Template talk:Summary in

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

purpose of template[edit]

(I titled this topic/section, mainly to support a table of contents. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC))

Brilliant idea for a template. pschemp | talk 03:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Samsara (talk  contribs) 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably don't get it, but what's the purpose of this template? --Conti| 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially in sciences, its helpful to know when a daughter article exists as a summary in a more general article. It helps to keep this coordinated. Take DNA for instance. That's an FA with lots of daughter articles, and this template alerts those working on the articles that there is an important link between the two and that the daughter article is an important part of the parent and major changes to the daughter might warrant changes to the parent. Anyway, Samsara may have more input, but I find it to be damn useful in organizing topics like this. Of course it also has uses in other areas with broad overview articles, such as Law. pschemp | talk 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but isn't it quite obvious in most cases? I found this template through this edit, which looks lika a no-brainer to me, as it doesn't tell me anything I didn't already knew. Are there cases where it isn't so obvious that the article is summarized in another article? --Conti| 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it obvious? The only way to find out relationships is "what links here" and that doesn't specify what type of relationship one article has to another. These are important relationships, much more significant than just a link in the "see also" section and thus need to be pointed out. It may be obvious to someone who works on all the articles in a given area, but it isn't to someone just focusing on that specific article. I don't see the harm in reminders for long term editors either. It's very easy to lose sight of the big picture. In the example you show, it is obvious that that article relates to dogs, but nowhere is it obvious that a substantial part of the Dog article is a summary of that one. pschemp | talk 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it is indeed obvious that the intelligence of dogs is summarized in the article about dogs. I've had a look at the other articles that use this template, and I've found a few equally obvious cases (Lawyer is summarized in Law), but also not so obvious cases (Korean Air Flight 007 is summarized in Able Archer 83). I agree the the template is quite useful for cases like the latter one, but I'm not sure it should be used in every possible case. --Conti| 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to give more consideration to the newbies, and people who don't just work in one article area. What may be obvious to you, is likely not for a person who is just starting to edit or doesn't edit much in a certain area. There is nothing obvious about the way we structure articles to a new editor, and little things like this that can make us easily understandable are good things. We should always be making Wikipedia more user friendly, and this template helps that. pschemp | talk 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you might be right. I look at these things mostly from the concerned-about-too-many-templates-on-talk-pages user point of view, and from that POV the template isn't necessary on all pages it could apply to. On the other hand, who's going to decide when the connection between two articles is obvious and when it needs to be pointed out? So there are no real objections from my side, although it would be nice if this template is mostly used in the not so obvious cases. :) --Conti| 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the polite conversation. pschemp | talk 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Conti, if you don't consistently use the template, you can never do any statistics based on it, such as identifying circular summary schemes, or building a summary tree. And the template is capable of listing all the articles that contain a summary section, up to a total of 15. This allows an unprecedented level of coordination of editing effort. Regards, Samsara (talk  contribs) 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After which point, you just say, "A summary of this article appears all over the dang wiki." :) pschemp | talk 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea, though is there any possible way that this could be done through the main article template itself? If it could it would save a large amount of work and further maintenance. Richard001 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, brilliant idea :)--BMF81 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

this is just excellent!, will be good help--Andersmusician VOTE 03:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

multiple summaries[edit]

When more than one main article is to be listed, it is possible, perhaps likely, that the summaries will not be identical, especially after other editors have edited the main articles. Because of that case, the display phrasing "A summary of this article appears in  ... and  ...." should be pluralized, as in "Summaries of this article appear in  ... and  ...." The plural form would still be correct even if the summaries are identical. Therefore, I ask that if two or more articles are listed then the plural language be applied. I don't know how to code the template, or I'd offer a patch. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson: More than two years later, but  Done. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)