Template talk:Subcat guideline

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


{{Wikipedia subcat guideline|<guideline category>|<category sort key>[|<shortcut>]}}

"<shortcut>" parameter is optional.

Included in: Wikipedia:Template messages/Project namespace#Policies and guidelines

This template only works if the first parameter is as well the *exact* name of a wikipedia category and the *exact* name of a page in the "wikipedia:" namespace explaining that category, for example:

<guideline category>
Category name Project namespace page
content category:wikipedia content wikipedia:content
(currently redirects to: Wikipedia:Five pillars,
but might become a separate page)
deletion category:wikipedia deletion wikipedia:deletion
how-to category:wikipedia how-to wikipedia:how-to
naming conventions category:wikipedia naming conventions wikipedia:naming conventions
notability criteria category:wikipedia notability criteria wikipedia:notability criteria
(redirects to: Wikipedia:Notability)
proportion and emphasis[1] category:wikipedia proportion and emphasis wikipedia:proportion and emphasis
coherence[2] category:wikipedia coherence wikipedia:coherence
  1. ^ Proposed 11:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC); category:wikipedia proportion and emphasis is a subcategory of category:wikipedia content; wikipedia:proportion and emphasis is now a separate page, linking to the major policies and guidelines (and some essays) that cover the "proportion and emphasis" topic
  2. ^ Deprecated

  • Type the <guideline category> entirely lower case, choosing the exact format and spelling as in the first column of the table above (e.g. "how-to" and not "HowTo" or any other variation); Don't add "category:" nor "wikipedia " nor "wikipedia:" for the first parameter.
  • Start the first word of <category sort key> without space after the pipe and start it always with an upper case, regardless of whether the corresponding guideline and/or wikipedia category have that word with an upper case.


It is discouraged to use this template with the "subst:" prefix.

Guidelines on style

This template presently does not work for style guidelines:

So, for style guidelines, use template:Style-guideline instead!

See also[edit]


Discussion regarding this template

End of October 2005 the Wikipedia subcat guideline template was listed on TfD; as a result of that a discussion place for this template was created at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Project namespace#Templates for guidelines. Note that the Wikipedia subcat guideline template is part of (the functioning of) several Wikipedia guidelines.

--Francis Schonken 19:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sort key (prehistory)[edit]

Second parameter: it is not a good idea to force PAGENAME as default for the second parameter: most pagenames start with "Naming conventions (..." or "Notability criteria (...", not a good idea to sort on these PAGENAMEs in the respective categories.
The person adding the template should better see something is wrong if (s)he didn't type a <category sort key> (...which typically starts with what's between the brackets of such guideline pagename)

That was noted by Francis in the template info for some time. I kept his solution (no default for 2nd parameter), but I'm not sure how good it is. Omniplex 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my old erroneous speculation keeping the real issue: -- Omniplex 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sort key[edit]

Just noticed that the optional footnote parameter is not displaying properly on pages employing it. The page simply displays {{{2}}} instead of the expected text (see, for example, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Speedy keep). If I knew a little more about how the template works, or more accurately if I were a bit more bold in changing a major WP template, I'd take a stab at addressing the issue myself. As it is, however, I'm hoping someone else can fix this with my contribution limited to this simple note. BRossow T/C 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly no optional footnote parameter, it's the sort key for the category. Visible is good, but just {{{2}}} is not goog enough. I'll try to generate a clearer error message. Omniplex 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
See why I didn't wanna mess with it? ;-) BRossow T/C 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yesss... <g> I added a warning to ifdef that KISS is sometimes not what's really needed. -- Omniplex 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Attempted simple fix failed, and Francis doesn't like a default {{PAGENAME}} (that would work perfectly for your examples), other ideas? Omniplex 15:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I reverted to the last version I was sure was working, and typed this "edit summary" for the revert:

I suspect the "ifdef" isn't a good replacement for "qif", or a faulty implementation

--Francis Schonken 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely something odd with ifdef, I've created a subpage for testing: Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline/(edit talk links history) (note added slash, its discuss shows the test output). Omniplex 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Testing {{Wikipedia subcat guideline/|how-to|Template}} shows that this version doesn't work (no category added). --Francis Schonken 17:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I had disabled the category for the test talk page you've seen, otherwise the talk page would pop up in the real category. Some related info on my talk page, wrt the shortcut layout see another proposal by mangojuice in Template:Proposed(edit talk links history). -- Omniplex 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The usage info on the template page itself should be better now, it lists the available categories: The template is designed for precisely these subcategories, extending the list is possible, but would need some docu elsewhere. -- Omniplex 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This tag is for guides, not guidelines[edit]

Every page using this tag is a guide - like Wikipedia's style guides are. This is not a tag for official guidelines, and it shouldn't be constrewed as such. I changed the wording to "guide for" rather than "guideline". Please discuss. Fresheneesz 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That is simply false. The origin of this tag is that Category:Wikipedia guidelines became too large and had to be split in subcategories. Also, per WP:POL, all Style Guides are in fact guidelines. Everything tagged with this template is a guideline (as should be obvious from its usage document). Hence, your modification is in error. >Radiant< 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, many (and I would guess most) of the articles using this tag have not been agreed as a guideline - especially all the notability criteria we've been talking about. I'm going to attempt to make the guideline fact even more clear in the tag. Fresheneesz 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And you base that assumption on what, exactly? >Radiant< 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on the assumption that WP:NN is not a guideline. Also, before I noticed this template, I noticed that one page was simply deemed to be a guideline by Steve Block, and I had thought guidelines needed a vote or some consensus more official than "Since nobody objects, I made this a guideline".
Also, the wording is strange now, it brings up the question of "what is a 'style guideline' as opposed to a regular guideline?". Indeed, I don't know the answer to that. This also makes me wonder why this tag exists. Why not just use Template:guideline? Fresheneesz 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken; guidelines do not need a vote (WP:VIE). If some proposal is well-known and nobody objects, it follows that the proposal has consensus and can be considered a guideline. Regarding WP:CORP, Steve was correct to do so.
  • A 'style guideline', to me, is a guideline relating to style. But I would have no objection to putting everything back under the general name of 'guideline'; if you wish to do so, please nominate this template for deletion. >Radiant< 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First line of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (a policy): "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines [...]" - I have no idea what Freshneesz is trying to prove, but the "Wikipedia subcat guideline" template is a template for guidelines. If you want a template for guides (whatever you think that should mean), make a different one. I'd be the first to support if someone proposed such new fancy template for deletion though, imho Wikipedia:Template messages/Project namespace has more than enough templates to choose from, including the {{essay}} template. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

When I said "vote" i meant an official consensus gathing process. I'm not entirely familiar with how thats done, but a few people at WP:NNOT have mentioned a vote.
Francis, your comments are obsolete. I long since changed my opinion about this template being about "guides".
And I think that this tag would better serve wikipedia if it was left as unused history. Are there any objections by you, Francis, to replacing this tag with the more general Template:guideline? Fresheneesz 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If a guideline or policy describes current practice on Wikipedia, then an accurate description of current practice is an accurate description of the consensus on that topic. If there is disagreement on the exact description or how widespread a certain practice is, then that disagreement is resolved by reasonably discussing the description or demonstrating evidence. It is not resolved by a vote; anyone interested may contribute in the discussion.
If a guideline or policy is in certain areas more prescriptive, then that is also discussed, with reasons based on fundamental principles such as those described at Wikipedia:Five pillars, or superior, well-agreed policies such as those listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. —Centrxtalk • 05:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

this tag is for guidelines, apparently[edit]

Lets talk about a change to this tag, or perhaps even its removal. This tag labels guidelines, does it not? It was not clear to me that it did that. Therefore, I propose that either we make it abundantly clear that this tag is equivalent to Template:guideline, or we simply use that template in place of this one. Comments? Fresheneesz 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't this template use amboxes? I'll be bold later this day and attempt the change myself... --Koert van der Veer (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't, as this is a project page template. The {{ambox}} format is intended for use only in the article namespace. —David Levy 15:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I won't do it. Still, shouldn't project-space boxes be designed like the ambox? That way project-space articles with mixed boxes like Wikipedia:Check_your_facts would look better. What's the right forum to discuss this? --Koert van der Veer (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Project header templates already had a standard design long before the {{ambox}} format was established to unify article message boxes. The reason for the difference is that we want to visually convey the intended locations to users.
In the case that you cite, the issue stems from the fact that the merger tags typically are used in the article namespace (with use in other namespaces being far less common). A simple solution would be to insert code that changes the merger templates' appearance in the minority of non-article instances. This shouldn't be controversial, so I'll do it when I get the chance.
Discussion of template standardization may be carried out at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. —David Levy 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved here. Koert van der Veer (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:SHORT]]<br />[[WP:CUTS]][edit]

That's the suggestion for how to list two shortcuts...but almost all the time, I see [[WP:SHORT]]|[[WP:CUTS]] instead, which seems to work fine. Perhaps that should be the suggested format. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

change the word page to guideline[edit]

I want to change the word "page" in the first sentence to guideline as this would help to differentiate the naming conventions guidelines, from the Naming Conventions policy page, something that some editors do not realise exists.

Would this cause any problems for other areas that also use this template? --PBS (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it caused those pages' tags to state that "this guideline documents an English Wikipedia [type] guideline."
Sorry for not noticing the above question before. —David Levy 11:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I added code to replace "page" with "guideline" on the naming convention pages. —David Levy 11:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This was probably a bad idea. Broke Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), officially a policy, from back in the day Bureaucrats approved policy (after debate). Therefore, I've changed that page's template to {{policy}}. Perhaps others as well; I haven't kept track of the policy adoption status of each part of naming conventions, many used to be part of the main page, or were separately adopted as policy.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Phrase[edit]


This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|{{{1}}}]]. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Seeing as "common sense" is an essay, it is contradictory that this link is included on this consensus achieved template which is applied on consensus achieved pages: thus I propose removing this phrase, so the template will read:

This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|{{{1}}}]]. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Logan Talk Contributions 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal Of "common sense" Reference[edit]

I propose to remove ", though it is best treated with common sense,"

It doesn't make sense to link to an essay.Curb Chain (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that an rfc had been expired with no response to this topic, per above section.Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatamidoing, could you explain why you oppose such a removal?Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Curb Chain has started discussions proposing the removal of "common sense" in at least these locations (the first of the following was started by Bernolákovčina):

It is unhelpful to discuss the same issue at multiple locations. The core page appears to be the last, and I suggest that any further discussion should occur at that page. I am suggesting that no further discussion should occur on this page until the issue is decided at one page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why I removed the visible {{#ifeq line in the doc section[edit]

(NOTE: Skip down to #The real history of the issue to see what I eventually figured out and the question I posed to User:Sardanaphalus.)

The Template:Subcat guideline's documentation section ends with the visible line: {{#ifeq:Subcat guideline|sandbox | |

I believed this line should be removed, but just in case it means something useful that I didn't understand, I tried to find out where it came from.

My conclusion[edit]

Although this line appeared in the doc section of the rendered page, it did not appear in the doc editing preview, nor in Template:Subcat guideline/doc, the doc subpage! This is probably why it was ignored since 2007. It appears to be an artifact from splitting off the document page from the template code, from what I could find out.

If I'm wrong and took out too much or too little, please explain why and fix the documentation text. Thanks!

My research notes[edit]

The following are the notes I took as I tried to figure this out what this line was and what to do about it.

August 3, 2007 version: Separate doc page created, and the {{#ifeq line is visible on the rendered page for the first time.

June 7, 2007 version: This is the most recent version of Template:Subcat guideline that does not have this {{#ifeq line visible in the doc section of the rendered page.

There is not a separately editable doc section, and when viewing the source for the entire page the closest thing to the current visible line is within the template's code for the hatnote: This page is considered a{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|editing guideline|n}} [[:Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|{{{1}}}]] on Wikipedia.

So it looks like #ifeq is used when writing template code, not documentation. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23ifeq

— Again, if I'm wrong, please explain why and fix the documentation text. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I subsequently realized that the visible {{#ifeq line in the doc section may NOT have been around since 2007, because I was basing that timeline on the template's version history and not the doc subpage's version history. But the rendered page looks fine now and I confirmed via the MediaWiki documentation for #ifeq that it's not a related WP template or template parameter but is a parser function, so it doesn't belong in the See also section and I'm not going to bother figuring out when the problem started. :) --Geekdiva (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The real history of the issue[edit]

A nap really helped clear this up for me. :)

This line was only present for one previous edit. My confusion was caused by how the current doc subpage (in other words, the most current doc subpage at the time of viewing) appeared in all versions (not diffs) of the main template page that used a transcluded doc page. That's why it appeared the problematic line was present from the time the documentation was split out to a subpage.

User:Sardanaphalus, your edit summary , "(category, replaced <tt>, sandbox non-categorisation)." Was the {{#ifeq line I took out related to sandbox non-categorisation? Was the line complete as you intended it, or was it incomplete? Sorry for my confusing confusion, and thanks in advance. --Geekdiva (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Layout change[edit]

I would like to edit the template to reduce the font size of the explanation, like in Template:Guideline or Template:Policy. This makes the structure of the template clearer to the reader, in my view. Atón (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done...See edit sum. Moxy (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
😟Template talk:Policy#Font size--Moxy (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Moxy:Could you please implement version D per Template talk:Policy#Font size, as it is done in Template:Guideline? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Atón (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)