Template talk:Always substitute

Streamline wording

The notice is too complex for such a simple message. There's no other way to substitute a template other than to use "subst:"", so there's so need to use i.e., . I propose changing it from this:

to this {{Always substitute/sandbox}}:

With this change, the bolding would also be consistent with similar templates such as {{Substitution}}:

Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts would be that one thing I've learned over the years is that verbs that end in "ing" tend to be on the weak side, so I usually avoid them in order to strengthen verbiage, especially wording that shows people what to do. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I like your version! FaviFake (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Substitution attribution

I suggest adding a warning to the message that any substitution must be accompanied with at least a link (as a part of a sufficient attribution) to the latest template revision (e. g. [[special:PermanentLink/XXXXXXXX]]) that is being substituted in the edit summary (according to the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing_text_within_Wikipedia). The notice should have a link to the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy or to the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

Currently, many messages intended to be posted on user talk pages don't have such warnings, and editors might have substituted them without any attribution. But any template is distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, so copying its text or creating derivatives from it (adapting) within Wikipedia requires attribution, unless it is not copyrightable. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

While I support the idea of being able to trace user warnings/welcomes/etc, we should not mandate backlinks via hidden comment. Off the top of my head I know {{G-d}} is a subst-only template designed for the article space; we should not be adding hidden comments for this sort of template. Primefac (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 11 May 2026

Change the link from Help: Substitution to WP: Substitution. The former is the technical manual of the substitution function, while the latter is intended for normal readers. This link caused confusion at Help_talk:Substitution#c-Pyxis_Solitary-20260511093700-Redrose64-20260509164100. FaviFake (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. You wanted to merge the two pages six months ago and were reverted, and there seems to be no consensus at the linked discussion to make this change here. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

... What does the merge have to do with this?!

@Pyxis Solitary and @Redrose64, as participants in § Can someone explain how to substitute a template in PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH, would you support this proposal, to avoid sending users to the technical documentation manual and instead send them to the page that explains what substitution is and when it's used? FaviFake (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"Help:Substitution" should not be the name of a technical manual page. The habit of naming technical pages "help pages" is a sinkhole. If Wikipedia is meant for the general public, then anything titled "Help" should be intended for general editors, instead of editors who already have a knowledge of the technical subject. To paraphrase Lily Tomlin's character Ernestine: We don't care. We don't have to. We're Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 10:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

We also can't keep an official guideline in the Help: namespace, which is why WP:Substitution is in the Wikipedia: namespace. Help:Substitution is in a different namespace because the other page in the WP namespace is already occupied by the guideline.

But this is unrelated to this request; you can propose changing the title of the manual at WP:RM. Which page do you think should be linked to from the template below? WP:Substitution or Help:Substitution? FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

We also can't keep an official guideline in the Help: namespace

Says who?

Does this change from Help namespace to Wikipedia namespace make a substantial change? You need to learn to pick your battles here. – The Grid (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do y'all keep bringing up irrelevant points? Sure, whatever, it can be moved. This is not RM, it's an edit request to change the link from the manual to the guideline, however they're called. Do you agree or disagree? FaviFake (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac @Pyxis Solitary @The Grid Regardless of how the pages are currently called, which I agree makes no sense, can you please state your !votes on this one narrow question below?

We should change the link so that it doesn't point to a technical manual for the MediWiki substitution function, but rather to a page that explains in laypeople terms what substituting a template means. FaviFake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The subst function has always been something that requires a bit of knowledge in programming to understand. I don't think a MediaWiki link would be confusing. Your argument is based on one conversation.

Also, you made an edit to Help:Substitution with an alert box to WP:SUBST. I don't see where "a page that explains in laypeople terms" applies here. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The subst function has always been something that requires a bit of knowledge in programming to understand.
Which is why we have two pages, one simple and one for programmers and power users.
I don't think a MediaWiki link would be confusing
I meant that the Help: page explains the inner workings of the subst: function on MediaWiki. What are you referring to?
Your argument is based on one conversation
You can read the pages yourself....
Also, you made an edit to Help:Substitution with an alert box to WP:SUBST
To help people who who land on this page by accident, which is a large number of people because the link in {{always subst}} is to the manual rather than the guideline.
I don't see where "a page that explains in laypeople terms" applies here.
What do you mean? FaviFake (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a timesink. – The Grid (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your help as always. FaviFake (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I am mostly indifferent, but note that the "Usage" section is fairly clear, and with the addition of the WP link at the top of the Help page should mitigate any lingering issues. If there's a reasonable consensus to make this change, though, I'm not going to stand in the way. Primefac (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, nobody has expressed a clear !vote yet, despite my many attempts.

I'll stop attempting then. FaviFake (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

So much for trying to improve the wiki, Primefac. I think this is the first time I've been compelled to use WP:IAR in this way. FaviFake (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)