Template talk:Template link

Protected edit request on 15 July 2023
Wrap the template's code within the "includeonly" tag. Grufo (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Only because not wrapping the code around  makes the documentation page ugly. --Grufo (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The documentation is absolutely fine. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redrose64. There's no good reason to do this. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This totally sounds like arguing without arguments. Could you guys explain how having
 * &#123;&#123;&#91;&#91;Template:&#123;&#123;&#123;1&#125;&#125;&#125;|&#123;&#123;&#123;1&#125;&#125;&#125;&#93;&#93;&#125;&#125;
 * displayed above the documentation page helps the readability? The  tag was invented for a reason. As it is it just looks like a broken page.  --Grufo (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It shows the output of the template. That is typical for template pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past. Honestly, if I can see in a tenth of a second what the code is supposed to look like by seeing the raw info above the doc, I will take it. There is no reason to hide template output. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It shows the output of the template: It doesn't. This is the output of the template:
 * Example template
 * This, instead, is not the output of the template, is its source code (with the usage of HTML entities hidden):
 * &#123;&#123;&#91;&#91;Template:&#123;&#123;&#123;1&#125;&#125;&#125;|&#123;&#123;&#123;1&#125;&#125;&#125;&#93;&#93;&#125;&#125;
 * I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past: If I did I honestly don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised. There is no reason to hide template output. Again, that is not the output, it is the source code. The fact that you appreciate the feeling of reconstructing in your mind how a template would look like by looking at its source code might not be a shared feeling among everyday users of this template. I, for example, on top of a documentation page prefer to see how a template looks like instead of seeing its source code. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the top of the page shows the actual output of the template when 1 is not specified. That is often done on template pages. Maybe I misunderstand the objection. If you want examples, the documentation is the place to look for those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The top of the page shows the actual output of the template when 1 is not specified: Is that a possible case? From what I read in the TemplateData the 1 parameter is required. So what you call “output” is technically undefined behavior, which today manifests as the partial source code, tomorrow might manifest as an error message, or whatever. But since we live in the present, what we see today is the template's partial source code on top of its documentation page.
 * That is often done on template pages: Years ago, probably. Today we have, and more and more template documentations have the wisdom of showing as early as possible (possibly on top) the template at work – not the template during undefined behavior.
 * To convince you once and for all. Imagine we decided to output an error message when 1 is missing (which would be totally legit, since it is a required parameter): would you still be happy to have “Error: Template name is missing” on top of the documentation page? What information would that give you, given that at that stage you won't even know what parameter you will have to use to provide a template name? Will that be 1? Or will that be tp or template instead?
 * If even this did not work. I will delegate my reasons to Wikipedia's future wisdom. --Grufo (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See for example Template:Rfc which has a big red error message, but we certainly don't want that suppressed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Old habits die hard. --Grufo (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 4 January 2024
Description of suggested change: Please add a nocat value, especially when adding this template adds the page into unintended categories. I couldn't give examples. Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This template does not add any categories to any page. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 13 May 2024
Wrap the opening and closing brace pairs in nowrap. I have seen line-breaks between the two closing braces in the wild. This should probably be done to the other template link templates as well. Nickps (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Line breaks exist for a reason. Some people have narrow text areas, especially with the new Vector 2022 skin. What is the actual harm in having a line break in a template link?  – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought this was uncontroversial enough to skip that step. Anyway, my main problem with the line breaks is that {{ and }} are conceptually supposed to be one thing, so having a line break between them is jarring. I can't be the only one who thinks something like {{nowrap$)$
 * } looks wrong. Nickps (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed the part where you said that there was a break between the braces, which should not happen. Where are you seeing two braces with a line break between them? I have never seen that. A screen shot may help. [ETA: never mind, I see now that the braces are made using HTML entities. I have suggested code in the sandbox: diff here.]– Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I took the screenshot already so I might as well post it. Tl line break.jpg Nickps (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I had never seen this until the attached screenshot. Was it really worth making a change to cater for an extremely rare occurrence? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had never seen it either, but it was an easy fix, and it makes the crappy mobile experience just slightly better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)