Template talk:Template link/Archive 1

Alphax comment
A version which takes parameters exists at Template:Template link with parameters, with a shortcut at &#123;&#123;tl2&#125;&#125;. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 01:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki Link
I've been looking for a while to find the matching template to the one used on the french Wikipédia for showing a template's syntax while linking to it in the form  . It's not exactly the same but since it's used for the same purposes in about the same way, I think the following should be added to the current template : fr:Modèle:M

Interwiki linkage of the most commonly used templates really facilitates the users' ability to adapt quickly the syntax on any local wiki... : ) Stéphane Thibault 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Talk fr:Discuter Modèle:LienModèle

Formatting consistency
Hi guys,

anyone taking care to make spacing consistent among Tl, Tl1, Tlx and others? If you look, for instance, at the first column in Numbers & Variables you'll see that  is the only code snippet in which additional spaces exist between the braces and their content. --Gennaro Prota 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * and are protected. If a consistent look is important you could use either Tlx also for one or no parameter, or only Tl (no parameter) and  - then you'd glue together more parameters by a pipe symbol in numeric al form: &amp;#124;. --&#160;Omniplex 08:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add
fr:Modèle:M and pl:Szablon:S

Tomta1(10:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Added editprotected tracker to Tomta1's proposal: --&#160;Omniplex 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Ashibaka tock 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Level 1 headings on template talk pages
Hi,

while thanking AzaToth for pointing me to the relevant guideline page, I would like to add a couple of thoughts: first of all "discussion pages" (or "talk pages") should be used for discussion, not for template documentation (which, as every programmer would agree, is part of the template itself). Secondly, one can (and IMHO should) put the documentation source text on the template page, between and tags. This seems even a more valid choice to me when the template page is protected (and the talk page is not). Of course, I don't expect this to proselytize, just wanted to indicate a point of view which perhaps a few others can share. --Gennaro Prota 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, then a) users can't improve the documentation, when all we want is for them not to be able to vandalize a high-use template, and b) any changes to documentation would require every one of the (extremely many) pages that link here to have to be recached. So, I don't think it's such a good idea. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalising the documentation isn't very different from vandalizing the template. This may appear a non-sense to non-programmers but code and documentation are two sides of the same coin. And both wrong code and wrong (or out-of-sync) documentation cost time. Both generate other errors and thus both decrease overall quality, which should be our ultimate goal. As to performance concerns, you shouldn't have any until there's evidence. As a rule of thumb any computer performance concern which isn't algorithmic shows bad understanding. I know you are in good faith, of course. Statements/reasonings as the one you make here simply base on vagueness their apparent plausibility, mostly on the ground that the more operations the slower the things; actually no one has an exact knowledge of how many, and what, operations are carried out and the only way to know which is faster is to measure. If you have friends who are professional programmers you may ask them. Really. (But I know you won't believe me) -- Gennaro Prota &thinsp;(talk) 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Protecting the documentation is different from protecting the template, for two reasons. First of all, the documentation can probably always be improved; it's hard to see how the template could be improved from here.  Second of all, the damage from high-use templates' vandalism is absolutely greater than the damage from documentation's vandalism, because the former vandalism shows up on thousands of pages whereas the latter shows up on only one. As for template load, I don't know the specifics, you're correct.  I do know that editing very high-use templates (such as, formerly, qif) can cause database locks of a few seconds, according to a notice on Template talk:Qif that was presumably put up by someone who tried it.  If you would like to ask the paid MediaWiki developers on Village pump (technical) whether we should gratuitously cause at least several tens of thousands of database queries every time we want to update documentation for this template, I'm sure they'd be happy to answer you. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Purpose?
Is this necessary? It is possible to link to a template by typing Template: templatename, such as Template:Tl. If one doesn't want "Template:" to appear, piping would produce Tl. Ardric47 05:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That depends on how you see it. results in template, includeing the brackets that will easy copy and paste of template code. So yes I think it's necessary. → A z  a  Toth 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. Ardric47 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion
This Template is (now) obsolete.(?) You can write. (I don't know since when, I think already always) In de:Vorlage:Vl it's proposed for deletion. The only aid is to have not to write. But we thanks for the good Wikipedia servers. —Olliminatore 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * by the same argument all redirects are obsolete. On some pages (such as lists of templates) typing
 *  xyz 
 * rather than
 * a few hundred times reduces the coding by an enormous amount. I wouldn't be in favour of deletion of this template for that reason. Let's face it, it no more increases the need for deletion than before, when we could quite happily have typed:
 *  {{ xyz} }
 *  {{ xyz} }

Grutness...wha?  00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay not deletion but declaration as obsolet (or deprecated)? I wanted some (pro) arguments for the de:delete diskussion (still on the go). I recognize also now, the amount of includings of this Template is not be reversibly. The amount of code reduces is an argument, but I'm not sure that can protect it in de:. —Olliminatore 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's used because some people find it more convenient, that's all. There's not really much to argue about, except that people who suggest that it should be killed for server-load reasons should be smacked, because they invariably have no idea what they're talking about.  (For the record, I asked at WP:VPT, and brion—one of Wikimedia's two paid developers—only responded to say that people who used the template were lazy asses, ignoring the question of server load, so I figure that means it's hardly a big issue.  This is given that there are 70,000+ transclusions on the English Wikipedia and rapidly increasing.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest server problem is when a heavily used template is changed. If tl is used on 70,000 pages and someone alters the code for it, then that would do nasty things to the servers. Grutness...wha?  07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really the most are template counts. That the template only is for the word  that is true nasty. (We can make for many words templates, so we have code reduction! *jeha*) @redirect: is an complete other thing for the server. --Olliminatore 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack, I missed these comments. Anyway, modifying it wouldn't do nasty things to the servers, just a touch of slowness for a while at worst.  Possibly too little to be noticeable, possibly not, but don't worry about it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to say...
This is a really good idea! &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 13:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. My dream template come true... —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Add interlanguage links
Please add:
 *  az:Şablon:ŞK 
 *  ka:თარგი:Tl 
 *  uk:Шаблон:Tl 

--CiaPan 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also sl:Predloga:Tl. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As you were. Ashibaka tock 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add zh:Template:Tl also.--Hello World! 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --TheParanoidOne 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

interwiki addition
fi:Malline:Malline --Ppntori 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --TheParanoidOne 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

T1 Redirect
Template T1 redirects to this template. Is this intentional, considering the history of T1 indicates that it's completely unrelated? --TheParanoidOne 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many people see  in the monospace font presented when editing a page, and think the "L" is a "1". (I know I did at first.) --Tryforceful 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

interwiki tag needed
Please add the template with no perameters after the noinclude block begins. Thanks // Fra nkB 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That has to be protected first, if this is done. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the noinclude section to a Template:Tl/doc sub-page, added the 'commonstmp' template and the documentation, and transcluded it onto the main template page. This greatly reduces the transcluded size of this template while also allowing documentation and interwiki updates to be made by any user without impacting the cache of pages calling this template. --CBD 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Code tags
Shouldn't this have  tags inside it? When referring to a template with this template, you are usually referring to how it is typed:


 * "add  after a comment left by an anon"

— Omegatron 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

kw
The Cornish template could be added to the interwiki; it's about the same. QuartierLatin1968 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew link
Since you've locked the template, the Hebrew link is [[:he:תבנית:תב]] Best regards, Yuval Y 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It can be added by anyone to Template:Tl/doc, which is not protected. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So I've noticed, and added a link. And removed it, since it was doubled... =) Yuval Y 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

interwiki eo
In the noinclude section: eo:Ŝablono:Ŝ

TIA, --BACbKA 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. The interwiki links are actually located at Template:Tl/doc though. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding link to sister template
One may add the link to the sister template on Farsi wiki, here: fa:الگو:الگوی
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. See section immediately above this, though -- the interwikis are on a non-protected subpage. ;) Luna Santin 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't understand your final sentence though, since the page you linked is above sister projects rather than interwiki links, or I'm misunderstanding it. What I don't understand is, how is it that the interwiki links are added to TI/doc article, but don't appear to the left of it.. they rather appear on the left of the main article. Is this always like that?
 * By the way did you have to install Farsi support on your OS to paste the link I provided? --huji— TALK 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

interwiki th
Please add th:แม่แบบ:Tl for interwiki links. Thanks. --23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done, but once again see the sections above, interwiki links for the template are located at Template:Tl/doc, which is not protected and can be edited by anyone. --bainer (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sometimes I didnot notice since some locked templates do not have /doc page. Anyway thanks for reminding me. I will keep closer eyes on them --Jutiphan | Talk  - 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis pt and es
Add pt:Predefinição:Link para predefinição and es:Plantilla:Template link too. Thanks!! --Thiago90ap 07:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ops.. sorry, now I saw the section above ^^

--Thiago90ap 07:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

+it
add it:Template:Template --WISo 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn migrated userboxes breaking shit
How can I call this template for a template that exists in the user namespace? I used to use, but now that it's at User:UBX/ATHF, a call to  doesn't work:  :: ZJH (T C E) 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that tlu is the answer. :: ZJH (T C E) 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a check with to determine which to use make sense? For example:    -- Kimon talk 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Other wikis
Why isn't this in a mediawiki namespace?

I just spent 10 minutes trying to use this on http://fr.wikipedia.org/ (would be the same for http://en.wiktionary.org/ I expect), and couldn't. I just found out the name was different on other wikis. This should be bundled with mediawiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argav (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

nowrap?
Would anyone be opposed to adding  to the template? — Omegatron 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Include brackets in link
Template contents (copied from above mess): &amp;#125;&amp;#125; This makes it display like &#123;&#123;template&#125;&#125;, which looks cleaner than template. To me anyways. Zojj 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think that's worse, TBH. Keep it like it is. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Allowing arguments
I've modified the template, so now (for instance) reason works. It's a feature I've long wanted. :) Mango juice talk 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverted myself. This works, but it makes a nasty bunch of code when substed.  Mango juice talk 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote for 2777. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd be really nice if this could be implemented cleanly. Can't you just print every arg after the first with relative ease? MrZaius  talk  03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I Have a problem
See:

=)

Why this don't work with the tempĺate ??? Heldergeovane 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because '=' is part of the syntax for entering template arguments, I assume. =) works : =). Algebraist 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Heldergeovane (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

/doc versus documentation
editprotected Please change /doc to documentation (or its redirects like template doc, etc.) instead. --Geopgeop (T) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This template is very heavily used, and this seems like a minor cosmetic change. It would be fine to make this change as part of another edit, but why is it worth doing on its own? Gimmetrow 06:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, makes the page more uniform with all the others.

Please change this template
I suggest this template to be changed to &amp;#123;&amp;#123;Template:&amp;#125;&amp;#125; This way it won't break things if it's subst'd ( added in source here so it's displayed right) → Aza Toth 19:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think not it would also be better to change it to

&amp;#123;&amp;#123;Template:&amp;#125;&amp;#125;
 * i.e. add a lcfirst on the name so it will always shown with the first letter as lower case (As I think most people writes it when they call the template) → Aza Toth 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do they? I'd have said that the split was about 50-50. Certainly most of the templates that I call up I use a capital letter first (but then again, a lot of the templates I use start with proper nouns - specifically, country names). It's also useful to be able to have the first letter as l.c. or u.c. if the template is mentioned as the first thing in a sentence (as it quite often is at TFD, SFD, or WP:WSS). Why limit it to always rendering as lower case? Grutness...wha?  22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd leave it be for now. There may be a certain "suprise factor" when someone uses this and it doesn't display the uppercase as they'd expect. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, it should not lower case, it should display exactly as the input it gets. But the  definitly should be changed to. Just as AzaToth said, that would be more robust and useful. The ending braces are not that necessary to change, but it is more robust to convert them too. So the first example above is right. Thus the first line of code in this template should be exactly this:

&amp;#123;&amp;#123;Template:&amp;#125;&amp;#125;

If you use the interwiki links to the left you will see that several of the other language Wikipedias has escaped the braces in some way too.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why tl*?
Why does tl2 exist? I don't understand how there is any benefit whatsoever to having that be a separate template. Why on earth can't we just print what tl prints when there are no additional args in tl2 and move that here? Same applies to, et al. Why not merge them into one template? The code wouldn't be that complex, as demonstrated by Template:tl2. Note that it might involve just a touch more work to merge in tlp, as evidenced by the glitch above. MrZaius talk  16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all tl and tl2 doesn't look the same. Some of us prefer the normal text style that tl uses instead of the wider text style that tl2 uses. And for short template names like many of us prefer to use the.
 * Secondly some think that it is good to have a simple template that does not add much to the page code when used many times. Although I don't think that is that much of a problem. We don't use these templates that many times on one page. Not like the etc that are sometimes used a zillion times on a single page. So sure, some of these templates could perhaps be merged.
 * But on the other hand, what is the problem with having choices? Try them out and decide which you like and stick to them. You don't have to bother about all the other.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

, and
When I was documentation some templates I realised that tl and the other similar templates have one drawback: They are so simple to use that one tends to use them for all mentioning of the templates in the text and that causes a sea of blue repetitive links, and that is pretty distracting. In good Wikipedia tradition an item should only be linked on first occurrence (and perhaps occasionally somewhere further down too). So I created these three templates:


 * tlc – Looks like this:
 * tld – Looks like this:
 * tlf – Looks like this:

So now it is easy to state template names without linking them. And since the names are similar to it is easy to change back and forth between linked and non-linked.

, and  can take several parameters. And they have a functionality that I think is brand new: They understand and correctly show empty parameters!

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Free Links?
What about free links? There seems to be some problems with the usage of in the UTM article. (see on that page) --Danorton 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange things happening with Tl
Hi - strange things seem to be happening with Template:Tl - have a look at this edit - it seems to have simply put the text of the template onto the page. This started happening yesterday, and I can't see any reason for it. Any clues? Grutness...wha?  02:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bug in the MediaWiki software. I did some basic tests (see User:CapitalR/Test) and was able to easily reproduce the problem.  It does not show up when previewing an edit; only when the page has been saved does it appear.  I recommend submitting a bug report (I just don't have time now to do it, but I will mention this at the Village pump).  --CapitalR (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowrap
I think it would be a good idea to nowrap this. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, that would be an improvement.
 * I added the nowrap feature to tlc, tld and tlf when I created them last year. And no one has complained about it so far. Since nowrap "just works" I think most haven't even noticed that they have the feature.
 * And for reasons of robustness and efficiency I think we should hard code the nowrap span into the template, just like I did with tlc etc, instead of calling the nowrap template.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to update ((tlp))
I am planning to make the tlp template work like tlf. (But with a linked template name of course.) I am announcing this here since I think more people watch this page than the tlp page. Se full explanation and discuss this over at Template talk:Tlp.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple parameter support
An administrator should take a look at Template:Tl/testcases and User:IRP/Sandbox/TlTest. You should be able to see what I'm trying to do. One might want to add to a page. I tried to design it to support up to 4 parameters, however, it only supports 3. Please correct any coding mistakes I made. -- IRP ☎ 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, nice code. The reason your version only works for 3 "parameters" is that you are forgetting that the template name is the first parameter, thus you only have 3 more in your code.
 * But you might want to take a look at and, they already can handle several parameters. And they have some other bells and whistles too.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Date option?
Given the number of templates that want a  parameter, could we get an option that adds that automagically, instead of making me figure out the kludge for displaying that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The name
Hello! Please tell me about its name, tl. I want to translate it on Punjabi wiki but for that please tell me what tl stands for? Please try to explain as much as you can and in simple English. Tari Buttar (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tl is template link.


 * You Type:




 * Page displays:




 * You Type:




 * Page displays:


 * Example

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant RfD
An RfD is being held that may affect templates similar to this one: See Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Major reorganization of template linking templates
Hi all, since I'm of the opinion the current naming scheme for template linking templates is very unclear and hard to remember I'm proposing a major reorganization of template names to unify and standardize them and simplify usage. I'm suggesting a naming scheme using single letters to describe appearance:
 * text style: normal=""; teletype = "t", bold = "b"; italic = "i",  = "c" Combinations can be considered (either by choosing a fixed, maybe alphabetical, order or by defining multiple names, e.g. "bt" or "tb" for bold teletype font).
 * Linkification: "tl" for normal linked template, "tnl" for non-linked template
 * Variations: "tls" for addition of subst:, "tl2" for braces inside link, "tla" for alternative link text

The overview template Tl-nav with my proposed changes will then look like

For comparison the current overview looks like

Furthermore i propose that all versions should take and display parameters (I don't see a reason why they should be omitted anyway) so no special versions are needed anymore (most templates already accept parameters now). Probably the best approach would be to use tlg as the generalized base and use it in all other templates by only specifying the needed parameters. We'll be able to manage all template linking templates from one central place then.

Please tell me what you think and if there could arise any problems. In my personal opinion it would be very helpful to actually have systematic and meaningful names so one always nows what the specific template does even without reading it's documentation and can remember it very easily. -- Patrick87 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops. Looks like it had changed somewhat in the last 20 days from the static copy above, and before I saw this discussion, I just made a few more changes hoping to improve usability.  Below is a transcluded version that will stay "current" as it is discussed further.  I'll post comments specific to the proposal below.  Thanks,  Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 16:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding reorganization of template linking templates
For your convenience use this section for discussion. -- Patrick87 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any need to continue promoting the "teletype" variants as a group separate from the "code" variants, because AFAIK, all of these were altered internally to use  instead of  some time ago, when we knew that MediaWiki would switch over to HTML5, where the TT element has been marked as obsolete. I have (belatedly) . -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, actually I think &lt;code> and &lt;tt> are redundant most of the time. However I think it would be nice to still offer the possibility of monospaced font (which can be achieved in HTML5 without using the deprecated &lt;tt> tag) since it looks different from &lt;code> tags (no background). In my personal opinion we could even change to only have template linking templates with &lt;code> tags in linked and unlinked forms. This would be the best simplification after all but I doubt this will find any consent. Therefore I'm aiming to have a clear list at least. -- Patrick87 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use the monospaced forms when explaining how to use templates (e.g. at WP:VPT), because the different typeface is an indication as to what the user should actually type in order to achieve the desired effect, as opposed to the explanatory text. Within Wikipedia, the primary difference in appearance between  and <tt ></tt> is in the background to the enclosed text.


 * It is possible to make the  element look like the   element by the use of a little CSS:
 * To me, those three all look like the <tt ></tt> example. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine. I'd have come up with
 * The double specification of "monospace" is necessary to work around a Firefox bug (font renders smaller otherwise). So can we already agree to keep the "teletype" style? -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The double specification of "monospace" is necessary to work around a Firefox bug (font renders smaller otherwise). So can we already agree to keep the "teletype" style? -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The double specification of "monospace" is necessary to work around a Firefox bug (font renders smaller otherwise). So can we already agree to keep the "teletype" style? -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there an established need to create all the "missing" variants? I don't see one: on the rare occasions that I do need one for which no template exists, I use . -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all but some may be worth a thought. I only specified all of them for the sake of completeness, if they are all necessary is a different question that could be discussed if my proposal is accepted. -- Patrick87 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any need to change existing names? This can only lead to confusion. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For me there definitely is. Since I can't remember any of the current names (there doesn't seem to be any obvious system behind them) I'm always using simply t which links to tl and produces a flood of blue links where often (need to switch to the overview template right now to find the right one) would be enough or (switching again)  or even  would be even better. -- Patrick87 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts: Groll &tau;ech ( talk ) 19:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) with respect to the deprecated <tt ></tt>:  this morning I noticed that  and  still use that tag – so I removed the former from the Navbox.  It would likely be more appropriate to simply redirect them to  and, respectively.
 * 2) While many editors can never remember the jumble of  names for these templates, I'm sure there are also many editors who do remember them – not to mention the tens of thousands of pages that use them.  I assume, therefore, that the intent is to maintain 100% backwards compatibility through redirects, and to merely changed the "advertised" function names?  That would be imperative, IMHO.
 * 3) As to the  "missing" templates, I can only foresee a small handful (certainly < 5) of them ever being necessary. if someone ever needs a "one-off", they can use . Having said that, I'd rather look at grey squares (perhaps lighter I made them) than a sea of red links that  distract the eye from the goal.
 * 4) There are a whole mess of  oddballs that aren't in the navbox at all, like  (equiv. to, for namespaces other than Template: , yet it's syntactically flawed in that it displays the wrong flavor brackets).  As alluded to earlier, there's  and  (yes, yes), and about twenty other "tl-du-jour" flavors...  I think we have enough.


 * Yes I'm thinking a little different on my proposal, too, nowadays. When I first proposed the changes I was aiming to provide all of the already available template linking templates. Now I think it would be best to cut them down to a minimum (I'm not talking about deleting but redirecting were appropriate and leaving unnecessary templates out of the nav box). To make a start here are some basic proposals, what probably should be done:
 * Get rid of (redirect) duplicate template styles where the only difference is that one version accepts parameters while the other one does not. I think we can always accept parameters or is there any case were one deliberately wants to omit specified parameters?
 * Get rid of (redirect) duplicate template styles where the only difference is that one version allows page breaks while the other one forbids them. I'm open for suggestions on which behavior to prefer, actually I think it doesn't really matter (and therefore having both versions is nonsense)
 * Use tlg in existing templates wherever possible. That means instead of duplicating code for every template just use as a core template and only feed it with the necessary parameters. This makes code changes much easier since only one single template needs to be changed instead of applying changes to all templates individually (as it was necessary when replacing &lt;tt> with &lt;code> tags).

Tell me what you think, and if there are any objections on these three tasks. Otherwise I might start working on these. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The <tt ></tt> tag is not deprecated, but is obsolete. The difference is that "deprecated" means "don't use this in new code although it will still work for the time being" whereas "obsolete" means "you should amend existing uses because its support is no longer guaranteed".
 * hasn't used <tt ></tt> for . I guess that was overlooked when we went through the suite last year; for consistency I've now amended it in a similar manner.  cannot (yet) be used as a direct replacement for  unless the undefined parameter is added to the former.
 * doesn't "display the wrong flavor brackets"; it displays the correct form, since it is intended for demonstrating the ytansclusion of pages outside template space which are to be used as if they were templates. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the major change needed: for each template, show which links it produces. Explaining styles like bolding is useless in the overview (they could be on the idndividual documentation). -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes
See ‎sandbox and test cases.


 * 1) HTML entities for the &#123; and &#125; s.  per
 * 2) Code tags per
 * 3) nowrap span per  and
 * 4) if a template does not exist, does not create a link, and strikes through from stem to stern.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Implement the sandbox, per the above proposal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Hi, I totally support your changes! Only exception is point 4. – I'd keep out that additional check and just put the Redlink there. This is the only consistent behavior (if I put an invalid Wikilink it's turned into a Redlink too, instead of being struck out), often what one wants (e.g. to propose a new template and give others a direct link to the yet to be created page) and by far less expensive for the parser (it would be totally excessive if we used expensive parser functions in supposedly simple formatting templates as ). --Patrick87 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I agree, let's not go using expensive parser functions in what is supposed to be a simple formatting template. Anomie⚔ 01:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that using #ifexist is a bad idea here, and I think that people would object if the display of this template was changed. I do think that switching to HTML entities is a good idea, though. I doubt there is much real performance difference, but it seems odd to use literal curly braces as if we were trying to transclude the template link instead of just displaying it. How about something like this instead? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ That part seems sane. Anomie⚔ 10:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A question (I cannot find in /doc)
Hi. I am using tl dozens of times a week, happily. But from the /doc, I still cannot read how to achieve output looking like
 * or

I expect that to be in the /doc. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Try -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Point is: should be in the doc. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in the doc, in the box at General-purpose formatting, row "Code", column "Linked". -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in the column "linked". I am looking for the unlinked outcome. But after some research, I found one. -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been working, on and off, on revising how links to template-linking and template-syntax templates are supplied. I'll try to produce a result / some suggestions. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Feature request
Would it be possible to modify this template, so that if someone inadvertently uses it like:

it renders as Infobox person? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see two possible ways of doing this. One is to strip any passed namespace -  the other is to  test the namespace that is passed in -   Not sure which would be better (but probably the first one), we need to consider that  is very heavily used and extra tests could push some pages over the transclusion limits. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The former works for me. After all,  and   are equally invalid.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I sandboxed it, with a further mod to strip the namespace on both sides -  and this displays as follows:
 * → Template:Infobox person
 * → User:Pigsonthewing
 * I'd like to wait for other people's opinions before putting live though. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Superfluous. This templates should follow the same syntax is if you were transcluding it.  10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Edokter. In terms of functionality it would be best if one could link to arbitrary namespaces, exactly as one can transclude pages from arbitrary namespaces. Of course this would make the template more complex as one has to attribute for the default linking into template namespace but can not simply append it in all cases. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Superfluous. This templates should follow the same syntax is if you were transcluding it.  10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Edokter. In terms of functionality it would be best if one could link to arbitrary namespaces, exactly as one can transclude pages from arbitrary namespaces. Of course this would make the template more complex as one has to attribute for the default linking into template namespace but can not simply append it in all cases. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of tl template when used with single-image insertion template
tl appears to produce non-accessible code when used to link to Single-image insertion templates such as the dagger template: †

The code produced is

where I would expect

For that matter, would the template title properly be:

so that a screen reader will be sure to read "template" and "dagger" as discrete words? This would apply to non-symbol templates as well.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The template cannot control the   attribute of the link, that is generated by the MediaWiki software, and is the title of the linked-to page. If you were to put, this gives dagger and the emitted HTML is   If there are potential accessibility problems with links in general, are WT:WCAG (or specific individuals such as  or ) aware of these issues? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Screen readers don't read the title attribute unless they're told to. I have no problems whatsoever with this template, because the two left braces ("{") before the link tell me what's coming up next. Graham 87 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But then isn't it a problem for lack of alt text? Thisisnotatest (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'd expect that template to provide a link description that is the same as the template's name. Graham 87 05:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm missing something in your assertion. Wikipedia has the dagger template because they expect the dagger symbol to not be read by screen readers. And dagger would presumably be read "left brace left brace dagger right brace right brace" and you would know it was a tl link to the dagger template. But if, instead, someone uses the actual dagger symbol † it would be read something like "left brace left brace right brace right brace" or maybe "left brace left brace unknown right brace right brace" Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the actual case of the dagger, it would be read "left brace left brace single dagger right brace right brace" ... it's putting the dagger symbol next to other letters that would be a problem. In the case of a completely unknown character, I'd hear "", which would be good enough for me. Graham 87 07:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 Oct 2015
A protected redirect, Template:TL needs a redirect category (rcat) template removed. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:

<pre style="font-size:95%;overflow:auto;">
 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Tl


 * to this:

<pre style="font-size:95%;overflow:auto;">
 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Tl

Template Redr is an alias for the This is a redirect template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) It appears that usage of R protected may be causing this redirect to populate the  category. Thank you in advance! Pleasant pathways, <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b> 00:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Yes check.svg Done — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius ! That did remove this redirect from the incorrect protection templates cat.  <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 May 2016
Would it be possible to sync to the current sandbox with Trim attached to param 1? It allows a scenario such as:

Subst

to render correctly.

— Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, for consistency, should we consider an equivalent change to tlx? — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cancelled process mini.svg Request withdrawn Scenario seems unlikely, now that I think more about it. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected Edit request
The current template definition (for Template:TL) appears to be this template's result (i.e. output) rather than the proper code (i.e. content).

The Template-Link code (i.e. content - the nowiki tags are required to make this show properly): (and with extra tags to make the "nowiki" tags show) gives a result of (without the nowiki tags):

The template definitions for Template-Link-subst (Template:Tls) and Template-Link-2 (Template:Tl2) seem to have this same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDDysart (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your request doesn't make any sense. You'd do better to edit Template:Tl/sandbox to show exactly the edit you're requesting. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Template page names should not wrap
For appearances, please replace any spaces in the template name with.

This is irregardless of tlp, the non-breaking space version of the tl family, because a template name that includes spaces cannot have an apparent newline, but after this, in the parameters area (that tlp shows and nowraps), an appearance of a newline is fine.

For an example of an appearance problem, here: (resize your window).

A gentler option is adding a zero-width space character after the template name, which will line-break before that space character that is part of a template name.&mdash; Cp i r al &sect; Cpiral  23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this would break copypasting: the family are often used to demonstrate code, and people expect to be able to use that code directly, without thinking "do I need to convert the spaces?" -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... But  &rarr; Template usage works just fine, and copypastes just fine. If you're sure of this, I don't understand. I was thinking something like { {#invoke:String|replace|| |&amp;nbsp;}} . &mdash;  Cp i r al &sect; Cpiral  23:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It may depend on your browser. Anyway, the appropriate fix would be a span with nowrapping rather than shoving non-breaking spaces in, but I doubt you'll convince enough people that this template needs some variation on nowrapping anyway. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My quest here was for intelligent wrapping: 1) never at a - dash, and 2) of all the spaces we could wrap, the last choice should be inside the pagename or inside an unnamed parameter.

It seems like I'm asking for nowrap, but it's really for coercive wrap. A zero-width space implements coercive wrapping, but it does break cutpaste as Redrose64 points out. Thanks. &mdash; Cp i r al &sect; Cpiral  05:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Either I don't understand how it works, or it doesn't work right. I tried #expr, that is,  and it didn't come out right. Gah4 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are you using this? Examples always help. But for ref, isn't a template, it's a parser function. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was in a talk page, suggesting the use of  .   Since it looked like a template, even if it wasn't (which I didn't know), I thought it should parse the same way.  I knew about tl and tlx but not tlc. Gah4 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems that tl, tlx, and tlc all don't work on magic words like undefined Gah4 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not supposed to. tl etc. are templates, which are written to expect the name of a template as input -  parses to   which displays as &#123;&#123;Citation needed&#125;&#125;. So it makes a link to Template:Citation needed; indeed, the name "tl" means "template link". If you write , what you get is CURRENTTIME since there is no such page as Template:CURRENTTIME.
 * Furthermore, constructs like  are invalid since   is not a defined magic word or parser function. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Googled for what "tl" meant, and found this. Thank you! WinterSpw (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully cascade-protected edit request on 12 March 2017
A cascade-protected redirect, Template:TL needs a redirect category (rcat) template added and to be converted from the deprecated Redr template to the Redirect category shell. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Tl


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Tl

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have re-activated the request. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Tl&action=info page information] confirms that this edit needs administrator permissions. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much! The redirect is now template-protected rather than fully cascade-protected.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  14:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is for the "Tl" template, the edit request is for the "TL" redirect. Same letters but different capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, my apologies. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 March 2018
Suggest add a top navigation link to Template messages and-or Templates, in noinclude format, as Template:Template redirects here and this is therefore the main. Maybe Template:Templates can just redirect to Templates since its not being used currently. -Inowen (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Inowen (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

== tags. I think it would be much better if the template shown was surrounded by them, so instead of Example, it would be. The reason for this is that the tl template is suposed to show the referred template as if written in the code editor (that's why it shows the braces instead of showing Template:Example, which has the same purpose), so adding the

Template code (Template:myMetaTemplate)

Input

Output

The reason why I want this template is to make an echo meta-template for template documentation. Basically, I want to insert both the template call and the output just by referring to the template call once, within this echo template. This echo template would be something like below:

Template code (Template:Echo)

Input

Output

alt output

Arathun (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the reason why I started m:Requests for comment/Let Template:Tl be a magic word on Meta Wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

TLSC
I thought that Template:Tlsc should be included under See also. Fettlemap (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Tl → Template:Template link – This template has a "shortcut" name, but similar templates are located at their full names. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - straightforward from WP:TMPG: "Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." The longer name makes the function more clear at a glance. -- Netoholic @ 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Yep, should be moved to be more clear. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)