Template talk:Template-linking templates

Giant table unhelpful
I found the current table totally unhelpful. If I'm searching for a solution to a particular "how to" problem, by definition, I want it quickly, and I don't have a time to invest in parsing entirety of the table. This table is only useful to someone who wants to understand how all the templates relate to each other. It is very "in-universe" style; to learn what does it mean "Linked with subst", and is it relevant to my problem, is by no means easy task. Simple list of typical examples: X ...renders... Y, is much more useful, even if it is very long, as one can quickly skim through the list, find something that looks relevant to one's problem (or something that just looks promising) and dive there. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Attention is for styles like bolding, not for what links do I get?, or how do I get the links I need. -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding: what ever could the column clarifier "link style" mean? -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Major reorganization of template linking templates
I proposed renaming of many of the templates in this overview of template linking templates to unify and standardize the naming of them for easier usability. Please join the discussion at Template talk:Tl. Regards Patrick87 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling a nav a nav
This template is a navigation aid. Nothing "cryptic" about that. Bad move. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to this, then the point was that "Tl-nav" is cryptic as a name for the template but is preferable as a means to summon/transclude it.
 * If, however, you're referring to something else, apologies for misinterpreting your message. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have kept some "nav/navbox/navigation" reference in the title. Agree that "Tl" is not clear. So if a better name is needed, I'd have made it like "Template:Template-linking templates nav". I won't revert though. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I actually love the rename. I always thought " " is cryptic. And curiously, I always thought it is.


 * So, let's not call a spade a sp. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm thinking of converting the current table format into something more Navbox-like. Aligned table, something I've recently been shown, may be appropriate (but I've yet to check). Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A navbox -- a great idea ;-)
 * For me, I need first and foremost an overview of the options: what links do I get? -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion redirect of Template:Tn
Template:Tn has been nominated for deletion redirection. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Not deletion, but redirect to tl is proposed. DePiep (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxi
Template:Tlxi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. Not deletion, redirect to tlx. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxb
Template:Tlxb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlb
Template:Tlb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:DePiep
Hi, everyone

I am reverting over 23 edits by User:DePiep that have taken place during the last few days. The edits were questionable from the very beginning but in the interest not being bossy, I let them be. However, the edits made today and yesterday have being intolerable, converting this template from a tool of navigation to a pure torture.

I have two main objections:
 * First, alphabetical lists are only useful when the person who is looking at them knows exactly what he is searching for by name. Search by function needs categorical sorting.
 * Second, intricate and practically useless data like "essence" (I don't even know what is that) and "number of transclusions" that consume so much screen property just add to the pain.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why then not throw out the troublesome ones only? Now you've made the list useless & incomplete as it was. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to re-add any absent template that I might have removed by accident. (I myself might lend a hand as soon as I am done with my current article.) My BRD revert concerns duplicate mentions and impractical trivia only, because nothing kills a "See Also" section than sprawling lists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You write as if only a few are missing (which contradicts you blanket rejection). I say that the old setup, you now recreated, is useless and incomplete. If it is you who sees a problem, why not you to remove that single one (say, a column)? Why did not you ask me clarification or propose improvement? What is this es about, mentioning article space? Why should I improve the overview when you will throw it away without communication, becuase you don't understant it? -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. These two are not individual grounds for objection; they are cause and effect. That's 23 edits that I must plow through and as long as I don't acquire the same level of knowledge that you had before starting the bombardment, I am afraid the objection would be moot because I cannot glean the same knowledge from the resulting page, which, by the way, is supposed to do exactly that. At best it shows that you know, but does not disseminate that knowledge because it is not organized. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The complexity (as a result of the sheer number) of template linking templates which is apparent from the fact that you have to argue about how to present them in a navigational template makes it obvious to me, that where on the wrong path. In contrary to the idea I once had to unify and standardize the naming, today I'm of the opinion we should get rid of all the fancy styling (might it be bold, italic, braces within, etc.) and cut the list down to only few template linking templates which differ in functionality but not styling. The deletion requests by DePiep (which I assume were a result of his work on this template) are a step into the correct direction and I'd vot to continue this work until we reach a point were this template actually can be a tool of navigation instead of pure torture (which it was from the start). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, I am trying to build an overview. The old table (now reconstructed by C.Lisa) never served me in any sense, and has the wrong approach as you describe. Yes there are many, but alt least let's make a list. One that shows effects (aka reult, output), parameters (both set and show), core (aka essence) for all. But since C.Lisea reverted blanked, I am shy to help this overview forward. C.Lisa is not working with incremental improvement, clearly. -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! You've been here for so long and are now discouraged by a BRD revert? So, what if someone didn't like your change? That's no reason to assume bad faith; otherwise, I must have assumed bad in everyone in the world by now. Patrick87, for example, objected to one of my template edits and I ended up doing 12 edits as a compromise and eventually it didn't happen. You don't see me writing hate messages about him, do you?


 * And for the record, that was not a blanket revert; I made 3 reverts to achieve the level of revert that I desired. When the foundation is disputed, there is nothing to improve. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . re Oh, come on!: Yes, I am long enough here. And you did not start any talk before reverting 23 edit (admit, that is not a 'blanket' rv per se). And today you are asking me for help. duh. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good example: Template:Userspace linking templates. -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That page is at least categorize. This one isn't. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What are  and  ?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To cut this all short: development looks good now. About what I had in mind. We could merge the last two sections, because IMO I don't know if I look for something "special" or a "feature", if you know what I mean. Such a classification could be in a column (sortable).
 * Of course, categorisation I was building before you removed it. Esp by using sortable columns (which nicely allows multiple!).
 * Names like  I got from Category:Internal link templates. Interestingly (worryingly), there is no subcategory for templatespace. -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * I can rename the second section to indicate that it is an expansion of the table.


 * Actually, the complexity on the table bugs me a bit. Maybe we could replace all this hoopla about tlg parameters with a green bar at the bottom that says can do it all.


 * As for, well, I just found a twlh. What about the other?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dunno about the other one. You took over, so it's up to you. One of my goals is completeness.
 * The old & current top table is about formattings only, and I won't spend time on that. That one is to go or to be moved down. I had categorised these templates "fmt" (now removed). It is this table that never helped me. -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should really put this "take over" state of mind aside. Wikipedians are team members and they cooperate. There is no take over, winning or losing here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can put that aside. But as I mentioned, you reversed big time without asking anything beforehand.
 * So, if I would make an edit to the page now, I'd still have the risk of you reversing-without-talk. As you can read, it pissed me off. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Table structure
Please consider this table (structure): All template linking templates are to be listed in this one table. Use columns to categorse, so one can sort to search. -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a lot in it they I don't understand. What are "namespace or site", "Core", "Template params handling"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add more templates. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Improving the example table. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the table. This is what the doocumentation should look like, I think. If you do not understand a detail, that's no reason to reject or remove of course. And don't complain about sloppy details, because it is a demo right. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A very strange request indeed. The question that you must answer is "Are you writing it for yourself or for people who need to read the documentation pages because they don't have a clue about the intricacies of Wikipedia?"
 * If the answer is yourself, then you should consider putting it in your talk page, where you have full authority on hosting it. But if the answer is the latter, I am afraid everyone including I myself have a say in it. I still do not understand the column titled "Essence core main feature What the template is used for". Apart from that, it contains a lot of duplicate details that already appear the original category-sorted table. Last, it uses the poorest sort order mainkind has ever created: The alphabetical order.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, what "request" is strange? It;s a proposal. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do not understand that column, leave it alone. Your current page does not help me at all. Think about who & what send you here. You (repeating) "I don't understand so it's wrong" is off for me. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I asked a question and instead of answering me, you are playing with words, committing personal attack or trying to bully me. Is it because you yourself don't understand it and this is just an obsessive-compulsive edit? ArbCom has previously encountered instances of obsessive-compulsive editing and those editors are now blocked.


 * Nevertheless, any time you decided to just stop nitpicking on words (e.g. "request" vs. "proposal") and answer the question, I will be here. Until then, consider your proposal – which, in my view, is nothing but purposeless tormenting complexity – is rejected.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not ask me a question at all., , , , . Ever. DePiep (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a question to me: "What are 'namespace or site', 'Core', 'Template params handling'?" And there is no reason to list any additional template besides those in the first table at all. Leave them in category space or make a separate more meaningful navbox for them. 188.245.105.214 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... which I answered by expanding the table. After that came the reply with "you must answer". That's not a question, nor a cooperative attitude. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, it's the opposite. That table only shows some templates for their formatting abilities. To me, a heavy template editor, that is mostly irrelevant. I need an overview that also shows (a) the actual links it delivers as the page title says, and (b) how to show & use the parameteres of the target template. Practically, my demo table here has the formatting ones categorised ('use sort to search'). -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Try not interjecting my message please.
 * Your table still has an equivalent / similarly confusing column, so no, you haven't answered. Questions don't always have question mark at their ends. 188.245.85.245 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, 188.245.105.214, are you new or are you related to an other editing entity? -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sign in. I have an account here, yes. But naming it would mean giving my IP address freely to hacker+haters. If you feel I am one of the guys here (which I neither confirm nor deny), just do your usual WP:DR thing. 188.245.85.245 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem with this. -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 3 November 2019
1) Replace


 * || || Counterpart to tlx for linking to Lua modules
 * || || Counterpart to tlx for linking to Lua modules

with


 * || || Counterpart to tl for linking to Lua modules
 * || || Counterpart to tlx for linking to Lua modules
 * || || Counterpart to tlx for linking to Lua modules
 * || || Counterpart to tlx for linking to Lua modules

To add (not sure why it was missing).

2A) Remove

2B) Replace

! Code example !! Effect !! Notes

with

! Code example !! Effect !! Notes
 * || || Produces a normal link to the template
 * || || Produces a normal link to the template

To reflect the change of purpose for.

I'm unable to perform these changes myself do to restrictions. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  07:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Users subject to editing restrictions are not permitted to request that other people proxy for them. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed to submit edit request, it was part of the "deal" when I was restricted (see here). – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  01:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Table tweaking toward WP:ACCESS, understandability
Hi, all. When I first came to this template (documentation) page, I had a hard time understanding it all, especially that first table. I couldn't easily see what it was trying to tell me. My reaction was to try getting rid of the things that were distracting or confusing me (e.g., non-standard colors), and see if my enhanced concentration let me comprehend the whole. I therefore tweaked the tables' wikicode, from the bottom (3rd table) to the top (1st), adding captions and scope attributes to provide a familiar appearance, similar to wikitables in article space (and maybe, enhancing the WP:ACCESSibility). I saved the most dramatic changes for last, and with this one edit the one without an edit summary :-(, I not only tweaked the column and row headings of the table, I moved the note-text out of the bottom row and made (linked) footnotes out of them. Because of our desire to have the  options in the table along with the templates themselves (which is what was confusing me), I kind of bent the table a bit. Notably, the colors are gone, which may irritate some. And I'm not 100% sure I like my results better than before my last edit.  So, if anyone really dislikes the new look, they should feel free to revert that last edit (or discuss it here). I'll be glad to explain my reasoning as best I can, but I'm not adamant about my rework of the top table. Take a look, see what you think. Feedback welcome! &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How to link to templates inside edit message
I tried including in my Wikipedia edit message, which works here, but not. Shushugah (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)