Template talk:Main

Purpose of template

When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created. This template, used in the subarticle, uses the name of the main article as a parameter to produce a link to the main article:

{{main|Article}}

will produce

Main article: Article

Comparison with related templates

The following two are meant to be used in connection with each other:

• At the top of a brief section concerning a subject that has a more detailed article (this is the only form specified by the Wikipedia Manual of Style);
• or at the top of the specialized article, to refer to the more general article: Template:main (talk, backlinks, edit):

• at the top or bottom of a section of the more general article, to refer to the specialized article: Template:see details (talk, backlinks, edit):

---

The following set of two is an alternative:

• Template:subarticleof (talk, backlinks, edit):

• Template:seesubarticle (talk, backlinks, edit):

*CAUTION*

This template is unstable. It has not achieved consensus. Its appearance and format changes on a weekly if not sometimes daily basis, see the template article history. If you desire a stable appearance, hand code the message directly.

References

• Wikipedia:Long article layout
• Wikipedia:Summary style
• m:Help:Template

Indenting.

I really think we should be indenting. It's not in fact ugly, because if it needs to be clear that the text is not really part of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Widely used utility templates like this one should be frozen (after a time), so they can be relied upon. Modifying such a template is like running a 'bot that makes cosmetic changes to thousands of pages. Mirror Vax 01:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the template to include an indent. I know it may be stressful to the wiki, but I feel that it looks better, I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I think that it will lead to the template being more widely adopted (as it stands, many people just write out the words again themselves). -Lommer | ^talk 01:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

A lot of articles were written before templates, and a lot of editors don't know about templates. (SEWilco 15:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC))

Ok, my edit has been reverted on the grounds that this template is used too frequently to be changed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this as I think it runs contrary to the whole idea of wikipedia — if something isn't good, change it to make it better. As for template usage, I agree with SEWilco and know exactly where you're coming from. I don't think people would take kindly though to us replacing article text with a template if they don't like the new look (i.e. the indenting). That said, can anyone else weigh in on the indenting debate. If I'm alone in thinking that the indenting method is better, then that's fine. Otherwise I really think we should change it.-Lommer | ^talk 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If people can't rely on these little utility templates not changing according to the latest edit war, then they won't (and shouldn't) use them. That's why I suggested a freeze. Because if they are going to change every month, then they are worse than useless. Mirror Vax 21:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I hear your argument, but I still contend that it's a red herring - if the new style is better, it should be adopted. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to past formatting styles just because it's easier. On another note, I just notice the {{seemain|}} template. It's quite clear to me that I'm not the only one to have confused the two, as most usages of {{main}} are incorrect. Also, I'd like to apologize for putting the indent in - I didn't realize that a similar edit had just been reverted (I didn't check the history) and I agree that contentious edits should be resolved here before being implemented so that the template changes minimally. -Lommer | ^talk 22:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

HTML comment for bots

I added a little HTML comment ("main") at the end of the template, so when "subst:" is used there is a marker of the source of the text. This will help bots (and other editors aware of this) to identify the line is associated with Template:main. (SEWilco 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Missuse of Main

You cited that the Main template is only used in the top of the article, but in fact, it isn't. It is used like the template Seemain, in the sections of the article. So what's the use of two templates? 500LL 09:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this template is misused, but that doens't mean its useless. We just need to edit all those articles into using seemain. -Lommer | ^talk 22:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but the concept of the template "Main" is ever used in an article? 500LL 09:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Main is used correctly in places. See Esperanto phonology. (SEWilco 21:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Great templates. Only I just used seemain and main in exactly the opposite way recommended here and find their output greatly confusing. I call one article the main article and the other is the subarticle, but of course the subarticle is the main place for its subject. If the difference is not made clear then they will continue to be misused. Why not say something like "This is a subarticle of {{{1}}}" and "See also the subarticle {{{1}}}" respectively called subarticle and seesubarticle. --MarSch 10:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fabulous idea MarSch! I think the confusion surrounding this template is pretty bad, and anything we can do to clear it up is good. I think you should go ahead and implement it, though maybe would should agree on a draft and then implement that so that Mirror Vax and others don't get upset because we're changing this template too much. And yes 500LL, apparently Main is used in articles (though infrequently). I was surprised to learn that too. -Lommer | ^talk 19:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's be bold. Template:subarticleof Template:seesubarticle. --MarSch 10:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I like those, and I've changed them a bit. Are we now meant to start switching articles over to those until main and seemain fall out of use? Or should main and seemain become redirects to those? Or should we put those templates' content on main and seemain? I like those template titles better because they're more clear as to what we're doing. On the other hand, if we blank main and turn it into a redirect I'd expect a revolt (or at least a revert-war). How do others think we should proceed? -Lommer | ^talk 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should. Also none of my trials on Esperanto and Austria were reverted/changed. Actually it would be even simpler if we just redirected main and seemain. --MarSch 12:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before you break a lot, test on at least 20 randomly chosen articles which are presently using Main. (SEWilco 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

You might also look at Global warming. (SEWilco 15:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I see a lot of potential seesubarticle}}s, but no problems. All these articles are basically about different aspects of global warming. They don't have the backlink to acknowledge this yet though. Do you feel this would be inappropriate? I am not sure if you want me to convert to use of subarticles (and break something) on this article, so I have not done this, though I think it would be easy. It is my hope that this is what most article will look like this when they grow. I'm having a lot of trouble with similar but unlinked articles for which the relationship is unclear. --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be better to test while risking breaking something than to redirect everything without testing. (SEWilco 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I agree with your new templates MarSch, and I find it great. But I think that you should "advertise" it a little (maybe in the Village pump). And another thing, the Template:subarticleof isn't too visible and maybe annoying in the top of the page? maybe it's better to be put on another place.500LL 19:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You think I should advertize use of these templates at VP. I'm trying not to rush this, these new templates are still being tested :) I'm not sure whether you think subarticle}} is too visible at the top or not visible enough, but I'm open to suggetsions and boldness. If you think it usefull you yourself could advertize at VP :) --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think changing the text of main to something like that in Template:Subarticleof would be the best solution here. At the moment the similarity and lack of specifity in Template:Main makes it so that most people (myself included) don't even realize it is supposed to be different than Seemain. I think that "For a more detailed treatment, etc." is far too verbose for what it is supposed to be. A combination of Template:Subarticleof and Template:Seemain as the two choices would be great and would prevent confusion. --Fastfission 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of the "Main" and "Subarticleof", not only because I find it annoying in the top of the page, but it's also confusing. eg: Hip Hop music is a sub-article of Hip hop, but also of Music genre and History of music. We just can't put them all in the top of the article. Neverless, I think wether it's History of Esperanto or Causes of World War I, it's pretty clear for the reader that the first article is a sub of Esperanto and the second of World War I, in addition there's always a link in a sub-article introduction to the main article. So what really is the purpose of the template "Main" and "Subarticleof"? 500LL 18:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in, I think there is a bit of a problem with subarticleof as against main. I think that main should be reworded to fix it as not all related articles are subarticles. Subarticles imply a tree based structure, which is very nice and pretty, but, for example, you could hardly consider George Micheal as a subarticle of Wham! since he's more famous now for his own music. Anyway. How about seemain and relatedto or something? I agree things are very unclear, but subarticleof is not the way forward. We need one standard way which main, and seemain almost had, but was just too confusing. -- Tomhab 02:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having two different templates implies a directed structure. I have just made this explicit and non-confusing in naming and wording. If you want to express a symmetric relation such as relatedto then you don't need seemain for this, so I am a bit confused as to what you propose. --MarSch 10:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not with the template names: the difference between "Subarticleof" and "Seesubarticle" is clear, it's the concept of "Subarticleof" that's disturbing. It implies making a hierachy of all the articles, with the problems that Tomhab cited above. 500LL June 29, 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Yeah sorry meant to reply. My point was that I would much prefer something that was all encompassing. There is no real need to have subarticlepof}} and seemain}} - they should (imo) be merged into one that seemain}} was nearly at. For example using "see more detailed article" and "see more articles of this topic" would be less ambiguous but more useful that the subarticle templates. Make anymore sense? -- Tomhab 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that we really only need one template and that that template should be used to point to more detailed articles, but there is no need to point back from the detailed article. Correct? Would this be fundamentally different from a hierarchy? The only thing I can imagine is if two articles are about tighly related things and they mention eachother as alternatives. This may be usefull _also_, but we should use a third template for this {siblingarticle} or so. This could even grow into a navbox. --MarSch 1 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I suggest we have ONE template for seemain}} and all equivs (such as seesubarticle}} and seesiblingarticle}} (if it comes into existance) etc and ONE template for main}} etc. This would make things simpler than people going "hmmm should I use seemain}} or seesubarticle}}". It is of course just an opinion. -- Tomhab 2 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

Okay, but I thought you objected to that because it implies a tree structure. What wording do you suggest for the templates that you think are best?--MarSch 2 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

I wish the template change had been better advertised and discussed before it was implemented. I have seen numerous uses of this template in articles and have used it myself quit a bit. I understand that this use may have been incorrect. However, the problem is that many of these uses on a number of article pages are now incorrect. For example, in American literature, the section on African-American literature says that for more information, see the sub article on African-American lit. The error arises b/c African-American lit is not a sub article--it is a main article. This is true for many of the links that had been using the template. Is there another template I can use in sections of articles that gives the link is to a main article on a subject? The seemain template has the same problem. If not, I think I will go back to the articles I'm working on and simply type in a version of Main article: African-American literature. Thanks for any info. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Isn't African-American literature also American literature? Isn't that why it is discussed in that article? Considering this I think that African-American literature should be a subarticle of American literature.--MarSch 3 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

It is part of it. It's also a unique and separate genre (see the article for reason why). The reason this template bothers me it because it reduces all of Wikipedia to a few "Main" articles and everything else is a subarticle. For example, is George Washington a subarticle of the American Revolution? I don't think anyone would support this but by the logic of this template this is what would happen. The reason I mention this example is the American Revolution article is an example where this template could be used. Instead, the authors have manually inserted links after the words Main Article in the different article sections. Use of subarticle seems like a slippery slope. Is there another way? Also, please do not label African-American literature as a subarticle b/c this is not technically correct. Best, --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Line return after Main

I hope everyone agrees with having a line return after main, so that the text that follows it isn't on the same line as Main article: History of Turkmenistan --Berkut 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

the indent colon takes care of that. --MarSch 2 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

No Consensus on redirect

Redirecting this template is not without debate. Until the issue is resolved using proper channels I have changed it back. This impacts 100s of articles and people, changes the asthetics and layout of many articles, including major ones. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Subarticleof ... Vote for Deletion

The idea of making Wikipedia a heirarchal network is disturbing. "Main article" does not imply a heirarchy, it is simply a rhetorical device. Please voice your opionion at the above link. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

TFD to determine consensus

I have placed {{main}} and {{seemain}} on WP:TFD for the purpose of determining whether they should be kept or redirected as MarSch's desires. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:14 (UTC)

template:main and template:seemain

(Moved from User talk:SEWilco)

Hi, I am trying to fix things, but to do that I have to break them, so someone notices them. I cannot do this in another way. Once spotted things can usually be easily fixed, although some people insist on "fixing" this template, instead of choosing a local fix. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

• You were advised to test your subarticle theories on several articles rather than breaking many. Which articles did you test on? (provide History links so we can see the diffs) Did you attempt to fix misuse of Main rather than breaking it? (SEWilco 3 July 2005 22:59 (UTC))
• You say "I cannot do this in another way.", but perhaps you don't know all the ways or you should not do it. Several ways have been suggested. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 23:12 (UTC))

MarSch: There is nothing to "fix". Your creating a problem where none exists. Leave the Main/Seemail templates alone, people have voluntarily used them because they like the wording and how they look, it was a shortcut to typing it out, it presented a standard appearance. These templates are voluntary, they are not required. When someone comes along and keeps changing the template, it's a violation of trust and goodwill for over 600 articles, many featured, and thousands of editors. I am moving away from the use of these templates, quickly.

Also your attempting to impose a hierarchal system on Wikipedia, as if thats how things work. Thats not how Wikipedia works, it is not hierarchal, "Main" is used rhetorically, as a word of convienence, there is no actual "Main-Sub" system on Wikipedia, you dont seem to understand that. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

i give my support to the above statement. "Main" or "seemain" templates are meant to direct the reader's attention to another totally independent article which is so vital to the current article that it warrants one entire secion or at least a subsection in the current article. They should not be deleted but restored to their former status. --Plastictv 4 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Perhaps you should comment in the TFD.[1] (SEWilco 5 July 2005 07:05 (UTC))

TFD

• Per consensus on the TFD vote (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005, {{seemain}} now redirects here. It may still be useful to reword this one. Radiant_>|< 12:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

< br / >

I've added < br / > to the template to force a break after the text. PS I won't be monitoring this page for comments. User:Nichalp/sg 08:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I think there presently is an implied break after templates, but it seems reasonable to specifically include one on templates where a break is required. (SEWilco 16:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

See main article

I believe indented See main article looks more professional than un-indented Main article. Comments, please. —Cantus…☎ 04:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before changing the template, it has a long history of being a certain way. Although I dont know why anyone would ever choose to use this template since it changes almost daily. Stbalbach 04:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, do you agree or not with my changes? —Cantus…☎ 05:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Indented but no "See": I prefer indented for this element, but don't tell the reader to See something. (SEWilco 14:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

• I think changing this template mid-stream is a dis-service to all the Wikipedians who voluntarily choose to use it.. kinda like pulling the rug out. If you dont like how it looks/reads, then dont use the template. Templates are not mandatory, it's just a short-cut to typing it out. If you keep changing the template, it will drive people away from using it (I, for one, no longer use this template, but try to keep it stable since so many articles seem to have a misplaced trust in the system). Also, I personally prefer the simple unbolded indented 2-words, and dont think we need to tell people what they should do, or put it in flashing lights. But more importantly, thats how this template was originally created, and has spent the majority of its life, and thus how the majority of people who choose to use it did so as. Stbalbach 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer unindented "Main article: xxx" - Fredrik | talk 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Regardless of style, someone should make sure {{main2}} looks the same. K1Bond007 19:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I like the template just the way it is--indented with the words "Main article." Do not change it. I also agree with Stbalbach's comment that if the template keeps getting changed, people will not keep using it. I myself am in this camp. If the template gets changed again, I will drop it from every article I edit and manually type in the words Main article:Link. --Alabamaboy 14:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I've unindented the template and added bold to make it stand out. Comments? --Neutrality^talk 18:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. See my comments above about this template and making changes to the template without a broad consensus. Stbalbach 18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You have to have a substantive object to the specific change, not a generalized opposition to making any changes whatsoever. To say so is anti-wiki; the burden for proving consensus is on the remover or the reverter, not on the person who added the material or made the change. Neutrality^talk 18:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Ill change it to somthing slightly different tomorow and the burden will be on you to get consensus to change it back: your logic and interpretation of the rules are flawed. Now, you want specifics: this template has traditionally been the same for almost its entire life. It has precedence. 1000s of editors have choosen to use it based on its traditional appearance. If you change it mid-stream without first getting consensus your pulling the rug out from people. In addition, it sets a precedent for the template to continually be changed on a weekly (daily?) basis, the end result is editors stop using it because it is unstable, at whims and mercy of whoever wants to change it (which is historically been a problem). Let me ask you somthing: if you dont like the way it looks, why do you use it in your articles? Why not just hand-code it, or use another template instead? Stbalbach 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, it is unWiki to change a template when a number of people are calling for censensus to be reached first on the issue. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more on how to reach consensus. If you are so set on formatting the template your way, create a new template. If people adopt it, then it will be used. People adopted this template because of the style and formatting it had. To change it changes 1000s of pages. --Alabamaboy 19:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)