Template talk:Ucfirstletter

Better code?
Should this template use  instead? And why should it be subst-only? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's different from the basic ucfirst function in that it acts on the first letter rather than the first character of any type. I figured it should be subst-only as I couldn't really think of a case where you'd want to transclude it, except for the apparent infobox issue, but I could be wrong. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 16:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re substing: Using a template in an article is a lot easier for most editors to understand than an obscure module invocation. Also, if you find that there is a better way to implement this functionality, all you have to do is fix the template rather than going through every article to update it. Unrelated: The new name is an improvement; thanks for that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is solved with recursive substitution now. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;beyond&#8201;•&#8201;mutual 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Subst-only
So are there any issues with using this template or Lcfirstletter without subst-ing? I would like to use it in an infobox. — HTGS (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are using it in an infobox, you're (technically) using it in the template space; this is done frequently, especially for #switch statements. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh right... duh. Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess what I really want to know is why the template should be substed? And also, should the bot be substing it in template space? — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question first, the template is not auto-subst, so a bot won't be subst'ing it anywhere. As to your first question, see the thread above. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I should have been more upfront, I came here because I saw there was already some discussion, but I was using Lcfirstletter, which I assumed was identical to this one, but appears to use, rather than Substitution on its doc. See bot’s substitution in template space here: . Is it reasonable to change that doc to match this one?
 * Re above thread, I only saw I figured it should be subst-only as I couldn't really think of a case where you'd want to transclude it, which doesn’t really make sense to me after reading ’s rationale. I’m really just a novice template editor, so I’m asking questions, but maybe I should be saying “Can we just remove the suggestion to subst these templates?” — HTGS (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * shrugs. A lot of template "preferred use cases" are based on local consensus and/or a single person making a change and either no one noticing or caring. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)