Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This is an archive of discussions from the old discussion page for MediaWiki messages "Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text", but it was moved here to be under the new discussion page.

'Bug reports' bugs me

I propose we change the largely depreciated page "Bug reports" to Contact us. Any objections? My biggest concern is that might force all cached pages to get updated... --mav 08:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think a contact us link is important. Angela .

Good idea. -- Tarquin 10:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. Although I also would like a Bug reports page (not a link on the sidebar). I don't want to bother with sf for reporting bugs. I tried to have this conversation before, but it never materialized. I think it's important to have a place on the wikipedia to report bugs. I know that developers would prefer sf, but in reality few people know how to use it or want to bother with it. Developers should feel free to ingore anything reported on such a page (since they might well be bugs already reported on sf). However, some new bugs might get caught, and it also gives a single focal point for those who would otherwise not report a bug at all. Someone else could go through these and either report them at sf, or give a link to an already reported bug. Dori | Talk 14:07, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to report bugs, but don't mind if the developers ignore you, I recommend wikipedia:sandbox. Martin 05:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Martin, some bugs are going to be ignored regardless of the method of communication. That doesn't mean you shouldn't submit any bugs at all. -- Tim Starling 23:45, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

User:Dori I absolutly agree. Noldoaran 21:44, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I was already planning on setting-up 'suggested MediaWiki feature requests' and 'possible MediaWiki bugs' pages on meta. The purpose of which would be to discuss the pros and cons of proposed features and refine them and make sure bug reports get well-developed. Then when those processes are complete somebody could submit the reports to sf. That way we get to do things the wiki way and the developers get fewer, and better, bug reports and feature requests. --mav

I agree, I've suggested this in the past. -- Mattworld 22:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. meta:MediaWiki feature requests and bug reports --mav 00:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The cache is not invalidated when you change messages. If you make any changes which you feel require immediate display, I suggest you ask a developer to change the cache epoch. -- Tim Starling 14:31, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Automatically signing messages

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a way of adding ~~~~ to Template:Test? Angela . 00:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Just write {{subst:test}} -- ~~~~. -- Tim Starling 00:19, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Tim. Angela . 01:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

WRONG there is a way of doign this. use my templates for vandalism {{subst:vw}} To make this kind of template: If it says ` do that with shift

Go to Preferences
enable raw nicknames
change your nickname to ````
add the place you want the signature --```

☺Adam1213☺|talk 06:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Test message

What is {{subst:test}} to be used for? Do we no longer delete vandalism? I am concerned that this means that pages that would previously show up as red links are now going to show up blue, and that we will get an encyclopedia full of these things. Has the usage of this been discussed anywhere? Secretlondon 14:34, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

It's only an extension of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. You still delete a test, but you let the offender know in a gentle way that they're not supposed to do that. At least, that's my understanding. Dori | Talk 14:43, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

How long do we leave the messages for? Is there a way of finding all pages that contain messages? Sorry for asking lots of questions but I'm not sure how well this has been thought out. Secretlondon 14:49, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Secret, the message is to be left on the user's talk page, not on the article itself (which should be deleted on the spot), e.g. User talk:162.40.225.41 Dori | Talk 14:56, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Ah - I've seen them left on article pages. This is why I thought it was ridiculous. It makes perfect sense now! Secretlondon 14:57, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

More messages!

Not all of the items on the old Wikipedia:Boilerplate text page have been entered as custom messages, for instance the variant VfD notices. Would it be practical to allow automatic insertion of those as well, using {{msg:vfd1}} {{msg:vfd2}}, etc? -Smack 05:55, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea. —Noldoaran (Talk) 06:36, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Too many messages might slow down the server. I can't seem to find it now, but I think Tim had a post to that effect. I would hold off for a bit, before adding too many messages that are not as necessary. Dori | Talk 14:14, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the software starts off with about 500 messages, so you can probably assume that a couple of hundred extra won't have much adverse effect. My warning about extra messages is now at m:MediaWiki namespace -- I said we should probably keep the total size of the namespace under a few hundred KB. However since I wrote that, I've been thinking that if some need develops for large messages, this could be dealt with by tweaking the code to make it more efficient, rather than allowing for inclusion from other namespaces. -- Tim Starling 02:41, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia already use messages from other namespaces? example: Wikipedia:Recentchanges

—Noldoaran (Talk) 03:21, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentchanges, Wikipedia:Booksources, etc. are just one-off hacks, special cases. Wikipedia:Recentchanges could theoretically be deleted now, the software would automatically fall back on MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. -- Tim Starling 23:26, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

The performance limitations of having many large messages have now been removed. Go for your life. -- Tim Starling 00:29, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Protected page

Considering that the link in the sidebar that says "Edit this page" is replaced with plaintext "Protected page", it must be possible to have "Edit this page" be replaced with a link Protected page. --Ed Cormany 04:38 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As soon as the caches update that won't be plain text. It was changed to a link yesterday, but you don't get to see this until the page is edited. It should work now on the main page, which has been edited since the feature was implemented. Currently, the link points to Wikipedia:Protection policy, but it has been suggested that something more suitable for non-sysops being linked to instead so I am writing something at Wikipedia:This page is protected which will be linked to from all protected pages once the cache updates. Angela . 20:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how does it look to sysops? Noldoaran (Talk) 20:33, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sysops see the normal "Edit this page" link. I've changed it now, so it will point to Wikipedia:This page is protected which is hopefully a bit more useful for non-sysops than just a piece of text saying protected page. Angela . 20:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I dislike the new "Remove page protection" text. Was this discusses? Can we change it back to "unprotect this page"? Martin

This is also being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Unprotectthispage

Protecting MediWiki messages

Suggestions for which messages do not need to be protected can be made here

I think we need to have a discussion on which, if any, messages should be unprotected. Personally I feel that none of them should be unprotected (not talking about custom here) as they are part of the interface. Although they could quickly be reverted, they are much more visible, and as soon as vandals learn about them, they will look mighty tasty. I don't see why a regular user could not just leave a message on the talk page, which anyone should do anyway before a change, and then an admin could make the actual change. If no admins are around to see tha talk message, then they wouldn't have been around to see any vandalisms either. Dori | Talk 14:52, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Agreement -- Timwi 14:55, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should custom messages be protected

Is there any reason to protect the ones listed here? As long as people use {{SUBST:...}} rather than {{MSG:...}}, they will be able to check the text as soon as the page is saved and it won't change later if someone does vandalise the message. I suggest that all custom messages be unprotected. Which of the non-custom ones need protecting can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text. Angela . 06:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The important thing is encouraging use of SUBST, which is less mnemonic. At least we should make SUBST the suggested text on the pages these texts are listed on, like Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. --Pakaran 06:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is this page protected, come to that? Unprotecting... Martin 04:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we leave unprotected pages in the mediawiki namespace, can they be used to DoS the pedia by pasting hundreds of megs of text into them, since pages are locked in memory? -- Pakaran 06:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They could use up large amounts of memory whether the pages are protected or not, since they can just create new pages. Memcached has a memory limit in the hundreds of MB and drops least recently used items when it hits it. Single items can be up to 1MB. It probably wouldn't cause DoS, it would probably just slow things down a bit. However, it's important that all of the messages required for reverting a message are protected. -- Tim Starling

Ok thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators says that only sysops may edit in MediaWiki namespace, which I took as meaning that only sysops could create new articles. I'd guess that if someone uploads tens of megs in order to slow the wiki down by HDD seek times (tens of ms at most) they're not a particularly imaginitive vandal. -- Pakaran 03:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Talk Pages - Backward link request

Is there any chance of adding a backward link from a talk page to the page it is talking about? It's a little annoying to have to step back four or five pages to return to the page after an edit (or more if you've been browsing the talk history, for example!).

I would suggest making the second part of the heading (after Talk:) into a link back to the main page.

HappyDog 17:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By 'main page' I of course meant the article the Talk page refers to. HappyDog 17:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question completely, but there is a link to the article page from that article's talk page: 1. down the bottom "View article", and in the sidepanel "This page">"View article". --snoyes 17:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There already is on the links to the left (i.e. for a Talk: there is a View article, for a User talk, there is a View user page; for a Wikipedia talk: there is a View meta page, etc.). Is that good enough? (through conflict edit) Dori | Talk 17:36, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

I see it now - it's not very clear, and importantly there is no equivalent link at the top of the page. I feel it would be a little more intuitive to make the second part of the page header (after Talk:) into a link back as well. Seriously, I double checked before writing this that there wasn't anything I'd missed, and I still didn't spot it! HappyDog 17:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, can be hard to find quickly, even knowing where it is... Might be better if the link on the left was < View article instead of just {{Articlepage}}. (And also < View meta page instead of just {{Wikipediapage}}.) Κσυπ Cyp 20:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What do people (that means you) prefer, this:

Edit this page

SUBST vs MSG

Copied from User talk:Eloquence Hi, I wondered why you made this edit suggesting that msg was preferred over subst. I think it is dangerous to be able to add a message which can then change in every article. I was arguing that the MediaWiki messages be unprotected on the basis that if people are using subst, not msg, then they will instantly see what message that have left on a page, and this message will be permanent. If people are encouraged to use msg, there is a huge risk someone will vandalise the MediaWiki message and invoke a change in potentially thousands of other pages. I can see the benefit in that if someone wants to change the disambiguation message it would be reflected on other pages, but I think the disadvantages of vandalism would far outweigh this. I want to know what messages I leave on a page without the risk that these will change later and make it look like I added something to a page which I didn't. Angela . 23:06, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My main concern is easy updating of messages on all pages that use them. Otherwise texts like the disambiguation notice or stub notice effectively become set in stone and very difficult to update without running a script on the database (I don't think MySQL's UPDATE supports this kind of search & replace operation). This might however become necessary quite frequently, for example if we add software support for disambiguation, change our policy on stubs etc. I don't think the MediaWiki: pages should be unprotected -- if changes need to be made on any of the messages, these changes should be suggested on the talk page and then a sysop will make them.—Eloquence 02:42, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

My instinct is to go with the positivist approach of Eloquence. We shouldn't restrict ourselves for fear of vandalism. If someone is sufficiently aquianted with how Wikipedia that they know about substs: and msgs:, but are still have vandalist tendencies then they are going to be a serious problem user and liable for a banning. And besides if someone did change a msg it would be reverted very quickly. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking about this earlier and I came to the same conclusion: that MSG should be used most of the time because all the messages can be changes at once if need be. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:23, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion from the Village pump

Is there general agreement on when one should use {{subst:...}} vs. {{mgsg:...}}? I notice that on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages, it shows {{subst:stub}} but {{msg:disambig}}. Is this an intentional indication of preferred usage? --Anthropos 14:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See the talk page - I prefer msg because it's easy to update messages, others prefer subst because they feel using msg would make it possible to cause lots of damage by editing a single page. In other words, what I see as an advantage, they see as a disadvantage. A vote is probably in order.—Eloquence 14:02, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to know what I'm writing without the danger of this changing automatically as a result of someone vandalising or otherwise changing the message, so I always use subst. In some cases, when I've used subst:test, what I've added to the message afterwards would make no sense now that the wording of "test" has changed. It depends a lot on whether they message is protected or unprotected, but there is still no agreement on whether they should be. Angela . 14:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can see Eloquence's point, but I agree with Angela. If I post something, I'd like to know what it is, and I wouldn't want someone else to change my wording afterwards, especially if I sign the message. Dori | Talk 14:41, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense in some contexts, but I think we should agree to standardize stuff like stub notices, VfD notices, disambiguation notices etc.—Eloquence 14:47, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Angela is right on one thing: It depends heavily on whether the message is protected. There are really two issues here (I guess that's why two methods are provided):

Some standard messages should (stub, dissambig, copyright notice...) are more a part of the user interface than a part of articles themselves - their wording is really a meta subject. These should be used with MSG. They should probably be protected, which shoudn't be such a big issue - anyone can change MSG to SUBST, save and edit at will.
Chunks of text that are commonly used and are good starting points for further work. These should obviously be inserted with SUBST, and probably should not be protected - as long as we trust ourselves to read the message after SUBSTing it, to make sure nobody has vandalised the message in the meantime. Zocky 15:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good points, Zocky. I think maybe we are worrying too much about vandalism... a casual user is not going to vandalize the MSGs.. it would have to be someone more acquainted with how wikipedia works. Maybe we should use MSGs and SUBSTs as Zocky suggests but leave both types unprotected and see how often reversion is required. If it becomes a problem, we protect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another thing which seems to get ignored here around: if the text contains wikilinks, subst correctly create backlinks (what links here?) while msg doesn't. It makes pretty impossible to find stubs or other marked articles if people start using msg instead of subst. Maybe on en: this is already beyond control (too many stubs) but on smaller Wikipedias for example msg:stub should be avoided in my opinion. --grin 20:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Last time I checked, that worked also for MSG. The problem with Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub is that it just displays the first 500 articles. Read Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub for the workaround.

BTW the initial MSG, i.e. Wikipedia:Recentchanges seems to work well. -- User:Docu

Well it's easier to show than to debate, so please see MediaWiki:BackLinkTest, and try to find the article using it. If you do, please share the method. If you don't, please correct yourself. --grin

Found it: User:Grin/touched. :) I cheated. It isn't finadable through the what links here, which seems a very good reason not to use {{msg}} for stubs or accuracy disputes. Angela . 21:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

...which is logical anyway, database-wise, since there is no way to optimally create backlinks to dynamically modified articles. Thanks. This reason should be icluded in the article. --grin

It seems to work. What are you guys talking about. See [1]. I included a {{msg:BackLinkTest}} in my Sandbox and it is clearly linked. We don't know what links to MediaWiki:BackLinkTest, but why should we need to as long as the message contains a link to the stub article. Dori | Talk 21:18, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

It works at least for finding that it's being used on Wikipedia:Sandbox2 and if you edit User:Grin/touched after the msg. -- User:Docu

Thanks for ruining my test. :-( You completely lost my point: if you change the text of the WikiMedia text you have to go and edit every articles containing that msg to update the links! You going to edit every stubd everytime someone changes the message? Got the point? --grin

Dori, the point is that we need to know which pages contain the {{msg:BackLinkTest}} text and there is no way of finding that if you use msg. For example, the Find and fix a stub page lets you find stub by clicking what links here. If people add a stub note using msg, that stub page won't be shown on that list, so no-one will be able to find and fix it. Angela . 21:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can find Grin's test with Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/work or Search: msg+BackLinkTest, isn't this sufficient? -- User:Docu

But Angela, as long as the stub message contains a link to stub, you can find the stub pages by doing a what links here on that page. There is no need to do it on the Template:Stub page. Dori | Talk 21:34, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

(Note: Grin creates a page User:Grin/tmp with msg:BackLinkTest, then updates MediaWiki:BackLinkTest to link to User:Grin/touched instead of User:Grin/work -- User:Docu)

Yes, it is the same if you include the msg:stub in 65535 article, then change the stub message to link to a (probably different) page. The result is that article will show a link to newlink, but whatlinkshere/newlink won't show the article; whatlinkshere/oldlink will show the article instead even if it's not linked to anymore. This is the effect of changing the msg after it has been included to articles. --grin

Please, Dori, check what happened. Docu actually CHANGED the article containing the msg!! (And thus ruined the test! manually updated the backlink reference.) So, now, people, stay away from changing my userspace.

So... now, go on, Dori, and try to find who references user:grin/touched. Don't CHANGE anything. Just find it. (Yep, I know that it's on grin/tmp, since I have put it there, but you can't find it. Right? --grin

Sorry Grin, I still see grin/tmp listed from Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/work. Dori | Talk 22:12, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Dori, did you read what I told you? try to find who references user:grin/touched! Not tmp or work. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/touched, whether it shows you. (You should see grin/tmp/.) --grin

If the page isn't edited it doesn't work. Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Grin/touched does not list User:Grin/tmp, even though User:Grin/tmp does have a link to the touched article. Angela . 21:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and you probably cannot expect every stub getting edited after every change of msg:stub... --grin

With SUBST, it wouldn't work either .. For most messages, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

For stubs the non-updating could even help. You could change the message once a week to allow the following to add links:

-- User:Docu

Exactly! Using subst:stub does not bring any advantage to using msg:stub. Either you see the stubs in Whatlinkshere with both, or with neither. Dori | Talk 22:12, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

False. --grin

I don't understand the latter. The first part is easy: if you use subs, then it is obvious where the article points to, since it's the same as you see. If you use msg, it "remembers" the point in time when msg was inserted while the text of the article reflects the newest version. So What You See Is Not What You Get. --grin

(Note: this message was moved by Docu from above (Dori's message of 22:12, Dec 14, 2003) to below this message as it had been posted afterwards. --User:Docu)

The limit of 500 stubs being shown with Whatlinkshere can be avoided by using different redirects to the stub page. --User:Docu

I see. Thanks.

I included the summary in the article. It's the general case, not about stubs on en: in particular. Thanks for Angela, Docu and Dori to make me see the light. --grin

Well, you just convinced me that {{msg:opentask}} might not be a good idea. -- User:Docu

I have posted a proposal on the bottom of meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion on a way to get the desired functionality of msg: without the backlink problems, plus get some other useful things, while actually decreasing the load on servers. Please read and comment. Zocky 18:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recommendations

I've developed some recommendations for subst vs. msg -- please let me know if you have any counter suggestions.—Eloquence 09:20, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with what you've written. In light of this, should we be recommending that CompactTOC be a MSG candidate, which is your recommendation for stuff which is going to stick around forever.

I can also see an advantage to using MSG for CompactTOC (and similar) in that if the page is to be copied+translated to another WikiPedia, the equivalent custom message will automagically be included in the new article in the appropriate form. Phil 12:43, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how people use these TOCs, but if there's a need to edit them to match the page content (add numbers, remove letters etc.) they would have to use SUBST.—Eloquence 12:50, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

One of us is misunderstanding. I am under the impression that the MediaWiki namespace is not shared between the various languages wikis, but appears within each one. So for each different language wiki there will be a customised Template:CompactTOC. So if we use MSG the translated article will automagically refer to the CompactTOC in the new language. ISRTBC^TM. Phil 13:29, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking and I might have misunderstood what you were saying. in which case my reply would be: the whole idea of this mechanism is to standardise messages. If we need a CompactTOC with numbers added, someone should produce a MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithNumbers. I am definitely against removing letters from a CompactTOC simply because there isn't an entry there right now. HTH. Phil 14:09, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

There won't be any automagic translations unless someone writes them -- CompactTOC is a custom message, it's not part of the standard MediaWiki distribution. So someone on fr:, for example, would have to manually create a page with the same title, Template:CompactTOC, to write a translation that could be used transparently. Other than that, you are correct. My argument is that CompactTOCs are more an element of the article than an element about the article, and therefore may need to be edited, for whatever reason, and for that, SUBST would be appropriate.—Eloquence 14:20, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

subst:stub vs msg:stub

Why is the stub message {{msg:stub}} instead of {{subst:stub}}? If it's to ensure consistency if the stubnote is changed, then what about the previous countless stubs which do not use {{stub}} in any case? Should it be changed back to {{subst:stub}}? Dysprosia 11:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather change the existing ones to msg. For example, I am somewhat opposed to the "perfect stub article" link (because it's misleadingly placed), but updating this would be a pain without msg. In the long run, I'm sure we can get all the old footers converted.—Eloquence

Yes, can we please settle this question once and for all. Erik makes a good point, but I am not sure whether there is still an issue with What links here (see above discussion if you can make anything out of it). Dori | Talk 14:50, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, rather than try to handle everything under one heading, let's try taking things one item at a time.

I would like to propose that the stub text be inserted using the form {{msg:stub}}, and that the content of the corresponding MediaWiki page be protected and only changed by consensus. As a corollary, efforts should be made to change all existing stub notices to conform to this method. -Anthropos 15:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I would object to that proposal unless we can be sure that the "what links here" option will continue to work. After all, one of the main purposes of the stub message is to be able to track stubs. Dori | Talk 15:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

As best as I can tell the "what links here" will work with the msg form, except that if after you place a msg that includes a link, you then change the MediaWiki namespace definition so that the msg text has a differnt link, those pages with the msg in it will not be updated (WRT what links here) until edited.

Ok, that's about as clear as granite. Let's use an example. Right now, if you use the {{msg:stub}} syntax, there are two links included: one to Wikipedia:The perfect stub article and one to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub. The software is smart enough to actually remember those links, even though the text with the links is not saved with the article. Now, let's say you put {{msg:stub}} into the article Humpaluphagus, then change the text at Template:stub so that instead of linking to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, it links to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. When a user looks at Humpaluphagus, they will then see and use the updated stub text, and could then link to vfd. However, if you went to "what links here" on vfd, it would not show Humpaluphagus, until someone edited Humpaluphagus. Note that any edit will do, so long as it changes the page in some way. (hmmm...that may be as clear as, say, sandstone)

In summary, {{msg:stub}} will work, and "what links here" will work, until and unless we change the Template:stub definition in such a way that it links somewhere different, at which point any pages with the {{msg:stub}} syntax will need to be updated in some way in order for "what links here" to properly show those pages.

Note that we can change the Template:stub any way we want with no ill effect, so long as we don't change the links. If we were to decide to do that (keep the links unchanged), then {{msg:stub}} will work fine.

Personally, I think the advantages of using the msg format far outweigh the disadvantages. And it's likely that, at some point in the future, if it becomes a major issue, a special piece of software could be written to update the recorded links associated with msg's.

-Anthropos 02:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By the way, who protected Template:stub and other messages? It's not writen neither in Wikipedia:Protected page nor in talk page. And it's not monitored in hostory.

As I think there is no problem with leaving system pages unprotected. But if there will be problems this is some possible solution: create a feature of 'Attention' page, such that the event of change will appear in a special list (or simply displayed bold and colored in Recent Changes) and everybody will notice. Then changes of this pages may have timeout before they are really applied. I think 1 hour is enough. During that period, everybody can veto. Veto means that page will remain in its present form (both, edit and veto, should be traced in history). I think such conservative method is what we need for messages. --Ilya 05:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Improvement: let's simply add possibility to watch message pages. When somebody creates a page with {{msg:stub}} and checks 'Watch' he automatically starts watching Template:Stub. Then I, for example, track all changes in my watch list. I check it every hour. If there are always about 10 me at the same time, we all check it every 6 minutes :) so we can set timeout 20 minutes. That's all --Ilya 05:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ilya, the MediaWiki messages are protected by default.

Thank you. It is not that i critisize making pages protected. Here I asked for some procedural question -- like judge asking what are the identities of witnesses. --Ilya 15:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think they should be protected because they're part of the interface. As for the custom messages, that's up to those who create them. As for stub, as was mentioned above all it would take is for one vandal to change the link, and everything is messed up. How could we leave it unprotected? If someone wants a change made, they should discuss it anyway. All they have to do is leave a message here, and if it's reasonable, an admin will make the change. It's not a big deal. Regular editors can't edit the main page either because of the same visibility issue, but it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.Dori | Talk 07:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I could go along with using msg if it is decided that the link should not be changed and that the page stays protected. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to use subst. Dori | Talk 07:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

There's no need for a "the link should not be changed" dogma. It should be relatively simple to do a scripted refresh in case it is changed. In any case, please follow whatever is decided to be community policy to avoid edit wars. I do agree that the page, like most MediaWiki pages, should be protected.—Eloquence

Althoiugh I don't think we really need this protection - because of reasons discussed above - let it be so. At least for messages I do not object. Still, I think that for other pages, the mechanism of timeouts is more appropriate. --Ilya 15:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's Make A Decision!

Can we try to come to some sort of consensus on whether to use {{subst:stub}} or {{msg:stub}}? The alternate is to have at least three different methods all being used. I'm not a sysop, so I don't know if I can call an official vote, but at least as a staw poll (sign below the option you prefer)

Use {{subst:stub}}, Template:stub unprotected

Use {{subst:stub}}, mediaWiki:stub protected

Use {{msg:stub}}, Template:stub unprotected

Use {{msg:stub}}, Template:stub protected

Anthropos
—Eloquence
Dori (as long as a permanent, innocuous link to Template:stub is included)
Evil saltine
Zocky, in the current setup, see below for additional comment
Angela
Timwi
Ilya
Phil 14:48, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC) (then use my search suggestion to find them all)

Some other option

Thanks! -Anthropos 21:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any dissent, but this vote should clear that up.—Eloquence

By the way Anthropos, sysops do not have any more say on an issue than a regular editor. They just have some more priviledges listed here. Dori | Talk 22:26, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky's feature proposal/request and associated comments moved to m:Message substitution