Template talk:See details

Usage

 * ArticleName: Name of article with more detailed coverage of a topic.

Generally placed at the top or bottom of a relevant article section.

This template creates an indication that material within this section is covered in more detail in another article. Often an article has to mention a subject but does not need to contain encyclopedic details on the subject. An inline link can often be used, but a section often refers to several topics which are covered within another article and this template's separate label may fit style or structure.



See also comparison with related templates.

TFD
This template was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete it (even if it came close). Thus it is kept. See Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details; given the amount of people disliking this template, it is recommended that it be reworded, and/or its usage be reconsidered. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why?
All instances of Template:Main are currently being replaced with this one. Where and when was consensus reached for the "Usage" above? I have seen discussion in numerous places, and have contested it on a few different talk pages myself, but never a consensus. Template:Main from the beginning had the purpose that this template is claimed to have, and was only recently interpreted by some people to have a different meaning (which is odd, because there is no such thing as a parent article in Wikipedia, except in extremely rare cases which should be corrected). I definitely do not support the use of this template myself, and will from now on insert a manual reference instead of a template in any article I write myself until I know someone won't change the wording or style of it without my knowledge. Fredrik | talk 10:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * References to Main which are not at the top of the article are being replaced with this template. The Main template is supposed to be used at the top of articles.  (SEWilco 10:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * In discussion [1], I count 7 people saying that "main" should be kept, 2 that either "main" or "seemain" should be kept, 2 to keep both. I see only 2 people suggest the use of "see details". In the "Template:See details" discussion, I count 7 votes to delete and 7 to keep. You may be right about the original intention of "main" (I can't tell from the original version; the wording is ambiguous). I have however only seen "main" being used at the top of an article a few times (and then getting reverted in a few days), but thousands of times at the top of a section. This reflects the fact that "Main article:" is the wording used on Summary style, and was used exclusively for this purpose. Some people also voted to redirect "seemain" to "main", because that's how they have been using the template. Fredrik | talk 10:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are confusing purpose with appearance. The purposes are different from their appearance.  If you want a different appearance for this type of link then start a discussion about the style.  (SEWilco 11:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * No I don't agree with the text "For details see..." At least all the encyclopedia's I've seen sport the "Main article" tag.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest opening a discussion here on the style of these section-oriented links. Main is intended for an article-level link.  See details is for a reference link within sections, and you apparently have an opinion about what these should look like.  (SEWilco 10:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Regardless of how it is "intended" to work, it is used differently and there is no reason to change this. Template:Main is used because people want it so say "Main article:". I'd rather not want use a Template:See details that says "Main article:". Why not restore Template:Main article instead? - Fredrik | talk 11:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There was already a discussion in June when someone tried to do the same. I object to the the changes. Its not right. The template main is so popular. I don't see why you have to change the status quo. I'm all for setting up a new discussion. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fredrik. Regardless of main's intended use, 99% of the articles that use it don't use it in that fashion. There is no reason to change it to a new template because of that. Revert back. K1Bond007 16:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this discussion, so please pardon my ignorance. Can someone please explain why main should be used only at the top of an article?  What distinction is being drawn?  To me, this appears to be an arbitrary, unnecessary rule.


 * In my opinion, the wording of see details is inferior, and the actual template is redundant. (I wish that I'd known about the TfD vote.)  Why, other than the existence of an evidently pointless rule, should every in-section use of main be replaced?  Is there a practical reason of which I'm unaware?  If so, I'll consider altering my stance, but only if the wording of see details is improved.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 14:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I too disagree with the replacment of main with see details. Main is now and always has been widly used at the begginging of sections. I think such wide use constitutes consesus, especially since I cannot find any discussion saying otherwise. Even if there was, from what I can see there was by no mean a consesus large enough to warrant such a large and far reaching change. I would ask that the bots that are replacing main with see details stop until a formal discussion is held and a consensus reached. --Gpyoung talk 19:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the belief that main should be used only at the tops of articles stems from the description that Eequor used after creating the template. Whether intentional or not, this stipulation obviously doesn't jibe with the tag's popular application.


 * As noted above by Fredrik, there also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Wikipedia article system. There are no hierarchies in article namespace, so main cannot be reserved for sub-articles (which simply don't exist).


 * I was going to suggest that see details be renamed see also, reworded to read See also: , and confined to the bottoms of sections, but I discovered (upon noticing the blue link in the edit preview) that such a template already exists.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 20:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What an interesting discussion. My intent for Template:Main was exactly as Main article: is used on Summary style &mdash; that is, to link sections to the main article on the topic they refer to.  I don't see the template as serving much use at the top of pages; as others have said, articles do not generally form a simple hierarchy.  I also disagree with  being used to replace  .  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 23:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As this discussion clearly shows, there is not a consensus to change the current use of Main. I would ask that SEWilco's bot please stop changing Main to See Details and revert the changes it has already made until there is further discussion. However, I do not know where to propose this "formally", could any more-experienced user help? Once again, I dont think such a large and far reaching change should be made without consensus, regardless of people's ideas of the purpose of the template. --Gpyoung talk 00:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I left a message on the bot's talk page. I just don't think the change is worth making. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no consensus to these changes. Yet regardless, this bot is still making changes. There is far too much opposition to this from what I've seen today to have a bot make all these changes. K1Bond007 02:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The bot already completed the main->see_details conversion. Right now it is making another pass changing references missed in lines 5-10, which left some articles partially converted.  It is running semiautomatically, getting approval for each change. (SEWilco 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC))


 * The craziest part is that SEWilco claims not to care about the tags' wording. ("I am fixing the type of link, not their appearance.")  The reasoning behind the switch is that "the Main template is supposed to be used at the top of articles."  This belief is based upon Eequor's inadvertent miswording of the template description (which was self-corrected tonight) and a handful of comments that resulted.


 * SEWilco actually stated that he/she wouldn't mind if main and see details contained identical wording, just as long they're used in the "correct" article locations (as though this somehow makes a difference). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

(SEWilco 03:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * There have been many complaints of improper use of Main, contributing to a template classification war (where "improper" is based on documented usage, not these late comments of intents). The top-of-page definition of Main, the change, and correcting Main being used outside the start of articles, was mentioned over a month ago in TfD.   The changes include replacing references to the undesired seemain, which is now up for deletion.  The last step in the process, replacing with main any use of see details at the top of an article, has not begun.
 * If you don't like the appearance of "See details", discuss its style.
 * If you don't like the definition of "Main", discuss that in Template talk:Main.

You did not have a consensus to go off and make these changes. Granted in the past people complained about the intended use of the template, but that has been rectified by the author of the template. See here and here. You should revert all your changes back to main. There is far too much opposition (as clearly shown today) for what you're doing. K1Bond007 03:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I brought both of these diffs to SEWilco's attention, and he/she evidently doesn't care. SEWilco believes that the template's overwhelmingly popular use (which matches its creator's intention) and a clear lack of consensus for the change should be disregarded in favor of a typographical error (now corrected) that a few people mistook for an accurate description.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont think it was appropriate for SEWilco to use their bot to make such a large chage without consensus and something needs to be done to correct it. I see this as pure neglect for the precedure of Wikipedia and just because its already done I dont think it should be igorned/forgotten. --Gpyoung talk 03:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Those who previously participated did so under the previous definitions, not the new modification by the author. I welcome the author's belated participation, but previous users of the templates were using the previous rules and not these new ones.  These changes took place in the past.  (SEWilco 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC))


 * You don't seem to understand the fact that virtually no one used the main template in the manner erroneously prescribed, nor would it have made any sense for them to have done so. I seriously doubt that most users were even aware of the inaccurate description's existence.  (I certainly wasn't.)  Regardless, it was a bloody TYPO, for crying out loud.  But even if it hadn't been, the tag's overwhelmingly disparate use constituted a clear consensus (which you've decided to ignore, based solely on an absurd technicality).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've only heard from a small fraction of the users who saw these changes made. I can't make a reverting batch of changes within hours without hearing from more of those people who may be approving.  More time for comments is needed, and the articles are still functional.  (SEWilco 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC))


 * I'm curious as to why you didn't solicit any comments (on this talk page or the main talk page) BEFORE you sent your bot on a "fixing" spree. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As requested by Lifeisunfair, I stopped the bot. Articles starting H-Z are most likely to be partly converted.  I will not make further changes until a new consensus is reached.  The conversion was based upon documentation and discussions based on the previous descriptions, and proper usage is now undefined.  (SEWilco 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC))


 * The proper usage has been defined via eight months of consistent application. The contradictory description was a simple typographical error (now corrected), and never was widely followed (nor should it have been).  Clearly, irrespective of documentation, a consensus has existed throughout the template's existence, and this should be respected until a "new consensus" emerges (which doesn't appear likely). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You say you cannot revert the chages without discussion. I ask you why then did you make these chages without discussion and consensus? Thank you for stopping the bot. --Gpyoung talk 03:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There was discussion, consensus, and announcement. I've been complaining to TfD that people weren't hearing about changes, I'm glad that you have joined the discussion.  (SEWilco 04:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC))


 * A handful of remarks from a peripherally related TfD vote (which few people saw) does not a consensus make. I (and many others) had absolutely no idea that this change was impending, despite the fact that a notice undoubtedly was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please undo the bot's work. There seems to no support for the new changes. Not everyone visits TFD on a regular basis to read the goings-on there. Since this is a major change affecting a huge number of articles, I suggest a much larger discussion be created and put up in the Goings-on. If the bot does not revert the edits, I'll switch to using the manual system, without templates. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Style
I think this template should be formatted Main article: Foo and moved to Template:Main. Fredrik | talk 11:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose, style, and name are separate issues. For the style, what do you think this template should look like?  (SEWilco 12:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * template:main is long associated with the above text. If this tl is to be used, it should at least read as :Main article...". =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Template:Main changed
The definition of Main has been changed. Discussion in Template_talk:Main. (SEWilco 04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC))