Template talk:str left

Ridiculously heavy templates imported from Wikipedia that attempt to manipulate strings by using padright tens of thousands of times. --Yair rand (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather keep them, and use them for templates of categories. --Daniel. 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I would also be happy if alternatively mw:Extension:StringFunctions could be installed here. --Daniel. 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The devs have made it pretty clear that none of the Wikimedia wikis are ever going to get string functions. --Yair rand (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By my understanding, that's only partly true. The devs take issue with some specific aspects of that extension, but they're not opposed to the entire concept of string-functions. IINM, it's considered likely that a significant subset of its functions will eventually be incorporated into the ParserFunctions extension (which is installed here). —Ruakh TALK 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, , and . (I'd be fine with deleting the other two as well, but they actually aren't very expensive, so I don't terribly mind if we keep them.) —Ruakh TALK 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, because of the way they're implemented, these templates are also quite limited: can only search the first 50 characters (which limit can be raised, but only by making the template commensurately more expensive), and  and  only support a very limited character set (which set can be made less limited, but only by making the template commensurately more expensive). —Ruakh TALK 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support of what Ruakh said. DAVilla 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I've been using this extensively to add inflection tables. It removes the last letters of a word to produce a stem for inflection. For example, in the word hevonen, the following:

Produces:

I had valuable help on this from Yair rand. ~ heyzeuss 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can guarantee any of these templates only be used substed, I wouldn't mind keeping it. I suppose using the subst: trick that ensures that, protecting the page, and adding notes to the talkpage and documentation indicating that the templates must remain nontranscludable will do. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be O.K. with that as well. —Ruakh TALK 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly. That would have pulled the rug out from under me!  :)   ~ heyzeuss 06:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, also delete and delete or fix . —Ruakh TALK 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added those headers, above, now. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete str find, str index, str sub, and str len, per others' comments. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) &larr; This opinion has been qualified; see my comments, above, of 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk)
 * Keep Template:wide image/sandbox, but do not use in NS:0. It's a sandbox. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now deleted, , and ; kept and ; kept  but rendered it unusable except for subst:ing, and kept  per Mglovesfun, but noting that it's no longer used anywhere in mainspace and will no longer work now that  and  are gone. —Ruakh TALK 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)