Template talk:Template category/Archive 1

Test change to nest these two templates

 * template category
 * interwikicat-grp
 * cumulative diffs to success.
 * key diff // Fra nkB 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstruse instruction
I find this template at Category:Norway transport templates. Now, I have a couple of Norway transport-related templates that are not navboxes that I'm looking to categorize. According to the instruction provided by the present template "they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox." What in the world does that mean? How should they be categorized? __meco (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback; I've added a line at the end of the instruction (in brackets) which hopefully will help. If there are (or are likely to be) more of the non-navbox templates you have, it'd probably be worth creating a subcategory or subcategories for them. What kind of templates are they? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the instruction added did not follow from the explanation, so I've now removed it. The explanation is meant to point out that subcategories for template types other than navboxes may exist and, if so, should appear first in the list of subcategories. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
Cleanup needed from tech expert. The show/hide links are not visible in the page's nav/infoboxes. Thanks.-- Funandtrvl (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This template uses Cmbox, not nav/infoboxes..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek letters
Currently, this template contains the following text, which seems to be a recommendation for a standard: "μ = stub; τ = template; ω = WikiProject; ρ = WikiReader". Has this been discussed anywhere? Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. &mdash; Sebastian 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please update the instructions
The instructions how to add to a category are no longer up to date. Nowadays, almost every template has a /doc page, where the category belongs. Thus, please apply the update from the the sandbox (diff). If you have any suggestions on the wording, feel free to apply them as well. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would include both scenarios, there are still a lot of templates w/o doc pgs out there. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are some (e.g. navboxes), so I re-added the part (diff2). --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is better. I made a minor fix, see: diff3. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ucucha (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't think the 'portal' parameter is working, though. I'll have to work on that, any help is appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all it does is adding some style. You'll need some code to actually add the portal link. Ucucha (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See . Ucucha (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.178.82.244, 23 August 2011
Fixed version (no layout mess up without tidy HTML): 

}}

85.178.82.244 (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with the code? One of the elements isn't properly closed.  Could you try again using the sandbox?  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not examined the above code sample, but judging by the IP editor's other contributions, the problem concerns some invalid HTML. I have inspected the template, and found that five or six elements are unclosed (one element is sometimes closed, sometimes not). Accordingly, I have sandboxed some changes which should fix this. In essence, one  is misplaced, and there are three missing, one missing  and one missing . So, please sync from Template:Template category/sandbox. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Align to left?
I've noticed that most if not all other elements on category pages are aligned left -- how about this template, at least by default? CsDix (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a message-box type banner, and message-boxes are centred. If this one were left-aligned, it would compromise the neatness of pages like this, so we'd have to adjust all the others. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see -- thank you for indicating! CsDix (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013
The line-height for text in the "topic/description" section is a bit tight, especially when the text is bold. (See, for example, the text in the template on the Category:China region and territory topics templates page.)

The version of this template currently in the template sandbox (20:41, 14 January 2013‎ CsDix (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,923 bytes) (+306)‎ . . (plus includeonly/noinclude) ) amends this by changing the line-height from 1.1em to 1.25em. If this looks okay, please replace the current template with this sandbox version.

CsDix (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! CsDix (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013
Hello. Request the present live version replaced with this version in the template's sandbox. The substantive differences are the addition of "navigation" as an alternative to "navbox" in the function and the removal of the related text "If subcategories exist for other types of templates [...] they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox", as this not necessarily the case.

CsDix (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! CsDix (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013
Please replace the current version with this version in the template sandbox, which: (1) adds another type ("sidebar" or "sidebox") to the main #switch routine; and (2) adds a routine which places "Navigation"/"Navbox"/"Infobox"/"Sidebar" before the first word of the template message ("templates", so e.g. "Navigation templates..."), i.e. emphasizes if the category contains one of these principal types of template.

CsDix (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies – I see I forgot to add a couple of "start bold" instructions (three consecutive quotemarks). Fixed in this (current) sandbox version. CsDix (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was speedy – thanks. CsDix (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Link targets
please change the ambox and campaignbox lines in the switch to        |ambox = article message box (ambox) templates.''' |campaignbox = campaignbox templates.''' thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2014
Please replace the current version with this version from the sandbox (the current sandbox version as of this message). It makes the following changes:
 * 1) (Cmbox image parameter:) "Image:" replaced with "File:";
 * 2) ("topic / description / ..." code:) The unused/orphaned portal-related code replaced with code for the (optional) parameter rhs, allowing this ("topic, rhs" testcase) in place of (e.g.) this.
 * 3) ("type" code:) Category:Wikipedia metatemplates link.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Suggest you visit WP:RFP/T - might be useful for you. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've just visited WP:RFP/T and tried to add a request, but the form mentioned here doesn't appear to be included – or am I missing it somehow..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Will now update this template's documentation.

Function templates?
When using function, this template displays a redlink to function templates - see Category:Language icon templates for an example. What is the best way for this to be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting. I've removed the link while retaining the wording. Hope that's okay, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove auto-categorization
Per Category talk:Wikipedia template categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Sandbox implements above proposal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is quite stale.  My template-editor judgement tells me more input is needed. — cyberpower  Chat Online 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose removing autocat per above section and discussion dating from 2010-12
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Please make the above change, since there seems to be no objection to this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC).


 * 2 comments:
 * I think someone has been working in the sandbox since you. Can you check the sandbox code is ready to deploy?
 * There isn't really consensus for this change, so it will be in the spirit of WP:BOLD and may be reverted on request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandbox updated.
 * BRD suits me anyway, especially since four years of discussion have brought precisely one (supportive) comment.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC).


 * So the objective here is to depopulate Category:Wikipedia template categories, which this edit should do, and then once the category is emptied, it will be deleted? Has this been discussed or brought up for discussion at Categories for discussion? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disabled, due to lack of response. Wbm1058, are you actually objecting to this change? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am not objecting. I'm not sure I see the usefulness of the category, but neither do I see its presence causing any problem. Maybe there was some purpose for the category that we're missing? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object, indeed would support, giving Rich template editor rights; then he could make the edit himself. I trust that if someone did object, Rich wouldn't edit war over it. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wbm raises a good point re (possible/probable) de-populating of the cat. I was hoping to have time to investigate this thoroughly, but I have not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Looking through the links to this template, I found the more recent discussion at . – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Template categories was renamed to Category:Wikipedia template categories on 4 March 2008, per . (thanks, Martin, for the histmerge)
 * The category was originally created on 23 May 2007‎ by Gurch, who hasn't edited in over a year.
 * And here is the template edit that populated the category—reason given was "anything's better than that impenetrable "tracking category" thing."
 * Five days later another editor removed the categorization ("makes that category all but useless"), but then reverted themself. — Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what I see is significant confusion between the purposes of Category:Wikipedia templates and Category:Wikipedia template categories, which shows that there are 25,140 total categories of templates. There may be consensus that this represents significant WP:Overcategorization which renders the category useless. Indeed, it's not hard to find template categories with only 1, 2 or 3 members. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary of the history. There does indeed seem to be significant confusion.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC).


 * I created Category:Small Wikipedia template categories as a subset of Category:Wikipedia template categories, which for the moment includes only those categories with a single member. That member may be a either a single template or another template category which has one or more templates. Category:Small Wikipedia template categories has over 6,000 members, so just eliminating them from Category:Wikipedia template categories would cut it from ~25,000 to ~19,000 members and reduce significant fog. Should we just enforce a minimum size for template categories? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well over at Categories for discussion, the consensus was to delete my Category:Small Wikipedia template categories. I'm not sure where that leaves us here. I was hoping that by creating that category I would generate more engagement in this discussion. From the lack of engagement, it seems to me there would be little objection to going ahead and depopulating Category:Wikipedia template categories, though it seems it may take the servers a significant bit of time to complete that. No one seems to care that we have over 6,000 template categories with a single member (or those who did care have since left). – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Category:Wikipedia template categories is useful as some form of Counter category, though currently that template is only used on monthly clean-up categories, and this isn't a clean-up category. It does quickly tell me that there are currently 26,136 total Wikipedia template categories, though. I suppose there's no harm in just leaving it be. I clarified the category documentation to say that the category is an alphabetical list or index of all categories of templates, and that Category:Wikipedia templates is the top-level category for the hierarchical arrangement. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

container=true do nothing
If you look for example (in the documentation) of, the message Note: Please do not add templates to this category; instead, use one of its subcategories is not shown. Jmarchn (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit from last December broke it by adding newlines between the unnamed parameters in the ifaffirmed call. I've fixed it by explicitly numbering those parameters. SiBr4 (talk ) 08:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The newlines had nothing to do with it (although 's obsession with them doesn't help in comparing revisions). The problem began with, where  was replaced with   The crucial difference is that   is a parser function, which does not care about equals signs in the arguments, whereas  is a function (as is its replacement ), and any unnamed parameter must be explicitly numbered if there is the slightest chance that it might contain an equals. The problem equals in this case is that immediately after the word  , this effectively means that there is a parameter named   whose value is   -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right – while the newline after does get passed into the ifaffirmed template as part of the first parameter, the  within the template strips it anyway. I could've known it when I noticed container didn't work on preview after adding , but did after adding   as well. SiBr4  (talk ) 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove references to Template:Brackets
I am requesting the removal of references to brackets. It adds an unnecessary extra template reference (adding heavily to brackets transclusion count which I believe is otherwise mostly unused) as well as introduces a security issue (this template is protected but the included one is not). The usage of brackets (originally referenced as square brackets) was introduced on, where tags were removed. The removal should be easy and painless as I already made the necessary changes to Template:Template category/sandbox and made sure there were no negative effects within Template:Template category/testcases (so please just sync from the sandbox). Thank you. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)