Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles

I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible.

Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. --Jesus Presley (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Navbox links that link to other navboxes

Is this ok? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that a huge no, a generally no, a sometimes no, or what? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The linking is of tremendous help in a country like India. A state-wise navbox is sometimes impractical, not to talk of a country-wide navbox. These are in reality sub-navboxes, linked with each other. - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess we should provide an example of what we're talking about: Template:Cities and towns in Hyderabad district, India

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak gracefully accepted that links with other templates can stay (User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive33#Linking templates). However, now another editor, Bejnar, as noted in Template talk:Cities and towns in Mahabubnagar district, wants to remove the links. Obviously, I don't want to lose the links. Can some one suggest what I should do, if they are removed? - Chandan Guha (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Template size

Is anyone else concern with the size of this template? I dont think we need to link everything do we? The history section is so bloated its confusing.Moxy (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus

FYI, YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) is removing the specialized classes from various template messages and replacing it with class wikitable. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India

Need some assistance fixing {{WikiProject India}}. If you use the active code setting hyderabad=yes does not work. I made some changes in sandbox related to TF numbers (note also made some other changes) and now mangalore=yes does not work. Is there a limit on number of parameters?--Traveler100 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Largely answered at Template talk:WikiProject India#problem in template except for one point: as stated in its documentation, {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} supports a maximum of ten taskforces. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Template:Trademark

Hello. An RFC in Template talk:Trademark § Edit request on 8 December 2012 requires additional input from community. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clans

I think we need one. They all seem makeshift, like Rathore. Can anyone help? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Stoopid 2uestion

Do templates work in when created in userspace pages, like userboxes do? If so is there anything special that need be done, other than providing a path when calling it, e.g. {{User:Username/TemplatePage|param}}?

Simpler: don't even add the path. Just enter on a userpage: {{TemplatePage|param1=...}}. As you would do in an article. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This particular template isn't for use in userspace, but in any case how will the system know where to find a template that isn't in the template namespace, without the path?RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 16:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I got it the other way around. So you want to use a page in userspace (starting with User:) elsewhere as we do with usually template pages (starting with Template:). Then indeed, you do: 1. use the curly brackets {{...}} (because that says in wikicode: "transclude (i.e., live copy) that content to this page, on this place". And this time write the full pagename as it appears on top of that page (the default is: adding "Template:"). You can use parameters.

So it would be: {{User:DePiep/demo|param1=Hello from X}} →

And that is what you wrote above in the first place ;-) So the answer is: yes. Safe way to proceed is to copy the full page name exactly from the page name top. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Um, er, ahem. Are you a template guru? If so would you be willing to look at my first effort? It is at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:OnProd. Thanks
RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 16:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy doing templates yes :-). As you saw, I have more difficulty reading people's questions :-) I'll take a look. Now please don't start a good question (or even a serious bad ones) with "stoopid" any more? -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On your link.

1. Your linked page should work as a template on other pages (testpages!) as expected, except: any template can be programmed to behave different in Article space or (say) WP, Template, x_Talk space. e.g., they can add/skip categories or be shown different per namespace (especially in the deletion topic you are on). Template {{Ombox}} (you used) could be such one very likely.
2. I am not familiar enough with subst: and safesubst: (learn that well and you are the guru). What I know is that if they are mandatory, there is a test (procedure or trick) that shows red error text: "you should subst: for this template" {{try good example {{Template for discussion}}: try freely without using {tlx|subst:}} in your /sandbox))
3. (minor): as you might have understood, the "/Template:" text halfway your page title is your freedom, and does not trigger the WP-server into anything special (hey, it's your userspace). Always: only the first one like User: matters WP technically, and a blank one always means "mainspace" = "article space". All ".. talk" spaces are different too (but they can read easily whose talkpage they are: from "Category talk:" to "Category:" is an available function in templates.) -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone is able to create {{Infobox athletics event}}?

As this fr:Modèle:Infobox Épreuve d'athlétisme. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sister project links

There is currently a proposal at Template talk:Sister project links#Wikivoyage hidden by default that is about having Wikivoyage links seen by default in the {{Sister project links}} template. Looking for many to get involved as the change would effect thousands of page.Moxy (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Broken by the 1st century

{{Natural disasters by year}} is broken by years in the 1st century - they are catted in the 1th century, see eg Category:62 natural disasters. Could someone fix it? Might be worth checking other by year templates to see if they have the same problem. Le Deluge (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found another - {{Disasters by year}} <g> Le Deluge (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to set c=0 when you use these templates. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to break the Category:62 disasters. I'll take a closer look and see if we can't get a workaround. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it fixed now. I'll look through and see how many other X by year templates need updating. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template category names

Hello. Apologies if this isn't the best or appropriate place to post the following.

I've become more aware that there seems to be inconsistencies in how categories for "navigational" templates are named: "X navbox templates", "X navigational templates", "X navigational boxes", etc.

Since (1) "navigational boxes" doesn't include the word "template" and (2) "navbox"es (usually from the Template:Navbox family) aren't the only kind of navigational template, I could start redirecting/amending these names to "X navigational templates" – yes, no?

Alternatively, as the (vast) majority of templates that are readily visible and not inline are "navigational" inasmuch as they offer links to follow – even infoboxes and sidebars – perhaps navigational templates are simply Wikipedia articles' default kind of (non-inline, readily visible) template, so could assume the default "X templates" name format while other types take "X [type] templates" names ("X infobox templates", "X sidebar templates", "X inline templates", etc)..?

CsDix (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would draw the following contrasts to distinguish navboxes - a comprehensive and organized listing of all content on a narrow subject, eg, {{Solar System}}; navigational templates - includes navboxes, but contrastively used for a listing of main articles concerning a broad subject matter, {{Writing systems sidebar}}; infoboxes - an organized listing of critical information on the article subject, and given all its information in an article, {{Infobox album}}; and succession/chronology templates - for navigating to nearby years/officeholders/items/releases/etc, usually with a middle link to the full list/category of all navigation items, eg {{Year by category}}. As a general rule, infoboxes should always be named Infobox X, where X is either a wikiproject name, or simple, broad subject matter. Navboxes and other navigational templates tend to be a bit more eclectically named - when based on the navbox template, sometimes as Navbox X, sometimes with just the subject name. Other nav templates often get named either with the subject name, or X navigation. If you're not seeing misleading names, it's probably best to keep the templates where they are. There's no guarantee that you aren't causing double redirects, and oftentimes a given subject area will have several nav templates, each with a contrastive name. If you start moving them around without asking the people who have created and implemented those templates, you can screw up the workflow of projects. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Vanisaac – but, to make sure I haven't misread them, are you thinking only of individual templates' names, or the names of categories for them (or both?). I can understand having more than one type of name for "navigational" templates, but if, ultimately, a group of templates with such variations in their names should nonetheless best sit together in a single category, I'm suggesting that "X navigation templates" (or even just "X templates", making the other (less ubiquitous) types of template require the more specific category names) serve this purpose, as it includes both the key words "template" and "navigation". CsDix (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely misread your post. No, I absolutely think that category names should probably either be "X navigational templates", to include navboxes, sidebars, succession and chronology, etc; while "X information (or infobox) templates" would be for things like infoboxes and standard tables. Then you'd have "X notification templates", "X inline templates", and save the "category:X templates" as a super heading for all the different navigation, information, inline, caution/warning, templates for a particular project or subject area, so Category:Writing system templates contains all of the templates for writing systems, but the ISO and Roro templates would go into a "category:Writing systems inline templates", if subcategorization were necessary, which would itself have a parent Category:Writing system templates. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. On the other hand, though, that might (must?) mean there would be many "X templates" categories whose contents would only be one, two, or, at most, a handful of "X [type] templates" subcategories, i.e. categories that, to the user, may seem to push the templates they carry a further step away. Looking again at the template categories as they currently stand, I wonder if this is the thinking behind what appears to be the default state of the {{template category}} template adorning many of them: "The pages listed in this category are meant to be navigational (navbox) templates..." In other words, "navigational (navbox)" templates appear here to be taken as a default, i.e. to be implied by the "X templates" category name. How do you read this situation? (Hope its description here makes sense.) CsDix (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't make any sense, but that is just as likely due to my lack of sense as to your writing nonsense; we are reaching the end of my experience and knowledge. When it comes to the philosophy of categories, I approach it much the same way as other editors approach templates: useful tools to use knowledgeably, but fundamentally an arcane branch of sorcery to be feared and despised. I would ask that others better versed in the vagueries of categorization to please step forward, if they lurk here. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

On reading it again, I'm inclined to agree... What it boils down to, though, is whether there's an extra step through the categories before reaching individual templates – not, I'm guessing, Wikipedia's most pressing problem.

Meanwhile, I may try renaming one or two "X navigational boxes" categories to "X navigational templates" categories to see what happens (i.e. if anyone objects). Thanks again for your input. CsDix (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Navigational templates" and "navigational boxes"

Hello again. Are there m/any kinds of navigational templates that aren't navigational boxes, i.e. that aren't box/square-shaped?

I have the feeling I should be able to think of some, but, right now, can't. CsDix (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lua and the Module: namespace

Just wanted to let people know that English Wikipedia now has access to the WP:Lua scripting language - a more versatile programming language for implementing template functions - from the "Module:" namespace. Documentation is available from mediawiki, and Lua scripts can be accessed via the extension {{#invoke: module | args }}. Several templates have already been converted to Lua-based implementations, and work is currently underway implementing more robust string templates. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought about Pending Changes level two

I'm currently floating an idea at the chocolate factory about using PC2 on a subset of WP:HRT. Since this is the wikiproject on templates I thought I'd drop a note here soliciting input. Regards, Crazynas ^t 10:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Difficulty explaining why extra links are pointless

Hi. I could really appreciate some assistance at Template talk:Documentation#Add a view button to end box where an editor wants to add three more links to Template:Documentation/end box - links that, in my opinion, are pointless since they're already there, just with a different URL syntax. I have made what may be my last reply there: if the other editor posts again I shall probably ignore it.

Of course I may just have completely misunderstood the original request. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, Redrose. I've just added my version of what you're saying there (I don't think you've misunderstood anything – unless I have), so here's hoping 46.45.182.142 will be satisfied. CsDix (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

About a series of Islamic templates

This discussion is about a series of templates about Islamic figures, largely created by the same user, Ibrahim ebi. These templates seemingly violate many commonly accepted design guidelines, including a few official ones.

First of all, many seem to include an infobox within the navbox in a matryoshka kind of way (usually called 'general informations') as can be seen in the template Ibrahim for example. This nesting can reach staggering proportions, as in here. This is inappropriate, as while the navbox should be replicated in several pages, the infobox should be used only in the article about its main subject (MOS:INFOBOX); at the same time, navboxes are not given as prominent a position as infoboxes. In other words, they shouldn't be used together, and it would be better to just separate them.

Second, as this guideline recommends, the default colour schemes and formatting for templates should not be altered without good reason. This other guideline states that default colours should be used in cases where the subject of the navbox is not normally identified with a particular color (eg for cases like Isa or the Quran, which are not usually associated with any one color).

They also lack the classic v-t-e links (which were present in some earlier revisions), and the description page for the calligraphic decorations are not easily reachable as clicking on them leads to the main article, which makes them harder to edit.

By looking for these templates and reading their discussion pages, I noticed that I'm not the first to have identified these problems. Several other editors have previously raised many of these issues, as can be seen here, here, here and especially in this discussion. I'm not sure if I should inform them of this discussion, as I would not want to appear to be canvassing, but I don't exclude the possibility if there is an insufficient number of uninvolved editors in the discussion.

There are several templates with these issues:

• Template:Abu Bakr
• Template:Ali
• Template:Khalid ibn al-Walid
• Template:Sahabah
• Template:Umar
• Template:Uthman
• Template:Wives of Muhammad
• Template:Ibrahim
• Template:'Isa
• Template:Adam
• Template:Muhammad
• Template:Musa
• Template:Nuh
• Template:Quran
• Template:Allah
• Template:Aisha
• Template:Hadith
• Template:Israfil
• Template:Khadijah
• Template:Fatimah
• Template:Islamic prophets
• ....probably a few more as well.

In short, my proposals for these templates are:

1. to separate the infobox ("general informations") from the navbox;
2. to remove all the custom colours and formatting;
3. to add back the navbar links;
4. to restore the link to the description pages for the calligraphic images.

--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think except for possibly {{Islamic prophets}} and {{Wives of Muhammad}}, which could be salvaged as navigation templates, these all need to be deleted as a hard coding of infobox parameters. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

When separated navbox and infobox, only the navbox should have the v-t-e box. Not the infobox (because: you can edit the infobox content on the article page right away). -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should first divide those who serve some purpose as navboxes and should be salvaged and the ones to take to Tfd.

From a first cursory look I think {{Abu Bakr}}, {{Khalid ibn al-Walid}}, {{Ibrahim}}, {{Adam}}, {{Nuh}}, {{Aisha}}, {{Israfil}}, {{Khadijah}}, {{Fatimah}} can be safely deleted as they have little beyond 'general information', ie the infobox part. {{Allah}} includes little other than the 99 names (none of which are articles); {{Sahabah}} would simply be too large to be practical as a navbox (there are hundreds of 'companions' in this list.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly please do clarify to me the point of not nesting the template secondly I guess instead of nominating the template for deletion we better remove the content that are against the policy to sought the matter out one by one.
  

Starting with the Template:Allah

The problem is with he content "Names and Attributes" so it will be removed apart from this if there is another problem then point it out. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)