Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

Use of templates for coloring text

There's a persistent habit for many transportation system articles to use templates to create article links, resulting in text like this (example from Kowloon Southern Link):

Kowloon Southern Link is a new urban extension of West Rail Line ... east of rail tracks of the Tung Chung Line and Airport Express.

I think this is terrible template abuse... but is there any policy clearly banning such things? Jpatokal (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Guideline Wikipedia:Colours mentions overriding a link color. Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Template-Userbox

How do I make the following Template-namespace userboxes:

  Template:User/UBX/Us441/WiiResort= This user plays Wii Sports Resort
  Template:User/UBX/Us441/WiiResort/likes= This user likes Wii Sports Resort

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate example

The page uses the template Template:Disambig as an example in the first section; this has the unfortunate effect of adding the hidden Category:All disambiguation pages. Adding the parameter |nocat=true doesn't seem to have the desired effect. I can't think of a suitable template which will not add some category, but I hope someone else can. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed using nocat to prevent example from actually categorising the page: {{Disambig|nocat=true}}. Perhaps it would have worked for you too but the preview page doesn't update the categories underneath the list of templates used. — Richardguk (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot that categories derived from templates are applied with some delay and I was too timid to just add the parameter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Question at Template talk:Movenotice

Anyone who knows the codes and whatnot, could you give a bit of help for the question/issue discussed at Template talk:Movenotice? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Movenotice fixed, documentation updated, talk page updated. — Richardguk (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Genius! Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Masquerade?

A sentence reads "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.." Not sure why this is here. I had a brief text once regarding local legislatures which I did not want to maintain in 20 places. So I put it into a template. The material was too short to comprise "an article."

In another venue, 8 churches described there descent from a single church a long time ago. They all wanted a summary, which tended to change as people uncovered new facts and supperior references. It made sense to keep it as a template. The previous versions had wildly screwy histories and not enough eyes to maintain article integrity. 'The new way did. This particular template could have been mistaken for an article. It was fairly long. But it was really a subsection, not an article, per se.

So why the restriction? Student7 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record: inserted on 16 March 2005. And I agree with questioning this sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The text in question apparently came about due to this TFD. While I understand the reasoning behind it being written that way at the time, Wikipedia has grown a lot since then and the underlying software also handles transclusions much better. The remaining issue I see with transcluding sections of text (which is already commonly done in some types of articles) is maintainability. The editing interface does not make it easy for editors inexperienced with the concept of transclusion to edit shared/transcluded material (including actual "templates"). Perhaps this is something for the Usability Initiative to consider? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, transcluded sections are very unfriendly to editors, particularly new ones (but old ones as well, as we don't expect bits of a page to be transclusions). You think you're watching a page, then you find the text has changed because someone's changed the underlying template. Or else you think a page is on your watchlist because you've edited it, then you find you've actually edited a template and not the page itself. And of course it's hard to amend or tailor the standard text to the context of a specific article. I'd be in favour of continuing to discourage this practice - the cut-and-paste function works just as easily.--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the text to read, ""Templates should not normally masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". Hopefully that should be a satisfactory compromise. -- œ^™ 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted that change. I also oppose 'masquerading as article content' for the reasons stated by Kotniski, and if we're going to change the current position, we'll need much firmer guidelines than "normally". (What's abnormal then, and when would it be acceptable?) Jpatokal (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't noticed what was already written in the nutshell at the top of the page: "Templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content, in the main article namespace." It doesn't need to be any more specific or "firmer" than that. Users are expected to use common sense and editorial judgement. -- œ^™ 04:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Kotniski's concern about newbies watching a mysteriously changing text with nothing showing on the watchlist. And the nuisance of finding and editing the template instead of the article. But would that be enough to deter use in selected situations? I think it is perfect for US legislative seats which need to be installed in dozens of articles, for example. Anything else is a caution to maintain. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would define "article content" as textual content, and thus interpret "masquerade as article content" as meaning templates being used to pull in paragraphs of plain text. Tables, infoboxes etc are not 'masquerading' as plain text and hence using templates for them is (IMHO) fine. Jpatokal (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe your definition correct and not under challenge here. Student7 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What about lists of television episodes, for example List of Bleach episodes (also a featured list). It and many, many others like it transclude the subsections which are named List of Bleach episodes (season 1), etc. This is commonly done and accepted, so shouldn't we mention this somewhere? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it'll help. -- œ^™ 06:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First, this is a guideline, not a policy. Common sense is required.

I also find it a pain in the ass to access templates when editing an article. It would be nice if we could access them more readily: the 'edit' link on tables is very nice in this regard. I agree keeping watch on them is also a problem. I do think the practice should be discouraged. For example, in moons of Jupiter#Table, moons of Saturn#Table of moons, etc, the tables of moons were once transcluded from templates before I merged them back into the articles. I could see no point in making templates of them, since they only appeared in a single article apiece. Perhaps we could be more firm in saying, "text which is not transcluded in multiple articles should be placed directly in the article where it belongs" or some such.

However, there are times when transcluding text is quite convenient. For example, voiced alveolar fricative (the [z] sound) lists the various features of this sound. The description of 'voiced' was repeated in 63 articles, 'alveolar' in 24, 'fricative' in 33 (9 now separated out), 'oral' in 105, 'central' in 68 (103 before I removed some), and 'pulmonic' in 100. That made maintenance a real pain in the ass, and transcluding the descriptions as text templates (which I created yesterday: {{voiced}}, {{alveolar}}, {{fricative}}/{{sibilant}}, {{oral}}, {{central articulation}}, and {{pulmonic}}) should actually make watching them much easier. These aren't the kinds of things that are likely to be edited very often, so a couple watching editors should be sufficient. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, a discussion about prose templates occurred a couple of years ago regarding a similar issue: WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 16#Template:Near-close central unrounded vowel.

Some important issues were brought up, the most relevant being editability. While I offered a solution for prose templates that could be cordoned off as their own sections, the usage of e.g. {{fricative}} makes the solution I offered (section headings in the template) untenable. Perhaps we could have v d e superscripts/subscripts connected to these templates. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the tracking/watchlist problem and the potential that someone may (unnoticed) grab text, template and change it without anyone noticing for awhile. I will be wary about creating text templates in the future and perhaps discuss them here before creating them. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; the question of templates doing the work of "article content" was already mentioned prominently on top of the article, but some of us get wrapped up in reading deeply, and forget about such notices, so I changed the "masquerade" correspondingly. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook icon

An editor recently updated Template:Facebook to include the Facebook icon (). Given that said link template is (unfortunately) used on many, many pages, is that something we want to do? Is that usage of the image covered by its fair use rationale? Should we do the same on the many other similar templates (e.g. Template:MySpace, Template:LinkedIn, Template:imdb, Template:YouTube)? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If its "fair use rationale" is a legitimate concern, an administrator would have flagged the "File:F icon.svg" image when it was added to Wiki Commons. ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm unenthusiastic about this change. I don't like the way it emphasizes the link more than others (e.g., an organization's main website). Also, this template gets used in references, and I think it inappropriate for a bibliographic citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"it emphasizes the link more than others" I am not a fan of Facebook either. :-) However, if a Wiki editor has a good idea for enhancing Wiki's presentation and, just by coincidence, the enhancement first affects Facebook, is it an astute move to trash the whole idea? (btw, can your PC handle graphics or only text?)

"this template gets used in references" An incredibly minor exception. (You need to brush up on the Wiki article "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" to learn where Facebook fits into the big picture of "reliable, published sources".) In short, you're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My "PC" is a Mac, and it handles graphics far better than any Windoze box.

I don't happen to care one way or the other about Facebook; I would have the same opinion if you did this to any website. I do not believe that adding small icons, which make the links line up strangely in articles like Ginx_TV#External_links, is an "enhancement". I think it is a wart. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You're failing at defending your stance, WhatamIdoing; Ginx_TV#External_links looks just fine. ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that Themfromspace removed the icon from the template, I completely agree. When the icon was present, the icon screwed up the alignment of the list. I'm glad you agree that the page looks fine without the Facebook icon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to the addition of the logo. It is completely unnecessary. I surely do not want the bottom of each article to become a series of colorful logos for Facebook, MySpace, IMDb, etc. templates. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does enhancing the presentation of Wiki articles need to stop at Facebook, MySpace, IMDb? ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also opposed. I explained myself at Template talk:Facebook, but my thoughts echo Logical Fuzz and WhatamIdoing above. This would set a bad precedent. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that including the logo is a bad idea. It is unnecessary, carries no noticeable benefit, and gives visual emphasis to a specific link that isn't necessarily any more useful than other links that may be provided. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and yet your User page and WhatamIdoing's User page and Logical Fuzz's User page and, well, at least Themfromspace's name are filled with "useless" colorful graphics. Only UnitedStatesian's User page looks like it belongs to a 76-year-old spinster / schoolmarm with backed-up juices. ProResearcher (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So? User pages are not articles, so the layout and content considerations applied to articles would not be relevant to them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. A Wiki page is a Wiki page is a Wiki page, and you are applying double standards--only the best for you and [yaaaaawn] lifeless black & white text for the Wiki articles. ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I am in favor of icons. This is a "navigational tradition" common to many Internet pages, not just Wikipedia. It is similar to large "icons" attached to most Wikipedia user page boxes. This is similar to favicons for websites. This helps reader to recongnize a link that lead to a familiar social area. Finally, you can also look here: Category:Image_with_comment_templates --ssr (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that all of the templates in that category are for use on project and talk pages, and are not considered appropriate for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One can also think about widespread RSS icon and "User" icon at the very top of every wikipedia page if you are logged in and that precedes your user name which is a link leading to your user page. --ssr (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also not article content. We're talking about potentially privileging one specific external link (not even to another WMF project) with an icon. If you believe icons should be used generally for external links, you should take that to the village pump for a broader discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The RSS link is not present on any of my pages, so it's clearly not present on every Wikipedia page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on, RL0919, are you really so myopic? Get off the "It's free advertising for Facebook" soapbox. By pure coincidence, the "icon for a template" issue concerns Facebook first. NO CONSPIRACY, RL0919, so relax. (However, if you'd like a few fresh conspiracies to fret over, send me an email address, and I'll fill your cup.) ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about advertising or conspiracies. As I did say, if you believe icons should be used generally for external links, then raise that discussion. However, that may not be possible because not every site icon will fall under commons:Commons:Threshold of originality the way the Facebook logo does. So we still end up with the problem of emphasizing some links with logos and not others. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... no, not our style, would cause inconsistency with the presentation of other external links.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting a promotional icon next to an external link is the opposite of how information should be presented at Wikipedia. Per WP:EL, links are supposed to provide useful information of relevance to the article, and a reader should not need an icon to guide them, so even if the icon were not promotional it would still be unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for just one page?

Question: is there any reason for an infobox-like template to exist if it is used on one and only one page? The template in question is }{:Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma)}}? This template was used on exactly one page, Kamma (caste), though I had to pull it off today because editors have been altering the formatting in a way that was messing up the article, and I don't know enough to fix it. However, would transclusion on only one page be a reason to nominate for deletion? Or does it not matter? Or is this, in fact, common? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best way to put it is to say that single-use templates are discouraged. They aren't strictly prohibited, but in most cases where they come to WP:Templates for discussion, they end up deleted or merged into some more widely used template. If the template in question has potential for wider use, then the best solution may be to fix it and place it on more articles. This particular template looks like it might be a navigation template that could go on multiple pages. If it really is useful only on one article and there isn't a more generic replacement, then the template could be substituted into the article and deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

wikilinks to template namespace

In tennis project we now have templates that are not being used for transclusion or substitution in any articles, but are just linked to as pages. For an example see: Template:Novak Djokovic 2009 career timeline and click on "what links here". The one and only transclusion is to userspace (of the creator), and for the rest this Template page is just wikilinked to. Is this a proper use of Template namespace? I couldn't find anything about it on the page here, or in other Template related guidelines. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's harmless but people won't like it. Suggest moving such pages to sup-pages of WikiProject Tennis. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC).