This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Edit Links to pages with <noinclude> tags around preceding sections don't work
I created a page on Wikia where there were four titles (e.g. ===Title===), and the first two were contained in 'no include' tags, because I didn't want to transclude the introductory text.
On the target page, the transcluded titles still had edit links next to them, but clicking on those edit links caused you to edit one of the two preceding non-transcluded sections, rather than the subsequent two transcluded sections.
I'm being a bit thick but how does one un-transclude. In particular how do I delete categories from my user page? (Ajkgordon 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
You have to figure out which of the templates you have used transcludes the categorization code that you wish to remove. When you have a page in edit mode you can see a list of all templates (including templates transcluded within other templates) that the page applies underneath the edit window. Then looking into the source code of different templates will reveal the template responsible for adding you to the category in question. __meco 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Transclude special pages?
It doesn't appear possible to tranclude a special page, e.g. Special:Version doesn't pull in the Special:Version page. Is this by design, and is there any way around this?
Nope, there's no way around it. Some but not all special pages can be transcluded, like {{special:recentchanges/2}} gives the last 2 recent changes:
I just noticed that WP:TRANS redirects here, whereas WP:Trans redirects to a "translator's" page. Consistency is preferred. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just a caching issue: the appearance of your userpage is cached by the servers to improve performance. When you update your status indicator, the system notes that all the pages on which that template is trancluded need to be recached. So they're put into the job queue... which is currently about 8 million articles long. If you left everything alone, your page would eventually be recached... in a week or so. To force an immediate recache and ensure your userpage displays correctly, you just need to do a null edit to your userpage after you update the template. Happy‑melon 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I had figured out that workaround... I guess it's sub-optimal but necessary. Thanks for the response! edit: oh, I see that a null edit is actually different than a dummy edit, which I was doing. that's even better. thank you again. xenocidic (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Transclusion of part of article only -- please answer us!
I am now the third commenter on this page asking how to transclude only a part of an article. The previous two got no answer. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, looks like the # URL syntax is not supported. Neither are categories. I can't imagine a reason that sections would not eventually be supported (assuming they actually have # syntax in the output). — robbiemuffinpagetalk 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This question was answered a while ago. Look at the article under "partial transclusion". Emmanuelm (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to transclude an EasyTimeline and treat it as an image with a frame & centering. Is this possible and what would the syntax be? Dhatfield (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding div around transcluded content
I have a wiki where pages consist of snippets transcluded from different namespaces. Now I would like to format the content differently depending on which namespace the content comes from. So I would like the transcluded text to be enclosed in <div id=namespace> </div> so they may be formatted by CSS.
I know it can be done through a template but I would like to have it in an extension. Is there anything like this?
{{NAMESPACE}}? Why do you not want it in a template but in an extension? GaryKing (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Update on Summary articles via transcluded lead sections
You may remember I argued a while ago that the best form of summary article is a compilation of transcluded lead sections from main articles. At that time, I transcluded a lead in the United Nations article. It was well accepted until yesterday when someone replaced the transclusion with the actual text. I am discussing this move here. You may want to jump in. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to transclude articles with permalinks, so if we transclude with a permalink the article that gets included has always the same version?153.96.133.33 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia or Mediawiki
Why is this page in Wikipedia, not in Mediawiki ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.101.189 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Transcluding a limited number of "Recent Changes" for a WikiProject
I'm working to take the data from Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek and transclude it into this template for use on the main WP:TREK page. Is there a way to limit the transcluded entries to just show the last 25 changes? I've tried about everything I can think of without success. I'd also like to remove userpages / user talk pages from the list as well. -- Aatrek/TALK 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Odd rendering in Firefox 3.0.10 on Linux
Rather than getting the normal text on this page, Firefox 3.0.10 on Linux is putting odd markup in the rendered page. For instance, the first section of this article reads:
[...] Template transclusion is the common way to use template messages,
and is implemented by using a template tag, with the form:
?UNIQ4e7403944272ab47-nowiki-00000000-QINU?
Occasionally one may want to use a template, [....]
The same Firefox version on OS X renders correctly. -- 74.178.10.234 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Not for me :/ ~ Amory (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If I log in on Linux, the problem goes away and everything renders just fine. If I log out on OS X it still renders fine. -- Autopilot (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm this is happening to me under Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP SP3and IE6 (haven't updated IE yet...). No idea why, 94.3.174.167 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wording of first paragraph
I recommend changing "inclusion...into" either into "insertion...into" or "inclusion...within", whichever is more appropriate. Unfree (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The page is not protected, please be bold and make changes directly =) –xenotalk 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Plain English Definition of Transclusion
I am sorry, folks. I have read the definition of transclusion and the illustrations and examples of transclusion over and over and over, and I still don't understand what transclusion means. If I use a particular template to create an article or a list by using the Edit links on the template, is that transcluding?
I forgot to include my signature. Kathy (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the definition of transclusion is just showing the contents of one page inside of your wiki page. That way, as changes are made to the page you are transcluding, then the latest updates will show up on your page as well.
I think a good example would be a basic spreadsheet that has multiple links to other spreadsheets. For example, on the main spreadsheet, you might add the sum of two cells together (A+B). But cells A and B could be the results of formulas from other spreadsheet files (i.e. multiple layers) and the cells could even link to multiple cells if they're grouped. Maybe the word "transclusion" is just a complicated text-only word to describe the same type of link. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me "transclusion" is just a neologism for "incorporation". Unfree (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Transcluding a table row
It would be nice if you could transclude a table row. Dave Yost 13:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Transclusion is a concept developed by Ted Nelson, and some short & appropriate discussion of that would be nice, along to the general WP page on transclusion. KenThomas 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Along to" makes no sense to me. Does WP stand for Wikipedia? Unfree (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on many abuses
Does anyone know how many articles have been absolutely transcluded preventing bona fide users and non-logged users from editing typos etc.? This is really outrageous. 212.188.109.218 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Pathology
Pathology is no longer an example of tranclusion, which is confusing if one goes there to see how it is done. Occuli (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Transcluding Category Lists
Is it possible to transclude the whole category list? Ive tried {{:Category:Name}} and {{Category:Name}} and obviously the second one makes the category link - is this at all possible? --137.73.5.25 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If the categorytree extension is installed then you can do it by using{{#categorytree:Foo}}. I haven't found a way to do it without some extension or another.
216.27.139.90 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The category mechanism should never allow transclusion
If a page is transcluded without transclusion markup, it may cause an unintentional categorization. Any page transcluding it will contain the same category as the original page. Wrap the category markup with <noinclude> tags tags to prevent incorrect categorization.
But what if someone else finds it acceptable?
Should the one editor remove the other's <noinclude> tags?
It seems to me the category mechanism should never allow transclusion.
That should be left up to each page.
Bug fix: implicit <noinclude> tags for all [[Category]] mechanisms.
— CpiralCpiral 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Help:categorization#Templates and categorization is a partial help to the problem I probably misunderstand. Honestly, I haven't devoted the time to understand the transclusion of categories yet.
But I will answer this question of "should never" that I have proposed above, soon enough.
Meanwhile I was able to removed the following from the article:
If a page is transcluded without transclusion markup, it may cause an unintentional categorization. Any page transcluding it will contain the same category as the original page. Wrap the category markup with <noinclude> tags to prevent incorrect categorization.
and replaced it with a link to Help:categorization#Templates and categorization.
If a page is transcluded, <noinclude> category declarations.
It is important that the transluding page should declare it's own category on its page itself, visibly,
in case its category needs to be changed later. Failure to <noinclude> a category declaration
on a transcluded page means that the categories namespace is less maintainable, as category declarations are then buried,
hidden in a template or other transclusion.
The exceptions will be a temporary or maintenance transclusion whose sole purpose is to categorize,
such as some template pages. Template pages which categorize themselves
show a category declaration wrapped in noinclude tags. Template pages whose
purpose is to categorize transcluding pages will have onlyinclude tags around the category declaration.
— CpiralCpiral 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Problems with partial transclusions and page histories
I have come across dozens of pages that are completely transcluded, character by character or word by word, with the ostensible purport of denying casual (unlogged) readers even the possibility of correcting minor typos. This is the Glavlit at its worst. 212.188.109.6 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No, no Glavlit here; but if you give an example of an article that uses transclusion that way I may see what you mean. — CpiralCpiral 06:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For instance, 13th Guards Rifle Division (there are tons of pages using this technique!). When I click on "Edit this page" (I prefer not to log in) I am confronted with a flurry of transclusion templates. I really, really hate when something that is declared "free to edit" actually isn't. 212.188.109.155 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What's stopping you from editing the page? The transcluded templates only control the infoboxes at the top of the page. If you want to edit those infoboxes, edit the templates. If you want to edit the text of the article, just scroll down below the templates. —Lowellian (reply) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Worst feature" revisited
Revisiting this thread... today I started working on a personal project to organize and work on sets of related articles. The page structure I'm using goes something like this:
...on and on. I wanted to transclude the subpages into groups, and then transclude them all into the master (see the first few as a live example). However, when I click on many of the Edit links in the master view, I end up editing the {{User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles}} transclusion. Regardless if my design of doing this is piss poor (it probably is!), I just wanted to poke the capabilities and learn a bit. :) So, is there any way technically (through better methods, or some software switch I don't know about) to make the master view edit links edit the various source material the generates what's presented instead of the transclusions?
To be more precise... from here, when I click the Edit link next to the Articles section, the software takes me to edit User:Blaxthos/IBM#Articles (logically), whereas i want it to take me to edit User:Blaxthos/IBM/Articles (which is what is transcluded). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. Rearranged per suggestion and it appears to be working more or less as intended. I had a feeling there was some simple structure issue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the relationship
between transclusion, and linking, or similar ways not to fill up pages with words? PPdd (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what your question is exactly - but maybe it would help to observe that linking avoids filling up the rendered page (as seen by the user) with words, while transclusion only avoids filling up the wikicode behind it (the rendered page still contains the words).--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Transcluding/Substituting user (sub)pages
Hello!
Is it possible to transclude (or substitute, for that matter) user pages into other user pages?
I wanted to do some trasclusion tests in my userpages, but I haven't found a way to transclude my subpage into my Sandbox subpage so that I can test the transclusion.
Just add a colon in front of the link, e.g. {{:User:SpaniardGR/TranscludeThisPage}}. To substitute, add "subst:" in front on that: {{subst::User:SpaniardGR/TranscludeThisPage}}. This is the same way as you substitute any template. Check if that works, cheers, jonkerz♠ 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the extra colon is necessary, in fact (that should only apply when transcluding pages from the main namespace, i.e. with no namespace prefix).--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Breaking up policy pages into transcluded subpages
I found it useful to quote from policy in the WP:How2title essay, specifically the list of general naming criteria from Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title. Of course I could just copy the list into the essay, but then any time something in the list changed the essay would need updating too to remain accurate.
It seemed like an obvious case for using transclusion, so I moved the list of criteria into a subpage of WP:Article titles and transcluded it into the essay as well as into the main page. It did not occur to me that anyone would object, since this had no effect on what the policy said, but there were quite a few objections. The primary concerns were:
The entire policy should be on the same page.
The entire history of any changes to the policy should be in one coherent history.
Editors who watch the main page won't see changes on the subpage unless they watch it too.
It's confusing.
There was quite a bit of discussion about it, starting at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Principal_naming_criteria_in_subpage, and we eventually (today) settled on a compromise to put the list of criteria in an onlyinclude block, so that the whole page could be transcluded, and yet only the list of criteria from the transcluded page would be displayed on the transcluding page. This works fine, but it occurs to me that folks here might have additional ideas or comments.
It seems to me that, in general, it could be useful to "share" certain sections of policy and guidelines on other policy, guideline and essay pages. Do we have any precedent for that? Is it really a problem? Any ideas, especially after reading the comments in that discussion, on how people's reservations might be alleviated? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
B2C, your last request was for ideas on "on how people's reservations might be alleviated". Better to emphasise a more general request – one less likely to slant the discussion in favour of such transclusion. A neutral call for comments. There should be other concerns than those you list above. Here's one: with "onlyinclude" blocks, there may be competing views on what should be in and what should be out. You want a certain specific block for use elsewhere? Someone else may want to transclude a different block, for a different purpose.
On the points you raise above: The policy and guideline pages already face a serious challenge from abuse through complexity. Editors with their own agendas have inserted material without any proper discussion, concealed under misleading or virtually null edit summaries. Months later the insertions are claimed as consensual, and are difficult to reverse. Vigilance from good faith editors goes only so far to prevent such abuse.
There would be huge advantages in a modular "boilerplate" approach to structuring policies and guidelines; and possibly articles also. But so far the Project does not embrace that systematically. Transclusion can be introduced piecemeal for ad hoc purposes, without wide community discussion, technical monitoring and development, or checks against abuse and obscurity; or it can be raised as an exciting and systematic reform, in appropriately broad forums. If is treated piecemeal and ad hoc, I for one will oppose it. I have seen how badly that can work. If it is raised as a big issue and a major reform in a general forum, I will take a different approach.
Most change in WP is of the piecemeal evolutionary change, and for good reason. I got so tired of repeatedly explaining this that I addressed it in my FAQ here: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first.
As for the "onlyinclude" limitation, I noted that at WP:AT, and also that consensus seems to be that it's a rather rare need. If true, the limitation shouldn't matter.
But what I would like to see is "targetable onlyinclude" tags, so you could make a tag like <onlyinclude id=foo> and then transclude just that section with something like {{PAGENAME|id=foo}}. Of course that would be a wikimedia enhancement. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't tire yourself explaining to me how Wikipedia change works. I'm well aware of it. One of its elements is that individual editors can detect possibly disruptive moves, and call for wider discussion. That's part of the Wikimix also, and there is extensive provision for it.
I agree about targetable onlyinclude tags, and I hope there will be a successful push for those. We would still, of course, have to monitor everything else; and they would introduce another small increment of complexity.
I hope you will raise all of this as an RFC (remembering that the instructions for an RFC require neutral presentation of the issue). A page could be dedicated solely to it. I would be delighted to work with you toward a systematic solution.
Is it possible for this transclusion to only grab a section of page, and not the entire page? For example, I tried in my Sandbox to only grab the section "Proposed use of nuclear weapons" from the Korean War page, by using the {{:Korean War#Proposed use of nuclear weapons}} syntax, but I got the entire page. It would be definately be very useful to only grab various sections, as a discussion on WT:NOR may show. Thanks. wbfergusTalk 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So is this possible or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.147.190 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also the section I just added on selective transclusion, which allows transcluding certain sections from a document. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Transcluding content from article sections
I recently used transclusion in a way that yielded unexpected results. I was attempting to transclude text from two sections of one article into two sections of another. Here's an example of what I tried:
The target article contains the following wikitext:
If using the "#" fragment identifier won't work for transcluding content from an article section, is there something else that will work? Regardless, it might be a nice addition to this article to explain that fragment identifiers have no effect on transclusion. I've been unable to find information about this anywhere in Wikipedia. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Transcluding contents from article sections -- revisited
This discussion was moved from above.
I agree. I have the same problem on my wiki, and the fact that this apparently can't be done seems like a huge oversight on the part of mediawiki developers... --Resplendent (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Resplendent, the oversight was corrected months ago. It is explained in the article, under Partial transclusion. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This still doesn't seem to have the problem I have. I have a single page with 3 sections, and each section needs to be transcluded on a separate page. It appears there's no way to specify which section inside the <inclcludeonly> tags I want to appear on a certain page. --Resplendent (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is actually quite easy to do. Instead of using just includeonly tags, you need to surround each section with something like
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|name of page onto which you want to transclude this section|...}}</includeonly>
where the rest of the section appears in place of the three dots. Geometry guy 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
GG, thanks for your input but you lost us simple mortals. Could you illustrate with an example? Better yet, could you explain this in the article? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I may be able to explain. Say you have an article "Alpha". You want three different sections to be transcluded to articles Beta, Charlie and Delta. So, for section to appear in Beta, you wrap it in includeonly tags and use the following code:
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Beta|Here is where the content to appear on Beta goes}}. Then for Charlie,
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Charlie|Here is where the content to appear on Charlie goes}}. Then for Delta,
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Delta|Here is where the content to appear on Delta goes}}. Does that help? Keep in mind none of this will appear the Alpha page because you've wrapped it in includeonly tags. You may be looking for "onlyinclude" if you want it to appear on alpha as well(but then you'll need an ifeq "Alpha or (B/C/D" but I haven't figured out if ifeq can take an OR statement. –xenocidic (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Xenocidic, thanks for the clarification, and please add them to the article text.
Your last comment opens a whole new debate. In my mind, partial transclusion is useful only when an oft edited section is transcluded to complement another article. In other words, I think we should use "onlyinclude". The "includeonly" markup creates a hidden text, hence only problems, no benefit. Please test this new #ifeq markup accordingly. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly goes into PAGENAME, or is that left as is? MuZemike (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is not a new discussion at all: I explained how to do it in April. In short, you use onlyinclude and #switch, so that Xenocidic's example becomes
<onlyinclude>{{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}|Alpha|Beta=Here is where the content to appear on Beta goes}}</onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>{{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}|Alpha|Gamma=Here is where the content to appear on Gamma goes}}</onlyinclude>
If I may intervene, none of this would be necessary if we had the extension Labeled Section Transclusion. I'm using it in on one of my friends' wikis, and it is very useful. I wonder what is required to have an extension installed on Wikipedia.— DædαlusContribs /Improve 11:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with keying off PAGENAME is that requires the source document to "know" about what pages are transcluding it, and limits it to those pages. I just came up with a more general mechanism, which is explained under a new section: selective transclusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Transclusion to an external page?
Hi all. I wondered if there was a way to transclude from MediaWiki to an external site.
As an example... say I wanted to transclude "Today's feature picture" (see the main page) to my iGoogle page. I understand how transclusion works within Wikipedia. I'd type this --
The Valère Basilica is a fortified Catholic church in Sion, in the Swiss canton of Valais. It is situated on a hill at an altitude of 615 metres (2,018 ft), and faces Tourbillon Castle located on the opposite hill. The first parts of the building were constructed around 1100, with numerous additions over the subsequent centuries. It was designated a minor basilica in 1987. The site is listed as a Swiss heritage site of national significance, which includes the surrounding hill due to the large number of protected plant and animal species present there. This photograph shows the Valère Basilica in February 2021, with the Haut de Cry, a 2,969-metre (9,741 ft) peak of the Bernese Alps, in the background.
Are there any ways to transclude this to an external site, specifically, outside of an instance of MediaWiki? Thanks for the help. If there is a more appropriate place to ask this -- I tried going to the MediWiki site first -- your advice is most welcome.
Thanks, Patrick. The above was just a local example; my plan is to transclude my personal wiki's content to my personal iGoogle page :-) --Kittell (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. I don't know about iGoogle, but on a HTML page you can transclude any webpage, hence also a wiki page, with IFrame. However, it gives the whole page, not just the page body.--Patrick (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you then found the way to transclude to an external web page? 21:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.209.155 (talk)
Is it possible to transclude a page from one Wikipedia site to another? Now that unified login has been implemented, I was wondering whether it was possible to transclude my user page at en.wikipedia over to, say, de.wikipedia. I tried "{{w:User:Jacklee}}" and "{{:w:User:Jacklee}}" but that didn't work.
Has anyone noticed that the first section heading of the guideline is "Byron McLear", which makes no sense? I assume it's vandalism, but can't revert it as I have no idea what the section heading used to be.
Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
First issue: no idea. Second issue: Fixed. I was actually looking at old revisions of the page back to 2006 and it still said Byron DeLear, at first, I thought maybe you had uncovered The Oldest Remaining Vandalism Ever™, but it turns out, there's a transclusion on the page explaining transclusion! ;> xenocidic (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha! Yup, I couldn't find out what the proper subject heading was, which is why I highlighted it here. It didn't occur to me to check the Wikitext. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to get transclusion to work between wikis, and so far no luck; I keep getting an error that the template can't be found, and no one on the Mediawiki forums seem to have any suggestions for dealing with this problem. In addition to setting scary transclusion, you supposedly have to edit the interwiki table. It's possible to reference a page in wiki A from wiki B, but not to include all or part of the page's contents. Still working at this, but losing hope.
Vasily
Count me among the sadly inquisitive. mw:Manual:$wgEnableScaryTranscluding explicitly mentions trancluding pages or templates, but I can find no syntax that does not assume the Template: namespace.
--HonoredMule (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@HonoredMule: I found the syntax at mw:Help:Templates#Usage. {{:Pagename}} uses the main namespace.
Mskfisher (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Any update on this? I tried various syntax options but still can't make it work. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Interwiki transclusion not respecting tags such as <noinclude/>
I run a MediaWiki instance that allows transclusion from Wikipedia.
Tags such as <noinclude/> and <includeonly/> are not being respected in the transclusion however. Are there any known work-arounds for this issue so that I can always dynamically display the current version of headers such as {{Uncategorized}}? Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide. --Bala (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Same problem for me here:
local interwiki is configured (and working); for instance I can type [[:mainwiki:banner]] and create the corresponding link
transclusion of a local page works as well: in mainwiki, I can type {{:banner}} for including the page; the content of the <noinclude/> tags is hidden, as expected
transclusion of an interwiki page, using {{:mainwiki:banner}}, does not hide the content of the <noinclude/> tags
some others also had a similar problem (no solution mentionned here)
should use {{raw:mainwiki::banner}} (note that the double column is required because we are transcluding a page here, not a template). Samuelthiriot (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Help with transcluding in #switch: conditional
I posted this to Wikiproject templates, and haven't received a reply in five days, so I figured this might be the place to get an answer.
So I'm working on a template that has a huge#switch: condition, and I'd like to separate some of the groups of pattern matches into separate lists for ease of maintenance and readability. I'd like to do something along the lines of
{{#switch:{{{1|}}} {{template/list1}} {{template/list2}} |case 327 = xxxx |case 328 = yyyy |case 329 = zzzz {{template/list3}} |#default = error }} where {{template/listN}} are just big lists of |case N = result N lines. I already tested a trivial implementation in user space, and it didn't work at all. Anybody know if there's a trick to pull this off? VanIsaacWScontribs 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Because that is the improper use of #switch. You can't call a template between the #switch brackets, it is specifically for providing the switches to the value of the variable. This would be the correct syntax:
If the variable {{{1|}}} has the value of case 328, then the variable {{{1|}}} will be reset to a value of yyyy. If there are no matches, it sets the value to error. Hutchy68 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'Section'?
Do you just mean a chunk of text, or do you mean a formal section that starts with ==section== and ends with the next one? Johnmperry (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you are going to have give a heckuva lot more context for this question. So, who is "you", and where, specifically, was the word "section" used? VanIsaacWSVexcontribs 23:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
'You' is whoever wrote it. I mean from #Selective transclusion down to #subpage.
I just want to transclude a list which is not a whole section. Johnmperry (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there we go. Looking at the code, any block of text/code/information in the transcluded page can be defined that way. The block is specifically delineated by the boundaries of the #ifeq condition, and the section name is defined by the value of the second parameter of the #ifeq condition. Because the transcludesection variable resolves to each section name in turn if it is left undefined, it will include everything if you don't specify a transcludesection, but will eliminate all non-matching sections if you do specify the transcludesection variable. BTW, transcludesection is not a keyword or anything; you can name that variable section or παπάκι if you want. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs 03:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Not strictly true
At the end of the section "selective transclusion", sub-section "target document markup", there is the instruction
Of course, the same page can transclude two or more sections this way by including multiple such lines.
There is no limit to how many selectable sections for transclusion a document can have. The only requirement is that each transcludesection be given a value that is unique within that page.
I don't think that is actually true. In the case that a template contains this structure:
Blah-blah-a
Blah-blah-a
Blah-blah-a
Blah-blah-b
Blah-blah-b
Blah-blah-b
Blah-blah-c
Blah-blah-c
Blah-blah-c
and chunks a and c are always to be transcluded together, then it is OK for them to have identical <onlyinclude>... section headers. Which is what you'd expect. Worked in my sandbox at least.
However there is a part of the Help:template, about nesting tags, which I found confusing. While it may be OK to nest different types of conditional transclusion tags, it doesn't seem possible to nest <onlyinclude>.
There are <noinclude> tags after the first section. The page is transcluded into three other pages - see "What links here" on the right to check out that information - so this is an engineered behavior so that only part of the page gets transcluded. What you could do is replace the <noinclude> and its closing tag with a conditional, eg {{#ifeq: {{{transcludeall|}}} | yes | | <noinclude> }} and make your call as {{ pagename | transcludeall=yes}} to give your full-page transclusion a way of happening, while preserving the expected behavior for those who've already come and gone. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Transclusion and TOC - section level?
I have an article about a large project (X) on an intranet mediawiki. There is a lot of information, so I've chosen to create separate articles dealing with the different facets of the project (X users, X access, X codes, X getting started, X ...).
However, it is also required that this same information is available in the original project-article (which becomes huge very fast). The obvious way to go about this seems to be transclusion. This becomes even more the natural reflex when you consider that some of these articles are useful for more than project X alone: project X uses technology Y, and an article about how to do something in technology Y is useful for project Z as well. Z could also do some transcluding.
Now, my original project X article has sections on multiple levels. Information is usually transcluded directly under the section, sometimes there is a little introduction/context that is project specific. The transcluded article itself is also often structured using sections.
As it is now, the sections of the transcluded article are taken over on the same level. A level 2 section from the original article becomes a level 2 section in the project article, no matter where it is transcluded. In the project article, this breaks the TOC and section markup (well, it still works, but it isn't logical any more).
The behaviour I would like to see is that the sections from the transcluded article are put on level =
level under which the article is transcluded in the project article
+
original level in the transcluded article
So that an article with level 2 (==) and level 3 (===) sections, when included in the project article in a level 3 (===) section, automatically become level 4 (====)and level 5 (=====) sections. Is there a way to do this? If not, can you point me in the direction of relevant documentation/files for me to hack it on my own installation?
Hi,
i have a template called Template:Person that is as follow:
__TOC__
Hello Mr {{name}}
your address is: {{Address}}
and every time i import contacts in append mode if that person has two entries, on his Page "John" i am getting the following:
the Table of content that is good.
Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n1
Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n2
What i actually want is as follow:
Hello Mr John
your address is: villa n1
your address is: villa n2
How can i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.26.129 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Page protection?
The last 37 edits to this page have been vandalism or other unproductive changes and reverts of those edits. With such an abysmal wheat-to-chaff ratio, would anyone object to just getting this page semi-protected? I've not gone to RPP yet, but I will in a couple days if no one has a substantive objection. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I waited over a week, and we continued to have problems, so we're now semi-protected. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Transcluding category pages to show image thumbnails?
Hi, I work on a pretty large wiki where numerous individuals upload images and categorize them. What I'd like to do is to be able to transclude the category page so that it doesn't just call the text, but also shows the images within that category. Does anyone know of a technique or extension that might do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.19.68 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Help transcluding sections to other pages
I've been testing transclusion of sections from a source page (User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude A) to two targeted pages (User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude B and User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude C). What I want to do is exclude a few words in the source page from transcluding onto the B page. Are we not able to embed <noinclude></noinclude> tags within <onlyinclude><onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|principalcriteria}}}|principalcriteria|...}}</onlyinclude> tags? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers and Happy New Year! Hwy43 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hwy43: I've simplified the coding in User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude A a bit, and it still seems to work. But you will have trouble using this method when transcluding parts of tables, as the pipe characters acting as table delimiters will interfere with the pipe characters that are part of the #if syntax. There are ways round that, but it will make the page hard for other editors to understand and edit.
@John of Reading: Thanks. I thought a previous version of the sandbox page had that simplified coding, but it wasn't producing what I'm seeing now. I'm going to temporarily rollback and test that again.
Unfortunate about the trouble with transcluding parts of tables, which is what I was intending to test next. I'll look into the new syntax you've suggested. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There must be a server delay. Despite making these changes, I'm still see the text "It is intended for this text to be transcluded . However a few words in the previous sentence at the source were excluded from transclusion." at User:Hwy43/sandbox/Transclude B. Hwy43 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The server won't update the transcluding page unless you purge it. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Transcluder
Ill Like New Cntent! 54.237.29.232 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to say
...The concept of being able to include entire articles inside another, purely by use of a few characters either side of the article's name, is brilliant! whoever invented this one man, definate barnstar =) From just another tireless contributor....SteelersFan UK06 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - But I wonder what happens if you create a nice endless loop (i.e. the contents of page A are transcluded from page B, but page B is a transclusion of A...) 121.72.241.213 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems Mediawiki will flatly refuse to serve up either page and display a Wikimedia error notice. Resurgent insurgent 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And are you allowed to make up words like transclude and disambiguation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"Disambiguation" has been a routine term in linguistics since at least the seventies, when I was in grad school, and presumably quite a bit before then, when the materials we were studying were written.
Since the concept didn't exist before the age of "semi-literate programming geeks", it's quite likely there isn't another word for it. But if you've got one, please let us know.--Kotniski (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a perfectly acceptable use of a decades-old computer science term. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
On this talk page in 2009 (above) somebody pointed out that to "transclude" in Wiki-jargon actually means "incorporate" in the actual English language.
A good dictionary of synonyms turns up various alternatives for "incorporate" -- "transclude" notable for its absence.
Computer science jargon frequently doesn't meet minimum standards of English. But regardless, this page doesn't concern computer science.
I've templated page to alert readers to this matter.
I assume you mean my concern that it doesn't apply. The template is for articles, and another editor agrees: [1]. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And another [2] --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the template applies in that the term "transclusion" is clearly a neologism. Perhaps you mean rather, that Wikipedia policy regarding templates doesn't apply to "how-to" articles (a different question). This may be correct, though am unable to locate specifics.
Some neologisms fill a reasonable need, & thus eventually become a legitimate part of the language, while others merely create confusion and clutter.
A handful of Wikipedia editors will certainly defend "transclusion" against all available reason.
This doesn't make it legitimate or useful language in the broader culture. Rather it serves mainly to enhance the (corrosive) insularity of Wikipedia.
In this case, we're discussing a term that has been used in computer science for decades. Are you arguing that we're using it to mean something substantially different, or that you just don't like the application of the term regardless? --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Editors have been editing English far longer than computer people have been creating and altering binary code.
Yes, they are indeed substantially different endeavors.
Competent editors, invariably, use real words, which "transduction" isn't.
Again, its use here serves only to create a mystique with regard to Wikipedia that may appeal to few computer programmers, but that excludes the literate.
It appears to be used properly, and no one is offering a better term. Wikipedia is a computer-based medium, and so it is natural and expected that computer science terms will be used to describe the medium and how to interact with it. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the concept being described is particular to computer-generated content - it couldn't possibly have existed when people edited English by writing it on paper, so clearly no word will have developed to have that meaning until the computer programmers came along. This is precisely the situation where a neologism is needed (remember that every word was a neologism once). --Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, use of this "word" will be defended against all reason.
Assertions are made that it is "natural and expected" that "computer science terms" be used for editing text, that it is "needed" in this context.
Unlike the clear-cut simple argument against use of the so-called word, no plausible reasons are suggested in its favor.Calamitybrook (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"against all reason" WP:LETGO. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Rational discussion of irrational "consensus" is apparently impossible -- pointing up a great weakness of Wikipedia.
I'm not sure why there is such opposition to the coinage of new words. The word "transclusion" is believed to have been coined by the same person, Ted Nelson, who coined the word "hypertext". I haven't seen any arguments that "hypertext" is not a word. Both of these words are nearly 5 decades old, so "transclusion" is hardly a new word any longer. You are just less familiar with it because "hypertext" happened to become more widely used. Finally -- disagreement does not constitute irrationality. --Plamoa (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I really have little idea of the "correct" definition of transclusion as conceived by Ted Nelson, but I gather it had to do with combining bits of programming, incorporating one bit into another, including one with another, et cetera. Is doubtful that a neologism was required or even desirable, to express this.
Notion above, that because Wikipedia is lodged on a computer somewhere, it is "computer content" & therefore something other than English, & for which standard copy editing terms are inadequate, isn't rational. Is akin to suggesting that different rules of arithmetic apply when adding numbers on calculator vs. with pencil.
Encouraging foolish & needless jargon is foolish & needless.
Of course standard copy-editing terms aren't adequate, because in the world of standard copy-editing there is no phenomenon anything like that which we call "transclusion". --Kotniski (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You're confusing mark-up language with effect. As with lead type letter press: one needs em spaces for sentences, yet these aren't ultimately relevant to content.
I realize I'm resurrecting a dead discussion, but I thought it worth pointing out there is a distinct difference between what a transclusion is and how it's different from anything that is done on paper. Specifically, a transclusion is an inclusion by reference. There is no concept in printing where if I put a reference to another work in my original draft, the printer will include that work in full in line in the final product (not as an addendum or appendix). If there is such a word, it's silly that we're not using it, but I know of none. Wikipedia not being the first document system might have been able to draw from other contemporary systems. I believe LaTeX calls it \include and MS Word calls it "embed". While "include" and "embed" both have other meanings, both in and out of computing, "transclude" has only a single meaning, and that meaning matches up to Wikipedia's usage. 169.130.108.20 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
soccer
how to paly soccer first think is to wear soccer close because you not going to get hart. also you need to get 12 people to play the game they have to know the soccer rules. if they watch the flfa 2014 world cup they going to have a lot of informant about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keroloshanna (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Transclude a Random page from a Category
Is it possible to transclude a random page from a specific category (without extensions if possible also).
The effect I want is; I will have a number of templates with one line of text (stats) all put into a single category. I want a different random template to appear on the main page each time you visit.
I'm doing some work for the company i work for, and i'm not in charge of which extensions are installed - which is why I hope this can be done without the need for any.
Is it possible to transclude a specific revision of a page? Something like one might think {{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PageName&oldid=00000000}} would do? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No. There may be a feature request on phab: though; try asking at WP:VPT if anybody there knows of one. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Computer programmers need their own separate transclusion article
Transclusion is a programming concept that is quite useful for the programming audience, which is a sophisticated audience well able and even eager to deal with abstraction and coding.
What's needed for those of us who just want to use the available tool to edit Wikipedia is a separate article that starts from the basics and is clear for someone with no programming background, perhaps named Transclusion (editing Wikipedia). Such a page is needed to serve as the landing page for the "Transclusion" links soon-to-be ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia. An article providing the degree of abstraction needed for programmers is going to be way too much information for the non-programmers trying to learn only what we need to edit Wikipedia, and needing that much explained from the ground up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 July 2014
The article at Transclusion is about the programming concept, I believe. This page is a Wikipedia project page about using transclusion in editing Wikipedia, and is not an article about the computer science sense of the term. But in a nutshell: Type a template’s name, or another namespace and pagename, in {{curly braces}} to transclude it, which makes the contents of that page appear where you typed it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
transclude noinclude?
Hi there. This might sound weird, but I need to transclude a noinclude tag and I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Sorry if this scenario description is a little clumsy; I'm not as geeky as I used to be...
There are 2 templates (A & B) and a page (C). A is transcluded to B and B to C. A should pass "category:D" to B but not to C. I've tried bunches of stuff, from
to God-only-knows what else, and Google is not my friend. I've been banging my head on this for longer than I care to admit. Any suggestions? --Grugnir (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you use something like this instead:
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:B|stuff which should only be on Template:B}}
or
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|C||stuff which should be everywhere except on C}}
YES!!! Fiddled with that a bit and arrived at {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}/subpage|[[category:{{{category}}}]]}}, which did the job nicely. You have no idea how long that's been bugging the livin' bejeezus outta me. If you're ever in Canada, look me up and I'll buy you a pint. Cheers! --Grugnir (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Glad to be of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
transclude a value from the infobox of an article to another page
Hi. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way from wikipedia markup to pull the "years active" value of a band in a band article's infobox (for example, transcluding Sonata Arctica's value would output "1995−present") into the list of bands in that genre without having to maintain the values across all bands in the list. I basically would like to transclude just the "years active" value from the infobox of the respective band. Is there a way to do it? Vortiene (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I'd prefer a way that wouldn't require markup on the articles of every band on that list. Only markup on the list itself. Don't know if that's possible though. Vortiene (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two ways of selectively transcluding from another page. One is to mask off portions using <noinclude>...</noinclude> or <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>; the other is to use Labeled Section Transclusion. Bear in mind that both of these can greatly slow down page rendering, because the whole of the page gets transcluded (invisibly) before the unwanted bits are cut out. If all you want is one or two years from each, that is overdoing it. Perhaps you could use Wikidata. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll try wikidata out sometime, thanks. I don't want to overload a long list page with too many transclusions if the transclusions introduce a lot of load. Vortiene (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Transcluding table templates but not table data
I see that there are some transcluded templates, like the Transclusion article's example Template:EH listed building row, that are used in constructing tables in other articles. These transclusions transclude only the structural template, not variable content interpolated within them. That is, a table's structural template is transcluded from a common source, but the data in it in a specific article is not transcluded; rather the data is entered as a single instance into the article. How does an article editor do that?
Similarly, if an entire table T is transcluded into an article A, how does an article editor edit the transclusion in article A to change its data to be specific to only article A? Without editing the source table T, but also without having to undertake major editing in Article A (perhaps just a single value in a large table)?DocRuby (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add clearer real example text
I was sent to this Transclusion article from a link on another Wikipedia page, that seemed to be referring to it as a general Wikipedia tool (inviting me to investigate sources "transcluded" into the page I was on).
Maybe the biggest problem is that the reference was to this page, and should have been to a training-wheels page for Wikipedia readers and text-wranglers on how transclusion is used in Wikipedia and how to use transclusion.
And maybe another Transclusion page for Wikimedia text wranglers.
This page may be fine for code-wranglers, and there should be link-trapping for references here that should be to an article for wikipedia text editors that introduces concepts from the ground up.
This comment requests clarification of the Transclusion article for which we are on the talk page.
Most of the discussion on this page is technical questions on the use and coding of transclusion, among people who well understand what transclusion is.
This article needs a rewrite. It needs more clarity to be useful and inviting enough to interest non-programmers new to the concept of transclusion in learning to use it as a tool and enabling us to do so as we edit Wikipedia. Helping us will help us make Wikipedia better.
For us, please add sample text that makes internal sense. It's hard enough to follow without adding multiple unrelated nonsense sample text like lorem ipsum foo 7 wives. The brain of a reader new to the concept will be better able to see if the examples are internally comprehensible and logically related; something like
Two times two equals four; 4 times two equals 8.
Change original (& show reflected), e.g.,
Two times two equals four; four times two equals eight.
Add to original (& show reflected), e.g.,
Two times two equals four; four times two equals eight; eight times two equals 16. Two, four, and eight are mathematically considered powers of two.
After some reflection, transclusion sounds like a great tool. The clearer we can make the explanation of the benefits, function, and use of the tool, the more it will be used. I was able to eek out some understanding of this article and the concepts, despite the "foo" examples rather than because of them. It was frustrating to be deprived of clear intuitive examples. I wanted and needed examples whose inner logic supported and illustrated the points being made.
The word "transclusion," the concepts of transclusion, and code to adeptly accomplish transclusion are not general knowledge. Transclusion is a computer science concept, so little known as to be marked as a spelling error by my dictionary as I work in Wikipedia, and having only 170,000 Google hits in total. There is a real challenge to making transclusion clear and salient enough to be enthusiastically adopted by the great majority of Wikipedia editors, who are non-programmers.
To meet this challenge of clear explanation from a standing start, we need to start with the fact that the brain necessarily moves from the concrete to the abstract in grasping new abstract concepts.
Introducing an abstract new word ("transclusion") and at the same time introducing the novel abstract concepts it reflects, which to many or most readers will be unfamiliar or non-intuitive, and then stacking on programming concepts and syntax that are similarly novel, is stacking novelty on novelty and complexity on complexity. The result is that the overall meaning, concept, and use of the tool is quite hard to grasp, but maybe necessarily hard. It can be made only as hard as necessarily and no harder by removing the nonsense examples, and adding examples that make intuitive sense. The benefits, meaning, and use will be clearer if simple clear intuitive examples are placed rather early in the article.
Using nonsense words as examples deprives the brain of a cognitive foundation for the abstraction being discussed, by removing the concrete example that could illustrate the principle and give a starting place for someone new to the concept to grasp it visually and intuitively.
Implicit in the article is the benefit of transclusion as a tool, namely that a lot of wiki text gets pasted several places throughout Wikipedia. It's the classic problem of multiple golden copies of the same text, with multiple simultaneous editors, multiplied by the power of our wonderful wiki. Explicitly including an explanation of the problem of non-identical updates, (with clear examples) would also help readers new to the concept understand the problem that transclusion can help them elegantly solve. Transclusion is actually pretty exciting as a wiki extender, a further powerful extension of the magic of group improvement of the overall text. I'm hoping for a clearer explanation here that empowers me to understand and use transclusion.
If an elegant clear explanation is developed here, starting from the fundamentals, perhaps it could be transcluded into a page for Wikipedia editors, and another for Wikimedia code wranglers?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 July 2014
Resolved
Like New Cntent! 54.237.29.232 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
