Wikipedia talk:Template index/Archive 2

Main article:...

There are currently two templates for this, the {{main|}}, listed on this page, and {{main article|}}. The latter was made about a month earlier and both have about 10-20 pages using them. I think that it's best if we decide on one now and delete the other before the usage becomes widespread. Personally, I prefer the short one. --Aqua 23:00, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

The latter now redirects to the former, which is shorter. Almost all instances of the latter have also been replaced. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Variable use

This article should address how to use variables in templates, or at least the fact that they exist. I added a short sentence about this, but it should be elaborated a bit. +sj + 21:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New section

I think this page needs a new section, dedicated to templates only used to generate other templates - such as Template:Message box, Template:Metastub, Template:MetaPicstub, Template:Stub Category - which presently go undocumented. Any objections? Also, what should we call them? I've heard them called "meta-" and "master templates", and I suppose "nested" and "generating" will also do, but none of these names makes it instantaneously clear what they are about. — Itai (f&t) 13:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All such meta-templates are scourge. Every one so far created and used has lead to an explosion of trivial templates, where a few common ones would do the same job. This needless complexity should not be encouraged. -- Netoholic @ 15:44, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

If they exist, they should be documented. I take it you like the phrasing "meta-templates". — Itai (f&t) 22:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Related to this, I have written Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful, with input from User:Jamesday, the main database developer on the project. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

A marvelous idea. Be that as it may, it is still worthwhile documenting such nested templates as may exist. The problem with calling such templates "meta-templates" is that I've seen this term used in reference to the MediaWiki: templates, and its meaning is not intuitive - I did not understand what it means other than by context. The same can be said of any designation bar "templates used within other templates", but I feel "nested templates" is likely to be understood by a greater portion of Wikipedians. — Itai (f&t) 23:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article out-of-date

Among the plethora of templates, I was surprised that I couldn't find one that specifically announced an article that is seriously out-of-date. The {{current}} tag makes sense if people are actually working on an event as it unfolds, but I'm thinking of articles that someone creates that are inherently accurate only at the time they're created, and are essentially abandoned after that. For instance, the Sandy Matheson article is about an election race that ended three months ago. Who won? And this article is surely not the only one that was created during the heat of an exciting event that afterward seemed unimportant (much like the character of most "news" programs these days). Should there be a simple {{outdated}} tag to cover these situations? — Jeff Q 05:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Propose it on the talk page of Wikipedia:Cleanup, you might also check Wikipedia:As of, which deals with dated information. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Thank you for both of those excellent suggestions. For the moment, I've posted a note to the original author requesting an update, but if that falls through, I'll try the second and/or propose the first. — Jeff Q 08:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving templates to talk pages

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Moving tags to talk pages? and the aborted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maveric149. Read there for background.

The basic thing being debated is whether templates like {{POV check}} and {{expand list}} belong on article or talk pages. Recently, User:Maveric149 has moved a bunch to talk pages, and replaced them with HTML comments. Many have protested (see User talk:Maveric149 and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Moving tags to talk pages?]); he stopped. But there is now the issue of whether these changes should stay. I would appreciate if someone would give this debate some structure, as I lack the ability to do this, and the Village pump discussion lacked it. --SPUI (talk) 21:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We must balance the needs of editors with the needs of readers and third party users. Even on our own site readers vastly outnumber editors and only a tiny handful of third party users allow editing. So the experience that readers and third parties have with our content needs to be taken into very serious consideration.

So, IMO, almost all semi-permanent messages that are primarily directed at writers instead of readers should be moved to talk pages - that is what talk pages are designed for. Messages that are useful to readers as well as editors, such as {{POV}} are fine, IMO, as well as messages that are temporary in nature, such as {{protected}} ({{stub}} and its variants will just have to grandfathered-in). If needed, an HTML comment that says the same thing can be placed in the article so editors will see it. Benefits;

• De-clutters the article for readers,
• Makes it easier for our content to be used by third parties, and
• Targets the message directly to the intended audience.

An example of template madness. See diff

Having these messages displayed on articles has a number of disadvantages:

• Clutters an article with messages directed toward editors (as Bryan indicated, readers don't want to see how the sausages are made)
• Redundant given our disclaimers (as Angela mentioned)
• Gives the impression that articles without tags are fine
• Blurs the distinction between talk pages and articles
• Could eventually be used to justify allowing WikiProject tags, ToDo lists, and all manor of other meta templates to be displayed in the main namespace.
• Violates our convention to avoid self-references in articles, including internal links from the main namespace to the wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references)
• Makes what we do here less usable by the outside world (third party users would have to search for and delete way too many self-referential tags)

Also, if any of these messages were made by just inserting it in as actual text vs a template, then those messages would be moved to the talk page. Putting such a message in the main namespace is not magically OK just because it it done via a template. So, IMO, these types of self-referential tags must be kept to a bare minimum in the main namespace in order to keep Wikipedia content maximally useful to readers and third parties.

By having an HTML comment that says the same thing and by having a message on talk pages, then we can best balance the needs of readers, third parties, and writers. This is a compromise - I'm not advocating that these templates be deleted, or that their message be scrubbed clean from articles. I'm just saying we should step back and consider the needs of people beyond those that edit on Wikipedia. --mav 23:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I support such moves and I think it's quite reasonable for Maveric to have started doing it "unilaterally"; there isn't much policy on this matter yet so it's necessary to be bold in order to kickstart such things. Wikipedia has plenty of tools which are designed to keep editor-specific stuff tucked away where the casual reader won't see it and "published" mirrors can omit it (the Wikipedia: namespace this discussion is currently in being one such example), the talk: namespace seems like the most appropriate place to put these sorts of messages to me. Bryan 22:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which templates do you feel should be on the talk pages? {{expand list}} makes no sense being there; it informs the reader that the list is incomplete, we know that, AND that we want it to be complete. {{POV check}} tells the reader that if there is a bias to the page, it shouldn't affect his perception of other pages without the tag. It's basically (or is being treated as by many editors) a milder version of {{POV}}, which is used on article pages.

As for Wikipedia mirrors, first, this isn't really our concern, and second, they can simply blank the relevant templates. --SPUI (talk) 22:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was making a general statement of principle, I expect there would be case-by-case decisions on which templates are editor-oriented and which are reader-oriented. Of your examples, I think POV check should probably go on talk: page and POV should go onto the main article. The "expand list" template might not even need to exist, IMO; as Maveric suggested elsewhere this looks like the sort of thing one should put right into the article text describing the list.

As for Wikimedia mirrors, please don't tell me what is and isn't my concern. I do consider mirrors to be my concern because I'm working on this encyclopedia for the benefit of its users first and its editors second; the two groups overlap but are not identical. I don't like the idea that people who want to create a static version of Wikipedia would have to carefully pick through all the templates figuring out which ones need to be removed. Bryan 22:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, that would give the impression that we don't want a complete list, like on toll bridge. Where expand list is used, it make it clear that we want a complete list. It should be noted that (on Conrail at least) he didn't even add any text to this effect, leaving the impression that it was a complete list. It is likely that this is still true about other articles. --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Already taken care of by the ==Modern examples of toll bridges== section title. As more and more examples are added, that list will eventually be broken-off into its own 'List of ...' article and called a partial list on that page. When that grows into a fairly complete list, then remove the word 'partial'. --mav 23:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again you misinterpret what I say. I gave that as an example of a list that's not complete and not supposed to be complete. {{expand list}} should not be there. In the case of Conrail, I (who added the list) didn't have all the information about all the lines. I could have said "This is a partial list, but should be expanded", but that's just as self-referential as the template. So I used the template, which I had seen used in many other cases, to indicate that the list was incomplete. Then you removed the tag, and didn't even do anything to say that it was a partial list, leading readers to think that it was a full list. --SPUI (talk) 01:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SPUI on this one -- while discussion belongs on the talk page, the templates as they are, as I see it, belong on the pages themselves. This is because they serve a purpose for both readers and editors, and are designed to grab people's atention as to what they're saying. Remember too that editors and readers are not such distinct crowds -- many of the people who use the project a lot are also (at least) light editors. Sure, the tags are metadata, but they're a very specific kind of metadata that I feel belongs on the article page. This is at least partly because they're short with a fixed content and a "small meaning". They're essentually attributes or flags. --Improv 22:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are some attributes and flags that are only of use to editors and that editing-uninterested users shouldn't see, IMO. For example articles may be orphans, but the fact that they're orphans is not advertized on the article itself; a special "behind-the-scenes" page is used for that. It's also possible to resize an image on an article page without producing an "expandable thumbnail" frame for it, another bit of information that it's sometimes handy to be able to hide from the casual reader. I think the tags that Maveric was moving to talk: fall under that category, they're parts of the sausage factory that casual readers don't need to see. Bryan 23:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you; there are some (like orphan, if that even exists) that should go on the talk pages. On the other hand, POV check and expand list are useful to both readers and editors, and should stay on the article pages. I guess what's going to come out of this is a dichotomy of which tags should go on article pages. In either case, simply moving them to the talk pages isn't always best; many people (including me) have used {{POV check}} as a milder version of {{POV}}, one that should still be visible to readers, and in these cases it should be replaced with {{POV}}. Is there a list of all of these tags anywhere? --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I support moving tags to the talk pages. I would also support a limit on the number of tags which can be added to any one page. The disclaimers page already explains that articles may not be perfect, and that appears at least once on every page, so we don't need these specific tags there as well. If readers want more information about whether an article might be biased, they can look at the talk page. Information which is perfectly obvious to a reader anyway is not needed. They can see an article is too short or not wikified without needing a message telling them so. These templates are useful for people wanting to find problematic articles to work on, not to people just reading Wikipedia. Angela. 22:19, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

I fully support moving them to the talk pages. I also support mav's actions, since the principle of keeping articles and metadata separate is a well established one. Fredrik | talk 22:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMHO we should not jump hastily into action here, but rather develop a decent metadata management, encompassing language links, categories, and (certain) templates. Then we can fine-tune what is displayed where and how in some settings. As a short-term solution for the "template problem", why not turn the templates themselves into HTML comments, if that's what we really want? One change - all done. Or, make an <editor> tag that shows such marked templates only on opt-in. Magnus Manske 22:57, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

We have indeed needed a metadata system for some time. A system by which these messages were hidden for anons and third party users but displayed for editors would be an improvement. But would still tend to confuse the article/talk page distinction. Simply replacing current templates with HTML comments would not help much since all that would be displayed would be {{foo}} in edit screens. {{Subst: code does not seem to work with HTML comments in templates. Play around with template:POV check comment to find out for yourself. --mav 23:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to be adding new functionality to Mediawiki, I'd throw in a request for a "Wikipedia category:" namespace that allows meta-categories to be added to articles which are invisible by default. The various "stub" categories could be put in there, and my recent crusade against Category:Cricket subcategories would be much more easily resolved to everyones' satisfaction. :) Bryan 23:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My inclination is also to keep down the number of templates in the article namespace. Stub notes are good, because they are unobtrusive, and reassure the unsated reader that we, too, wish there was more content. Wikify notes are useless in the article, because people who know what "wikification" is can recognize the need at a glance, people who don't know aren't going to be any better informed by the template. POV warning seems plausible, "NPOV check" is for the talk page (that's already where people post questions about POV problems). Seems like it should be easy to adopt a policy that persons creating "self-referential" templates should default to adding them to talk pages, and have to justify (on the template's talk page, of course :-) ) why it should appear in the article. Stan 23:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much with mav here. The profusion of templates is useful for finding pages that need work, but distracts severely from the reader's experience. The obvious solution seems to me to have them on the talk page. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, to have templates explaining that in articles just isn't necessary. There really has been a creep of information about editing onto the article pages, and I think it is a real improvement to reverse this trend back to the use of talk pages. We need to consider carefully exactly which templates need to be where, but as a general principle I fully support mav's suggestions -- sannse (talk) 23:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"POV warning seems plausible, "NPOV check" is for the talk page (that's already where people post questions about POV problems)." In that case, it should be clearer (probably by a statement directly on the template) that it should be used only on talk pages. I added it to mile-log (which I recently NPOVed) thinking it was simply a milder version of {{POV}}, intended for readers and editors. Thus, in this case, it probably should have been replaced with {{POV}}. I suspect others have done the same, so if we are to adopt a policy of not using it on the article pages, we should not simply go through and move them, but look at each case and decide whether {{POV}} should be there. --SPUI (talk) 01:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record, here is an initial list of templates I feel should go on the article page (subject to modification; is there a list of all these tags anywhere?):

• {{POV}} (to tell readers that the article may be biased, and may not be representative of Wikipedia articles in general)
• {{stub}} and variants, including {{sectstub}}
• {{expand list}} (to indicate that a list is incomplete, AND that we want it to be complete)
• {{VFD}} (though maybe it should be made shorter, with a link to a page that has the rest of its content) (to tell readers that the page may be deleted soon, and if they don't want it to be, they should explain why on VFD)
• possibly {{cleanup}} or some variant that lets readers know that the article may be poorly written, and may not be representative of Wikipedia articles in general

--SPUI (talk) 01:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Mav was quite right to do this. James F. (talk) 02:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Expand list is covered by stub if nesscary create a special stub notice for lists. Cleanup should be replaced by an apology notice on the article page.Geni 17:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that Mav was quite wrong to do so unilaterally. A major style change like this should be discussed first. --Carnildo 03:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Mav hadn't done it, I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Inertia is mighty powerful. :) Bryan 03:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to jump in here, but I fully agree with Mav on this. Many of these templates are editor-directed and add no real value to the reader. However, template:expand list could be useful, though perhaps the phrasing could be adjusted to minimize the self-reference. As for Template:POV check, if there is are specific disputed points, then use Template:POV, otherwise it seems more appropriate on the talk page. older≠wiser 03:57, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feeling on the stub templates. Well, the template text, anyway - I definitely hate the stub categories. But even the relatively understated stub text is susceptible to Template Madness; check out Project Babylon for example. It has two sentences and four stub templates. Bryan 03:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about a restriction that if more than one stub template is "needed", all but one go on the talk page? It doesn't do much good for readers to know that it's a stub in this category, and that one too (or even in one category, though I think there would be decent opposition to changing them back to {{stub}}, and the sorted stub tags take up little if any extra room). --SPUI (talk) 03:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent measure to me. It doesn't get rid of the stub categories in main articles, but at least it limits them, which is a good start. :) Bryan 18:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An additional advantage to placing POV tags on Talk pages instead of articles (which I didn't see mentioned above, so I apologize if I missed it) is courtesy and reduction of conflict. I think one of the most annoying things one editor can to the article you have just written is to revert claiming POV without explaining on the talk pages. I can name a couple who do that repeatedly but I suspect could not explain what they think the objectionable POV is if they had to. None of us should place a POV tag on an article without taking the trouble to explain on the Talk page what POV he/she thinks needs balancing. You just put another tool for acrimony in the hands of fools if you encourage people to hang tags on the article page instead of the Talk page; I would immediately discount that editor's civility and viewpoint. alteripse 03:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I put the {{POV check}} tag on mile-log, I also explained on the talk page. Conversely, an editor that doesn't wish to explain himself could simply put the POV tag on the talk page without explaining. We should have a policy that any POV-related tags on the article page must be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page, or they can be reverted. --SPUI (talk) 03:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is a very important point. In fact I remove {{POV}} whenever I see there is no corresponding discussion on the talk page and even when such a discussion is more than a couple months old with no new posts about POV issues. IMO, that template should only be on articles while there are actual disputes about POV. Any other use should be removed the same way it was put on it - unilaterally. --03:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me just express my strong support for mav. Any talk of him acting unilaterally is incorrect as I have been gradually moving misplaced templates to talk pages for several months, as have several others. - SimonP 04:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to support mav's, uh, POV on this. I do believe the combination of templates and categories has been a powerful tool in getting a handle on the massive ongoing cleanup task we face in keeping this place respectable; I'm not sure we could have done such a good job keeping ahead of entropy without them. On the other hand, I think a lot of well-meaning folk have forgotten (or never knew) the distinction between article and meta-data, and the nature of instruction creep. Mav's idea seems a sensible reining-in of template enthusiasm.

I do agree with the list SPUI recommends above (POV, stub, expandlist, plus the temporary tags like VFD and protected) remaining on the article. Cleanup I'd still hesitate to put on article rather than talk -- better for people to do basic cleanup and move anything really awful to the talk page anyway, if they don't have time to {{sofixit}}.  :) — Catherine\^talk 09:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess Mav's actions spurred discussion. I feel that some tags like POV, stub, cleanup, and VFD need to be on the article page. But if we put other tags on talk, we really need something to sort out all the Talk:Article name in the category listings. It's really distracting and we don't really need to know they're attached to the talk page. We'll see it for ourselves. :) Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Addition: There's a lot of things that may need work on an article, that are not immediately visible to a potential editor surfing by. We need some tags on the article page, because not all editors check talks before they decide if they want to edit an article. A bad habit I know. But it's just that extra annoying clock we really shouldn't need to make if we don't need to read the pages discussion. It slows down editing too much. Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tags indicating that there is a serious known problem with the article should be included on the article page itself.

First off, the "disclaimer" / "excuse" factor should not be overlooked. Tags like VfD, NPOV, protected, and so forth tell the reader, "We, the editors, know that this article has problems. We're working on it." They are not simply a whinging excuse, but rather a way of being honest with the reader.

Second, I do not think we need to provide a great deal of help to "third party users". Almost all of the Wikipedia content redistributors that I have seen on the Web are illegal redistributors. (Wikinfo is a rare exception.) These "users" violate the GFDL by failing to provide source and by failing to credit the original author. They are committing crimes against us all, and we do not need to help them -- we should be pressing charges instead.

Third, it is a fact that not everyone always checks the talk page before editing. Like it or not, this is true. Placing critically important information on the talk page only will cause it to be seen by fewer editors as well as fewer readers. The response, "But they should always check the talk page!" is bootless; if a system is unreliable you do not make it reliable by placing more demand upon it.

Lastly, let's remember that Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, but also a wiki. We want to bring readers in and get them to help out where they can. Reader-visible tags show the reader that there's work in progress worth contributing to. --FOo 15:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with all of what Fubar Obfusco just wrote. Uncle G 16:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Wow the list of Wikipedians who support mav's actions reads a bit like a Who's Who of Wikipedia of two years ago. I am happy that I have the same opinion of that group that must have 20 years of wiki wisdom between them. (I'd also re-iterate SimonP's point - some of us have been moving templates to talk pages for a long time, and mav's actions were not unilateral) Pcb21| Pete 23:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to have my own opinion, which I have arrived at myself, rather than through some ridiculous appeal to authority. --SPUI (talk) 23:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I arrived at my opinion myself too - I have made many comments to this effect on various Template_talk: pages over the last few months long before this discussion occured. That my opinion turned out to be shared by many people who well understand wiki and wikipedia culture proves my way is much more likely to be the right forward than yours. Not so "ridiculous" then. Pcb21| Pete 23:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's just proof that you can now make arguments that I have no response to. Nothing more. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only just found out about this suggestion to move templates to talk pages. For some templates, it's probably a great idea, but for those which are signals to editors, such as stub templates, it's an extraordinarily baaad move, and I would plead with people not to do it under any circumstances (and I'm sure everyone at WikiProject Stub sorting would agree). These templates are designed so that, once a page reaches a certain critical size, editors can remove the stub template. Excellent - but what if they don't realise there's a stub template there, because it's on the talk page (believe me, no stub expander ever checks the talk page first - or if they do it's an extreme rarity - and damn few other editors do either)? The template stays there, and the article continues to clutter up one of the stub categories - possibly for months, until someone notices. The problem is even worse if, as I hear has been happening, an article is multi-stubbed and someone moves all but one stub template to the talk page. An editor may find the article via a stub category, extend the article and remove the stub template that is on the article page, not realising that there are more of them on the talk page - NEVER NEVER put one stub on a talk page and one on the article page itself! And if all the stub templates are automatically on the talk page, and everyone knows they're there (a wonderfully fun job to get them there, but I digress), then it would require twice as many edits for an editor to extend the article, save it, go to the talk page, and then edit and save that. And if editors aren't actively hunting via stub categories, then the one thing that will propmpt them to work on an article most is a stub template.

For templates that don't signal an editor that there is work to be done, fine - put them on the talk page. But for anything that requires removal by the editor after work has been completed (move to, wikify, expand, stub, listdev, etc etc etc) PLEASE - leave them where editors can see them and get at them.

Oh, and if anyone has been putting stub messages on the talk pages, could you please provide a list of all articles that this has been done to, as they will all need reverting. And if anyone else has any bright ideas about how stubs should be displayed, please clear it with Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting first! Grutness|^hello? 13:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I suggest deleting all but the most significant stub template from articles where there are more than one stub message, in that case; that solves the "leftover hidden stub" problem and the excessive template clutter too. Bryan 14:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of multi-stubbing is that there isn't a "most significant stub template". If a mountain is on the border of two countries, which country's geo-stub template is the most important? Or do you want to dump it into an anonymous load of geo-stubs with no country listed? If you have an Italian writer, is he Italian frst, or a writer first? If you have an article on someone who played both cricket and soccer internationally, are they a cricketer or a soccer player (again, sportsbio is an overcrowded anonymous category). Multi-stubbing allows for two things: It allows stub sorters to spot when there is a definite need for a separate "overlap" stub category (such as US-politician-stub) and it allows for editors who work in two completely unrelated fields to easily find stubs, thereby doubling (or trebling with the rare triple-stubs) the chance that the articles will be expanded. Removing second stub categories will undo much of the work that is being done by WikiProject Stub sorting where double-stubbing has been debated at length. Please don't undo all that hard work by going against the overwhelming consensus at WP:WSS! Grutness|^hello? 00:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at it another way. A stub article is ugly anyway - almost by definition. Which is better for Wikipedia in the long run, leaving it ugly and having it stay a stub, or making it marginally uglier and increasing the chance that it will grow into a full article? Grutness|^hello? 08:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template for deletion tag

There is a further complication with the Template:Tfd tag, which gets inserted into templates and can make it difficult to see which template it is suggesting should be deleted. Similar advantages and disadvantages apply. My view is that it would be better on the template talk page. Choose one of the main articles on [1] to see the effect and look at Template_talk:Tfd to see a discussion. --Henrygb 22:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creating Templates

How am I able to create templates? Zscout370 00:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply create a page at the Template: namespace (that is, whose name begins with "Template:" - for instance, Template:Disambig). — Itai (f&t) 11:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes listed elsewhere

I think the Infoboxes section in this table should be removed since there's already a huge number of infobox templates listed at Wikipedia:Infobox templates.

Oops. The unsigned comment above was mine. I've edited out the word huge because I was remembering the huge number of navigational templates, not infobox templates. Anyway, some of the content of Wikipedia:Template messages/Infoboxes duplicates info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. The rest seems to belong on Wikipedia:Infobox templates. - dcljr 23:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Navigational templates creeping into table

The entries in the article-related namespace table called Informational and Miscellaneous seem to contain navigational templates which should rightly be listed at Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Having such entries here only invites duplication of the content listed on the latter page. - dcljr 00:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for pointing that out. If nobody disagrees, I will move them to Wikipedia:Navigational templates. --kenb215 02:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page needs to indicate that somehow at the top. Why is there a seperate page not included on this list which labels itself in the intro as very general (referring to all templates, even "navigational" ones). Hyacinth 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note at the top of Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-Related namespace. I hope everyone finds this acceptable. I think the table itself could stand a little reorganization, but I'll wait a while to do that (at least not before I finish going through every subsection "cleaning up" -- see edit history). - dcljr 21:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where would this be listed?

1. Template:CurrentCOTW? Hopefully I'll be able to figure it out myself eventually. Thanks. Hyacinth 04:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd put it under General. - dcljr 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

I'd like to reorganize the article-related namespace table in the following way:

General	Article sources	Links	For deletion
Issues & Disputes	Cleanup	Maintenance	Stubs
Lists	Compact TOC	Infoboxes	Taxoboxes
Redirect pages	Talk namespace	Image namespace	Media namespace

Mainly because it groups the longest maintenance-related lists together in the same (2nd) row of the table. If there are no objections, I'll make this change next week. I'm hoping the Miscellaneous section will be gone by the time I do this, so that's why it's not in the above table. - dcljr 07:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the table is reorganized as above, I'd really like to reduce the redundancy among the sections Cleanup, Issues & Disputes and Maintenance... - dcljr 00:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template for objectionable/disturbing content or external link?

In a recent Wikinews article (of unknown authenticity), a message about possibly disturbing content was attached to an external link pointing to a video. Would it be helpful to have a template message for possibly objectionable content, modeled after the warning at the top of the Abu Ghraib torture story? - McCart42 19:52, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Link to translation

Link to translation is listed under Talk namespace. Which templates does it refer to? Is this different from Needs translation? Petersam 03:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful

Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful is an attempt to gather information supporting the assertion that so-called "meta-templates" (or "templates within templates") are harmful to Wikipedia because of the server/database overhead and impact of even minor changes to the "meta-template". Recently, it's been proposed that this page be adopted as a true guideline. Please review and discuss on that pages talk page. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Major reorganization

Well, I reorganized the table in a way similar to, but not identical with, the proposed reorganization above. I'm not completely happy with it, but I think it can serve as a basis for a better layout. As you can see, I've grouped Maintenance and Cleanup together next to Issues & Disputes. This magnifies the similarities between them. Should we perhaps try to reduce the redundancies? If so, I suggest we favor removing stuff from Issues and Maintenance if they're also in Cleanup. In fact, maybe there's not even a need for the Issues part anymore (the page is actually called Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes)... I'll ask on the respective talk pages (1, 2, 3) to see what people think. - dcljr 15:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done some of this. 'Issues' shouldn't have been with the disputes, I moved that to maintenance, and also avoided some of the duplication by transcluding move-related groups. --Joy [shallot] 00:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk page tag consistency

I've suggested at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment that the tags on talk pages be made a more consistent design. Please take a look and leave some comments there. violet/riga (t) 13:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Somebody should create a template for Wikipedians to experiment with. This template should be used with Wikipedia's sandbox. --SuperDude 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several templates for people to experiment with and they are already listed on this page. (Scroll down to "Template sandbox".) Perhaps they need to be listed more prominently on the page or in the wiki sandbox itself? - Pioneer-12 00:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added flux template

I'm not exactly sure where to categorize this template, so somebody can do it for me. I just pulled the following from the pope article and named the template flux:

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Categorized under Template_messages/General. This is quite similar to Template:Current but has a different emphasis. Wipe 21:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Stubs, unite

Ok there are god knows how many country stubs. I can do all of that with one template, use it with care.

{{GCS|Cuba}}:{{GCS|Cuba}}

{{GenericCountryStub|France}}:{{GenericCountryStub|France}}

Update

Minor issue with countries that have a different name for images and diferent name for their articles. (only a few has this problem)

{{GCSD|Us|United States}}:{{GCSD|Us|United States}}

{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}}:{{GenericCountryStubDetail|Us|United States}} Cat ^chi? 03:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

There are problems with the way that these templates are created because they make certain assumptions about the way that the country stubs, and their corresponding categories are named. They should not be used, and, in fact, should be deleted, because they will cause more problems than they solve. For example, note the red-linked categories that your examples created. BlankVerse ∅ 08:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - as noted on the WP:WSS pages - this system doesn't work well, will need constant updating to accommodate any newly created stubs, and requires more work from stub sorters, not less. Grutness...wha? 10:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Template table

I notice that the white table that used to list the types of templates has been split into two and moved onto separate pages (article messages and Wikipedia messages). However, this is likely to cause confusion, as the links on the page aren't clear, and it makes it hard to see an overall list of templates. In addition, the articles pointed to by the links on the new pages have not been moved, meaning that there are numerous broken links. Finally, in particular, I can't see where this change may have been discussed.

I propose that these changes are reverted, unless someone can point me to the relevant discussion. I know I was certainly very confused by the change, and it took me a while to figure out where the links were. --Ciaran H 15:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree heartly. This page used to be really useful, but suddenly I find that it's been turned into something obscure and useless, and that when I do find part of it at a new location, most of the links don't work. I've been retrieving an old version from the history and using that. I second the proposal to revert to the old version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this back to the version that works. User:Stevertigo seems to have broken this page down and tried to use transclusion to include the tables. This page should not look like a work in progress (even though all pages really are :-) and changes of this magnitude ought to be discussed here on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Project namespace for general rules on using this namespace. New versions can also be made in User namespace and then discussed here. Wipe 18:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Bravo," I say. The page really had become a mess. On a related note, it seems that the page could still use a tad of reorganizing. For example, it seems to me that the "Main Page and Alternatives" link could go down into the section for "Specific types of templates." Likewise, the Main Page Templates list seems to be in a different area of the Wikipedia than the "Navigational Templates" and "Infobox Templates" pages are -- this I determined just by looking at its URL, so please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking it could perhaps be moved. Or, perhaps, do the others need to be moved instead? MithrandirMage 18:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well now he's at it again. Stevertigo, if those headings look too big for you the reason is in your browser and the skin/CSS you are using. It's important to maintain the hierarchy of heading levels, because it's a logical and content-related matter, not a presentation-related one. If there was a table of contents, for example, it would look wrong with the heading hierarchy all messed up. I personally think the way the headings used to look is fine. If they need to be shrunk, it has to be done with purely presentational methods, like CSS code. Wipe 20:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Should we VfD the extra pages he created? I don't see anyone supporting his change. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Go ahead. This is no sandbox. If he wants to keep them he should move them to his user space (subpages of the user page) or let other people know if he's not able to. Wipe 17:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd support a VfD. --Ciaran H 00:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and VfD'd both of them - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article messages and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia messages. --Ciaran H 15:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Are there links somewhere to edit specific templates?

I'm only HTML semi-literate (at best). I've noticed that the "Tennessee Higher Education" template seems to be erroneous in that it lists John A. Gupton College (a mortuary school in Nashville) under a portion of the template which implies that it is a (state) technical/community college. I'd like this fixed, but if I try it am apt to do more harm than good. Suggestions, anyone? Rlquall 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just type "Template:name of template" in the search box on the left side of the page, in this case, Template:Tennessee Higher Education. See Wikipedia:Template namespace and other links at bottom of project page for more info... If you still need help, what specific change would you like to make? Petersam 03:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed: Add link to WP:ICT

This page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, lists the templates used to tag images. We should add a link to this page on the Template messages page. --michael180 21:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree Trödel|talk 00:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trödel, I moved the link you added to the proper place near the bottom of the page and added some information.

WP:ICT is longer than Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace but the latter still contains templates not listed on the former. I guess Wikipedia is so complex that it's hard to keep track of things that are already done. Wipe 05:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further reorganization

I propose moving the text about stubs to the "Related pages for specific types of templates" section near the bottom of the page. I also propose moving the taxobox page link to the same section because it's not a subpage of this page and differs in style and content. I can make these changes in the next week if they aren't already made.

The related pages section seems to be growing, so renaming it may be worth considering. Wipe 09:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did the reorganizing and also divided the table cells that had links to two subpages. Wipe 21:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Helper" templates

The list of template categories on the main project page here shows all sorts of templates that put some text or formatting into your page.

Is there a list of "Helper" templates, like Template:ine which you can use for doing something If a parameter is Not Empty, and like Template:X0?

Specifically, I am looking on Wikipedia for the identity template that I found on WikiMedia: m:Template:X1. In Wikipedia, Template:X1 is a sandbox, and I'm hoping that such an identity template is already in use somewhere. It's very short, sure, but there's no sense in having dozens of them around with different names.

Mrendo 14:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Can a Category be placed in a Template Talk page so templates can be categorized? Such categories should be in the first entry, the "Usage" section. (SEWilco 17:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC))

If there's no suitable section on this page, I suggest placing new (found) templates in the General section. A better name for it would actually be Miscellaneous. If there's enough templates of certain kind there, a new page for them can be created and listed here.

If you put a talk page in a category, won't that display the talk page in the category instead of the template itself? That sounds hackish and quite ugly to me. It would be somewhat useful but template names are sometimes not very clear or even counterintuitive and require metadata in listings (metadata being here the actual rendering of the template or some explanatory words). For example, what is that X1 supposed to be for? :-) Wipe 21:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See User:CesarB/Special effects templates for the ones I have been collecting. If that page is useful enough, it can be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace (I already had that possibility in mind when I started it). --cesarb 21:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I was just thinking how long it would be before someone exposed the innocent Wikipedia editors to the horrors of Template metaprogramming ☺ --cesarb 22:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The workarounds for control structures are worse, bue see m:Template:Add and m:Template:Multiply for a good laugh and cry. Some 1 assembly required. (SEWilco 03:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Recently it has been suggested that Template talk: pages contain Usage information.[2] Having instructions attached to a template should reduce "what is that X1 supposed to be for?" questions. Some incantations can be a bit awkward to untangle, particularly if some if/then/else/case workarounds are being used. (SEWilco 03:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Template:Gnuweb

I would appreciate any comments any one might have on using this template, as a way to prevent repeated copyvio checks, etc. func(talk) 23:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Voice actor (proposed)

I propose we make a standarized template; Template:Voice actor, for voice actors, as we have for IMDB and TvTome. There are several actors that only perform voice acting, and quite a few more that do both. (See Category:Voice actors) This template would make it easy to reference the database.

I originally created the template Template:Fuzzy actor, as its on Tfd for reliability issues. The naming was only for fear the the template name "voice actor" would interfere with the article "voice actor". All of this explained in the talk pages of that template.

I currently have the new proposed template at User:Who/Voice actor and temporary proposal usage at Mel Blanc, and assume the database in proposal is a reliable source. Please visit the proposed page and offer any comments or suggested changes. <>Who?¿? 03:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me - go ahead and create the template. I think VoiceChasers.com is the best voice actor database out there right now, so go ahead and link to that; it's similar to IMDB but includes more voice actor stuff than IMDB does (such as radio and commercials). - Brian Kendig 29 June 2005 02:44 (UTC)

• Implemented. See Template talk:Voice actor for discussion and/or layout changes. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)

The Template boxes: An Index to Templates

Hi there. As a newish editor I've spent some time familiarizing myself with the way Wikipedia is edited. I'd been looking for the method to put up a notice on an article page or in the article's talk page. I eventually found out that one does this with the use of templates, which are indexed in this article.

I think some of the tables that categorize the various templates are unhelpful. The point of an index is to show clearly the end point or the category of the end point a user is interested in. If the index is too simplified, this end is not served, because a user will have to click through and run down the list to see if what he's looking for is actually there.

I edited [3] a table ("Maintenance") yesterday that I thought was the poorest example (it took me some time to locate what I was looking for from the main page because the table was uninformative). This edit was reverted [4] by user Wipe, who says, "Reverted. This page shouldn't be bloated like that; the full lists are on the subpages, please use shorthands here."

I disagree with him. It wasn't "bloated," it was clearly itemized, and a user, especially a new one, will be able to find what he is looking for much more easily that way. Experienced users may find no difference of course: for example, you probably already know what a "sister project" is, but a poor newbie looking for a template to Wikibooks may not know have a snowball's chance of knowing that's where he'd have to look to find it.

That's the point of a classification or an index: make everything clear.

I'm not particularly miffed or anything of course. If the tables stay the way they are it won't make my job difficult because now I know where everything is. It'll just be one more weakness on Wikipedia. ~ Neuroscientist 09:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that sister project is a vague concept and should be expanded. But surely it would be enough to say:

• Move to Wiktionary/Wikiquote/Wikisource/Wikibooks/Commons

instead of:

Moves:

• Move to Wiktionary
• Move to Wikiquote
• Move to Wikisource
• Move to Wikibooks
• Move to Commons

That just wastes space, makes the table hard to use, and looks silly. The point of this page, as I see it, is to give an overall view of what kinds of templates are out there. The subpages themselves (e.g. /Maintenance) are the indexes; this is an index to indexes - they are just a click away as you mentioned. Consider the page Wikipedia:Navigational templates - would it make sense to list everything that is there also on this page? Hardly. Some of the subpages here aren't (yet) complete and your style of indexing could actually bloat this page into a mammoth. As a new user, you have to run down the lists in any case. It's not worth making this page excessively long and hard to use for experienced editors just to save a couple of clicks and a learning experience from the newbies. If you want more structure, you can add it to the subpages by dividing the long tables into sections. Wipe 15:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed IMDB and Tvtome template updates

I propose we replace the {{{name}}} attribute with {{PAGENAME}}.

See full proposal.

<>Who?¿? 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

bulletpoints

Have bulletpoints been disabled in templates? Or is it my browser? --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Template locations

There is a poll at Wikipedia:Template locations and a discussion at Template talk:Expansion, discussing where certain templates, particularly the expansion template, ought to go. I.e. whether it belongs on an article, or on a talk page.

This is particularly important as one user is currently unilaterally moving the template from a large series of random articles to their talk pages, in the process losing information such as which section it referred to. ~~~~ 13:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

spoiler

Does this page really need a spoiler? --SuperDude 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read the part of the page before the spoiler. You will see that the spoiler is there as an example of how to use the template. Mrendo 13:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see what the spoiler is for, but it is confusing and draws your attention away from the article. --Commander Keane 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've wrapped it into a dotted-line box so that at least it looks suspicious (boxes usually delineate something external to the text at hand). --Joy [shallot] 00:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Offsite help

I'm also editing for an alternate Wiki, the ClemsonWiki, and I'm trying to use the following text:

===Stub templates===
* <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki>
*{{tl|Stub}}

which should make:

Stub templates

• {{stub}}
• {{Stub}}

but instead I'm getting this, and I don't understand why. Does anyone have any idea? Am I being dumb and missing something? The offsite wiki seems to be running the current version of MediaWiki, other than that, I'm at a loss.

Thanks, EvilPhoenix talk 07:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• What you're doing there is probably not what you intend to do. You're using {{template|Stub}} when you probably mean [[template|Stub]]. The first syntax does something quite different - it's substituting in the template at Template:Template and using "stub" as the first parameter - that is, {{{1}}}. If that's really what you want to do, you'll need to create the Template:Template page on the wiki and copy the contents of Wikipedia's own Template:Template page to it. Hope this helps. --Ciaran H 17:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Thanks, I'll do that. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Math equations to plain english

Is there a template message to tag a page of equations to be translated from math formula to plain english?

Such as: Math2english (example template)

This article's formula needs to be translated to the English language.

A simple case would be:

1+1=2 one plus one equals two;

a more complex one would be:

$f_{c}={1 \over 2\pi {\sqrt {LC}}}$

the resonant frequency euqals one over the product of two pi and the square root of inducatance and capacitance.

This wouldn't replace the formula, but be in addition to it. It may be helpful to people not skilled in mathematics. Thanks. JDR 16:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you make a template?

Do we have basic instructions on making templates? If so, where? Maurreen (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically, you just create an article on Tempate:Your template name here and add {{Your template name here}} to articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You might also want to try Help:Template. —Mike 05:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Should I create a template?

To mark articles that will be edited by studends of our project (Wikipedia:School and university projects/Pitt-Societies-2005)? I was thinking of creating Template:Pitt-Societies-2005 with the text 'This article is being edited by students of University of Pittsburgh as a part of Pitt-Societies-2005 project.' What do you think about this idea? Should the template contain any other info? Should it be added to article's main or discussion space? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably on the talk page because it is strictly editor related and not needed for the readers. You might want to refer to Wikipedia:Template standardisation in that case. —Mike 05:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

request for illustration template - "gifs plz!"

Is it worth having a maintenance template indicating that an article would benefit from the addition of some kind of illustration, or the replacement of unsuitable ones? In particular, technical diagrams are an excuse for someone to work out on a CAD package for a bit, so they might like a list of things they can do that would be useful.

Template:Subject-editor

I've just come across this on Marv Goldberg (its only use so far); my own feeling is that it's not only unneeded but undesirable, and I've explained on Template talk:Subject-editor — other comments would be welcome. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/All

What is up with the Wikipedia:Template messages/All page? It shows up in the "Articles that need to be wikified" category and I was going to see if I could make it show up in the same place as all the Wikipedia namespace articles, but when I try to access it, it times out. Thanks -- Kjkolb 06:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It probably shows up in "Articles needing to be wikified" because it's got a {{wikify}} template in it. It has been extraordinarily slow lately (I haven't had the patience to see if it times out It finally loaded; it didn't time out just now), but I don't know why. --Alynna 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Template for restructuring or reorganizing an article?

I came here looking to find a template on restructuring or reorganizing an article, but see that there is nothing along those line. I think there should be something for articles made up of good content, but have various structural problems or just just around from one topic to the next in no discernable order. Any thoughts? 172 | Talk 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Table Templates

User:LarryLACa moved table template related talk here 11/04/05.

prettytable

table formatting templates like [[Template:prettytable|{{prettytable}}]]? - Omegatron 20:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Table fixes, please? please please please

Although I've read that table weirdness may be result of my browser (Safari 1.0.3 in Mac OS X, FWIW) the "General" table looks fine, but the "Maintenance" table stretches waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over to the right side of the screen. As does the "general Cleanup" table, but the following "specific cleanup issues" and "Controversy" tables go back to normal. could somebody with more wikitablexperience please fix this? Thank you. Soundguy99 01:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you should update or use another browser (such as Firefox). A quick Google search reveals lots of problems with that Safari version. Wipe 14:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Table Template Topic/Category Needed?

I've spent the last 2 days looking for/trying to work with Table Templates. I think we need a topic or list to collect these templates. There are several Table Templates under Leisure..Games (stubs), but it would be nice to have a collection just for Table templates. This would facilitate reuse.

See also discussion about this pages table organization. I'd suggest listing Table Templates under General. LarryLACa 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Renamed the Standard boxes list to "Subject matter boxes and diagrams" in the table but left the sub-page name unchanged. Added bullet items for Diagrams, Games and Puzzles, etc. Updated the sub-page lead paragraph accordingly. Add a few related templates that I had found to the list. -- LarryLACa 06:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Mis-directed Edit links

The Edit links in the tables are directing to the next table from the one you click. I don't know how to fix this, so...somebody? --Calion 08:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

American vs. British English

Hi there! Can anybody tell me if there is a template anywhere that deals with linguistic unilateralism, i.e. when there is only one language mentioned, while the issued matter has different names in american and british english? TIA :) — Daniel FR 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify the type of template sought. Do you want a nicely formatted list of alternate terms, auto translation for localization or ...? There is a statment under policies about being regionally tolerant and deferring to the most closely related geographic area when the subject matter dictates. (e.g. articles on English (UK) history should defer to british usage.) It's a standard practice to use #Redirects for alternate article titles to bridge local conventions. See also Disambiguation. -- LarryLACa 06:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Table column edit links broken

BTW, If one displays the edit links within the table column headings, and tries to use them, they go to the wrong place. The Subject matter edit link goes to the next section. -- LarryLACa 06:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to solve this (I notice Francis Schonken tried too); I got the edit buttons to match the correct section #s but they still open the wrong section. It appears to be bug in MediaWiki relating to sections nested within tables. Not sure if there's any way to fix it short of fixing the MediaWiki code itself. --TidyCat 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Template talk template

Made this template for a temlplate how a template talk page should look like Template:Template talk template _→AzaToth 01:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Graphic icons

I wish to one day see all boxed template messages have graphical icons that accurately reflect their content. I tried adding my own icons to some of them, but almost all of them were removed. Looks like being bold doesn't always work.  Denelson83  00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Current and future event templates

I've created Wikipedia:Current and future event templates page for a detailed documentation and listing of current and future events templates (taken the example of Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Actually I'm in an intermediate level of English, so I appreciate your help in copyediting and expanding this page. CG 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposing a warning template for running politicians

If there's a better place to write this, or if I should just be bold and create this, please instruct me..

As Wikipedia continues its enormous growth, it also rises in importance as an information resource. Unfortunately, this also applies to politics, and as the George W. Bush and John Kerry articles demonstrated a nearing election can turn our coverage of the people involved into hotbeds of POV and vandalism. For these reasons I propose creating this template (or an improved version of it):

Voting box icon

This is an article about a candidate in the upcoming {{{1}}}, which may draw controversy and partisanship.

to add into appropriate articles no earlier than one month before the voting starts. --Kizor 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a good idea, but it should probably be added immediately or as soon as possible after they announce candidacy.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of a month as an arbitrary limit to ensure that articles don't get slapped with this too soon; announcements for less prominent elections have little immediate effect. --Kizor 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but as an example, Mitt Romney just announced he will not run for relelection as Massachusetts Governer, and political anaylists almost unanimously agree that he will run for president. So it would make sense, assuming the template official by then, to be ready to slap it on.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now created Template:Running_candidate without a time recommendation. Thanks to OOA. --Kizor 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Kizor, great template. I have already found use for it. --Ezeu 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Woot! --Kizor 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Using Subst:

Is there a policy/guideline regarding when to use the {{subst:template}} format instead of the {{template}} format? Everyone knows certain specific templates, such as the AFD templates, have the instruction that they use the subst: construction, but what's the proper procedure for, say, an infobox? My understanding is that subst: is always preferable because it reduces server load, but that could be a misunderstanding. The Literate Engineer 03:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about this too. My preference would be not to use subst on many of the tags that go on article pages, since the unsubstituted template is far more readable and editor-friendly.--Srleffler 07:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some templates should definitely be subst'ed (like those for the various -FDs) others should never be subst'ed (like the stub templates) the others, it seems to vary from case to case. There's a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Subst, though I haven't really been following the debate. Grutness...wha? 10:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)