UDWiki:Open Discussion/ParserFunctions extension

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Notice

This is NOT a policy discussion. This is an Open Discussion about an issue regarding the wiki. Please treat it as such and contribute with that in mind.

It's no problem to install it - my only concerns about installing Parser Functions are whether it'll significantly affect server load (for a wiki with this much traffic and talk and templated signatures), and the exciting new avenues of vandalism that it would open up.
I really don't know enough about the latest version of the extension to make a call on it, though, so if people want to have an arguments for-and-against discussion about it, I'll follow it and take a look. 

-- Kevan 11:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm no wiki-maven, but I like to dabble in interesting and/or experimental projects, and I can never resist the call to solve some difficult project. However, on more then one occasion, I've come up against a brick wall when attempting some really scathingly brilliant ideas. Specifically, the fact that we don't have the fairly basic ParserFunctions extension installed on this wiki.

"What is this ParserThingamabob", you ask? To make some uncredited quotes, it's a MediaWiki extension that would "make it possible to create truly dynamic templates", "allow basic dynamic parsing without resorting into excessive and redundant templating to duplicate the functions in the extension", and "reduce the amount of work and count of needed templates and template calls". Good stuff, huh?

In my own scope of interest, it would enable the automatic flagging of outdated information, or the ability to automatically change status information to indicate that it's obsolete (for example, having locations in the NT Status Map switch to "Unknown" 10 days after the last report, without requiring a manual edit). That, and some other cool stuff, that would improve various features on the wiki, while reducing the amount of maintenance required. What the real wiki-coders out there could do with it, I can't even imagine...

However, the ParserFunctions extension has the potential to increase server load, if over used or used improperly, and there may be other concerns as well. Either way, I'd like to have a discussion about it, and see if the potential benefits would justify risking any negatives that it might bring about. I'd suggest that the actual discussing take place on the Talk page, and then any points of consensus for or against can be summarized here. --Morgan Blair 05:40, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Final Consensus?

Well, since discussion seems to have wound down, how about we wrap this up, and determine what the final opinion on the matter is? If you're new to this discussion, read up on it here. I'll put a few opinions down, just sign your name below one of the headers that matches your position (and if I've missed something obvious, go ahead and add it).

Obviously, consensus or no, it's still just an opinion... --Morgan Blair 00:56, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Don't want it; Don't need it

Sign here if you're of the opinion that the ParserFunctions extension is both an unwanted and unneeded addition to the wiki:

1. (First signature goes here)

Want it; Can't have it

Sign here if you're of the opinion that the ParserFunctions extension would be a desirable addition to the wiki, but that its potential server load increase would be too significant to justify installing it:

1. If (as it seems) Kevin feels there is not the needed server overhead, then that's good enough for me to accept its not do-able. While I DO want it, I also suspect a lot of the projects that this would most benefit (such as SIM) would work better on stand-alone servers (I'm working on one for that, in fact). People (myself included) just (understandably) lack the time or skills to implement them that way as quickly as they can be done on the wiki.  Swiers 02:32, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Want it; Would try it

Sign here if you're of the opinion that the ParserFunctions extension would be a desirable addition to the wiki, and that the possibility of server load increases being within a tolerable amount warrants trying it out:

1. If it was installed, I'd suggest that we craft a guideline regarding their use, so that parser functions are limited to those occasions where their use is both necessary and useful (no frivolous usage, like in signature templates). --Morgan Blair 00:56, 23 May 2008 (BST)
2. The amount of time it would save in various fiddly jobs such as danger reports, revive points, SIM, etc, more than outweighs the possible cons. I do respect that it would involve an increase in server load, however a decent set of guidelines and policies would hopefully limit that to a minimum by reserving them only for particular uses that are of benefit to the wiki. -- Cheese 01:11, 23 May 2008 (BST)
3. I don't know how much I will use it, but I'm sure it can help others. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:37, 23 May 2008 (BST)
4. The massive advantages to be gained in terms of timesaving easily make this a desirable feature. I doubt the server load could possibly increase to unwanted levels. I'm all for this. --  RoosterDragon  01:48, 23 May 2008 (BST)
5. Wiki needs progress regardless of server load. --Tumu 16:40, 23 May 2008 (BST)
6. I'd like to try it. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:24, 26 May 2008 (BST)
7. As a regular over at the MIC, I appreciate the possibilities. While I'm unsure of the total server impact, I'm definitely in favor of at least a trial run. --Pedentic 03:45, 3 June 2008 (BST)
8. You find some Parser extensions, They seem quite shiny. _■^■ 03:32, 2 July 2008 (BST)
9. Given how many possible applications there are for the data that exists on the site, I think these functions would be invaluable. They would also simplify some existing pages by removing the need for complex nested templates and meta-templates. --Zhani 03:55, 29 August 2008 (BST)
10. bump Came across this page when I wanted to find out if these functions were installed. I'm all in favour here. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)