Wikipedia talk:Noinclude considered harmful

So how is it considered harmful? Talrias (t | e | c) 15:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I've just spent some time fixing talk pages that had inappropriate categorization or formatting in them, because someone subst'ed in a template there when the template contained a lengthy 'help' section under noinclude. That's what template talk pages are for. Noinclude sometimes does things that people don't expect it to, because people don't take subst'ing into account. That doesn't mean that one should never use noinclude, but that one should think twice and not use it blindly. Radiant_>|< 16:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you put this (and expand on it) on the main page so people can see why it's a bad idea to overuse noinclude? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does this flaw exist?

I've seen the problems that this can cause, and I'm wondering why the developers don't fix the software. (Obviously, template substitution should automatically omit the <noinclude> section.) Has this issue been brought to their attention? —Lifeisunfair 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Radiant_>|< 10:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed in CVS. -- Tim Starling 10:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's fixed in CVS, why don't you close the bug on bugzilla? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do so yourself? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a developer. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't work quite right. See this diff. The old version is the result of {{subst:deletiontools}}, the new the result of copying in Template:deletiontools' source and manually removing the <noinclude> section. (Yes, yes, I know, I should report it at bugzilla, but I don't have a throwaway email account handy, and my spam filters are strained as it is.) —Cryptic (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.sneakemail.com ? — Omegatron 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)