Template talk:Main/Archive 3

Development
This template has a development branch at Template:Main/dev. This can be used for change proposals.

Make your headings blue
I'm not sure of all the uses this template has undergone, so I won't deprecate it completely, but in the simple case a better way is, and I've been doing it since I found someone write a synonym for Magnetoencephalography. Make the headings into a link. Make them underlined (and blue). Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The manual of style deprecates links in section headings: see Manual of Style (headings).
 * I have seen one or two editors questioning this in discussions, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings)/Archive 1, but the consensus for now seems to be to keep links out of headings.
 * If you think this is a bad idea, then by all means lobby to get this convention changed, but until a change is agreed, it's important to stick to an agreed style. This provides a consistent way of looking for linked content, and consequently for easier reading.
 * I personally think the existing convention is the right one: it looks and works better to have the links in a main tag underneath the section heading. But if broad consensus is reached for a change to the manual of style, I'll switch too. Thanks, Clicketyclack 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that some of my changes to MAKE headings blue or underlined finds pages that the authors of the page I'm on weren't aware of. Sometimes it is a single word in the heading. Sometimes it is a synonym for the heading. And you know what? I find the current convention to be ugly. For that matter, citations for web pages are a royal pain in the darkness, when you can see whether the source is reputable from the name of their web site, and when lynx does a neat job of formatting those URLS so that they look like endnotes. In my arrogant opinion, wikimedia has no business off the internet, and that's what I think this rule is really about: making links visible off the net. Brewhaha@edmc.net#REDIRECT www.google.com

What are the images?
There are 2 sample images at the top of the article. What are they doing there? Am I missing something? At first I thought I'd come to the wrong page because I couldn't figure out what those images had to do with the main article template.--Subversive Sound (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I removed the gallery tag that contained the sample images and sample captions. I don't know how they got in there, but I'm 99% sure they didn't belong. If for some unfathomable reason they were necessary, then I apologize, and you can revert my edit to Template:Main/doc.--Subversive Sound (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the point?
Why not just write :Main article: article name ? This template seems to be totally useless and overcomplicated. /Grillo 14:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that using this template allows Wikipedia as a whole to maintain conventions for how such links are worded and styled in one template. If you use the raw wikitext, every single article that uses this style needs to be updated. Mike Dillon 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the template code, it's more than merely " :Main article: article name ". Among things, the template won't normally print. Circeus 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Printing
Should a noprint class be applied to this template? It would make it truely pertinent then to use it instead of formatted text (noprinting is a reason to favor hatnotes over formatted text). besides, knowing there is a subarticle is useless on a printed form. Also, very few subarticles actually USE the template at the top. A link is usually present within the first few lines anyway, so maybe the use guideline should be rewrote to take that into account.

Edits needed July,09,2006

 * 1) Someone should add this (and the See Also's to Category:List templates
 * 2) Add MainBold to See also list as well as Template:Mainlist.
 * regards, // Fra nkB 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * done. Circeus 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

interwikilinks
Updated interwikilinks of other wikis, but this is semi-protected and therefor still needs updating. And no, I won't ever create an account if anonymous editing in general is possible, b/c it's a good idea in general :) 129.35.204.162 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please correct sl: to sl:Predloga:Glavni. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Robdurbar 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SubArticle template
Would someone please add Template:SubArticle to the see also section. --Ephilei 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now there are photos available of this particular specimen. The photos were published by Eduardo Ecchenique, New York Times.

Last Change Breaks Template - Please Revert
See About for 2 examples on one screen. --Quiddity· (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Italics
The article's name should not be in italics. It looks unprofessional. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Comparison with related templates"
I've removed that section from the "Documentation", as I couldn't make heads or tails of it (are the first and third bullets talking about the same thing?). The difference between this and Template:Details certainly needs to be illustrated, especially as Summary style seems to treat them as synonymous. --zenohockey 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe this is because Main was originally created to link back to the main article from a subtopic, while Details was meant to go the other way. In practice, editors use both Main and Details to link to the subtopic articles from the main topic; which one they use seems to be determined by which wording they prefer. Personally, I think that using details to link to sub-topics and Main to link back makes more sense, but I don't expect usage to change. Mike Dillon 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This was it:
The following two are meant to be used in connection with each other:


 * At the top of a brief section concerning a subject that has a more detailed article (this is the only form specified by the Wikipedia Manual of Style);
 * or at the top of the specialized article, to refer to the more general article:
 * at the top or bottom of a section of the more general article, to refer to the specialized article:


 * What do the three braces mean? -lysdexia 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They indicate variables. The text in is placed there. The pipe  in variables serves to give default text if the variable is not defined. Circeus 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unquote
Note: The main template lacks two ending apostrophes before &lt;/div&gt;.
 * Wikiborg 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some explanation
I have two "main articles" one general, another specific. I would like to say at the top:

Main article: general - generalities

Main article: specific - specifics

but if I add text after the template, the comments (e.g. "generalities") winds up on the line below. Is there a way to do this, or could the template be accomodated to include an optional modifying phrase just after the main article title that would display on the same line? PAR 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

incorrect use?
It seems that most people are using this template incorrectly, and should be using the "details" template instead. (the further template is inconsistent, and doesn't add the  around the paramenter.).

Should this be fixed? Is using "main" instead of "details" appropriate? Am I just being too picky?

-- TomXP411[Talk] 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be one of the most misused templates out there. It's intended usage is when a section is a summary of a longer article. It's not meant as a "see also" or similar but that's often how it gets used. --kingboyk (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can
Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments?100110100 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to add an interwiki link
Please add the following interlanguage link: bg:Шаблон:Основна --Daggerstab 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Harryboyles 11:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

inter language links
There appear to be many, but why do they not show up when viewing the wiki source? I want to copy them over to the template at the Wikimedia Commons. --Pmsyyz 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of template documentation. You have to look here.Circeus 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of pipe in Template:Main
How do I use have the text appear differently in the template than what the link is? For example, I want what I would normally type as Persian language, however within the main template it's not formating it correctly. I've tried with and without brackets – doesn't work correctly either way. Thanks. –jonsafari 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

(John User:Jwy talk) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Works like a charm. Thanks!  –jonsafari 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the documentation should discourage the use of this "link appearance" feature anywhere but for #-containing targets where "link appearance" text is unsuitable for making it a redirect ("Nomenclature section of Persian language" is a good example of). Such use as may confuse future editors and cause them to choose an incorrect target for a link, say, via copying and pasting (possibly into another article) the visible text of such "Main article" note. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that it formats section links with a §, even this use case should be deprecated. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Indent with left aligned images
I've noticed this template (and possibly all templates) have an issue with indentation on lines with an image on the left. That is, the link is no farther indented than the rest of the text (example). I have a pretty good idea of why this is, but none on how to fix it. Is this a known and accepted technical issue already? Vicarious 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request
G'day! At Brain tumour under the heading primary tumors, the template leaves a too many parameters error. Looking at the markup I have noticed that the number of links included is 11, whereas the template allows for 10. Could a further one be included so as to remedy the situation? There could be more cases like this, albeit this is probably very rare. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * editprotected

As above. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The section in question seems to look fine as is - I'm not sure it's worthwhile having a very long list of main articles like that, particularly in the case you mention, where it is easy and probably more effective to integrate the list into prose. 10 articles seems as good an arbitrary cutoff point as any. Is there another reason to increase the parameter load capacity of this template? Nihiltres ( t .l ) 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Nihiltres that once a certain number is crossed (less than 10) it's better to just use text. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, concur. Nihiltres, there is none. In withdrawing my request, should I remove the template from this section? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems odd for there to be many "Main" articles for a single section; often the wikilinks within a section serve to point to numerous detail pages. However, another way to handle "too many" entries is simply to use the Main template twice, perhaps with 6 and 5 parameters in this case.  It might get changed when a better technology appears.  (SEWilco 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Associated main article
I would like to recommend that this template be copied to allow for the inclusion of "Associated main 'article' as opposed to just main article which implies that the referenced article has a higher status which is often not the case. UkraineToday 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Summary in
Could someone please add 'instead, Template:Summary in can be placed at the top of the talk page' after the instructions not to add this template to the top of the main page. Richard001 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a CSS class
If nobody objects in the next few hours, I will add a CSS class to the div, making it. This will enable styling of this particular element, and increase machine-readability. &mdash; David Remahl (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem on PDAs
There is a problem with this template when used in articles, in so far as viewing on a PDA or similar device: the template is not seen. Other, similar templates, such as   and    work fine though. I don't know how to fix it, so hopefully someone who does, will. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess I'd say it's because of the addition mentioned in the section above this, adding . Vicarious 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the use and description of this template
I often see this used incorrectly. Basically, the section in question should be a summary, or something very close to one, of the target article. If it only discusses certain aspects of that article, details or further should be used instead (and I think we should merge them as they seem to have the same function). Here in the documentation it suggests this should only be used for articles that have been split off, but many articles are 'daughter articles' without ever having been split off from their 'parent'. In fact, some parents may be created after the daughter article is already in existence. For example, I created religion in New Zealand late last year, but its 'daughters', including say Christianity in New Zealand, were already in existence.

Another issue, which is why I came here, is that it is often used without providing any summary at all. There is a heading, then simply a 'main article' template, and that's it. Should it be used like this? Personally I think it's wrong to say 'main article' when we aren't providing even a small summary of the article; it seems misleading and it is almost never appropriate not to provide a summary. Richard001 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also surprised by the description of this template: Wikipedia does not have subarticles. That is why the subpage feature is disabled in the article namespace. All articles should satisfy WP:N: they are not part of other articles. "Main" is a mechanism by which parts of one article can be written in summary style because they are covered in more detail in other articles. It is there to guide the reader to more information if the reader is interested, and it should not be used as a substitute for providing summary information in the article itself. I've commented further on this at SubArticle. Geometry guy 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The description is very bad. Wikipedia does have subarticles, but it depends what you mean by a subarticle. We need some 'official' terminology here to avoid confusion. In any case I stand by what I said above and hope to hear some comments. I might suggest an alternative description in future. Richard001 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead section of the doc. Hope that is useful. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Parser function
Is there a non-parser function version of this template?  TJ   Spyke   17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage of this template: Should main be used within a subsection of another section using main as well?
Take a look at renewable resource for an example of this. If we use main to link to an article, should we be repeating it again in subsections of that very section? For example in this case should we be linking to solar power as a main article when we have already linked to the renewable energy article as a broader main article (which itself will in turn surely link to these articles again using summary style)?

Just in case it's not clear, here's what I mean:

Subtopic
^ Should we be using this here?

Richard001 (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What is cock
editprotected Can someone please edit the page so it doesn't say "When Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That was on Template:main/doc, you could have fixed it on your own. Those doc subpages aren't visible on any articles, so they don't need to be protected. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, didn't realise. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add interwiki da: Skabelon:Hovedartikel
Thanks. User:Nillerdk (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add it without assistance; it goes at the appropriate place in Template:Main/doc. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Switch from main article
I was just thinking that maybe "Main article" should be switched to the more neutral "Main page" as not all the pages this template is used for are articles. But then again it may get confused with Main Page. Simply south (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you provide an example of this? I imagine you're talking about lists and other things I can't think of right now. I don't think it needs to be changed; article is the broader sense includes lists etc. Richard001 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some Wikipedia pages e.g. WikiProject Buckinghamshire. Simply south (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, that's quite different from what I was thinking. A 'main page' option might be desirable then. Perhaps just a modification to this template that allows you to use 'page' instead of 'article' somehow if you want to? Or a new template that does the same thing? Richard001 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Mistake
The opening should read: "A Wikipedia Article" or "Wikipedia Articles" (without the A). Dannyza1981 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? Don't understand what you mean. Where's this text you're referring to? – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ Avoid self-references Happy‑melon 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What Danny meant was the this, which I now realize was from the documentation, so didn't require any admin help. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug with categories
See Evolutionary_biology. If one tries to link to a category without a preceding colon, the article gets put in the category and the field is left blank. --⟳ausa کui × 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should really be doing this. Firstly, categories aren't articles (though they are pages; see the section before last), and secondly I think a list would be a much better target. You could use further I guess. Richard001 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag abuse
This template currently produces HTML markup like this:

According to the markup, this is a "definition list" (the dl element) with a "definition" inside it (the dd element). The definition term (dt) is missing. The purpose of this markup, I believe, is to indent the text inside the div element. CSS provides a better way to do this. For example, this code will indent the div element without the need for dl/dd elements around it:

By using CSS instead of HTML, fewer and more semantic tags are produced. I therefore propose to remove the initial ':' of this template and replace it with a simple CSS rule.

Howcome (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been done by now. Thanks, H&aring;kon. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this template need better wording?
"It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic". Main article is ambiguous and I can see why people continue to make this mistake. It is not illogical to think that the parent article would be the "main" article. I propose that the wording of the template be changed. How about Subtopic or Further detail? --Jameboy (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links
I've noticed that some editors use this template for linking to pages that don't exist. Given that this template is intended to provide useful links, I think it would be a good idea if it only linked to existing pages. I'm pretty sure this could be done with wikicode. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to Template:Summary in
We're missing, placing in the talk page of linked to article, do we need it - there's also a Template:Summarize for when subarticle is pointed to but no specific summary, but I don't get that one ! L&there4;V 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Italics Mark Deux - Standardize with rendered syntax of otheruses
I'm not sure if there's some CSS nicety that's missed in IE6 (don't ask - I have no control over my situation at work), but I don't see any in-page difference in the text that differentiates Main and Seealso instances from the article text. If the problem is present in other browsers, may I ask: Why aren't these templates coded in a way that italicizes and offsets like Otheruses? If not, may I ask why we don't just borrow that syntax for standardization and simplification's sake? MrZaius talk  10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

noprint
I don't think it is correct to add a "noprint" class. It is useful to see the reference to the main article, even in print, especially when a main is the only thing in a section (see Commonwealth of Nations, for example). Please just remove the "noprint" class from this template. TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. —David Levy 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What should be changed in this template to make it visible in print?

Thanks for creating this thread, Ms2ger and David Levy!

I agree that this template will be more useful if it is shown in print because the reader then will know that there are more information available.

The template does not show in print now. The "noprint" class is not present. This is the code added by the template:

I thought of making a editprotected request, but as I'm not sure what should be changed and what it should be changed to, I make a helpme request instead. Iceblock (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The template is considered a hatnote, and hatnotes will not be printed per MediaWiki:Print.css. I don't think fixing that would be easy, because we'd probably have to avoid use of Module:Hatnote - and that may involve quite a bit of rewriting Module:Main. Module talk:Main would probably be the appropriate venue to discuss such a change, unless we decide it's a feature and that the "Main article" hatnote shouldn't be printed after all. Huon (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Iceblock (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not Enough Parameters
Please add more syntax so we can have more than just 10 main articles.174.3.111.148 (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions before requesting edits :P If you give a complete and specific description of the code changes you want to implement, perhaps an edit can be made. Skomorokh,  barbarian  05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Italics
What happened to the italics? It's impossible to tell these apart from the article text now. I know this was a result of converting to rellink, but it needs the italics.

Primat e #101  21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove spam
This template contains the spam "www.shawsounds.com". It is protected so I cannot remove the spam. David spector (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlinks
In addition to 'See also' and 'external links', I would very much like for articles to be able to have a section called 'backlinks' (or something more appropriate). It would list all articles that link to the given page using Template:main. With that in mind would it be possible to modify this template so that automatically adds a link to the hidden category  ? The editor of article A could easily create a 'backlinks' section simply be going to the resulting category page and copying the links. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying this template to another wiki for use...
I want to copy this template's source for use in another wiki. However, this template in turn uses many other templates, far too many sources to copy in turn. Which of those templates do I need to use on another wiki to make it work? I need to be able to create a link under a section in an article linking to the main article more detailed than the section in former article could provide. Thanks. --Legion (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible bug
When I tried using the format

in an article, I saw garbage in the preview.

When I changed it to

It worked. The main article section I edited was this one. David Spector 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the same experience just now. I've changed the examples in § Usage to suit. --Thnidu (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change (namespace detection)
Hi there, following Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 11, I've created a modified version of this template at Template:Main/sandbox, which will change the template to say " " when used on a category page. Unless there's any opposition to this change, I'll add this to Template:Main. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add here, expressing my support for this proposal. It avoids a large number of edits that aren't really necessary (replacing main with catmore in the category space). The only way I can view this proposal in a negative way is if I think about the purpose of these templates. main is almost always used in an article to link to other articles that relate, but give more details about a specific thing. On the other hand, catmore is used in a category to link to its focus. They seem pretty different in principal, but in execution, they're the same, so I support this. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)a
 * ✅ See here. If namespace = Category, Catmore is used. Tim1357 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now a kind-hearted admin needs to update the main page. Feel free to test the template. Tim1357 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I fail at reading. Tim1357 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad text formatting
The template's "l1" syntax appears to be "11" due to letterform similarity, which has led me to believe that special-title links are just not supported. A note needs to be included on this. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There was already (just now) a note to warn about that; I've bolded the note. --Thnidu (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Use refering to section of another page
At Concorde, this template is in use to refer to just a tiny section of another very long page. That "Main" page does not actually deal with just the issue referred, but is a page about a subject in its own right. I question whether there is a better template. The other referral templates I have found are for use when there is other information in the section and involve the word "also": the section in question has no other content.

I am going to delete the section that uses only the template and move the reference to the other See alsos, but any comments in case this doesn't stick, or comes up again?  Trev M ~  20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of inclusions
Not hugely important, but the number of inclusions at the top of the page is outdated. The current figure is 112k. As it is, 90k seems oddly specific. Could we update the number to "over 100,000" instead of 110k, and leave it at that? Thanks Jess talk&#124;edits 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see the template doc wasn't protected, so I updated it myself. Thanks. Jess talk&#124;edits 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected/suggestion
Add this code at the end, it marks non-existing pages. I know that the link is already red, just a tip for new users. SWFlash 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS: not handled the same way as WP:
I think that there is an incosistency here with the handling of MOS pages: Both of the above returns Main page but if MOS is used: Then Main article is returned (instead of Main page). This is not such a problem with MOS, but it does affect redirects placed at the top of other guidelines such as MOS:FOREIGN: -- PBS (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is presumably because "MOS" is not recognized as a valid namespace. It should also be remembered that this template is designed for a specific purpose (see documentation for this template and for Subarticle).--Boson (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Main and Details
The docs Template:Main/doc and Template:Hatnote templates documentation contradict each other. The latter uses the straightforward idea that Main should link the main article from within the details article, and Details should link the details article from within the main article.

The former countenances probably thousands of users who have used Main to link the details article from within the main article. This happens probably because the details article is the "main" article for its subtopic. But if we use Main to link the details article, what do we use to link the main article from the head of the details article? If we use Main in both cases, it's ambiguous.

I propose that Main/doc should be edited to deprecate the ambiguous case and to indicate primary usage should be only within details articles. There are a couple other uses that should be deprecated as well (use of Main instead of See also, use of either Main or Details as the only item in its textless section, etc.). The fact that there is much ambiguity out there is best handled by deprecation and slow migration. JJB 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The backlink is by means of the Subarticle template on the talk page. The Subarticle documentation

"This template is a talk header template. When Template:Main is used on an article to add a link to a more specific article (or spinout article), this template should be placed on the spinout article's talk page. Examples of where this template may be used include:
 * "List of" articles, which may be too long or appear out-of-place in main articles, or where the list has to be split over several pages.
 * Episode, character, or other primarily in-universe articles, such that real world context can be established by referring the user to the main article."
 * is consistent with the Main template documentation

"'When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is Cat main. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a 'see also'. Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described above.'"
 * which is quite clear that Main should be used for the sole purpose of linking to the details. It is not some sort of oversight.
 * I would prefer to change the hatnote documentation. I agree, however, that "Main" should not be used for "See also", but only when a subarticle is involved.
 * --Boson (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This use of Main to refer to detail articles from sections written in summary style is also as described at Manual of Style/Layout: "When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading. You can use the Main template to generate a Main article; link.
 * If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section. You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:
 * —this generates For more details on this topic, see:
 * —this generates Further information:
 * —this generates Related terms:
 * —this generates See also:
 * --Boson (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a misunderstanding of the main template, it is unfortunate they changed WP:SS to their understanding without reading this first. I'll go and change it back to use template Main. If anything it is the straight use of the details template that should be deprecated as using it implies that the summary should include details. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case, then (1) Template:Hatnote templates documentation should be changed to indicate Details is deprecated for this purpose, (2) there should be sitewide attempts at disambiguation between the "main article" written in summary style and the "Main article" for a subtopic (incidentally, WP:SS has long been contradictory on this point as well, I just chose one of the two resolutions of the contradiction), and (3) there should be a clear mainspace way to link a details article back to its main article, as templates do not clearly imply the structure, and the Subarticle template is for talkspace. JJB 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtopics must stand up as articles in their own right. Just because big lists are treated a bit specially doesn't mean that everything else must conform. There may not be a unique parent to a subtopic and there already is a guideline in WP:SS about dealing with large topics with subtopics, you create a template showing the structure and various subtopics and stick it into the various articles. The lead of the subtopic would say what it is part of anyway. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that people have condemned this usage, but can I ask what specific harm this supposedly causes?GliderMaven (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Main template in lead
It appears that the documentation states that the Main template should not be used in the lead. How should articles such as List of books banned by governments be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Main template should be removed from the lede section. It should be used in the section of the higher-level article when a section is spun out into a separate article for reasons of size etc. The back-link is made by placing  on the Talk page. --Boson (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Case of article titles included in the template
The main template documentation doesn't explicitly say whether the case (upper/lower) of the article title should be preserved. It seems obvious to me that it should be preserved, but another editor disagrees, saying the article title generally should start with a lower case letter when used in this template. Thanks Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the case be preserved?
 * Should the documentation say so explicitly?
 * Would interested parties please contribute to the current RFC on the disputed article talk page so as to resolve the matter.

Multiple articles and one main article
My understanding is that this template can be used in articles leads when an article is not the "main" article for it's subject. When there are multiple articles, distinct enough to warrant separate articles, but not enough to really be separate subjects. One to be the main article describing the topic, and the others avoiding unnecessary duplication of the main article. I suppose a good example would be geography articles where two terms have somewhat different meanings or "contexts", but refer to pretty much the same geographic area, e.g. Balkans and Southeast Europe. The Balkans article is the main article, the Southeast Europe article doesn't try to be a duplicate of the Balkans article by having much info on History, natural resources, etc, it leaves that to the Balkans article. I guess sort of a halfway point between having fully separate articles, and heaving a redirect.

The documentation doesn't mention this use, it just mentions the summary style use, and says that it shouldn't be used for anything else. Is the documentation incorrect or is my understanding incorrect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been 8 days so I'll go ahead and update the documentation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just found this. I disagree and propose reverting the documentation change. See above.
 * Previously, the documentation was admirably clear that this case was not covered, and it is quite different. I think a different template should be used for this situation, probably Further. If that is not appropriate a new template should be created, so that each template covers one clearly defined situation.
 * The documentation previously read:

"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is Cat main. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described hereinbefore.
 * The real problem is probably that the text generated by the template did not clearly indicate the situation that was intended to be covered and thus confused those editors who did not read the documentation. The solution should, perhaps, have been to improve the generated text (if necessary including a comment to make editors aware of the intended meaning of "main article"), but this is made more difficult if the template is used for the wrong purpose, just because it happens to generate the text desired for a completely different purpose. --Boson (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been over a month, with no objections, so I will revert the documentation change soon. --Boson (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this. The way I see it there are two possibilities. #1 is that I was correct; "multiple articles one main article" a proper use, and the documentation was simply out of date. #2 is that you're right, and it's use at the top of articles (for that purpose or otherwise) is improper. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Having just stumbled upon the discussion, I have to go with #2.
 * The scenario that you've described (in which "an article is not the 'main' article for its subject") is unfamiliar and inconsistent with Wikipedia's structure. A section within an article might summarize a topic covered in full within the "main article", but an article's entire subject shouldn't duplicate one documented in greater detail elsewhere.  If it does, the articles haven't been organized appropriately (and the matter probably should be rectified by merging, splitting or removing material).  —David Levy 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see this #2 use getting "official" approval in the documentation. I think it's redunant clutter at the top of the article when one can simply link the main article name in [con]text. I'll update the docs to at least say this use is controversial, per discussion here. Honestly, from the above, it appears the consensus is mostly against using it like this... I'm going to open an RfC though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I should add that WP:SS was not modified when this documentation change was made here. (Or if it was, that was reverted, because there's nothing there now.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC
Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin ) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere? Actually looking at one section before the most recent dispute, there problems are deeper. I see several solutions.


 * 1) Use main only in summary sections to point to an expansion article (was the status quo for years). But this seems to confuse at least some users and details is a sort of alias, but not quite.
 * 2) Use only details in summary sections to point to an expansion article (as some tried to do in 2012). Use main only in the sub-article lead to point to the main article. There are some foreign-language Wikipedias which have such an arrangement.
 * 3) Allow dual-use main in both article leads (to point to parent-topic article) and in summary sections to point to expansion article. This was the most recent proposal discussed above. Details remains an alias for the section-level purpose.
 * 4) Turn main into a redirect to details, which has less ambiguous language.

For other variants, write your own proposal... There's also further to consider, which is more or less another clone of details. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC).

Update: Midway through this RfC (as of following sig timestamp) User:Wbm1058 has made a proposal that has gained some support, namely to create a new parent template to (sparingly) use on top of articles (instead of using main there). Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What is #2 and #1 (could not find where it refers to "#2 above")? Is the proposed solution a workout or a new text?
 * As I undersatand this RfC now. I don't see the problem. To start with, is {main} used wrongly in actual situations? (not by possible interpretation of its purpose)? In general, I can not endorse a change of meaning processed this way. One can not change the meaning of a template simply by changing the documentation (even when pointing to possible supporting policies). First because all existing usage might be there using a different documentation. Also, I do not see why the current text would be causing a problem in any usage. The claim of "used wrongly" does not follow from the actual reading of examples.
 * One could propose to introduce a specific variant (like "main to primary topic","main from detials", "main from history"?), that would leave {main} untouched. But I don't see any advantage for introducing these. More text, not more clarification. For example, the word "history" is likely already in the (section)title at hand.
 * Some background: I worked with hatnote definitions two years ago (and created the current general /doc setup) can not remember the "status quo for years" mentioned, or a restriction for main as described here. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "#1" and "#2" are discussed in this subsection's parent section.
 * Emmette Hernandez Coleman the documentation, thereby introducing the concept of "an article [that] is not the 'main' article for its subject", in January.  This contradicts our longstanding conventions, wherein any article should be the main article for its subject.
 * The disparity, I believe, lies in one's definition of "its subject". In the example cited above, the Bitcoin article's subject is Bitcoin and the History of Bitcoin article's subject is the history of Bitcoin.  It's appropriate to point the History of Bitcoin article's readers to the Bitcoin article, but not by claiming that the latter is the "main" article on the history of Bitcoin.
 * The main template's intended purpose (as indicated in the documentation for years) is to link to an article from a section in which the same subject is summarized. An example is the Bitcoin article's History section.  It pertains to the history of Bitcoin, but the main article on that topic is History of Bitcoin.
 * For some reason, someone that section's main transclusion with further yesterday.  I just reverted.  The further template (or possibly one with wording of greater specificity) should replace main at the top of the History of Bitcoin article.  —David Levy 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked that article's history and found that main was added ten days ago by an editor correcting a different style problem. So I've replaced it with further.  —David Levy 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hatnotes' meaning, overlap and usage is a complicated topic. Which also has large, old, entrenched usages. And this RfC is difficult to understand. I suggest the RfC is rewritten into an overview with pointed questions. As it is now, I don't see any possible useful outcome. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure that an RfC is called for.
 * A change to a template's longstanding documentation was made without consensus (though I'll note that the editor did pursue discussion beforehand), thereby creating overlap with templates better suited to the newly recommended usage. Unless and until consensus for the change is established, it should simply be reverted.  —David Levy 19:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember having ever seen the "details" template, and I've been around for years. I think that it's useless, since the "main" template has the same meaning.

I disagree that the article "Geography of Italy" should have a "main" template pointing to Italy. The link should be added in the first line: "Italy is a country located in Southern Europe..." --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the template's longstanding purpose is to link to an article from a section in which the same subject is summarized. Placing it at the top of the History of Bitcoin article incorrectly conveys that the Bitcoin article is the main article on the history of Bitcoin. If a hatnote linking to Bitcoin is called for, further is a more appropriate choice. —David Levy 01:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a main at the top of an article is fine only if the parent article isn't obvious. History of Bitcoin is self-evidently a sub-topic of Bitcoin, so the template would just be clutter. I can't think of a situation offhand where this relationship would not be clear, but in such a situation, the could be an informative navigational aid. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This RfC isn't about whether to place such hatnotes at the tops of articles. (I agree that this isn't always necessary, but that's a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis on articles' talk pages.)  The question is whether this specific template, main, should be used in such a circumstance.
 * I agree with this last comment here by, I think he's got the right idea of how to apply this logically. However, it shouldn't really be that big a deal, and could simply be dealt with in an analysis of utilitarian benefit on a case by case basis. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether this specific template, main, should be used in such a circumstance. As discussed above, other hatnote templates (such as further) are better suited to the task. Using main at the top of an article does stand to confuse readers. The intent is to tag the "History of Foo" article to point to the "Foo" article (the primary article on the subject "foo"). Instead, the implication (based on the template's longstanding/widespread use) is that the "Foo" article is the main article on the subject "history of foo", which simply isn't accurate. Similar templates provide the desired linking without introducing that issue, so this one isn't our last resort. If wording along the lines of "further information" is considered too vague, your parent suggestion seems like an excellent solution. In this context, I see no possible downside to using the language "parent article" instead of "main article"; it can only enhance precision and reduce ambiguity/confusion. —David Levy 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would support #1 + #4: only use the template to link from summary sections to sub-articles and replace the main template with details to make it more clear. I would oppose using main in the hatnote area of sub-articles for two reasons: 1. Some articles are summarized in several different articles; 2. The hatnote area is already overflowing with cruft. It seems common now for every articles to include 2 or 3 hatnotes. We shouldn't be adding more to this. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * #3 – I'm for flexibility in this matter, as long as it's done in a way that's not confusing to readers. In the Bitcoin example a bold-link will do. Usually there is some way the link to the higher level article can be worked into the lead sentence. The one thing I feel most strongly about is that the higher-level link should be there. Subarticle on the talk page is not sufficient. Readers can't see that! If after a reasonable attempt, the backlink can't be worked into the lead sentence, then main may be used as a last resort. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (and I think that there's clear agreement in the community) that the decision of whether to place a hatnote at the top of an article (as opposed to linking within the article's prose) is best made on a case-by-case basis. That isn't what this RfC is asking.
 * #1 main should be used only to link to an expansion article from sections written in summary style. Using the template for other purposes was obviously a mistake made by people who had not read the documentation. Its use for both purposes means that the template is being used for diametrically opposed purposes: firstly to point to a parent page and secondly to point to a child page. It is natural that the "History" section of the article on Germany uses the main template to link to the main article on the history of Germany. It is also natural that the article History of Germany links back to Germany in the first sentence. Normally a dedicated back link is not required. The Subarticle template may occasionally be helpful to remind editors that changes to the child article may require changes to the parent article. I would have no problem with permitting the subarticle template (or a similar template with a different name) being used in article space as well as talk space. It would also be possible to rename the various templates (with redirects) and document the new usage, but this would require community consensus based on a more centralized discussion and a lot of work by bots to fix the current mess. The text generated by the Main template should perhaps be made clearer (e.g. "This section summarizes the information in the article(s) . . .". That would differentiate it better from other templates in the series.--Boson (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many terms with two meanings where the intended meaning is clear from the context of where the term is used. However, to ensure no chance of confusion, we could create a new template parent which would be more clear: Parent article: Bitcoin – as I said above, this should be seldom used, but nice to have the option when needed. Having different templates could be helpful for bots, who have more trouble understanding contexts of usage. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a sensible idea. The terminology "main article" is misleading, while "parent article" seems much clearer.  —David Levy 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A lot of the confusion/uncertainty in the current setup comes from the names of the template themselves. People should read documentation, but it's better if the naming of the templates is self-evident with respect to their purpose if that's feasible while keeping the names short/memorable. I regret not having considered creating parent as part of this RfC's proposals. I was too focused on the various reshuffling options for the existing names. Since this new proposal has bit of support, I'm going to add a note about it after my original RfC proposal. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY oppose the use of the word "parent". There are some edit wars of the past I'd like to not see revisited or re-framed. And imagine using a template called "parent" in on some article related to a topic listed at List of controversial issues? It could create contention, even if for no other reason except the presumed semantics of the word "parent". That said, I do think a hatnote of some kind should be fine. For lack of a better term off the top of my head, how about "Main topic" as the template name? A touch more neutral at least. - jc37 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058's suggestion would retain the same structure while enhancing precision and eliminating ambiguity, so it seems like a win-win. —David Levy 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that such a scenario can exist. If that's the case, so be it. But this RfC arose because an editor the template's documentation to prescribe its use at the top of an article (as a means of linking to an article covering a broader subject, confusingly described as a situation in which "an article is not the 'main' article for its subject"). The question is whether to explicitly recommend such usage. —David Levy 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) As discussed above, that isn't the statement that we intend to convey, so the "parent article" template that Wbm1058 suggests would rectify the problem by enhancing precision and eliminating ambiguity. —David Levy 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)  Replace with templates saying For details about XXX see and for general article about YYY see   DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3, be flexible, do what article talk page discussions suggest.  WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant--  summary Style isn't a rigid hierarchical system, it allows for multiple inheritance.  Don't overthink it-- Use the main template when you want the article text to say "The main article on this subject is X". --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, an article titled "Foo of bar" always should be the main article on the subject "foo of bar". The intent is to point to an article covering the broader subject of "bar", but that isn't what this template means.
 * 3 per HectorMoffet. It's just a bit of text, it can and should go wherever the article editor feels "Main Article: X" is appropriate. SnowFire (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When, in your view, is it appropriate to state that article X is the "main article" on article Y's exact subject (in its entirety)?
 * 3 per the two commenters above me. I don't understand all of this RfC, but whenever the reader will be served by a link saying "Main article: X" this template should be added/maintained and permitted. When a reader is best served by a link saying "For more information, see: X" then the template that produces that should be added/maintained and permitted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When, in your view, is a reader best served by the claim that article X is the "main article" on article Y's exact subject (in its entirety)?
 * The very word main is the problem--it has contradictory meanings. I suggest:

Make it more noticable? RfC
Who thinks this template should (or shouldn't) be more noticeable when used? (Let's see if we have consensus on that, before we discuss how to make it more noticable.)

I bet it's common for readers to skip over the template entirely, so what often happens is that a topic is important enough that it split off to be its own article, but then people reading the article using the template that points to this topic often end up skipping the important topic entirely, instead of reading the linked-to main article.

It could be made more noticeable using (just kidding),, , foreground or background color, font or something similar, but let's not discuss that for now.--Elvey (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If possible, I would like to retain a consistent format for such "hatnotes". I think the main issue is the need to convey to the reader what "main article" means in this context. I think the problem is that the current text does not make the reader sufficiently aware that information has been deliberately omitted or removed from the current article for reasons of space, style, or detail, rather than for reasons of relevance or importance. Perhaps a longer text explaining that would also be more visible. We should also clearly differentiate betwee Main and Further. --Boson (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I started a RfC. It should have been done a while back, because I see no consensus here insofar. Maybe I should have added something about further to the RfC as well, because it seems to be yet another way to say main/details... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the template should be made less noticeable, not more, and should not be used as a hatnote. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Its usage should be restricted to the purposes described hereinbefore.
Come on, you couldn't say it in a less friendly or more formal way if you tried. "Hereinbefore"? Sheesh... 90.229.34.175 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Inline notice please
Please add some kind of inline notice for the RfC/TfD started above. This template is used very widely, but most editors who might have an opinion probably don't watch this page, or TfD, or VPP. Alas, since this is fully protected I don't know what wikicode would have been generated for the inline notice by Twinkle for a TfD, but it shouldn't be too hard to change the link in that type of code to point to the RfC above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To quote edit protected, "edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template."
 * Am I correct in understanding that you're requesting that an RfC link be appended to main's transclusions? That would cause a great deal of disruption/confusion among the encyclopedia's readers, most of whom have no knowledge of our template system or interest in editing.
 * Centralized discussion is an appropriate venue in which to advertise the RfC. —David Levy 01:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No comment on whether we should roll out the notice to all the transclusions of these templates, but if that were to happen, the code would look something like this:

<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap"> <div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">&amp;lsaquo; The template below (Main) is currently the subject of an RfC.&amp;rsaquo;


 * Result:

<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">&lsaquo; The template below (Main) is currently the subject of an RfC.&rsaquo;
 * If we were to go ahead with this, we would also need to decide whether the wording needs tweaking, etc. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to Lua
I've created a Lua version of this template at Module:Main. It is mostly the same as this template, but has the benefits that an unlimited number of links are allowed, category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:Main/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See also related discussions at Template:Hatnote, Template:Details, Template:Further and Template:See also. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest MOS
Suggest noting in the documentation text (ie state the obvious) that the "non-main" section should be a
 * relevant Abstract (summary), or summary of the main article
 * that only stable aspects of the article should be included in the case of dispute
 * and that a "light touch" as regards references should be be taken - to avoid unnecessary burden on editors, and duplication - provided that the "main" article is properly referenced. Though WP:VERIFY needs to be observed if requested.

Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the template documentation is difficult to follow
Could the 2nd paragraph of the template documentation please be rewritten in standard English. Putting it into sentences would be a good start (the 2nd and 3rd "sentences" are just phrases at present, making it difficult to follow). Nurg (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * This was indeed a controversial and badly written paragraph. I deleted it because it was partly against WP:OLINK and its succeeding paragraph and partly a rehash of the first paragraph with no added value. IMHO, adding something that is confessedly so controversial requires a discussion beforehand.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)