Template talk:Namespace links/Archive 2

Edit request on 9 September 2013
I just noticed how this template renders on pages with an actual background color (User:Technical 13 for example) and the &#124;    sections look horrible. please set it back to  and see how it looks on a colored background... If that doesn't look presentable, perhaps &#124; ? Thanks for your attention. Technical 13 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tests
 * stuff  stuff
 * stuff  stuff
 * ( stuff &#124; stuff )
 * ( stuff &#124; stuff )
 * ( stuff &#124; stuff )
 * ( stuff &#124; stuff )
 * ( stuff | stuff )
 * ( stuff | stuff )
 * Ah yes, that's not ideal - I've reverted for now. We shouldn't be using  tags, though, as they are not valid html 5. Can we get the same effect by using css somehow? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've put together a fix with tags, giving this:
 * But that looks pretty strange on my system. Will come back to this later. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that looks pretty strange on my system. Will come back to this later. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * , why do they need to be wrapped? Why not just use straight ( | )? Technical 13 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. In that case, it's probably easiest just to use toolbar. I've added the code to the sandbox - do the results look acceptable to you? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might look a little better if the links were bold and had a little padding:
 *  Beer ( [ e] &#124; t &#124; [ h] &#124; [ p] &#124; [ lnk] &#124; [ w] &#124; [ l] &#124; pv90 )
 * (I used short code in this example for display purposes only) I think it is fine other than that. Technical 13 (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't think the long version would look good with bold links, though. Any ideas on how we can have bolding just for the shorter links? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I must've overlooked your response and I just noticed my links weren't short anymore. What do you think about the unshortened characters always being bold like what is in the /sandbox and /testcases now?
 * Uncollapsed
 * Beer ( | talk | |  |  |  |  | )
 * Uncollapsed on background
 * Beer ( | talk | |  |  |  |  | )
 * Collapsed
 * Beer ( | t | |  |  |  |  | )
 * Collapsed on background
 * Beer ( | t | |  |  |  |  | )
 * Using sandbox
 * Thanks, ! Technical 13 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, having a mixture of bold and non-bold like that looks pretty ugly to my eyes. I think we should find a way of de-bolding the default version before we enact this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, having a mixture of bold and non-bold like that looks pretty ugly to my eyes. I think we should find a way of de-bolding the default version before we enact this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll wrap the whole link section in a named span and remove the individual bolding on the sandbox later or tomorrow. Will depend on baby going to bed. Technical 13 (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * code added to sandbox from mobile device. looks like someone else added the toolbar template so that needs to be looked over. Technical 13 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay,, it's ready. None of it is bold by default. Users can Choose to add the following css to bold the whole toolbar or alternatively just the abbreviations (or do whatever they want to either or both).  Toolbar has a class of "ln-condensed-link-toolbar", extra characters in links is still class "ln-condensed-link-list" and the left over characters that are used for the abbreviations is class "ln-condensed-link-abbr".  They are all span elements (not that it matters much with such descriptive class names).  Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is now Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for your patience! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for update of Template:La
I would like to update to incorporate the changes I have made to Template:La/sandbox which will make it 40 characters shorter while adding a new link for administrators to go the the &action=delete page for the article. The new "delete" link as well as the existing "protect" link are .sysop-show restricted so they will not be seen by most non-administrators (who can't use them anyways). I'm fully aware of my ability to make such a change directly, but would like to get some consensus before doing so. I would also like this change to mark the start of a 30-60 trial where these new links and formating proving as useful could be used as an argument to incorporate them into for use in all of this series of templates. . Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support & use "views". The /sandbox version will use less than half (46%) of the current post-expand include size (limit: 2,000 kb), and since there is little hope of developers increasing the limit, then the /sandbox allows using over 940 {la} per page, versus the current {la} limited to 440 per page (8-character pagenames). In prior article-list pages, the hundreds of repeated {la} links have been a major problem, and so this doubling (2.2x) of capacity, in the /sandbox, might be even more valuable then the sysop-show hidden delete and protect links. The reformat runtime is likewise nearly twice as fast with the /sandbox (will be ~80/second). Also: Consider showing "views" rather than the awkward "page views (90d)" to allow even more instances of {la} per page. Many users will understand how "views" refers to pageviews. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- and includes links for admins to protect or delete. Technical 13 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * any idea why the protect and delete are still showing up in the table of contents (see WP:RFPP)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like something that needs to be fixed in the site's CSS somewhere. What I assume is happening is that the CSS for the table of contents doesn't recognise the  class. The   class is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css, but I'm not sure what we would need to change to make the table of contents recognise it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming it has something to do with the way that the mediawiki software makes the table of contents. It seems to parse out span attributes.
 * I realize that makes the TOC look a little clunkier, and the only thing I can think of is maybe a line added to Common.js to remove the L* toolbar section from the TOC completely. Any objection to adding that if I figure out what needs to be added?  Something like:


 * seems to work for me in my sandbox, but if for some reason the template wasn't in a level 2 heading, it would fail. Technical 13 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , what do you think of this idea? Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a bit out of my area of expertise. Maybe Edokter or TheDJ would have a better idea? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where can I see this in action (including admin links)? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , adding the code I specified above in the JavaScript section to your skin.js and look at the TOC on WP:RFPP and hopefully this will be a feasible solution to the posed by . Technical 13 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant where can I see the sandbox code at work and see the links appear in the header? I don't like putting javascript in Common.js for the benefit of a single template. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

New stats tool
this tool does everything that stats.grok.se did, and is documented at w:de:Wikipedia:Wiki ViewStats/API. As this template includes a link to the old stats website, I suggest we amend it to use the WMF labs hosted tool. However we also have Article links with page views, so with the addition of pageviews to this template, there is now quite a bit of overlap between this & that template.

What would be ideal is if we have a new Lua based template like Template:User-multi (based on Module:UserLinks) for page links, where callers can request a subset of available links, which means it can even support many variations easily (statstoday, stats30, stats90, grokstatsse30, etc) to suit various processes. There are quite a few internal link templates which could become options of a generic template; e.g. Lag only adds a Google search link. Rfdm has a few specific links, and another one is going to be added due to Template talk:Rfd2. In Category:Internal link templates we find other link templates such as Link to page and redirects which adds a 'redirects' link. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The RESTful API mentioned in the above linked API doesnt appear to work. See wikiviewstats/de/wikipedia/30/Theodor_Fontane. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey there ! I'm very much interested in the API for this.  Any idea when that might be working?  I love the layout and have a few suggestions for enhancements further down the road... I'd be happy to make some changes to this template (and any other that is using stats.grok.se).  Just give me a list of change "X" to "Y" on "Z" and I'll make sure they all get done. Technical 13 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They are accepting feedback over at deWP; e.g. de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wiki_ViewStats. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't know a word of German. I'm hoping to have an API I can use for User:Technical 13/SandBox/getPageViews.js that will throw back the wikicode to make a comparison table to use in discussions on wiki.  Can you possibly ping me when the API is working so I can try it out?  Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My German isnt much better :P Anyway, as I suggested in my first post here, I have created page-multi, which uses. It doesnt support all the linktypes needed by the 'ln' template, or the others I mentioned, as I want to collaborate with the UserLinks developers before going too much further. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Display error
Pagelinks is used by mfd2, which caused this mess. So I have implemented it on top of page-multi. Let me know if there are any problems. (In the process of looking for minor differences, I saw that the documentation uses 'log' whereas the template code is displaying the link name 'logs'). John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found one difference - if the link includes a # anchor, the old pagelinks would ignore it, whereas page-multi will display it, and the links will include it, but all links work correctly. e.g. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates categorised as Stubs
22 templates have today appeared in Category:Stubs: a lot with names like "Ln", plus pagelinks. I can't work out how. The first one La hasn't itself been edited since November 2013, but presumably something is being transcluded which has been accidentally put into the stubs category. Please could someone who understands the templates fix whatever needs to be fixed. Thanks. Pam D  16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that it happened before - see above  Pam  D  16:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm investigating it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that this has fixed it, but it may take a while for the pages to drop out of the category. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are now just Pagelinks plus two others remaining in the stub category. They file, and the others filed, under "C" for some reason. Weird. Pam  D  23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They have all disappeared from the category - im not sure why it takes so long, but it is what it is. Thanks for reporting this problem so promptly so it could be fixed before it caused any damage. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply speaking,, job queue. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, but the affected pages were the template page itself (and /doc pages), not the template invocations. I assume the categories of the template are not updated until all template invocations have been re-rendered.  i.e. I purged the /doc, and the category was removed from the rendered /doc page, but it still appeared on the category page ~ a day later.  I dont understand why the re-rendered template page can't be pulled out of the category. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2014 (to la)
Please change the code t alk   to | t alk   so it works for all namespaces. Where this is being used on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, the links to the talk pages of the disputed pages are breaking when they're not in mainspace. Cathfolant (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * la should only be used for articles. I have edited the noticeboard page to use lu instead. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, sorry. And thanks. Cathfolant (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * /, where Conflict of interest/Noticeboard may have talk pages of disputed pages in any namespace, I'm not sure that La or Lu is appropriate. I'm thinking that either Ln should be used directly or a new template (maybe CoINlinks or something should be used to automatically detect the namespace and use the proper links no matter what (even if it is Book:Foo the dispute is about or some such).  What do you both think of that?  If that is desired, I'll dig more deeply into it and specifics can be discussed. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * / - Now wait a minute. lu appears to be for user links, and the noticeboard was using la for links to pages - not users - so how can it be replaced with lu? If la is for articles and lu is for users, obviously neither of those is appropriate, no. ln seems ok, but I wonder if it should use for shortness and simplicity, though that would break probably all its existing uses. Cathfolant (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be some sort of thing where people are maybe automatically adding la with stuff on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - don't know how that works; maybe it's in some instructions somewhere? Anyway, whatever is causing people to use la should probably be fixed too. Cathfolant (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * lu is for links to pages in the "User:" namespace, for example . For links relating to user accounts, there are other templates such as User or Userlinks, for example.
 * At Conflict of interest/Noticeboard the button at the top "create discussion" preloads the edit window with an la template for the article and a userlinks template for the user. Unless can work some cleverness, the "la" will sometimes need manual correction if the user creating the report doesn't fix it. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. That preload thing should be fixed, then. Cathfolant (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The page preloading la is Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Template. Any objections to changing it to ln? Cathfolant (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ln isn't really "suppose" to be used directly, which is why I'm suggesting that I could build a specific CoINlinks for the project. I'm in math class at the moment and have three dr. appointments tomorrow and Oracle DB class.... Wednesday I have an all afternoon seminar for Access (it's an online class I'm doing and my study group wants to bang out like 7 weeks of work in an afternoon to get ahead and not worry about it), but I can probably create this by Wednesday morning. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I hope the doctor appointments and the seminar go well. Cathfolant (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm looking this over... What I'm noticing is that a preload template is used, and currently, it is not possible to pass parameters to preload templates. This is about to change (well... There is a patch in for review to make it so that preload templates can take parameters; see 12853 if you're interested), and as such I'm going to start coding CoINlinks (you can move it later if you want or create a redirect from Coinlinks) to be able to take that into consideration.  I'm also going to adjust the </input> section where the "click here" button to create a new report is so that as soon as this new ability is available, it will be used as a default fallback option when someone submits a request without "all" the needed information.  I'm also going to consolidate the page and user links into the same template to reduce expansion depth and size as much as I can, as I have seen issues with these things on other boards (expensive parser functions usually are the big one that cause breaking issues, but the other two are often not far behind).  Anyway, I'll notify the project once everything is coded and ready to gain a consensus to use the new template and preload.  I can send a quick notice with  for this purpose.  This may take me a couple days as I juggle this project with real life and there is really no rush on parts of it until that patch I mentioned has been merged (which means it will be available within a couple weeks but we'll have a date). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 July 2014
Please undo the last edit, there was no consensus to remove the separators, and changing them to regular spaces will allow line wrapping, which I oppose. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

— &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The last functional change to this template was in 2007. Are you sure you have the right template?  16:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad; the edit request concerned lx. But I disabled the request, as this seems to need some discussion.  16:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, the template is Lx and I'm requesting the bold change that breaks the way the template works be reverted and then it can be discussed. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 02:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't cite procedures as reason. Just discuss this with .  07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have reverted the change since there was no initial consensus for such a change to a highly visible template.  is directed to seek consensus first and have someone else apply the change. — cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow a lot happens when a page doesn't get reloaded. Sorry, for overriding you Edokter.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Would the change be acceptable if the spaces were made non-breaking? Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object, but I think it would be wise to get a wider consensus before changing this highly visible template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Being bold" seems the most efficient way to see if there might be a consensus not to do something, so shall I proceed accordingly...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I feel WP:BRD should not apply to template protected highly visible templates.  Every edit made to those causes an increase in server load as it tries to keep up.  As such if we treated template protected pages as articles, it starts to cause a disruption.  That's why it's important to make sure the change is supported FIRST then applied. :-)— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to here
The following 93 pages redirect here


 * 1) Template talk:Article
 * 2) Template talk:Lwt
 * 3) Template talk:Lt
 * 4) Template talk:La
 * 5) Template talk:Lnt
 * 6) Template talk:Tln
 * 7) Template talk:Lat
 * 8) Template talk:Ltt
 * 9) Template talk:Lc
 * 10) Template talk:Lf
 * 11) Template talk:Lft
 * 12) Template talk:Lw
 * 13) Template talk:Lx
 * 14) Template talk:Lht
 * 15) Template talk:Lut
 * 16) Template talk:Lu
 * 17) Template talk:Lpt
 * 18) Template talk:Lp
 * 19) Template talk:Lmt
 * 20) Template talk:Lm
 * 21) Template talk:Lct
 * 22) Template talk:Lit (band)
 * 23) Template talk:Li
 * 24) Template talk:Pagelinks
 * 25) Template talk:Lafd
 * 26) Template talk:Lh
 * 27) Template talk:Lbt
 * 28) Template talk:Lb
 * 29) Template talk:La/doc
 * 30) Template talk:La/sandbox
 * 31) Template talk:La/testcases
 * 32) Template talk:Lat/sandbox
 * 33) Template talk:Ltt/sandbox
 * 34) Template talk:Lu/sandbox
 * 35) Template talk:Lx/doc
 * 36) Template talk:Lx/sandbox
 * 37) Template talk:Lx/testcases
 * 38) Template talk:Lt/doc
 * 39) Template talk:Lu/testcases
 * 40) Template talk:Lf/sandbox
 * 41) Template talk:Ln/sandbox
 * 42) Template talk:Lt/sandbox
 * 43) Template talk:Ln/doc
 * 44) Template talk:Pagelinks/doc
 * 45) Template talk:Lat/doc
 * 46) Template talk:Lnt/doc
 * 47) Template talk:Lw/doc
 * 48) Template talk:Lttxt
 * 49) Template talk:Lttxtt
 * 50) Template talk:Lmd
 * 51) Template talk:Lmdt
 * 52) Template talk:Lft/doc
 * 53) Template talk:Lf/doc
 * 54) Template talk:Lafd/doc
 * 55) Template talk:Lc/doc
 * 56) Template talk:Lct/doc
 * 57) Template talk:Lu/doc
 * 58) Template talk:Lwt/doc
 * 59) Template talk:Lut/doc
 * 60) Template talk:Lbt/sandbox
 * 61) Template talk:Lm/sandbox
 * 62) Template talk:Lh/doc
 * 63) Template talk:Lbt/doc
 * 64) Template talk:Lb/sandbox
 * 65) Template talk:Lct/sandbox
 * 66) Template talk:Lafd/sandbox
 * 67) Template talk:Lmdt/doc
 * 68) Template talk:Lht/doc
 * 69) Template talk:Lh/sandbox
 * 70) Template talk:Lb/doc
 * 71) Template talk:Lmt/sandbox
 * 72) Template talk:Lft/sandbox
 * 73) Template talk:Lnt/sandbox
 * 74) Template talk:Lht/sandbox
 * 75) Template talk:Lc/sandbox
 * 76) Template talk:Lmd/doc
 * 77) Template talk:Lm/doc
 * 78) Template talk:Lmt/doc
 * 79) Template talk:Lmdt/sandbox
 * 80) Template talk:Lmd/sandbox
 * 81) Template talk:Lttxtt/doc
 * 82) Template talk:Lpt/sandbox
 * 83) Template talk:Lpt/doc
 * 84) Template talk:Lut/sandbox
 * 85) Template talk:Lp/doc
 * 86) Template talk:Lw/sandbox
 * 87) Template talk:Lttxt/sandbox
 * 88) Template talk:Lwt/sandbox
 * 89) Template talk:Lp/sandbox
 * 90) Template talk:Lttxtt/sandbox
 * 91) Template talk:Lttxt/doc
 * 92) Template talk:Pagelinks/sandbox
 * 93) Template talk:Pagelinks/testcases

They include not just a whole slew of template, an documentation pages, but also talk pages for sandboxes and test cases. Is this a good idea? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC).


 * You'll find that many of the redirs for /doc, /sandbox and /testcases were created by . This was because newbies were often starting disussions at these formerly-nonexistent talk subpages, thus creating a page with about two watchers, and six months on, wondered why they had no replies. Accordingly, when a template gets a /doc, /sandbox or /testcases created, within a day or so, AnomieBOT creates the corresponding talk page as a redir to the main template's talk page. may have more on that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, what a shame. The no-replies situation is of course important, and one that has been exercising my mind for some time.  This is not the solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Though what was mentioned above may be the case, one of those that you listed was blatantly incorrect: Template talk:Lit (band), given that the main template page does not redirect to any page in the "Ln" family. For that reason, I blanked that redirect. Steel1943  (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Template-protected edit request on 3 October 2014
It appears that the talk page link in Template:La does not work when the linked page happens to be a talk page. When the given parameter is itself a talk page, the button for talk should not show up.

Gparyani (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you are trying to link an article talk page, the template that should be used is Lat, not La. (There are no "fixes" to make since the template is working as designed; please refer to Template:Ln/doc for the chart of templates to use for each specific namespace.)  Steel1943  (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lx
This (the current) sandbox version of Template:Lx replaces the ambiguous-looking vertical-bar/pipe separators with (i.e. with a definable separator defaulting to a space) and also introduces  for use when the parenthesis has more presence than the template link preceding it. Okay to implement and document? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The vertical bar is not ambiguous, it is traditionally used as a link separator. Adding these two options also are option-creep. If anything, we should dump the monospace font and harmonize all lx template presentations, using hlist to format the link .  06:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The vertical bar is not ambiguous? A capital "I" in a sans-serif font such as Arial jumps to mind; then a lowercase "L"; then... Perhaps its use as a separator is one of those traditions from which it's time to move on.
 * I'd also prefer no "option-creep", but realize other people may prefer (in this case) a different separator and/or parenthesis size.
 * I too was wondering why the 08:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that one set of links shows with a proportional font, the other set is monospaced. That is the difference that I am questioning. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. I question any difference, even the one you find natural.  19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By "it's natural that you'd want the second link to differ", I mean that for a set of links relevant to a subject page, one of those links should be the talk page of that subject page (this is the second link generated by ), and for a set of links relevant to a talk page, one of those links should be the subject page of that talk page (this is the second link generated by ). The second link says "talk" in the first case, and "subject" in the second. They are different, and correctly so - I don't have a problem with the text. I question the font family. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we're on the same page.  21:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I've got it. It was by . The edit changed the links to monospace font by broadening the scope of the existing monospace markup on parentheses and pipes. The only related discussions that I can find are  and, which are for , not . But why did the parentheses and pipes need to be marked up as monospace at all? The use of monospaced pipes goes back to , and monospaced parentheses to . -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Simplify it as much as possible, but no more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Just revisiting this as I noticed the inconsistency of this on WP:MFD. Why is it using monospace for talk pages and only those? It's using a smaller font than the monospace you get with  and together with link colouring is far less readable, while because it's monospaced it takes up more horizontal space than the default font which is normally sized. It would look much better and be much more readable if the fonts all matched, without these unnecessary font and size changes.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed Lx/sandbox to use the regular, but smaller font. How does that look?  19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working: I've created the above two examples using the sandbox and they're the same except for the font. I assume this fixes it for other namespaces that were using monospace. Is the smaller font how it was before, or what the monospace font was trying to achieve? It looks ok to me but if it's a new change some people might object.
 * -- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 20:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other templates in the family that also use monospace, they will all need to be changed. I don't know how it was before, but the smaller font has been used in other templates, so I don't expect much opposition.  20:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so either. Probably best to go ahead as it's definitely an improvement then if there are any concerns/complaints address them.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other templates in the family that also use monospace, they will all need to be changed. I don't know how it was before, but the smaller font has been used in other templates, so I don't expect much opposition.  20:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so either. Probably best to go ahead as it's definitely an improvement then if there are any concerns/complaints address them.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)