Template talk:NOTOC

Why subst?

Why should it be subst'ed? EEng 01:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I’m pretty sure transcluding a template with a magic word takes up more bandwidth than using the magic word directly. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 03:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like to hear that from a techie. See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. EEng 03:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

See also Help:Substitution#When to use substitution (the template is here as long as the code itself, when is substituted, so there is no benefit at all with the template, but there are more problems than the performance problems, i.e. if an article gets translated into another language, where there are no such templates, but only the code itself), Why is the use of magic word templates discouraged? and Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted

Please add the [[Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted]] to the page, so that bots can substitute all transclusions, as the template says. It should never have so many transclusions anyway, it is in the Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates. And this template doesn't need to be protected, because it should have no transclusions at all. When the bots will have substituted all transclusions, it can be unprotected again.

See Help:Substitution#When to use substitution, discussion Why is the use of magic word templates discouraged?. See also Template:FORCETOC which has a red error message for the right syntax and no transclusions at all. This should also be the case for this template. Only to write "This template should always be substituted" on the template page is not enough. People copy the code from other articles, and that is the reason that there are so many transclusions now which never should be there.

And see especially the deletion discussions Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_27#Template:NOTOC with the result delete (has been deleted in 2007 and there has been no discussion to restore it after the deletion discussion) and another discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_16#Template:NOEDITSECTION. That very similar simple magic word template Template:NOEDITSECTION still is deleted, why is this one so often trancluded in opposite to the deletion discussion and all other pages saying the opposite? This template always makes problems in articles which are translated into other languages, and there is no benefit at all. In my opinion, it should better get deleted again, but if a bot automatically substitutes the transclusions, that can also be a solution for the problems. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

See also User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force#Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2019 for the bot to substitute the transclusions which are already there. After these first substitutions, it should do that directly after each wrong template use, so people will learn better, how to use it in the right way. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage.. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done and then  Undone. Rather than adding the category manually, you should set |auto=yes in the {{subst only}} statement on the doc subpage. However, according to the doc, this won't do anything yet since there are over 100 transclusions. If the other request is approved and no one makes the change here, then it would be okay to add it in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done, both requests. — JFG ^talk 03:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)