Not sure what happened here Wikipedia:Sandbox? May have been a talk about redoing layout adding tabs? Would have brought this up on its talk but iit is also a sandbox (where to talk about sandbox?).

To thw point..... Not only does it look very bad, but its an accessibility nightmare.

Tabs look horrible...2 tabs are using the strike parameter for those using the strike out usernames gadget...word "sandbox" is reapted over and over making tabs huge for no reason.

Main problem is the accessibility of the sandbox message that is a wall of text that is not clear as to what to click.start. Tabs cause whole page to have vertical scroll bar for some. Why so many sandboxes and some with odd space in naming i.e Wikipedia talk Sandbox? Why link Module:Sandbox that is template editor level protected? Looks messy and a bit overwhelming for new editors Moxy🍁 06:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The tabs were added in this edit to Template:Sandbox header by Awesome Aasim. – Joe (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess that is what WP:BRD is for.

I self reverted for now and we can discuss which tabs, if at all, are worth keeping. The perspective for a new user is that there should be a way to jump between the different sandboxes. If you want the tabs to read something else, well... ((sandbox heading/Tabs)). Awesome Aasim 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

2 tabs are using the strike parameter for those using the strike out usernames gadget probably because User:Sandbox and User_talk:Sandbox are both user pages of a blocked demonstration account. It shouldn't be like that; maybe it should only be struck out, etc. in contributions and history pages and not on content pages. Hmm.... Awesome Aasim 06:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially related, but I've made a request at Template talk:Page tabs#Tab background color to change the default tab colors so it meets the MOS:CONTRAST accessibility guidelines. hinnk (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no way to track template substitutions without adding code to templates that adds tracking marks to the template's output, and some bot watching for these marks. Aside from all that overhead, these marks may make use of this mechanism impossible in some cases.

Tracking substitutions should be a comparatively simple modification to MediaWiki. When a template gets substitued, just increment the appropriate per-template counter, which could be accessed through a magic word. If you want to get fancy, you can add a list of the substitutions performed for this edit to its page history entry.

Having such a counter would be useful when a template is up for discussion, and to help gage when protection is appropriate. So, why not make a feature request? Paradoctor (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Support - I can see the use of this when templates are rarely transcluded, but nearly always used by substitution. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What would happen when a template is substituted in one edit, and that edit is subsequently reverted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should that be an issue? Paradoctor (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably nothing, if the intent is to understand how often a template is substituted (and thus how "important" a template is, and thus whether it should be protected/watched). That the resulting text was subsequently reverted doesn't change that the substitution happened.

It seems like a slightly useful feature to me.

The only thing I would question is whether we have any evidence of an actual problem that needs solving. I suspect most of the commonly substituted templates are well known, like ((afd)), and are already recognised as high risk. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We have evidence that we don't know. That is the point here. Paradoctor (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that if the important templates were being vandalised, we would probably have noticed that. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why make editors do guesswork when a machine will do the same far more accurately, for free? Paradoctor (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I get it, that’s why I said it was slightly useful. It would be a good feature. Just a low priority one unless there’s a material problem that it would fix. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not using "What links here"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what is being said here is that when the template is substituted, it isn't being linked or contacted in any way (because its content is being posted). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Paradoctor: This isn't something that we would be implementing directly here on the English Wikipedia. It would require extending the database to maintain a new page value (or more likely a new linked table) - keeping in mind almost any page can be "transcluded". So if you want every parser call to ((subst:X)) to increment a counter referenced to page X, you will indeed need to open a feature request upstream for that. Feel free to do so, there are lots of ideas opened that way. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  why not make a feature request?[1] Sometimes I wonder why I bother to say anything at all. Paradoctor (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  And? You are asking for reasons why you shouldn't go make a feature request? We didn't come up with any, so go right ahead. While this page's guidelines do ask for Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator. to be discussed here, what I called out is that this type of software change isn't the type that will require community consensus. It would have no impact on readers, and no direct impact on editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  What's the mechanism by which page saves get run through edit filters? Presumably there is something being carried out there which is capable of evaluating whether a thing's been done or not -- I don't know, maybe it's impossible to detect if template text is being expanded or not, but it seems kind of simple to me. At the very least it shoudl be possible to detect if ((subst: is being added, right? jp×g🗯️ 18:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, no bigbrain comments on how this fits into the mw db schema or anything, but one issue with this does jump out to me, which is that this seems like it would fail to reflect if the template were removed later. Like, if there is some template that's getting substed 80 times a day in 2024, then we decide it's inefficient and stop using it completely in 2025, wouldn't a ((TOTALSUBSTCOUNT)) in 2026 be kind of misleading? jp×g🗯️ 18:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  You just gave me an idea. Let me get back to you tomorrow. Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Is this something we really need to track? Personally, I hate our over-reliance on templates, and would be happy to deprecate all of them. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  You mean, no templates at all? 🤯 Paradoctor (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have recently noticed that @Liz has reverted my edits on blocked sockpuppet User:JayCubby for adding the ((Sockmaster)) tag on the userpage. The template page itself states that it is reserved for administrator and checkusers only, however I believe that it should be open to use for everyone in good faith who attempt to save others' time by putting this template on a blocked sock's user page to help improve the encyclopedia. I propose that the rules on that template be changed to accomodate this requirement. 2003 LN6 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Primefac as original blocker. 2003 LN6 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do you mean, "help improve the encyclopedia"? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:It would save time for editors wanting to know exactly why the user was blocked and when. This way, they would not need to go into their contribs and find out themselves. 2003 LN6 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So why propose this for just sock blocks if the intention is to save time on finding why a user was blocked? Not that I want it called out on the user page for everybody, but I'm just saying, why stop there if that's the goal? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There's probably an appropriate amount of information on the talk page for that purpose. The global lock reasons also raise significant questions. These tags can sometimes be useful to help locate the correct SPI/LTA page for finding, reporting and actioning repeat customers where it's not entirely obvious (carefully balanced with WP:DENY), but for someone who just made a mistake it's overkill with little utility. Not only might it oversimplify a complex situation, it may even overcomplicate a simple situation. Whatever the case, I don't really see how the tags would really help with anything here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Template documentation isn't policy and while non-admins/non-clerks are informally discouraged from tagging socks, in practice most will look the other way if the tagging is reasonable. But there are various situations where we will choose not to tag in the interests of WP:DENY, discretion, or not oversimplifying a complex situation. I would not have tagged this account and I would suggest you find a more interesting thing to do on Wikipedia than applying tags to user pages. Spicy (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed; there are more productive things for editors to do than go around tagging blocked users' pages. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Spicy: Thank you for your explanation. Why would it be discouraged from tagging this user particularly? You have explained that it is generally fine if the tagging is reasonable and I believe that my use of the tag was reasonable. 2003 LN6 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Making a fuss about blocked users is not helpful. People who deal with socks are quite capable of tagging where they believe there is a benefit. There might be many reasons a particular page is not tagged and discussing details is a waste of time and the opposite of WP:DENY. One example of why a sock might not be tagged is that we just want them to find another hobby and avoid righting-great-wrongs at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Non-admin tagging of socks presents a few problems. 1: It doesn't improve the experience for the reader in any way whatsoever, so there is no pressing need for a tag to be applied immediately, if at all. 2: Mistakes are often made, which raises WP:CIVILity issues, and causes drama that admin often have to deal with. 3:Admins are accountable to the community, non-admin/IPs are not, so the labeling of someone as a chronic policy violator should be limited to admin only, the majority of the time. There are several reasons why admin choose to NOT tag some socks, including WP:DENY, which can be based on non-public information that non-admins don't have access to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• @2003 LN6: I'd just like to point out, since maybe you missed it, that you tagging accounts as socks (in this case before they were even blocked) had already caused confusion for the administrator who blocked them in this ANI thread(it caused one of the socks to not be blocked): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#Sockpuppet?
  The admin, @Drmies, had also asked you to leave the tagging of socks to admins or SPI clerks, as well: Special:Diff/1218557430. – 143.208.238.41 (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your comments. I appreciate the feedback and will conform to these guidelines in the future. 2003 LN6 19:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)