Template talk:Category main article/Archive 1

interwiki request
Please someone with permission add gu:Template:Catmore to the interwiki of this template and then remove this message --Spundun 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * bg:Шаблон:Категория инфо
 * no:Mal:Hovedartikkel
 * ru:Шаблон:CatMain
 * sv:Mall:Huvudartikel
 * vi:Tiêu bản:Bài chính thể loại --meco 17:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * tr:Şablon:Kategori açıklaması denisutku 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * rmy:Sikavno:Shopnibuteder Desiphral-देसीफ्राल talk-फेन मा  17:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ko:틀:분류 설명 Yeom0609 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(This template needed?)
Do we need this? If we copy the intro block and link the bold title, then this template is a bit redundant. Dysprosia 02:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's beautiful. And look how fast it was adopted, hundreds of categories already use it. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 14:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Tab rather than arrow?)
Why not use a tab (a colon), instead of an arrow? Fits in more with Wikipedia's style, and provides a similar indented effect. &mdash; siro χ  o
 * Done. --Twinxor 08:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Template:Catmore1)
Template:Catmore1 is style-synced with this template. When you edit either of them, also remember to update the other. ✏ Sverdrup 15:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have now set this up as a pass-through template to Template:Catmore1, which avoids the necessity of having to style-sync manually. This is done by passing  to the template like:  .  This means that the Catmore template has to use the format of Catmore1, which only allows the full wikilink passed in, and so the entire line can't be wikilinked, but I think it's better that they're identical in format, and automatically updated. --Lexor|Talk 03:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Useless
This template is useless except as a placeholder for a real description. The descriptions can be easily linked to the associated article; for example, in Category:Physics, physics occurs twice. Use of this template only demonstrates a peculiar laziness. -- 22:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you, and I think that the many people who have spread this template to a lot of categories don't agree either. This is simply a standard link to the main article, regardless of being linked to in a description paragraph or not. With your edits, the template is a bit useless though. "This category concerns topic" is a fact guessed by all; instead it should indicate that there is a main article that provides an overview of the category topic. All in a standardized way. ✏ Sverdrup 23:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree. The phrasing "This article concerns..." is an obvious tautology in the common case of a main article having the same name as a category, such as Category:Physics. The idea of this template is to show the user there's a separate, more indepth page on a topic than the short description in a category. --Twinxor 23:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * However, the only function of the template is to provide a link to the article. Any placeholder description which simply shows the reader where the main article is, whether "this category concerns ontology", "read about ontology here", "deeset kasinotalouskapitalistiksi indutus coy extrinsical ontology deporto awn", "main article: ontology", or "ph'nglui mglw'nafh ontology R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", is semantically devoid of meaning, and it's basically irrelevant which of the innumerable possibilities is chosen.  --[[User:Eequor| η  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ υωρ ]]] 23:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the only function. This template is useful because it is not obvious from looking at a category page that that page is not the main page on the topic. This template makes it clear that there is a more complete article on the topic. The phrasing "This topic concerns ontology" fails at alerting the reader that there is a more complete article; a phrasing like "Read more on ontology..." succeeds. --Twinxor 00:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Categories have a completely different format from normal articles, and have titles such as Category:Ontology rather than Ontology. How is it not obvious?  --[[User:Eequor| η  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ υωρ ]]] 22:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Because there is no contextual link in the category system that establishes the connection automatically. It also makes the format of the link to the overview article consistent.  Before this, people would put in the description field: "These are topics related to physics", or "See physics", or just "Physics".  This template keeps things consistent. Having said this, it would be nice if the category system allowed an extra symbolic tag, so that a particular article could be designated as the overview article on the topic, and thus it would be automatically generated.  i.e. if you could put in physics, the tag   , then the system could autogenerate the main link and avoid the redundancy in having two links to physics in Category:Physics (one from the description and one from the category tag). --Lexor|Talk 02:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I think this template has revolutionized the implementation of categories, and is a truly beautiful way to tie them immediately to their corresponding articles. It's very user-friendly, and makes the quick intros at the top of categories more useful as a segue into the main article. Efficiency≠functionality. &mdash; siro χ  o  11:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. And from the popularity of this template it appears that many others do as well.  Someone should put this in the categories guidelines.  --Sjsilverman 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?
I was doing stub categoriseing, and I came across Staff Officer. It literraly means:


 * For more information, read this article again.

It links to itself and only itself. What is this meant to be for?? It's... Thelb4! 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This template is only used in categories. The problem with that article was that it was using the category as if it were a template, causing the confusion. Fixed. --cesarb 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * oh, I get it now! Thanks for fixing it! It's... Thelb4! 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Still useless
Reopening the uselessness debate, I don't see why we need anything more than changing to  in Foo-more-info-article. Voila, there it is, at the head of the article list. Joestynes 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree: it's useless. User:Noisy | Talk 13:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Catmore template
The link to Catmore produced by the catmore template leads to a page about a town called Catmore, not a page about the template.

Alan Pascoe 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a side effect of how it's done; when catmore is used on, for instance, Category:Example, it will link to the article with the same name as the category (Example). When you are looking at the template by itself, it is linking to an article with the same name as the template itself. --cesarb 22:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * BUT it can probably be fixed easily. Try putting  to fix the problem - it works for "normal" main articles (for example where the category name is a plural and the main article is singlular and removes the need for a redirect?  See for example Category:Law enforcement agencies),   But perhaps this is starting to be self defeating and instead perhaps the template should do something with/test the current "name space"? as well ? Pee Tern (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just seen that Salix Alba beat me to this a long time ago below. Pee Tern (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Main article" vs. Overview
The rest of the UI says "Overview". Please let us change the phrase from "main article" to "overview" here to be consistent. Our users need to not be bothered with such a lack of consistency. -- Fplay 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think "Main article" is a better description, in general.--Srleffler 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link
Would a sysop please add the following line to the template (within the  tag)?

vi:Tiêu bản:Bài chính thể loại

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And fr:Modèle:ArticlePrincipal please 16@r 10:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(Don't) use this and a description
I really don't see the point of using this template as well as a short description. The linked article should be one of the first words in the description, and it should be bold. This method results in less clutter and is actually easier to read and navigate.

A description is preferred, but this template is handy for when you can't be bothered. ··gracefool |☺ 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It useful to have this template to be able to check if "category name" and "article title" are about the same. Thus, please use it even in addition to a description. User:Docu
 * I said that the first words should be linked to the article - that is when you check that they are the same. If you want to check later, hovering over the link will display the linked name in the status bar of most web browsers. Not that I see why you need to check. ··gracefool |☺ 07:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to BG template
Please, add bg:Шаблон:Категория инфо

How to edit a usage of this template?
Hi, I'm trying to edit "Category:Trackers", which currently uses this template to link to "Trackers", but the correct link should be "Tracker", singular. Problem is, in the source I only see { { catmore } }, without any additional parameters where it links to, so I can't change the target. Any help how to use this template? Thanks! :-) Peter S. 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Try using this will substitute in the content of this template, and then allow you to edit it manually. --Salix alba (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the template does accept a second parameter, but its unnamed. Try --Salix alba (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove indentation?
I realise using the colon to indent one-line template messages is a Wikipedia norm, but does anyone else think it looks a bit odd in this instance? If so, maybe a friendly admin might remove the colon...? Regards, David Kernow 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

usage request
Can the following please be added to the template immediately after ? Thank you. &mdash;Markles 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

straightjacket?
I wonder if this template should be regarded as something of a straighjacket---a Procrustean bed---albeit not as bad as those hideous creatures called "otheruses" templates? When a category tries to list things, its title is often appropriately plural, whereas the "main article" usually has a singular title, especially since it's usually not just a list. Also, this category doesn't allow the user to choose judiciously whether to use a capital or lower-case initial letter. Michael Hardy 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add the following to the code
an:Plantilla:Catmás es:Plantilla:Catmás fr:Modèle:ArticlePrincipal gu:Template:Catmore no:Mal:Hovedartikkel pt:Predefinição:Catmore ru:Шаблон:CatMain sv:Mall:Huvudartikel vi:Tiêu bản:Bài chính thể loại --elwikipedista 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

de:Template:Catmore eo:Template:Catmore es:Plantilla:Catmás fr:Modèle:ArticlePrincipal hr:Template:Catmore lv:Template:Catmore no:Mal:Hovedartikkel oc:Modèl:ArticlePrincipal pt:Template:Catmore ro:Template:Catmore sk:Template:Catmore sl:Template:Catmore sv:Mall:Huvudartikel tr:Şablon:Kategori açıklaması Interwikis found using http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/

--elwikipedista 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

eu & pl interwiki
Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Nagusia. Thanks.Berria · (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also add pl:Template:Artykuł kategorii interwiki. Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis
Dear administrator,

Please, update the interwikis for this template with this list below.

an:Plantilla:Catmás de:Vorlage:Catmore eo:Ŝablono:Catmore es:Plantilla:Catmás eu:Txantiloi:Nagusia fr:Modèle:Article principal hr:Predložak:Catmore ia:Patrono:Catmore lv:Veidne:Catmore no:Mal:Hovedartikkel oc:Modèl:ArticlePrincipal pl:Szablon:Artykuł kategorii pt:Predefinição:Catmore ro:Format:Catmore ru:Шаблон:CatMore sk:Šablóna:Catmore sl:Predloga:Članek ktgr sv:Mall:Huvudartikel tr:Şablon:Kategori açıklaması vi:Tiêu bản:Bài chính thể loại

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 13:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --CBD 14:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Dear administrator,

The German version of this template was deleted. Please, remove the following interwiki:

de:Vorlage:Catmore

Also, please add the following interwiki:

gu:Template:Catmore

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Thanks. Luna Santin 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminal period
I don't have the knowledge or the ability to do this or even know whether it could be done; if a category name ends in a period, is there a way to not have the terminal period in this template? For example, in Category:Apple Inc., it looks bad because it says, The main article for this category is Apple Inc.. Can the template be smarter? —Cleared as filed. 03:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
editprotected You may want to copy and paste the updated list of interwiki links (more simple than adding each one individually): ar:قالب:مزيد an:Plantilla:Catmás bn:Template:মূল নিবন্ধ bg:Шаблон:Категория инфо ca:Plantilla:Infocat cs:Šablona:Hlavní článek da:Skabelon:Katmere el:Πρότυπο:Catmore es:Plantilla:Catmás eo:Ŝablono:Catmore eu:Txantiloi:Nagusia fr:Modèle:Article principal gu:Template:Catmore ko:틀:분류 설명 hr:Predložak:Catmore id:Templat:Artikelutama ia:Patrono:Catmore is:Snið:Skoða meira lv:Veidne:Catmore lb:Template:Catmore li:Sjabloon:Catmore hu:Sablon:Kategóriaszócikk mk:Шаблон:Катпов ja:Template:Catmore no:Mal:Hovedartikkel oc:Modèl:ArticlePrincipal pl:Szablon:Artykuł kategorii pt:Predefinição:Catmore ro:Format:Catmore ru:Шаблон:CatMain sk:Šablóna:Catmore sl:Predloga:Članek ktgr sr:Шаблон:Кат sv:Mall:Huvudartikel tl:Template:Catmore vi:Tiêu bản:Bài chính thể loại tr:Şablon:Kategori açıklaması uk:Шаблон:Докладніше zh:Template:Catmore Regards. — Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may make the edits yourself at Template:Cat main/doc, which is not protected. CMummert · talk 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article for this category
Notwithstanding the text on the template page, the main article for this template is not 'Catmore.

Can someone with the necessary permissions please includeonly that line of text?--Redaktor 06:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Catmore gives wrong result when there is a redirect to main article
Catmore assumes that what users want is access to the main article. But that is not always the case; users sometimes want only the name of the main article. Catmore's incorrect assumption leads to other errors when users create new categories with modifiers such as "Free" and "software". Eventually requiring multiple renames to clean it all up. If Catmore can't be fixed for redirects, then the text generated should be something like The main article might be ... or The main article, if no redirects, is .... At least give users a clue. tooold (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)