Template talk:Main

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers[edit]

I used Chrome on Android earlier to view Sean Penn. The "Filmography" section was shown completely blank. Obviously what I would expect to see is a link to the relevant filmography article - but none was shown. I then checked List of tunnels by location. Exactly the same thing occurs there (for example, the "Australia" section is empty). The same problem occurs on the default Android browser. However, when I look at the 'mobile view' on a PC browser, I do see the expected text and link given by this template.

So, what's going on?

I presume this template is being hidden for certain mobile browsers - but this is bad as it's a template which provides very important links to related pages, and the user is currently given no clue there's actually any content at all. Is there a way to ensure that it is shown on all mobile browsers? Or is this an issue related to a specific set of browsers or platforms? --David Edgar (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi.
I managed to reproduce your problem and look at the code. I see the Wikipedia Minerva skin clearly defines the following:
.hatnote,#filetoc,.editsection,.mw-editsection
{display:none}

@media all and (min-width:768px)
{.hatnote
{display:block}

}
Translated in plain English, it means that Minerva hides hatnotes when the display width is less that 768px.
Perhaps you should ask Redrose64 or ask Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the reasoning for that - I have never altered the CSS files for mobiles or for skins. But it should be possible to unhide the hatnotes; do mobiles allow a personal CSS page? If so, try
.hatnote {
 display: block;
}
or if that doesn't work, try
.hatnote {
 display: block !important;
}
One or the other of these CSS rules should be added to Special:MyPage/common.css. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I also found this at AC power plugs and sockets#British and compatible standards. There's some important information missing there but (presumably) present on the main page - there's a comment to not add further details because it's all on the main page, which I can't see a link to on mobile. Unfortunately your suggested fix doesn't make it reappear - presumably user CSS isn't allowed for mobile devices. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I informed Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Template:Main - appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers and MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Template:Main - appearance (or lack thereof) on mobile browsers. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Testing the mobile skin on Firefox 36 (Windows 8.1, 64 bit) I can confirm that shrinking the window width causes the hatnotes to disappear. It's not a device-specific problem. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Mobile view does not load any personal CSS; it is completely autonomous from Desktop view. It does load MediaWiki:Mobile.css, which only admins can edit. That said, Mobile hide lots of stuff on small screens. While it makes sense to do so, it does somewhat rely on 'established' project templates, such as hatnote. We can override this; the question is, do we want to? All top-side disambiguation notices have the .hatnote class. They can take up quite some space. But the "See also" notes are generally short. So we could also make a 'sub' class for section hatnotes that are always visible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the combined result of gerrit:180028 and gerrit:189927TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

.hatnote, as used, conflates two quite different kinds of notice:
  • Navigation links, e.g. {{about}}: Suppose I'm an ordinary reader who doesn't know much about Wikipedia and I'm interested in Boston, Lincolnshire, but I don't know to look at that precise title (imagine I don't know it's in Lincolnshire for example). Searching for "Boston" sends me to Boston which is about the city in Massachusetts. At this point I think "How do I get there from here?" If the hatnote is hidden, I'm stuck. In a paper encyclopedia I could leaf around till I found what I was looking for, but that's not a option in non-linear hypertext. Navigation links are our only option; getting rid of them makes using the encyclopedia a unpleasant experience.
  • Cross-references, e.g. {{main}}: I'm reading the article about AC power connectors I mentioned earlier and find the section about UK sockets. If the cross-reference to the UK-specific article is hidden, I think: This treatment is oddly short. Don't any of the amateur hacks who write this know that sometimes the earth pin is disconnected or even plastic? If I see the cross-reference, instead I understand that this is a summary and I shouldn't expect details like that here, for which I should follow the link instead.
I appreciate the design issue when you have limited space, such as on mobile (especially phone) devices, and a lot of fluff has to get cut for space reasons. But other things aren't hidden but rather are presented in a different way, more appropriate to the medium. When it comes to usability, the fact that cross-references are "generally short" seems to me to be a red herring. A cross-reference that happens to be long is no less essential.
In brief, my opinion is that these links should never be completely hidden, as is the case right now, because they're an important usability feature for the encyclopedia. However, navigation aids could be condensed without much issue - in the same way we deal with "problem templates" like {{POV}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Bug report filed and I submitted a patch. I don't see why these things should be hidden. If mobile team wants to create a better interface for them, they are welcome, but the links are there for a reason. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW {{about}}, unlike {{main}}, doesn't have a semantic class. We should really bring back dablink etc for that. As I warned about in the original discussion that ended with it's removal, you shouldn't kill a class with semantic meaning in favor of a class with pure styling information. Mobile might want to be able to distinguish one from the other, and that's needlessly difficult this way. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As long as the hatnote class is retained for styling. It was replaced because targeting both with a "+" selector was not possible without an unreasonable ammount of selector duplication. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Print titles of related articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find no consensus in this discussion. AlbinoFerret 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Suppose a reader prints a 20-page article. It will then be useful if the print includes pointers to "Main articles", "See also" articles and "More information" articles linked to by use of Template:Main and similar. Since hatnotes are not printed, I therefore suggest there be added a "nohatnoteclass" or similar option to make the template use a "rellink" or similar class instead, so that titles of articles with more information are printed. Iceblock (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Iceblock, am I correct in saying that this proposal, if successful, would result in hatnotes being printed? APerson (talk!) 18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    User:APerson: Yes, some hatnotes. I was thinking of hatnotes created by {{Main}}, {{Further}}, {{See also}} and similar templates because they provide references to relevant and detailed information that the reader is likely to be interested in. But not {{About}}, {{Other uses}} or {{For}}, as they usually provide references to other topics. And if the reader is interested in those other topics, they can print the disambiguation page. But still, I think that the {{Distinguish}} links also are useful to print. Iceblock (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Sounds like a reasonably big change; listed at T:CENT. APerson (talk!) 02:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support including some hatnotes in the printed versions of articles. Hatnotes would be just as useful to readers in dead-tree form as they are online. APerson (talk!) 02:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose hatnotes have been very useful to me when selecting what articles to print. However when printing I have already selected said articles, so I don't want or need extra hatnotes. In my view hatnotes would consume a relatively large amount of space without contributing anything to my reading experience. I'd support an option to include hatnotes if users want, but not the automatic inclusion. That said thanks to IceBlock for bringing this up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Initial urge is to support. If a section is a mere summary of another article, there should be a pointer. However, such notes producing lots of whitespace is undesirable. A related impression is that there are far too many section hatnotes. Surely, sometimes, these hatnotes should be integrated into the prose, to use an ordinary wikilink. Maybe hatnotes should only be used as an important flag for when reading the section is inappropriate without being aware of an entire other article (a condition that I find rarely to be true). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A few observations:
  • Are we sure what is being proposed is technically possible?
  • Agree with SmokeyJoe that hatnotes tend to be overused and in many cases simple wikilinks are sufficient
  • Also agree with LT that if someone is printing an article, they obviously have an internet connection, are viewing the live page, and can click on any hatnotes they see and print those pages as well if they need to, so not sure this would really accomplish anything
  • The low level of particpation here would seem to verify what I thought upon seeing this listed at WP:CENT: not that many people are printing Wikipedia articles on paper, so this may not exactly be an issue of critical importance
In short, while I see no reason to be really opposed to this, I don't see much benefit from it either. I suspect I am not alone in feeling that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - In many cases, printed hatnotes are not going to be that useful since the linked articles may not be printed as part of the same work. I would prefer that we leave them out and use the space for actual article text. Kaldari (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it would be helpful to readers. I know that printed documents do not have usable hyperlinks, but people reading ink-on-paper reference works still take written cues to look at other pages and other sources, the way they have for centuries. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small corrections of instructions[edit]

"which is not useful"[edit]

Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{main}} link is the article itself, which is not useful."? --Obsuser (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"instead of summarizing its article"[edit]

Also, "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article." doesn’t make much sense. It should be rather "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its general meaning." --Obsuser (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Template name[edit]

Template:Main article currently redirects to Template:Main. I suggest that "Template:Main article" would be better as it is more descriptive and clearer. ("Template:Main" would remain as a redirect.) Any objections to this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong objection. Please move this back to "Template:Main" promptly. The proposal is a deep change. It needs way more discussion. It needed opinions and agreement before it was done, not just one feeble assent on one obscure template-talk page after 6 days. (How sorry must I be that I didn't "catch" this proposal?) {Main|Foo} works. People are accustomed to {Main|Foo}. People are so unaccustomed to {Main article|Foo} that Yobot changes {{Main article|Foo}} to {{Main|Foo}} (among other constructive edits). (Probably other editors too.)
If this template was named "Template:Main article" without any move from "Template:Main", I would still be here, proposing a fresh move to "Template:Main" because of its prevalence and acceptance. "Template:Main" is standard because of its prevalence. "Template:Main article" has 217,145 transclusions; "Template:Main" has 215,188 transclusions. If I can trust these numbers, only 1,957 uses of "Template:Main article" (0.9%) are via redirects (probably mostly "Template:Main"; possibly others; I can't get a list right now because the tool is down.)
If, after real discussion, there is a consensus that {Main article|Foo} is the preferred form that should be used (and should have been used) on 215,000 pages, I will be okay with it (and urge Yobot to make changes in the right direction, to reinforce the right example). -A876 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi A876. I have read your post above and am still unclear why you prefer {main} over {main article}. I do not regard this as a "deep" change at all. The former still works just fine (as I'm sure you know) so people who are used to typing that can continue to do so. The main advantage, in my opinion, of the slightly longer form is that the purpose of the template is far clearer when reading the wikicode of an article. Anyway at this stage, unless more people come to the discussion, it is 2-1 in favour so it may not be appropriate to revert this move. Perhaps it is best if you use the WP:RM process? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yobot probably only did so as part of the template redirect replacement program, which has since been fixed to change instances of {{main}} to instances of {{main article}}. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the change is only what computer scientists call "syntactic sugar" - the addition of " article" (yeah, with a space before the "a") makes no difference to the meaning, but adds stuff that can optionally be typed in to make the system, er, larger and slower. If I have an objection it is that it opens the door to gnomish editing, studiously replacing {{main|...}} with {{Main article|...}}, to no purpose useful to Wikipedia. I do have a procedural comment, which is that a dialogue between two editors (one guesses that nobody else noticed, template talk being a pretty quiet place on the whole) is not much of a consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request discussion[edit]

Please rename this template back to "Template:Main". I think it was a major change that was done rashly. I think it was a bad move because it goes against practice. Please make a hasty review whether this can be undone as hastily as it was done. If not, leave it as-is, awaiting a hoped-for [real] discussion as suggested above. (If there is no dissent, I will move this template back myself. I should do it now, on BRD (with a real explanation, not "BRD"). Oh, wait, I can't. How fair is that?) -A876 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I failed to read {{edit template-protected}}: "... and consensus should be obtained before [this] template is added." But I argued that there was no consensus for the original move. Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests: Is an edit request necessary? (Yes.) Is the request specific? (Yes.) Is the request sensible? (I thought so.) Is the request controversial? (I thought not.) "... Administrators can only [act on] requests which are either uncontroversial improvements ... or are already supported by a consensus of editors, ... ." (I kind of had that, 101:1.)
The move to "Template:Main article" probably should have started as a requested move, in order to prompt the needed discussion beforehand. (Template space is not article space.) Unfortunately the user who proposed the move had permission to just do it, and did it. I propose to undo that move. MSGJ was bold; I want to revert, in order to find the real consensus by way of discussion. WP:BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus", but I am locked out. It's not a high-risk edit to a "high-risk template", it's a revert of a move. I asked for someone to do the revert for me, but suddenly I need a consensus for that "alteration". Really? Where are my rights? Where do I find a "requested undo" to get that right? (Anyone can edit, unless I have fallen out of that classification.) I'll be putting in "requested move", which invites discussion. (I don't put much hope in my separate comment above, which will be seen by about 5 people in the next year.) -A876 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
On an aside, if you're going to make the request, it requires 1) an administrator and not simply a template editor, as the main template page has a substantial (>1 edit) history, and 2) the appropriate use of a WP:CSD#G6. --Izno (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just found out about this. Why was main deemed insufficient? It seemed to me to be an exercise in the bleeding obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Main" what? It's not that obvious. A descriptive template name is always more helpfull then some cryptic one-word jargon. And sice we still have the redirect, nothing has changed in the use of the template. I have yet to see an argument on why "main" is actually a better name; so far all I see is moaning about process. There is no net gain in moving it back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Main means main, adding another word on the assumption that a hypothetical reader won't understand is fatuous. Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Main topic? Main article? Main Page? Main category? No, there are too many mains which can be ambiguous. To clarify them is not fatuous ay all. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
People can infer what they please so those are questions for you to own, not project onto a hypothetical person. Do you have any evidence that people who use templates can't understand plain English?Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Not relevant; this isn't about "plain English". This is about Wikipedia jargon, and not everyone is so well versed as you are in the terminology. We want to be open for all, and that makes the current title the better choice. Again, there is nothing to gian from moving it back. So, come up with a valid reason why the old name is better, ohterwise threre is no reason to have this discussion. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what jargon means? It's the technical language of a trade or profession. In this matter, I'm the novice not the adept. Even an amoeba can work out what main means and you have yet to provide evidence that there are editors incapable of knowing what it means. Until you come up with valid evidence that there are people who don't know what main means, your case for the change is not made. Keith-264 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally (for the reason I gave in the section above) I'd prefer a revert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If I can keep using main I'll put up with the change, if other people's hearts are set on it but amending main to main article seems a waste of time and effort. Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

After seeing a number of changes from {{main}} to {{main article}} I came here to see what was up. I would be perfectly fine with a style preference that said {{main article}} should be the preferred usage going forward, but to retro-edit all the existing instances seems like wasteful churn and the existing, working, coding should be considered WP:NOTBROKEN.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Editing just to change {Main} to {Main article} is unacceptable. Any user or bot who does that should be stopped. I mistakenly changed a few (incidental to real editing), thinking I had missed a sensible standard or a consensus change (best to ingrain correct examples), but then I thought better of it. And then I discovered that this template was recently renamed on a "consensus" of two, quite swiftly, as if someone had casually brought Wikipedia to enlightenment after it groped around in the dark for 15 years. If I happen to notice {Main article} on any page, I will (incidental to real editing) change it to {Main}.

This move has provoked lots of changes from {Main} to {Main article}. Since 7 June 2016, the number of direct uses of {Main article} has gone from 2,000 to 43,0000 (of 222,000). Did those 43,000 changes just happen, or did someone go push for them, possibly to entrench the rename? I think approximately none of these changes were manual; bots must acted on the template rename, in order for this meritless, contested change to propagate so rapidly. Those 43,000 changes are a lot of crap, brought on by the failure to revert this unfounded move ASAP.

I contest the move. On the grounds that it had no real consensus, I demand that it be undone first, pending a real consensus. I demand that it be undone, on MY RIGHT TO EDIT. I demand to apply BRD (bold-revert-DISCUSS) to this move! But this template is protected, the cabal made this move, and the game now is "status quo wins", and objections can't matter. Someone said let's do it; someone said okay; before anyone could blink, it has been done, so now it's set in stone just because not enough people who wander in (remember, no canvassing!) say it should be moved back??? Only the exact opposite is acceptable. This move MUST be reverted. After the legitimate revert is accomplished; after the name is put back to what it was, let's see whether enough people wander in and say that it should be moved as-suggested.

Apathy works both ways. You're now exploiting it to retain an unjustified change. There's no way you should be allowed to move (rename) a template and then refuse to revert saying there's no consensus for "moving" it back. A move-and-move-back calls attention and provokes real discussion (remember BRD?). But the Revert is unfairly blocked, gumming that whole process. That just is not right. To let this Bold move go unReverted is to say that Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia.

My reasons for what-the-title-should-ultimately-be hardly matter at all, but: this move was beyond unnecessary. Every article is an article. We don't go naming them "article". {Main}, {Main list}, {Main section}, {Cat main}, {See also}, {Other uses}, etc. all link articles – "article" is implicit, and the default "space". {Main category} links a category. -A876 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @MSGJ: I was wondering why this was moved too. It has meant AWB editors turning up to change it. It's easier for editors to type and remember "main". SarahSV (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    The benefits of moving are described above. I do not condone the needless cosmetic changes made by bots. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree this is a totally unnecessary move - for all I love clarity. Should have been self reverted after there were objections. Now a consensus seems to have been established against it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
      • Move back to [{Template:Main]] per above discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
        • Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. That can be done by tagging the redirect {{Db-move}} with a suitable reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Since I don't have the page move right I cannot move it over the redirect, which has history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC).
            • Not done: This edit request has nothing to do with Template protection. The page can be moved by a non-pagemover using {{Db-move}} to delete the redirect at Template:Main or by listing it at WP:RM. --Ahecht (TALK
              PAGE
              ) 14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
              • @Ahecht: I've already put db-move on the redirect in response to this request, however, to avoid breaking the template, the tag is under the redirect. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Recognizing "MOS" shortcuts as being in the Wikipedia namespace[edit]

I just performed this edit because, while the template recognizes the namespace of normal shortcuts that prefix WP: (and so say "Main page:" rather than "Main article:"), the template does not recognize those to MOS sections that use the shortcut "MOS:". I tried piping the link through the full name but that had no affect either. Can someone add a namespace detect for MOS? Thanks --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Source[edit]

Where is the actual source of {{#invoke:main|main}} ? Hddty. (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hddty.: Do you mean Module:Main? Alex|The|Whovian? 08:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Section[edit]

this template was forked to create template:main section which is now being discussed at TfD here. the primary objection to using this template for sections is that it says "main article" when pointing to a section like this

are there any objections to having it say "main section" instead in the case that it's a section link?

or, having an option to trigger the more verbose, "the main section for this topic is on the page foo, in the section bar"? Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(For context, I started that TfD.) I strongly oppose the "the main section for this topic […]" phrasing; it is verbose when hatnotes should be concise. I weakly oppose the "main section" label. First of all, it's needless: either a linked section is on the same page (making {{main}} inappropriate) or on a different page (making "main article" adequate). Second, it adds needless complexity: we'd need to add a whole segment of code that evaluates each item for a number sign ("#") and filters against manual piping (e.g. "C sharp{{!}}C#", not a section link) and then changes the label accordingly—it's such a small distinction that it's not worth it. Third, even if implemented it'd leave mixed lists (e.g. {{main|PAGE1|PAGE2#SECTION}}) inconsistent—it'd say "main articles" while listing one or more section links. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Fair enough. I can understand not implementing this due to technical considerations, but this outcome unfortunately doesn't address the fact that I won't use this template for section linking in its current state. My only alternative once {{Main section}} is deleted is custom hatnotes, which I don't like to use. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand why we can't do this automatically, but I would think we could have |type=section, which would allow the wording to be changed on a case-by-case basis. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Plastikspork, good idea, sandbox module updated. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd probably always use this template for section linking if the functionality of the |type= parameter in the current {{Main article/sandbox}} revision is added to {{Main article}}. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment: Main section seems unnecessary and somewhat confusing to me. It seems to imply the main section (whatever that means) of the current article not a link to another article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Option to remove Oxford comma[edit]

When you include more than one entry it provides: Main articles: Article1, Article2, and Article3. Can someone please make an option to remove the oxford comma? This may clash with an article's grammar style. I am not asking for it to be removed as a default, but for say a parameter like |Oxford=no.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)