Template talk:Wikibookspar

New template syntax confusion
I do not understand something about the new template syntax. (Using two parameters rather than one.) What of cases where an additional parameter is not needed (there is no something in Wikibooks:something:articlename) but a single parameter is? (The name of the wikibook does not match that of the article name.) -- Itai 22:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is documented on Sister projects. If you leave the first parameter blank -  (note the double "|" ) – then it will render as shown. In this way, one template serves both variations. -- Netoholic @ 02:06, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Basically, it relies on MediaWiki interpreting http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/:Astronomy as http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Astronomy . Neat. And sure, I'll leave this alone if you think the format doesn't work properly. -- Itai 02:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am actually not talking out of my ass, and can come up with creative solutions. I just hate when people take their idea and run all over the place with it without considering the consequences. You have to realize that not all of these templates you've been warring over fit into the one mold so conveniently. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * All will be decided democratically. -- Itai 02:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, so don't vote on everything. Wikipedia thrives on discussion-driven Consensus." -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Should the text contained in the Template Wikibookspar be kept at 90% size or changed to 100% size (or some other size)? And if so, why? -- 67.81.191.226; 23:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Double pipe
Regarding my comment in the edit history, I tried to fix a broken use of the template on Blender (software). I must say that I find the double-pipe-trick to be quite bad usability. The fact that people create broken template boxes and that it even took a geek like me several minutes to figure out what's going on is an indication that we need a better solution.--Eloquence* 09:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * So what do we do now? I agree that this kind of tricky use of templates is problematic, but people seem to be using this. Should I use this template when I need to link a book in wikibook? We need a better solution, but is there one I am unaware of? Is the one coming? or what. -- Taku 02:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the double pipe isn't perfect, but I think it is the only good solution. Before I came up with that, we hade a growing number of templates for each Wikibook section/bookshelf (cooking, computers, wikiversity, etc.). We do have documentation here and on Sister projects. I have to believe, because it's used so much, that it's a good solution. -- Netoholic @ 04:08, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Appearance
Take a look at Greco Defence. The link runs off the end of the template. Melchoir 19:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an issue of long URL names, to give an extreme example: Opening theory in chess/1. e4/1...c5/2. Nf3/2...d6/3. d4/3...cxd4/4. Nxd4/4...Nf6/5. Nc3/5...a6/6. Bg5/6...e6/7. f4/7...b5/8. e5/8...dxe5/9. fxe5/9...Qc7/10. exf6/10...Qe5+/11. Be2/11...Qxg5/12. 0-0/12...Qe5. There is now a new template Wikibookchess specifically for the Opening theory in chess to handle this issue. ChessCreator (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Change/deprecate?
Should the template be changed or deprecated since Wikibooks has a Wikibooks:Naming policy that instructs books to have a different naming convention than this template offers? --Swift 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why use this wikibookspar template instead of Template:Wikibooks?
 * If there *is* some reason, please document that reason.
 * If there is *no* reason, please deprecate this template.
 * --75.19.73.101 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Wikibookspar
Template:Wikibookspar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Swift 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering, the actual discussion was here: Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 17 Shinobu 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, no, I don't see a particular reason to keep this around as it is functionally identical to the other template. Perhaps there are still naming convention troubles (I haven't checked) but in the long term this will go the "redirect and delete" way. Shinobu 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Template broken? About wikijunior?
The box on the Linux Professional Institute Certification page includes this in its source:



And that produces a box that says:


 * "Wikibooks' LPI Linux Certification has more about this subject:
 * wikijunior

The second link in that text leads to an empty page, and the link text "wikijunior" doesn't make any sense. Looks like a template problem. I'd fix it, but some admin thinks wikipedians can't be trusted to edit this template. --Gronky (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection necessary?
Why is this template still protected? I was going to add a simple, but I'm not sure this template is needed. Adoniscik (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Use colon-style classification for "Transwiki" too
B+ tree uses this template in an attempt to link to wikibooks:Transwiki:B+ tree but this fails because "Transwiki" is not part of the list of "Wikibookshelves" that use colon as a topic separator. Therefore, please change

|cookbook|wikijunior|subject

into

|cookbook|wikijunior|subject|transwiki

on line 6 of the template. Sounds pretty straightforward to me unless I misunderstand the point of Transwiki?

Thanks in advance. DomQ (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this template is meant to be used with transwiki pages. These are very much different than cookbook and wikijunior. --- RockMFR 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disabled for the moment. There doesn't seem to be consensus and there are questions as to whether the edit should be made at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The template is currently broken for these pages. Please update so that we can direct traffic to these pages for people to fix and move them to a more proper place.
 * Please also remove the "cookbook", has recently replaced these with  --Swift (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what exactly you want done. You want cookbook completely removed from the template? Please clarify. Martinmsgj 23:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please remove the "cookbook" from the template. There is a separate template for that and I've updated all the cookbook links. This template now only serves the wikijunior, subject and transwiki namespaces. --Swift (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo
Any objection to switching the logo used on this template? With the new Wikibooks logo, there are a few options: Currently the template uses the icon with project name and slogan logo but I think the bottom line is too difficult to read because of the size of the image. I'd like to switch to the icon with project name version. Normally I'd just go ahead and do this but since the template is fully protected, I thought I'd make sure there were no objections first. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Icon only
 * Icon with project name
 * Icon with project name and slogan
 * Been a few days and I see no objections, so ✅. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

logo
It would be sensible if the logo would direct to the page it's pointing to, not to the image description page. This can be done by adding. Thank you-- penubag  (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin required. Change:

-> SunCreator (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)