changes. I remain willing to discuss them point-by-point to find common ground. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is too extreme. Crazy even. I agree with using meta-templates as little as is practical - but sometimes it is much better to use them than not. For instance, {{qif}} is in templates necessary because it so much better than the alternatives. Any CSS-hack like Wikipedia:hiddenStructure is not an option, since it breaks the site for many browsers. Every other alternative makes templates even harder to maintain. ··gracefool |☺ 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're working off a broad assumption that conditionals are "necessary" and that the only alternative is the CSS hack. We all want templates that are easier to maintain, but the solution is not going to be the same across the board. Each case is different and requires solid planning and investigation. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was thinking of complex meta-templates (which should be as easy to read as possible). Yes, I think complex meta-templates are a good idea. ··gracefool |☺ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've kept up with recent changes, but this is no longer policy, it's not even a guideline. Any changes made with this page as justification should be disputed for the reasons you set out above. (Read up this talk page for details on how this page was demoted from policy, as well as the arguments since then addressing your concerns with browser breakage/accessibility). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read it. It's a proposed policy — a kind of policy, though disputed :p ··gracefool |☺ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, Netoholic is again using this page as an excuse for reverting to poorly implemented CSS hacks, as seen in this diff. Unless there is significant objection, I will be placing {{rejected}} on this page in the next day or so, because there's been zero activity recently, and for as long as this page has existed it's been rejected repeatedly by other editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know there is significant objection to marking this rejected... until you can show the community has made such a determination. I see plenty of people citing this as a guideline on TFD and in the course of regular template editing... I only see a few people opposing it. As for whether or not I cite this page... I will continue to do so to raise awareness among fellow template authors. It is better than cluttering up the summary or the template talk page with an explanation that is better presented here for centralized discussion. -- Netoholic @ 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've manipulated the system long enough, Netoholic. You claimed that you wanted this to serve as a new proposal, and I believed you. Since then, you've made no attempt to gauge consensus, because you prefer to coast by on ambiguity (knowing that the proposal has little chance of succeeding).

You're well aware of the fact that the page's primary reason for existence (the developers' supposed stance) has been removed from the equation, so you've attempted to retrofit your creation into something that can remain afloat (while staying as close as possible to the original text, against the wishes of those who would prefer a broader focus).

You have no legitimate basis for citing your personal essay as a de facto guideline. If you wish to save your baby, please assemble a straw poll. (I'm giving you the opportunity to do so, thereby avoiding accusations of unfair wording on my part.) If you refuse to comply, I'm afraid that {{rejected}} is the only tag that fits. It's your call... —David Levy 14:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to. The only problem I see is that the opposers of this page simultaneously water it down and insist on a formal polling process. I also hate the idea that this is seen as "my" page and "my" responsibility. I never promoted it beyond "proposal" - that was done by others. I want this to be widely accepted, the only problem is that it's an esoteric concept and had to find people who feel strongly enough to get involved. By it's nature, the only passionate people that come here are those who've created bad template schemes. (note: I've only commented on tyour last point, because your first two are either completely false or simply ad hominem.) -- Netoholic @ 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? That this page should serve as a permanent "proposal" (while carrying the weight of a guideline), because most of the community is incapable of recognizing its wisdom? That's unacceptable.

This is perceived as "your" page because you behave as though you own it—attempting to retain strict editorial control and attributing its failure to the interference of others.

At this point, I fully support the idea of allowing the community to judge your preferred version of the page (or both versions, if the alternative version's proponents wish to proceed). Otherwise, there's no justification for stringing this along as a "proposal," as you aren't really proposing anything. (It's more of a declaration than anything else.) —David Levy 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David. Just how long, Netoholic, do you plan on keeping the "proposed" tag in place? It can't be indefinitely; that's unacceptable. Ultimately it will either have to be accepted as {{policy}}, which is very unlikely to happen given the lack of community consensus or developer mandate, or it will have to be {{rejected}}. Alternatively, it could be branded an essay, and in that case it should probably be userfied, especially given Netoholic's desire to WP:OWN the page. The current situation is untenable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone explain to me why Netoholic's probation is not being enforced? He's not supposed to be editing here at all until May 2006. If he was making useful and productive edits, I could understand overlooking the literal terms of his probation, but all I've ever seen him do on any Wikipedia: and Template: related pages is revert war – which is the exact behavior that got him that remedy in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, he's just been blocked for 48 hours. —David Levy 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I'm glad that his probation was enforced this time, and I hope that he will refrain from attempts at policy pushing against consensus in the future, especially by means of revert warring. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the rejected tag - there is still some important content to this page. The CSS hacks are not good either, but the fact that we ought avoid meta-templates, CSS hacks, and other non-transparent things does remain true and important. Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone, not just coders. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. However, many others disagree with you on this, and since there is no longer a mandate from the developers (nor does this relate to any core Foundation issues), community consensus must control. And there's no evidence that the community consensus is, or ever will be, in favor of this proposal. There seem to be about half a dozen staunch supporters, maybe a dozen strong opponents, and the rest of Wikipedia really doesn't much care. This amounts to no consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forthcoming native support for conditional templates will render this entire issue moot. In the meantime, Netoholic is using stall tactics as a means of keeping this "proposal" alive along enough to cite it as a basis for forcing the adoption of the aforementioned CSS hacks (which are far more harmful). —David Levy 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading Netoholic's mind now? Phil Sandifer 18:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm stating facts. Netoholic has resisted all attempts to gauge consensus (or lack thereof), and he is citing this page in his edit summaries when restoring the CSS hack (which Brion Vibber has deemed harmful) to templates: 1 / 2 —David Levy 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've hacked out the inaccurate stuff from this page and set it to guideline - simply put, there is widespread concern and sense that making pages uneditable except to experienced users and vandalism magnets is BAD. If the sole problem with the page is that Netoholic is using it inappropriately, the page is not the thing to change. Phil Sandifer 19:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until it's established that this page is backed by consensus, it is not a guideline. I'm not certain, but I believe that some of the remaining claims are disputed. —David Levy 19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some dispute - transparent editing and avoidance of disastrous vandalism seem to me very fundamental issues. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are editorial decisions. Since this page is no longer a developer mandate, it's inappropriate to elevate it to "guideline" (much less "policy") status without any community consensus. I'd like to see some actual evidence of the "widespread concern" that Snowspinner cites. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall someone claiming that some or all of the statements from the "Template links" section are outdated and no longer applicable. —David Levy 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd killed that section. There. :) Phil Sandifer 19:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over the status of this page, and the tag used to describe it, is very, very silly. I attempted to compromise on a "tag" that would capture the current state of dispute, but that didn't last long. How about some discussion on the merits of the whatever-it-is before any more reverting? android79 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your tag quite a bit, actually. Phil Sandifer 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Now let's see if it cools off Netoholic's disruptive editing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded it to be less clunky. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

making pages uneditable except to experienced users is BAD

So you agree that using templates to simplify complex markup and insertion of content is a good thing? :-) — Omegatron 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. {{Qif}} is *less* opaque than its alternatives. Obviously, native conditionals, when implemented, will be better still. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ending 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought, perhaps why not make a straw poll to see how the people stands. _→AzaToth 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at widening the discussion by placing notices at Template:Cent and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)–

Template:Cent notification

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) notification

If anyone places notices anywhere else, please feel free to update this list. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted (guideline or policy)

1. Accept as guideline only. The harmful effects cited are reasons to be careful about meta-templates and to be reasonably certain that the benefits of a particular meta-template are justified by its risks. These do not justify (as I have seen done) the speedying or automatic vote to delete of any possible metatemplate.
   • Clear coding and clear documentation by "what links here" are good things. They are not the only good things, and they do not trump all other virtues.Septentrionalis 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • The possibility of vandalizing very widely used templates is a valid concetn. But this should be a guideline, not a policy, because of the exceptions:
     • There are metatemplates that will never be very widely used.
     • Some widely used templates are not metas. If anything, this is an argument against the wide imposition of identical cross-reference templates {{see}} or {{Further}} or {{main}}, whichever it is this week. Septentrionalis 19:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • Why is vandalism of widely-used templates a valid concern? As pointed out before, anything can be vandalized, and any vandalism can be reverted. Why should we restrict an extremely beneficial feature for the sake of vandalism? We allow anyone to edit any page without even logging in. If vandalism were that much of a concern, wouldn't we turn off anonymous editing? Please explain how vandalism of templates is any different than vandalism of articles. How many times have templates been vandalized, and how much long-term damage has it caused?
     • Regardless of the title, this page is in fact used to advocate the avoidance of many templates, regardless of whether they are "meta-" templates or not (whatever meta- means this week). — Omegatron 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Septentrionalis. I think he's got a good grasp of how a page like this should work. A good deal of consideration is needed before using nested meta-templates. They should be avoided in favor of non-nested forms wherever possible since there are often unforeseen consequences with their use. -- Netoholic @ 17:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected

1. _→AzaToth 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically on the page do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. David Levy 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically on the page do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The conclusion that meta-templates should be avoided. —David Levy 08:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   On what basis? The page lays out several problems with using them, and there are likely more. The arguments for their use seem to center around conditionals, but with that addressed on the page, what benefits outweight the effects? -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   There are situations (mainly relating to conditionals) in which meta-templates are (in my opinion) the best solution currently available, despite their drawbacks. I disagree with the assertion that this list adds up to the conclusion that meta-templates should be avoided. —David Levy 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. For reasons I have stated numerous times previously on this Talk and elsewhere. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. seems pretty clear to me. ... aa:talk 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically on the page do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. --cesarb 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically on the page do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. If this here means going willy nilly extincting every qif at all cost despite knowing we will get a MediaWiki built-in conditional function, then I reject it. I also reject it if it has "Generally accepted by editors" or guideline/policy tag. I also reject it if this means replace qif on the Infobox templates with Wikipedia:hiddenStructure or nothing at all. But that doesn't mean we should pile up layers of templates without good reason. And we actually do have some damn good reasons for at least two layers. That's where we disagree here. If you shoot qif, I will do weeble. It is not a meta template technique, and thus compliant with WP:AUM. But it moves the ugliness of qif into the templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically from the Harmful Effects section do you think is invalid? Which of the offered solutions is worse than meta-templates? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC) this thing was already rejected in the past, but if it must be rejected again, so be it. Kill it with a stick.[reply]

   You aren't voting to reject it. We don't do that. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You've got it wrong: this is a straw poll. I've already made my case for why this should be rejected above (on this talk page, in the history, and elsewhere). Omegatron's comments below (in response to Phil) fairly well sum up why I think this should be rejected. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. The only reason it was forced into policy was because of a misunderstanding. In that light, it's {{rejected}}; not {{historical}}, though that's acceptable, too. — Omegatron 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Talking about the past is not helpful.

   That's absurd. Talking about the past is inherently necessary if we are evaluating whether this page was policy or rejected in the past. — Omegatron 19:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically from the Harmful Effects section do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The entire section, as explained dozens of times on this page and elsewhere. Go on, keep pretending like the page is a magically brand new policy proposal every day and we've never discussed it before. — Omegatron 19:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Causes far more problems than it solves. Nested templates should be used carefully, not replaced with far worse 'solutions'. --CBDunkerson 02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What specifically from the Harmful Effects section do you think is invalid? Which of the offered solutions is worse than meta-templates? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Definitely! _R_ 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What specifically on the page do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Since conditionals are, apparently, going to be built into Mediawiki soon anyway this page is essentially obsolete. Since it has also been the cause of so much stress and so many flame wars, and since the original reason for its existence was based on a misapprehension it has to go to {{rejected}}. David Newton 15:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brion has said he supports conditionals, but has never said they would be here "soon". I doubt that a Turing-complete template syntax is high on any dev's priority list, but you are free to follow-up. Ignoring conditionals for a minute... what specifically from the Harmful Effects section do you think is invalid? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12. This is obviously {{rejected}}, not historical. This should not be considered a policy, guideline or anything. Far to convoluted, with arguements and suggestions changing. Following from the main page, folks risk wasting their time on this. At a minimum, reject this page, and the proposer can propose a new policy on a clean page, and see if it gains the needed traction, for CSS hacks or whatever. Augustz 07:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/Augustz -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is that about? I could just as easily posted Special:Contributions/Netoholic where I notice you've been blocked by Arbcomm in the past. I generally don't choose to log-in or debate on talk pages. I logged in here so I could sign my name, as a courtesy. Reading over this page you've had an ample amount of time to make your point. Please just let others note their thoughts without having to debate them endlessly with you. This is a straw poll.

13. This has been rejected, please let it end. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. The proposal does not provide adequate guidelines to when it is inappropriate to use meta-templates or, more importantly, when it is appropriate to use meta-templates. It leaves too much to individual interpretation and can result in an individual editor using the proposal as grounds to eliminate all meta-templates regardless of their use. --TheFarix 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've often asked the people that oppose this page to provide examples of meta-template use that they consider exceptions (ie. can't do their task any other way). In every case, I've been able to design a non-meta method to satisfy requirements. Each meta-template use needs a custom solution - in many ways, meta-templates are used so the hard decisions don't have to be made. -- Netoholic @ 17:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. This cost me days with {{Main}}, {{See}}, and other places where hiddenStructure simply has no effect with legacy browsers. Harmful doesn't begin to describe it. Omniplex 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Many good uses for meta-templates, reasons against are not convincing me. —Nightstallion (?) 10:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above

• It was a policy. It now isn't. I think (though I could be wrong) that that makes it a historical policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a matter of semantics, but I don't believe that the {{historical}} designation is appropriate. This page's {{policy}} status was based entirely upon a misunderstanding, and therefore was annulled by Brion Vibber (the lead MediaWiki developer). For all practical purposes, it never was an actual policy; it was merely believed to have been one. —David Levy 21:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. It was treated as a policy, ergo it was a policy. Calling it "rejected" is unnecessarily inflammatory and inaccurate. Have most of the tenets been rejected by the community? I don't think so. Only the technical one has been shown to have no real basis. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the community has. The Arbitration Committee even said this was rejected in Netoholic's 2nd RFAR. From finding of fact #4–

        Lack of consensus concerning meta-templates

        4) Despite Netoholic's best efforts his concerns regarding meta-templates were not adopted as policy.

        Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

      • The only reason this was made policy was because of certain arbitrators marking it a policy against community consensus. Other than that, this has always been rejected by the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not adopted != rejected. And the adoption of AUM as policy was after this, anyway, so your point is very moot.
        • Phil is not an arbitrator. You say that this has "always" been rejected by the community. I shall follow your statement with no evidence presented with my own: piffle. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Raul654 is an arbitrator. And it's hard to show evidence that something never happened... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh? And there was me thinking that rejection had happened. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Er, in the absence of support of the community, the only thing one can assume is that it was rejected. Go through the talk page archives if you don't believe me. There's over a year of people disputing this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have most of the tenets reached any sort of consensus or support with the community? I don't think so. — Omegatron 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a time, I believe they did, yes. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • When? I don't recall any such period of time. There was a time when it was forced on the unwilling community because of a mistaken notion of a developer mandate, but that is neither consensus nor support. In fact, it was almost universally opposed. — Omegatron 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the modified policy tag that appeared on the page:

This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Although it has not been accepted through the normal policy adoption method of community consensus, the Wikimedia developers have requested that it be followed as a technical guideline until such time as the underlying server problems can be fixed. Please discuss any edits on the Talk page before making them.

On Januray 21, Brion Vibber (the lead developer) declared that the page was not a policy, because no such developer mandate existed.

It really wouldn't make much practical difference if the page were to be tagged {{historical}} (as opposed to {{rejected}}), but I don't believe that such a designation would be accurate. —David Levy 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me. Was AUM ever treated as policy? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was mistakenly treated as policy, despite the fact that it never was policy. —David Levy 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a contradiction in terms. If something is treated as policy, it is policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...when someone misconstrues some vague remarks and falsely declares that the developers have deemed a page "policy," it instantly becomes a policy?

Despite your claim that the page was backed by consensus "for a time," the sole basis for its supposed "policy" status was the developers' mandate, which was deemed nonexistent by the lead developer. Brion stated in no uncertain terms that the page was not a policy. It was mistakenly labeled as such, but it never passed through any of the channels through which Wikipedia policies are created.

Anyone could slap a {{policy}} tag on a page and convince some people that it's accurate, but that wouldn't make it so. —David Levy 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. What would make it policy is people following it. Just because people may have followed it mistakenly, they nonetheless followed it as policy. Ergo, for that time, it was policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People were forced to abide by the terms of WP:AUM (or run the risk of being punished for their "grevious [sic] vandalism"), despite the belief of many (later proven correct) that the developers' stance had not been clearly established. Anyone who so much as questioned the interpretation of Jamesday's vague remarks or requested first-hand clarification was accused of "ignoring the devs" and trying to "wikilawyer around database specifications."

And of course, much of the page has been rewritten, so it doesn't even contain the same text that was claimed to have constituted a policy. —David Levy 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find consensus by putting {{historical}} on this, then please do so. "This Wikipedia article or category is currently inactive..." is the most important part of it. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, people are far more keen to make it clear that this is an evil policy which Netoholic is waving in our faces in order to win us over to his evil ways. Now I'm sure that isn't intended, but {{rejected}} gives an impression that the page is incorrect. It is not wholly incorrect, as it states facts that are indisputable. How far the facts are applicable, and how far they are counter-balenced by other factors, is what is relevant. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in amongst those supposedly 'indisputable facts' it states quite a few things which are totally biased, if not simply false. --CBDunkerson 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read. I did not say that all contained herein was fact. Indeed, I implied the contrary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that the {{rejected}} tag is some sort of insult. Most {{rejected}} pages contain factual information that was compiled in good faith. The designation indicates nothing other than the fact that the actual proposal has failed to garner community consensus (which accurately describes this page). —David Levy 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that is what people are going to use that tag to mean? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yes? Rejected means... rejected. As in... not agreed to. What else would people take it to mean? --CBDunkerson 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's its purpose. That's how it's used. Are you actually familiar with the tag in question? —David Levy 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You proposed to put {{historical}} onto this project page and I agreed with you. Did you change your mind? --Adrian Buehlmann 08:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest continuing with past practice. This page was previously 'Policy *'. That is, it had a special unique 'policy' tag to indicate the questionable nature of the policy classification. Then when that classification was found to be incorrect efforts were made to classify this as a 'guideline' or 'proposal'... but again a special tag had to be used because there were disagreements about the status of the page. So, in reference to the debate over 'rejected' vs 'historical' - just make another unique tag. To be precise, the page was rejected, forced into policy status based on (false) claims of developer mandate, removed from policy status by the lead developer, and now rejected again. Personally, I think 'rejected' is all that needs to be said about that, but if it helps people to move on then we can put in a special box with a bit of the background. --CBDunkerson 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are still evil

1. The portions of this that are relevent are not a matter for voting - we do avoid opaque pages, we do avoid pages that make high-speed vandalism a trivial effort, we do avoid permanantly protected pages. Therefore we avoid meta-templates where we can. That doesn't mean we replace them with CSS hacks, but it also doesn't mean that it's up for a vote that they're bad. Phil Sandifer 21:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Two of those three arguments could be applied to any template. (Should we "avoid using" all of them?) Also, there is no consensus that we shouldn't permanently protect high-use templates; many have suggested that we should do just that. Finally, the above is based upon the assumption that meta-templates' drawbacks outweigh their benefits—purely an opinion. Again, templates themselves have drawbacks, but no one is proposing that we do away with them. —David Levy 21:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Nor is this page called "do away with meta-templates." "Avoid using templates" would be a nice page to have, though. Phil Sandifer 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   By what logic? I have yet to see a good reason to avoid templates. And if there is one, it should just go on meta:help:templates, where people who use templates will be sure to see it. — Omegatron 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   They are harder to edit, make text inaccessable, are very frequently found lying around unused, are often ugly, give high vandalism potential... they've always been a tool for specific uses, not something to be sprinkled liberally throughout Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • harder to edit
     • How is a template harder to edit than the same code inside a million articles?
   • make text inaccessable
     • Utter nonsense. They make wikitext much more accessible.
   • very frequently found lying around unused
     • Your point? Maybe we should create Wikipedia:Avoid creating articles so that people don't keep making obscure orphans that never get edited?
   • are often ugly
     • Better in a template than in the article. At least broken code can be fixed sitewide if it's in a template.
   • give high vandalism potential
     • Vandalism? Vandalism in templates can be reverted just as easily as vandalism in an article, and the more visible, the more quickly it will be reverted. How many times have templates been vandalized and how much permanent damage has it caused? This is an imaginary problem. Substituting every template in sight, a natural extension of this page, creates a real vandalism problem, in that substituted vandalism (or crappy code) can't be quickly and easily reverted or fixed. — Omegatron 01:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The portions of this that are relevent are not a matter for voting – they most certainly are, or this shouldn't have {{proposed}}, {{guideline}} or any other tag on it. You either accept that people can reject this, or you admit it's an essay (and in that case, I strongly believe this should be userfied). Otherwise, this is akin to having Wikipedia:Fire is hot, and will burn you, which is silly. Or, more seriously, Wikipedia:Avoid leaving pages unwatched. In any event, it's obvious; we don't need a page saying why (WP:BEANS and all that). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   No, see, this is where you're wrong - rejection does not come from the collective value of the querrelous. It comes from a policy actually being wrong. This one is not, and no matter how many people you get to insist that it is, it will not magically become a good idea to load pages with uneditable vandalism magnets. Phil Sandifer 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   And who decides whether a policy is "wrong", and on what basis? With a very few exceptions (WP:NPOV, developer issues, etc.) the community does. What you're arguing here is that you can make up whatever policy you want regardless of community consensus and that just isn't true no matter how much you might wish it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, we can all agree that a) article opacity is bad; b) enabling high-speed vandalism is bad; and c) permanent page protection is bad. These are all valid principles that help make Wikipedia what it is. What is left for the community to decide, however, is whether a, b, and c add up to "Avoid using meta-templates", and just how strong that admonition is. android79 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Meta-templates are no more 'vandalism magnets' than any frequently used template. Insulting the majority who recognize that fact does not make your position stronger. There are plenty of templates which are hypothetical vandalism targets that don't have any nesting involved. The only added 'vandalism danger' of meta-templates is that on heavily nested templates it might require an extra thirty seconds to sort through the nested layers (which are listed right on the page) to find which linked template was actually vandalized. That's hardly cause for concern. --CBDunkerson 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End date

I've placed an end date at the top of the poll set to be two weeks after it was started (this seems reasonable, and in my experience is about as long as most policy straw polls go). If someone thinks it should be longer/shorter, feel free to chime in. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways I have seen for doing conditionals - using {{qif}} (or similar conditionals) or using subtemplates (like {{routeboxca2/Interstate}}, where Interstate is an argument of the main template). Which way is better on the servers? Or can these not be easily compared, as they have different uses? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any 'server load' issues with this are generally insignificant, but for templates which vary on a single parameter I like the '/' method. The 'User wikipedia' templates are a good example. These used to be 'User Wikipedia|RCP', 'User Wikipedia|NPA', et cetera. They were replaced with 'User Wikipedia/RC Patrol' and the like. This allowed some minor reduction in server load, but also made the templates easier to update/maintain... users can just create a new template with the right name rather than having to work it into the switching logic at the single 'User Wikipedia' template. On the other hand, for templates with multiple parameters like Template:Taxobox multiple sub-templates is messy and conditionals work better. --CBDunkerson 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I favor whatever is easiest for the article editors, as they vastly outnumber template editors and the articles is what this project is all about anyway. In many cases, using {{qif}} to hide empty parts of boxes or structures makes things far easier for article editors since all they then have to do is omit the unused fields, not juggle around different templates for different purposes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the noise about the server load, that does not appear to be the current concern of this policy, which has changed to other issues. Per CBDunkerson on the rest, good question. But hopefully the developers will continue to make mediawiki easy and easier for editors to edit I think. Augustz 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]