Last modified: 2010-05-15 15:48:23 UTC
Many people get confused on Wikipedia on whether or not they should subst a
template, despite the extensive [[Wikipedia:Subst]] page describing the topic. I
am tired of people substing templates when they shouldn't, and not substing when
I propose the addition of a new namespace type which acts as a template in every
way except that it is automatically substed. Essentially it should be a shortcut
for going to the template, viewing the source, copying it (being careful not to
select any <noinclude> text) and copying it into the new page. Perhaps it could
somehow get substed prior to the "save edit" stage so if the user wanted to make
a change to the substituted text, they could do so without making two edits.
Templates could still be substed using the subst keyword, but I wouldn't mind
seeing the keyword get removed entirely.
My argument is that the *creator(s)* of the template should be the ones that
determine whether or not a template should be substed, not the users. The
creators know what the proper use is, and users just get confused or make
mistakes. It would be more clear to have a separate namespace.
I see that there is a similar bug for adding a new keyword that would be a
template unsubstable. I think this bug should remain separate, since this is a
proposal for a new namespace, not a keyword.
Namespace clutter; similar enough to bug 2777, which is more feasible with our
current template handling, and makes more sense.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2777 ***