Wikipedia talk:Template namespace/Archive 2

Template colliding with infobox, triggering nabox state
There is a new template to provide a unified, table-based look for album track listings and I could use a little help by experienced template coders, in order to work out a few remaining kinks. For one thing, the template is prone to overlap with album infoboxes at low resolutions (below 1024), while ideally, it would properly adapt or be bumped down. The latter is probably more desirable/easier to implement, given that all lists in an article are supposed to maintain the same page width percentage. On a lesser note, the template triggers the collapsed state of navboxes, since it also inherits the collapsible class. Can this behavior somehow be suppressed while retaining collapsible functionality for the track lists? Here is an article that currently employs the template, I'm looking forward to any suggestions and possible solutions. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on, I've found Requested templates. Still, if anyone here can help out, please do. :) - Cyrus XIII (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page
Some editors have suggested that the collaboration template should not appear on the article page. They have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight and also at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive133. At WP:ANI it was suggested that the issue be escalated more generally and it should not consider only the Australian collaboration but collaboration projects in general. I note the issue was discussed above on this page (Wikipedia talk:Collaborations butthe project page states at Collaborations at the time of my writing this  General practice is to have the template marking the current collaboration at the top of the article in question while leaving the candidacy templates on the talk page. --Matilda talk 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This RfC should go at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace which is the guidline for template usage - it would overule the consensus of this page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved--Matilda talk 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it as something which improves the encyclopaedia - we're talking about one article at a time for at most 2 weeks (or 26 days in one extreme case) with the Australian one, and I'd imagine similar with other collaboration projects. As long as the collaboration notice is non-intrusive (I would disagree with a hulk-o'-bulk notice as that just drives people insane rather than improving anything) I do not see any issue. Orderinchaos 05:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orderinchaos. The end result in an improvement in articles - I'm sure we can deal with 2 weeks in exchange for this, a clear net positive. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I see no harm in keeping collaboration templates on the article and indeed I see some benefits, I am not overly concerned if consensus is to place them on the talk page. I am still unconvinced that collaboration tags are any different from wikify, cleanup and others that invite editors to improve an article.


 * My main beef with the campaign against Current Australian COTF has been the attitude of the editors opposed to placing it on the article page. Unilateral removal, high handed disdain of other views and threats to block characterise the previous discussions.  Let's hope that we can all remain civil from now on. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * THe collaboration tags should be on the talk page. Talk pages on articles are only (or should only be) used for actual problems with the page (it has POV problems, it needs cleanup, sourcing, indication of notability, etcetera). A collaboration tag does not indicate any problems, but the decision of a project to pay more attention to this page over a certain period. While this is a good idea, it is not really relevant for any reader of the page. Such information is ideal for a talk page (the place for editors), but not for readers, who should only be made aware of certain problems with a page, but not of all the "behind-the-scenes" like which project supports the page or tries to improve it. I see no benefit in having the tag on the article (instead of the talk page), and it makes our encyclopedia less reader-friendly, which can not be the purpose. Fram (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Fram. Tags like this on the article page (a) are aimed at editors, not our actual customers, who are readers; and (b) a tag like this on the article page serves to exclude new editors (go away, we're working on this, nothing for you here) rather than encourage them and thus can be legitimately seen as a case of WP:OWN. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with REDVEЯS. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe one of the points of the wikipedia is to encourage anybody to edit, all readers are therefore potential editors. Editing is perhaps daunting to some but if they understand that the process is collaborative and there is support for collaboration I believe it does the opposite of suggesting exclusion.  The tag does not suggest "go away" as suggested by User:Redvers, it states You can help us improve it .  It also conveys the information that this article is subject to change - that information is indeed relevant for a reader, vitally relevant.  In the case of Australian collaborations, articles have trebled in size, or even increased by thirteen times the size in a short space of time.  The edits over the fortnight can number in the hundreds. (See for example summary of collaborations in 2007 ) Volatility is the norm when a page ahs been selected for collaboration and this tag highlights that.  It seems as useful a tag as many of the others for example wikify which could also be described as a project tag - it might bother the readers that there are insufficient wikilinks or the style is a bit off but it is matter for the project not the article.  By contrast unreferenced is indeed a matter for the article and signals for the reader to beware.  --Matilda talk 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram. Andjam (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As it states in the guideline already, the tags should be placed on the article talk pages. Article tags should solely be for things associated with the quality of the article such a NPOV or unreferenced templates. Talk pages are used for collaboration with other editors and that is where callaboration adverts should be. The reader is interested in the article, and its quality, not editing the page. Remember, we create articles for our readers, not for the benefit of editors.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this proposed as a general rule for all collaborations? If not, what exceptions are envisaged? Euryalus (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't any exceptions - article collaboration tags should always go on the talk page, it even says this at Template namespace - "Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page."  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redvers, who agrees with Fram. It should go on the talk page. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of questions:
 * Could participants in this discussion identify which collaborations they regularly participate in, and what the policies are of those collaborations about notices? (my answer: ACOTF, current active collaboration on the article page, nominations as part of WP Australia on talk page)
 * Do people feel the same way about Current which also warns readers that this article might change faster than most articles?
 * If this discussion is about all collaborations, then we should ensure that it involves people from a range of collaborations, and if there's a range of current practices, participants from projects with all those practices should be included. --Scott Davis Talk 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try as I might I can't see why this is a major issue. However Ral315's summary here suggests most collaborations currently use the talk page for notices, so this seems like a reasonable general rule. On the basis that it is universally applied and noting once again that I don't think its a big deal either way, I agree with Fram. Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This conversation started because a number of participants of the Australian collaboration are feeling singled out by another group of editors as being unusual in being an active collaboration that wants to put the "Current Collaboration" notice on the article page. I've had a brief look at some of the others mentioned. I'm having trouble finding other active collaborations. A quick check of a few:
 * Collab-soccer has been Italy national football team since November, previous change was last June.
 * Rugby Union, WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight/current last changed in December (previously September and May)
 * Peru, WikiProject Peru/collab last changed in July, previously September 2006
 * India, Indian wikipedians' notice board/INCOTW/current last changed in July.
 * WikiProject Novels/Collaboration is next dou to change on April 1, and has the banner on the article, with no apparent complaint.
 * Australian collaboration of teh fortnight started this discussion by having its banner on Gundagai, New South Wales.
 * Perhaps we should consider allowing active collaborations to mark the article page, but that if the collaboration goes for over twice as long as it is scheduled to, the tag should be removed and the collaboration marked inactive. How does that sound as a compromise? --Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a fair idea. In fact fairly obvious really. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable compromise. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't see the problem with such a constructive aim being stated on the article main page. I also believe that we have such difficulty in getting editors to work together on an article such a practice is nearly essential to make collaborations viable. If these notice get restricted to the talk page we may well see more collaborations go inactive. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article main page for the COTM template has always made sense to me. The template is in place for only a month ...Collaboration of the Month ... and is an ecouragement to get crackin'. The main page placement serves also as a warning to readers that the article is 'unstable' for a month. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki: all our articles are "unstable". ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 09:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll bring it out and make it obvious - the above discussion seems to be reaching consensus on the compromise Allow active collaborations to mark the article page, but if the collaboration goes for over twice as long as it is scheduled to, the tag should be removed and the collaboration marked inactive. It's over 4 days since I proposed it, with no clear dissent. --Scott Davis Talk 14:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As above, I support this as a sensible compromise on the issue. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Also support this formulation as a common sense compromise. Orderinchaos 09:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support proposal --Matilda talk 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As this proposal appears to have achieved consensus, I have updated the words in Collaborations. --Scott Davis Talk 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is ?
What is ? I've seen it used in many templates, but can't find documentation on it. I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but it appears to be fundamental to wikimedia software, so I figured this is as good a place as any. Yngvarr (c) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's just means the first parameter, so if I was to set up a template (Template:Quality) like so:

This is a article.
 * ...and then called, the result would display This is a great article. --Canley (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images needed template in article space
Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Wording
In the section about this article "in a nutshell," I find:

"Templates duplicate the same content across more than one page." I don't understand the concept of "duplication across" something. "Across" implies spatial relationships, but "duplication" is devoid of them. "Duplicate" implies "two," but the general idea seems to refer to the replication, reproduction, or application of something in a broader sense.

"You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it." Is there no place for the template? Are there numerous places for the template? What does "it" refer to? The template? The place? The change? Does the thing propagate, or does something propagate it? (By the way, a comma is required after the word "place.")

"Templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content, in the main article namespace." How is "normally" being used? How is "usual" being used? How might it be possible for the abnormal usage to occur, substituting a template for "article content"?

Is this article the right place to find templates, to learn what templates are, or to discuss templates?

In order to understand templates, is it necessary to learn first about namespaces? Unfree (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Template
I'm just wondering about this, because I havn't come across featured templates. So where can I find the highest standard for a template? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Template:Denominations of the United States
I ran across Template:Denominations of the United States, and saw a large number of external links which I've never encountered on a template before. I was just curious if anyone more familiar with template protocol would care to comment at Template talk:Denominations of the United States regarding the external links. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 22:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Prose exception
I've read the history and debates on prose transclusion through template use, but noting the rule that "Templates should not normally be used...", I believe I've found a suitable exception where this is necessary - and other editors in the field seem to agree.

The issue is with Guantanamo detainees - we have ~900 articles on detainees held in Guantanamo Bay detention camps, and as these have chiefly been written by a single author, they do often face criticism for WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK issues over their "shared" sections. As founder of WikiProject Terrorism, I've just started collecting a task-force to help settle some issues in the articles - but the chief problem right now is that when a user sees a problem in "Ahmed Raja Abdullah Rafiq"'s article and changes it to more neutral wording, the offending section still exists in 900 other articles that have identical wording.

Something like WikiProject Terrorism/Templates/CSRT allows us to use consensus to build that section in a neutral fashion and deploy it across all 900 pages simultaneously. If a user in the future believes that the wording should be changed, again, it can be updated to the more neutral/comprehensive/verifiable wording instantly across 900 articles - rather than simple in a single detainee's article.

I was hoping to get a few voices of approval, and perhaps advice, before I actually create new templates for the issue however. But I think 900 WP articles that all share identically-worded paragraphs to introduce a subject, is a "special circumstance" that really is unique to the project. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support this - it's already done at List of animals displaying homosexual behavior. The repeated text should be in the template namespace so it can be used by mirrors and forks - the database dump used by Wikipedia mirrors contains the template namespace. There should also be copious HTML comments before the template, to let other editors know what to do if they want to edit the repeated text. Graham 87 09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, see I hadn't thought about the need for HTML comments, good thinking. Just a hard url and a comment to the degree of "To change text in the following section, please edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GuantanamoTribunal - as it will update automatically across articles", I assume? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep sounds good. Graham 87 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pages with a common section
I'm confused. The Help:Template page provides instructions for using a template to standardize content in related articles with a common section. However, editor Bryan Derksen is telling me that this is an improper use of templates. The Template namespace project page says, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Is this a contradiction of the Help page?

In this particular case, I'm editing the 16 articles for the individual Myers-Briggs personality types: INTP, ESFJ, etc. These articles were recently nominated for deletion because they were in such poor shape. I'm trying to standardize the content, and it seems to me that the only sane way to do this is to use templates. I've tried copying the content into each article, but when someone makes an edit to one, which is applicable to all, that means the other 15 articles need to be updated as well - or they'll all quickly become out of sync again.

The content which is used in common in all the articles consists of introductory paragraph(s) to a couple of sections. To solve the problem by moving the information to the main Myers-Briggs article would result in disjointed information.

In all the articles I've added the templates to so far, I've included in the talk pages instructions for how other editors can edit the template, along with a caveat that the changes must be applicable to all 16 types. I believe I've been very diligent in my approach. But is this approach a violation of policy? If so, can someone suggest another way of achieving the same end? Thanks! ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the section above. It's becoming more common so it might be accepted as policy. I don't have a problem with it ... I'm all for ignoring all rules to improve Wikipedia. You could copy all the text in Template:MBTI Instrument to all the articles and use a bot to check for changes to that text and modify it appropriately. However I prefer the template solution. Graham 87 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Graham. Sorry about missing the info in the section above. As an experiment, I took a somewhat innovative approach to adding a link to the template in one of the articles. I created an info box containing the text "edit template." See the article INTP. Not exactly following the rules, I know. But I'm hoping it will alleviate people's objections to using templates in this context. I'd appreciate any feedback that people have. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that idea. The majority of Wikipedia's users are readers who have no intension of editing, and don't know or care what a template is in Wikipedia. The average person browsing that article wouldn't want or need to know that some of the text is generated through a template ... the important thing is that the text is there. If someone wanted to edit the text, they would either activate the "edit this page" button or the "edit" button for the particular section. I'm very fussy about overlinking because on my screen reader JAWS, all links appear on their own line regardless of how the text is laid out. Graham 87 05:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll delete it. I'm not crazy about the way it looks, either. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bitsy templates
Is there a policy or guideline on how small templates should be? For instance Template:South_line_colour does nothing more than provide a color code ( 99CCFF ) but has well over 100 links. And Template:Fb_team_abb_Sporting only provides 1 wikilink under a three-letter abbreviation. And Template:Collins_class_submarine_complement provides one line of plain text ( 45 (8 Officers) ) for 7 articles. The question is another variation on the modular- code/endless-spaghetti-of-include-files debate that one encounters when programming, but with the twist that some editor (who is probably not the template creator) spends time trying to categorize the spray of little templates. I think a lot of these small ones should go and the values hardcoded because sooner or later (sooner) articles like Collins class submarine will stablize and then the effort of maintaining the spaghetti will outweigh the advantages of using templates. I'd like to hear other people's opinions. (Also, if there is a better place to ask this question please let me know. Thanks.) --Thetrick (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaky template?
How does Fort Collins Coloradoan link to Weymouth? I see Fort Collins Coloradoan in the "what links here" for Weymouth, but cannot find the link. I suspect a template is involved... --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Through Template:Newsquest. I clicked on all the show links in the article to find the answer. Graham 87 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and disambiguated all the templates that linked to Weymouth. You might need to wait for the Job queue to kick in to see the full effect of the fixes. Graham 87  12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What a head spinner. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Newsquest maybe should not link to Weymouth, Dorset at all. It seems the link to the place name is in lieu of a link to the newspaper there. What are the precedents (if any) for dealing with this? Also, is there a way to write the template so that the template, but not the articles tagged with the template, shows up in the "what links here" list for each article linked in the template? (Hope that sentence makes sense...) --Una Smith (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the first question, I don't know ... I suppose it's good to have at least one link per newspaper, whether the link goes to the place name or the newspaper itself. As for the second question, the answer is no, unless you use tags, which kinda defeat the point of putting the text there in the first place. Graham 87 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a nuisance to disambiguate links to an article, if the article is linked from a popular template. There can be thousands of articles in the "what links here" list, yet most are just using the template.  I guess the easiest solution is to temporarily delete the link from the template, wait for the server to catch up, then check "what links here" and fix links as fast as possible, then restore the link in the template.  It should be a non-issue because templates shouldn't be linking to disambiguation pages anyway, but when (eg) a placename article is occupied by one of the places named, there is a mixture of relevant links (maybe including templates) and links needing disambiguation.  That was the situation I found on Weymouth a few days ago.  My solution was to move the article to Weymouth, Dorset and make Weymouth a disambiguation page, then begin disambiguating, the idea being that this will be necessary only once, rather than over and over again if I leave it as I found it.  My solution is being discussed on Talk:Weymouth, Dorset.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For future reference, more help with this kind of problem can be found on Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD for a prose template
There's an RfD going on for a representative one of a series of prose templates that have been constructed for vowel sounds that do not have standard symbols in the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). The idea by the editors who created these templates was, I believe, that these sounds should not have their own articles because they don't have IPA symbols, and they should have absolutely identical sections in multiple closely related vowel articles which, therefore, should be implemented as prose templates. The discussion so far has concerned whether the sounds are notable for their own articles and whether prose templates are appropriate. The latter point is evidently relevant to editors at this talk page. The RfD is Templates_for_deletion. Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Template naming conventions
[There was previous discussion on the topic at Template talk:Infobox Settlement —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 19:30 z ]

The orthography of template names is all over the map. We have several sets of novel rules for capitalization, spacing, etc ad nauseam. There are thousands of examples, and most of them don't have redirects which follow the predictable naming conventions (i.e., they don't follow either normal English orthography or the common naming convention for other namespaces, including main, Wikipedia, Help, Category, most portals, and as suggested for Image file names).

We have Xt, WWIIGermanAFVs (not WWII German AFVs), Cold War tanks, Country data Germany, Uw-ablock, Ref label (not Ref Label), Sisterlinks (not Sister links, Cyrillic alphabet navbox, Semxlit, Refimprove, Wiktionarypar (what does that even mean?), Infobox Badminton player (not Infobox badminton player), Infobox Province or territory of Canada (not Infobox province or territory of Canada), etc.

I'm sick and tired of entering a template into an article, finding it redlinked, and having to cycle through search–edit–preview–save repeatedly, or having to log another edit just to repair it. The randomness and illogic of these schemes lengthens the process. This happens continually, and recurs with same templates.

Let's adjust the examples and add a guideline to prefer naming of templates following the standard naming conventions, when there's no reason to do otherwise. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:43 z 
 * I'm not quite sure how that would apply to some of your examples. What do you think the "standard" name for Refimprove would be, for example? I agree with standardization, but I don't think the article naming conventions will be sufficient - we'd have to develop separate naming conventions specifically for templates.--Kotniski (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be applied many ways, or not at all, but it would discourage the continued proliferation of various non-standards, and encourage standardization, wouldn't it? Perhaps the editors of {Refimprove} and its partners would choose to stick with their long-standing scheme, or add a set of standardized redirects, or move the template to Improve references.  I am not dictating what will happen to every template in Wikipedia, just suggesting adding a guideline which would improve things overall. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 19:27 z 


 * Perhaps the guideline could cover abbreviated names, in such a way that Refimprove would be an acceptable abbreviation for Improve references, but the longer form should exist, and one of the two forms should be a redirect to the other. Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion started as a request at template talk:Infobox Settlement to move Infobox Settlement to Infobox settlement to be consistent with capitalization conventions for articles. From that thread and the thread above, I think the actual issue may be the ability to use templates intended to be used without named parameters - which consistent naming would help. Creating a guideline that says All templates should follow article naming conventions would imply moving tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of templates. On the other hand, a guideline applying only to templates ordinarily used without parameters and that specifically focuses on use of the template (rather than what its native "name" is) would address the issue without requiring any mass renaming. I'd be fine with a guideline like:


 * Any template intended to be used without named parameters should be able to be used by a name following reasonably normal English naming conventions.

This would apply to all maintenance templates (see Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates), all talk page templates (see WP:TTALK), all user warnings (see WP:UTM) - in general to most templates in any subcategory of Category:Wikipedia templates by namespace and perhaps many others as well (expanding this list might be useful). The point would be to allow use of these templates by typing some spelled out name as opposed to somcryptic-abbr. Adopting such a guideline would not require any templates to be moved, but simply the creation of redirects as needed. I'd exclude templates with named parameters since usage of such templates nearly always requires copy and paste from an existing use, or reference to the template documentation (or both). Getting back to the original request, I don't think anyone ever adds Infobox Settlement (or Infobox pretty much anything) to an article without doing a copy and paste from somewhere. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that productive to require anything, just to suggest that the standard article capitalization rules are preferred, for lack of a better option, and to incorporate them into examples. This also provides a clear choice for adding one useful redirect to existing templates, or for renaming diverse groups, rather than having a half dozen or more variations to stand a chance of improving findability.


 * I don't know if having named parameters is a useful distinction. I think there are many templates with optional parameters or short parameter lists.  And even long infoboxes with non-standard capitalization waste the valuable time of editors who try to type their URL, link to them, or cite them in a discussion. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 20:45 z 


 * I agree with standardizing everything we can (and if it were up to me, we wouldn't have customizable signatures, but that's a different issue), because ultimately we would like to reduce the chore of building Wikipedia to a (necessarily very complex) algorithm. The more orderly Wikipedia becomes, the more tasks we can reliably relegate to bots, eliminating tedium and keeping the human work more conducive to generating the pleasurable sensations of flow. Almost any attempt to standardize template names would probably be an improvement on the current chaos, but even if we have a coherent set of standards, propagating them into the minds of the thousands of users who create templates might require years. In the meantime, while we're waiting on the perfectibility of Man, I suggest using the Google custom template to search the Template: namespace when you want to look up a template. Google search is pretty tolerant of spelling variations, word stemming, letter case, etc., plus you're searching on template documentation in addition to just the name. For example, if I'm looking for templates relating to electricity generation, I'd use this search:


 * The example search is productive, turning up some promising templates, with the usual gibbering assortment of ad hoc naming styles. I find Google search so indispensible for sorting through the dubious fruit of human diversity that I collected some useful links into a Help desk searches template suitable for sticking on one's user page for quick reference. --Teratornis (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific suggestions
Note that the nutshell principles at the top of WP:NAME apply to templates too: “Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers; Titles should be brief without being ambiguous; Titles should make linking to the article simple.”

I suggest the following changes to this guideline:


 * 1) Under #New template creation, add the line “Template names are easy to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles).”
 * 2) Change the example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TheNameOfYourTemplate to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Name of your template.
 * 3) Change the example  Template:mymessage  to  Template:My message 

—Michael Z. 2009-01-10 21:35 z 


 * As an alternative to (1), what would you think of modifying the second sentence as follows?
 * Names can now contain spaces, and initial case is irrelevant; note that template names are easy to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles).
 * Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good too. —Michael Z. 2009-01-11 17:11 z 


 * Trying to standardize the naming of templates and have them for preference follow WP:NAME or similar conventions would be helpful. More latitude in creating contractions or neologisms seems reasonable, but consistent casing would be a big help.  The ones I often trip on are the templates for WikiProjects - remembering to cammelcase "WikiProject" and to capitalize the term following it (but not succeeding ones) - often prone to mistakes.  This is also an example where the parameterized vs. not distinction suggested above wouldn't help. Most WikiProject templates take at least a coupe of standard arguments (class, importance) that are simple enough to remember.  One wouldn't have to keep looking it up/fixing it if they did use the funky capitalizing.
 * Don't think mandating spelled out versions for commonly used flagging templates (like refimprove) would necessarily help. Not clear that spelled out versions are any easier to remember (i.e., still problems of word order, plurality, etc. - was it "references improve," "improve references," etc.).  Making large number of redirects to templates opens up more space for vandalism/diverging versions.    (Redirects more on a case by case basis, or mandate in a particular context.) Zodon (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SamckBot will canonicalise the tag templates it deals with (currently 403 of them and 1302 redirects) as it comes across them. So the vandal risk is not huge. I have moved quite a few to full words, spaced and capitalised properly.  I have also moved a handful of infoboxes, and have considered making it an additional task for SB to canonicalise these as it comes across them. Not sure it's worth worrying about though. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03 6 May 2009 (UTC).

I've updated the guideline with Pi zero's wording. I'd prefer something a bit stronger, but it's a definite improvement. —Michael Z. 2009-01-12 17:53 z 

Infoboxes
(Apologies if this is the wrong place for this; anyone may move it) I was led here from the Infobox Settlement discussion referred to above. I prefer the lower-case (for reasons including the few milliseconds of timesaving when typing). If the standard is to be changed to lower-case, someone will have to alter the guideline (apparently not familiar to some or all of the participants in that discussion) that currently asks for capitalisation: point 5 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Design_and_usage Robin Patterson (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, that infobox, and a number of others have been renamed now. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Moving templates - too easy?
Should it be so easy to "Move" a template? Another editor recently moved a template I'd developed, UK charity to EW charity (fair enough as it only relates to England and Wales, not Scotland or Northern Ireland which are parts of the UK), but didn't move or update the documentation page. It took me some time to work out what had happened. Is there any way to encourage anyone moving a template to make sure they mop up afterwards? PamD (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be resolved - there is currently a checkbox to allow you to move associated subpages. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a sysop-only feature. Amalthea  10:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Movepage-moved could be expanded with an item to encourage this. Pity that something like  doesn't work, special pages seem to be expanded too late. The least we could do is to add text similar to what's at MediaWiki:Deletedtext, like:   or something, only displayed on a page where ns has subpages is true.  Amalthea  10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Amalthea  12:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of templates for coloring text
There's a persistent habit for many transportation system articles to use templates to create article links, resulting in text like this (example from Kowloon Southern Link):


 * Kowloon Southern Link is a new urban extension of West Rail Line  ... east of rail tracks of the  Tung Chung Line  and  Airport Express.

I think this is terrible template abuse... but is there any policy clearly banning such things? Jpatokal (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Guideline Colours mentions overriding a link color. Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Template-Userbox
How do I make the following Template-namespace userboxes:

User:UBX/Us441/WiiResort= This user plays Wii Sports Resort User:UBX/Us441/WiiResort/likes= This user likes Wii Sports Resort —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate example
The page uses the template Template:Disambig as an example in the first section; this has the unfortunate effect of adding the hidden Category:All disambiguation pages. Adding the parameter true doesn't seem to have the desired effect. I can't think of a suitable template which will not add some category, but I hope someone else can. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed using nocat to prevent example from actually categorising the page: . Perhaps it would have worked for you too but the preview page doesn't update the categories underneath the list of templates used. — Richardguk (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I forgot that categories derived from templates are applied with some delay and I was too timid to just add the parameter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Question at Template talk:Movenotice
Anyone who knows the codes and whatnot, could you give a bit of help for the question/issue discussed at Template talk:Movenotice? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Template:Movenotice fixed, documentation updated, talk page updated. — Richardguk (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Genius! Thanks.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Masquerade?
A sentence reads "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.." Not sure why this is here. I had a brief text once regarding local legislatures which I did not want to maintain in 20 places. So I put it into a template. The material was too short to comprise "an article." In another venue, 8 churches described there descent from a single church a long time ago. They all wanted a summary, which tended to change as people uncovered new facts and supperior references. It made sense to keep it as a template. The previous versions had wildly screwy histories and not enough eyes to maintain article integrity. 'The new way did. This particular template could have been mistaken for an article. It was fairly long. But it was really a subsection, not an article, per se.

So why the restriction? Student7 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: on 16 March 2005. And I agree with questioning this sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The text in question apparently came about due to this TFD. While I understand the reasoning behind it being written that way at the time, Wikipedia has grown a lot since then and the underlying software also handles transclusions much better. The remaining issue I see with transcluding sections of text (which is already commonly done in some types of articles) is maintainability. The editing interface does not make it easy for editors inexperienced with the concept of transclusion to edit shared/transcluded material (including actual "templates"). Perhaps this is something for the Usability Initiative to consider? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, transcluded sections are very unfriendly to editors, particularly new ones (but old ones as well, as we don't expect bits of a page to be transclusions). You think you're watching a page, then you find the text has changed because someone's changed the underlying template. Or else you think a page is on your watchlist because you've edited it, then you find you've actually edited a template and not the page itself. And of course it's hard to amend or tailor the standard text to the context of a specific article. I'd be in favour of continuing to discourage this practice - the cut-and-paste function works just as easily.--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the text to read, ""Templates should not normally masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". Hopefully that should be a satisfactory compromise. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've reverted that change. I also oppose 'masquerading as article content' for the reasons stated by Kotniski, and if we're going to change the current position, we'll need much firmer guidelines than "normally".  (What's abnormal then, and when would it be acceptable?) Jpatokal (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you haven't noticed what was already written in the nutshell at the top of the page: "Templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content, in the main article namespace." It doesn't need to be any more specific or "firmer" than that. Users are expected to use common sense and editorial judgement. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Kotniski's concern about newbies watching a mysteriously changing text with nothing showing on the watchlist. And the nuisance of finding and editing the template instead of the article. But would that be enough to deter use in selected situations? I think it is perfect for US legislative seats which need to be installed in dozens of articles, for example. Anything else is a caution to maintain. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would define "article content" as textual content, and thus interpret "masquerade as article content" as meaning templates being used to pull in paragraphs of plain text. Tables, infoboxes etc are not 'masquerading' as plain text and hence using templates for them is (IMHO) fine. Jpatokal (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your definition correct and not under challenge here. Student7 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What about lists of television episodes, for example List of Bleach episodes (also a featured list). It and many, many others like it transclude the subsections which are named List of Bleach episodes (season 1), etc. This is commonly done and accepted, so shouldn't we mention this somewhere? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think it'll help. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First, this is a guideline, not a policy. Common sense is required.

I also find it a pain in the ass to access templates when editing an article. It would be nice if we could access them more readily: the 'edit' link on tables is very nice in this regard. I agree keeping watch on them is also a problem. I do think the practice should be discouraged. For example, in moons of Jupiter, moons of Saturn, etc, the tables of moons were once transcluded from templates before I merged them back into the articles. I could see no point in making templates of them, since they only appeared in a single article apiece. Perhaps we could be more firm in saying, "text which is not transcluded in multiple articles should be placed directly in the article where it belongs" or some such.

However, there are times when transcluding text is quite convenient. For example, voiced alveolar fricative (the [z] sound) lists the various features of this sound. The description of 'voiced' was repeated in 63 articles, 'alveolar' in 24, 'fricative' in 33 (9 now separated out), 'oral' in 105, 'central' in 68 (103 before I removed some), and 'pulmonic' in 100. That made maintenance a real pain in the ass, and transcluding the descriptions as text templates (which I created yesterday: voiced, alveolar, fricative/sibilant, oral, central articulation, and pulmonic) should actually make watching them much easier. These aren't the kinds of things that are likely to be edited very often, so a couple watching editors should be sufficient. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone's interested, a discussion about prose templates occurred a couple of years ago regarding a similar issue: WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 16.
 * Some important issues were brought up, the most relevant being editability. While I offered a solution for prose templates that could be cordoned off as their own sections, the usage of e.g. fricative makes the solution I offered (section headings in the template) untenable.  Perhaps we could have v d e superscripts/subscripts connected to these templates.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the tracking/watchlist problem and the potential that someone may (unnoticed) grab text, template and change it without anyone noticing for awhile. I will be wary about creating text templates in the future and perhaps discuss them here before creating them. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; the question of templates doing the work of "article content" was already mentioned prominently on top of the article, but some of us get wrapped up in reading deeply, and forget about such notices, so I changed the "masquerade" correspondingly. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook icon
An editor recently updated Template:Facebook to include the Facebook icon. Given that said link template is (unfortunately) used on many, many pages, is that something we want to do? Is that usage of the image covered by its fair use rationale? Should we do the same on the many other similar templates (e.g. Template:MySpace, Template:LinkedIn, Template:imdb, Template:YouTube)? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If its "fair use rationale" is a legitimate concern, an administrator would have flagged the "File:F icon.svg" image when it was added to Wiki Commons. ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unenthusiastic about this change. I don't like the way it emphasizes the link more than others (e.g., an organization's main website).  Also, this template gets used in references, and I think it inappropriate for a bibliographic citation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "it emphasizes the link more than others" I am not a fan of Facebook either. :-)  However, if a Wiki editor has a good idea for enhancing Wiki's presentation and, just by coincidence, the enhancement first affects Facebook, is it an astute move to trash the whole idea?  (btw, can your PC handle graphics or only text?)
 * "this template gets used in references" An incredibly minor exception.  (You need to brush up on the Wiki article "Identifying reliable sources" to learn where Facebook fits into the big picture of "reliable, published sources".) In short, you're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My "PC" is a Mac, and it handles graphics far better than any Windoze box.
 * I don't happen to care one way or the other about Facebook; I would have the same opinion if you did this to any website. I do not believe that adding small icons, which make the links line up strangely in articles like Ginx_TV, is an "enhancement".  I think it is a wart. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're failing at defending your stance, WhatamIdoing; Ginx_TV looks just fine. ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that Themfromspace removed the icon from the template, I completely agree. When the icon was present, the icon screwed up the alignment of the list.  I'm glad you agree that the page looks fine without the Facebook icon.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to the addition of the logo. It is completely unnecessary.  I surely do not want the bottom of each article to become a series of colorful logos for Facebook, MySpace, IMDb, etc. templates.  --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does enhancing the presentation of Wiki articles need to stop at Facebook, MySpace, IMDb? ProResearcher (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also opposed. I explained myself at Template talk:Facebook, but my thoughts echo Logical Fuzz and WhatamIdoing above. This would set a bad precedent.  Them From  Space  02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that including the logo is a bad idea. It is unnecessary, carries no noticeable benefit, and gives visual emphasis to a specific link that isn't necessarily any more useful than other links that may be provided. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and yet your User page and WhatamIdoing's User page and Logical Fuzz's User page and, well, at least Themfromspace's name are filled with "useless" colorful graphics. Only UnitedStatesian's User page looks like it belongs to a 76-year-old spinster / schoolmarm with backed-up juices. ProResearcher (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So? User pages are not articles, so the layout and content considerations applied to articles would not be relevant to them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, mon ami. A Wiki page is a Wiki page is a Wiki page, and you are applying double standards--only the best for you and [yaaaaawn] lifeless black & white text for the Wiki articles. ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * . I am in favor of icons. This is a "navigational tradition" common to many Internet pages, not just Wikipedia. It is similar to large "icons" attached to most Wikipedia user page boxes. This is similar to favicons for websites. This helps reader to recongnize a link that lead to a familiar social area. Finally, you can also look here: Category:Image_with_comment_templates --ssr (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that all of the templates in that category are for use on project and talk pages, and are not considered appropriate for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One can also think about widespread Feed-icon.svg RSS icon and "User" icon at the very top of every wikipedia page if you are logged in and that precedes your user name which is a link leading to your user page. --ssr (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also not article content. We're talking about potentially privileging one specific external link (not even to another WMF project) with an icon. If you believe icons should be used generally for external links, you should take that to the village pump for a broader discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The RSS link is not present on any of my pages, so it's clearly not present on every Wikipedia page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on, RL0919, are you really so myopic? Get off the "It's free advertising for Facebook" soapbox.  By pure coincidence, the "icon for a template" issue concerns Facebook first.  NO CONSPIRACY, RL0919, so relax.  (However, if you'd like a few fresh conspiracies to fret over, send me an email address, and I'll fill your cup.) ProResearcher (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about advertising or conspiracies. As I did say, if you believe icons should be used generally for external links, then raise that discussion. However, that may not be possible because not every site icon will fall under commons:Commons:Threshold of originality the way the Facebook logo does. So we still end up with the problem of emphasizing some links with logos and not others. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh... no, not our style, would cause inconsistency with the presentation of other external links.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Putting a promotional icon next to an external link is the opposite of how information should be presented at Wikipedia. Per WP:EL, links are supposed to provide useful information of relevance to the article, and a reader should not need an icon to guide them, so even if the icon were not promotional it would still be unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for just one page?
Question: is there any reason for an infobox-like template to exist if it is used on one and only one page? The template in question is }{:Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma)}}? This template was used on exactly one page, Kamma (caste), though I had to pull it off today because editors have been altering the formatting in a way that was messing up the article, and I don't know enough to fix it. However, would transclusion on only one page be a reason to nominate for deletion? Or does it not matter? Or is this, in fact, common? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the best way to put it is to say that single-use templates are discouraged. They aren't strictly prohibited, but in most cases where they come to WP:Templates for discussion, they end up deleted or merged into some more widely used template. If the template in question has potential for wider use, then the best solution may be to fix it and place it on more articles. This particular template looks like it might be a navigation template that could go on multiple pages. If it really is useful only on one article and there isn't a more generic replacement, then the template could be substituted into the article and deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

wikilinks to template namespace
In tennis project we now have templates that are not being used for transclusion or substitution in any articles, but are just linked to as pages. For an example see: Template:Novak Djokovic 2009 career timeline and click on "what links here". The one and only transclusion is to userspace (of the creator), and for the rest this Template page is just wikilinked to. Is this a proper use of Template namespace? I couldn't find anything about it on the page here, or in other Template related guidelines. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's harmless but people won't like it. Suggest moving such pages to sup-pages of WikiProject Tennis. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC).

RfC notice

 * RfC concerning protection of templates and the creation of a template editor user-right. - jc37 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New RfC
There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete all single-use templates?
See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_23, re Seetal railway line

There is a view (thankfully being resisted) that templates should be deleted because (and only because) they are only used in one instance.

This viewpoint has been supported by quoting Template namespace guideline: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."

Obviously a dogmatic interpretation of this would be a foolish nonsense and no sensible editor would do so. However this is Wikipedia, and such behaviour is commonplace. In this TfD situation, this mere guideline has already been cited as policy to justify such a deletion.

There may be many reasons why a template might be useful, even when only used once. In the specific case here, these RFD templates represent railway route maps and they are a thoroughly unpleasant bit of coding, requiring skill with both templates and familiarity with the RFD icons. Yet the RFD maps are generally more stable than article bodies. We do not want such a thing placed in the article body itself. The article body doesn't benefit and the bulk of complex and fragile rocket-science code it would dump into the main edit window is just asking for damage. Apart from which, speaking as a software engineer with decades of experience, never rule something out because you haven't yet thought of a use for it. Yes, there is rarely any gain to be had by splitting articles up into a composition exercise from isolated templates. However should another editor have seen a reason to do so, later editors should be very wary of permanently subst:ing the template contents into the article as that is no more likely to offer a measurable gain. We should certainly not have a policy, or extend a guideline, to support bulk removal of templates on those grounds alone. For clarity, we should not have a guideline that can be misinterpreted in such a way. As we appear to at present, it warrants re-wording. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)n s


 * I think the basic principle is valid when it refers to "article content", but an RDT (Route Diagram Template) is a technical construct with long passages of coded sub-templates that would obstruct the editing of the regular text that makes up most of a normal article. That exposed code could also be subject to inadvertant disruption by editors with no experience of what all that "stuff" does. I have seen spelling corrected in an RDT, probably auto-corrected, which completely crashed it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you say about creating a universal template for route diagrams, coded with Lua? This sounds like a perfect use case. Keφr 17:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to write such a template, then feel free. However it's creating yet another domain-specific markup to describe the route diagrams, which even fewer editors will understand. If you were also planning to convert existing templates, then that would need an automatic tool building to convert them.
 * As to this issue, then I'm just here to oppose the, "Single use is a sufficient condition to delete a template" Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * …because the current system is so simple and obvious to understand. So simple that you have to isolate markup for the route diagrams and put it in a separate page.
 * Using Lua may simplify markup and obviate the need for single-use templates in this case. To be fair, we also have Category:Latest preview software release templates, which also seem to be exempt from this rule. However, Wikidata may soon remove the need for these too. The question is: shall we do away with the rule, amend the rule to make an exception for this practice, or fix practice to fit the rule? This is not just a side proposal, but one quite central to the problem. Keφr 19:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the markup that's the problem, it's the complexity of the route icons. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me quote a person who is supposedly an expert here: "they are a thoroughly unpleasant bit of coding, requiring skill with both templates and familiarity with the RFD icons. [...] The article body doesn't benefit and the bulk of complex and fragile rocket-science code it would dump into the main edit window is just asking for damage." Keφr 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with the...? We are not discussing the complexities of RDTs here - well you are! Stop doing that and focus! The guideline says: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." RDTs are not text and are not doing the work of content, so this does not apply. The End. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So then why are RDT templates being nominated for deletion on this ground alone? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiZombies! But you probably knew that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not doing the work of content? You mean, they can be safely deleted and all it would change is that the navigation would be less convenient? Why defend them so strongly, then? Keφr 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lua programming language
We got Scribunto extension installed - please see Lua. Could we add a note about the possibility to use Lua to the page contents? Lua is considered quite a big step forward by template makers so I think it is worth mentioning.--Kozuch (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Added to the History section. --Netoholic @ 04:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Part of this page looks bogus
See here. Any ideas if any of that section is necessary? Biosthmors (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the whole tutorial. It was out-dated when it was placed there, and this is the wrong page for "how-to"'s anyway. --Netoholic @ 04:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: The Template namespace is not a repository of external data
This is inspired by a TfD discussion related to a sub-template of (used in references). The intent of this template and the sub-templates such as is to create a system of preformatted references for each DOI instance. There are over 67 million DOIs in existence and this collection of sub-templates has already grown to 49k at Category:Cite doi templates, created mostly by bot (Special:Contributions/Citation bot). Similar schemes have been created around (11k sub-templates),  (1400), Category:Middle-earth source templates (96), just to name a few (more at Category:Specific-source templates). Essentially, these template schemes are moving citation data (which is article material) and attempting to create a raw data repository within the template namespace. Most are only used on one or few articles, and in many cases become abandoned which editors subst: or replace them, or find that the given formatting doesn't fit the needs of the article they are working on. The additional danger is that someone will change a citation template to fit one article, but cause cited information within another article to be invalid. Now, I think a small number of source-specific templates may have their use, but clearly we don't want to recreate 67 million-entry databases either.

Along the lines of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'd like to propose that we produce a policy which limits the use of the template namespace, so that it does not become a repository for arbitrary data. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of these also contain a block of citations together for some reason that just locks up articles unnecessarily (see Template:Latin_phrases_references used on about 30 pages learning towards delete, Template:Lunar_crater_references on over 1400 pages and Template:Australian Trilobite References leaning towards keep because it's used on nine articles that people find difficult to copy and paste). There's also Category:External link templates. Some people argue for some of these based on the fact that certain websites that are linked so (say IMDb) could change their fundamental structure and rather than having a bot or someone fix the problems, it can be done via a template. I don't agree because it fundamentally makes it more difficult for new users to see what we're doing. For example, at the discussion Netoholic mentioned (note, I was the one who started it), someone mentioned my concern that it was orphaned and "solved" it by making plain text into a template which does not help even regular users because they'd be guessing if that would work unless we actually create all 67 million templates. This whole thing seems strange given WP:T3 which seems to clearly lean towards removing attempts to create templates for plain text like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Calling it as I see it: the OP's post appears to be full of straw men; I do not know if that was intentional or through a misunderstanding. Straw man 1: The information in cite doi templates is neither indiscriminate nor arbitrary. It is specific information that editors have deliberately chosen to insert into articles. Straw man 2: As for the alleged danger, please provide an instance of this happening. I have edited many thousands of these templates and thousands of articles that use them, and I have not seen an instance of this. Straw man 3: We are nowhere near 67 million. What we have now is a small number, compared to our total article count, of useful templates that prevent articles from being cluttered with long journal citations and allow the same citation to be used in multiple articles. This is basic modular construction, used in computer programming and many other fields of endeavor.


 * It has been proposed elsewhere that this information reside somewhere other than within Wikipedia and be called from within articles. That might be an interesting avenue to pursue, though I don't know how it would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "specific information that editors have deliberately chosen to insert into articles" - no, thats the problem. This is data which is not in the articles, but stored in the template namespace. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because it is stored in template namespace, doesn't mean that it wasn't deliberately chosen to insert into articles. We use templates all the time for information that is in multiple different articles so that only one place needs to be changed in order to change it in all articles using it. This is no different. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For navigation and presentation purposes, yes, but almost all template use involves storing the external data as template-call parameters within the article. In this case, the data is stored in the template namespace and is separated from the edit history of the article which relies on that citation information. Also, if the citation is changed in the template (say if an update, correction, or new edition is released), then referenced material within articles could be invalidated. Templates like this don't allow for variations in formatting tailored to each article, nor do they allow detailed information, such as specific page references. Data which is external to Wikipedia doesn't belong anywhere except the articles themselves. Internal Wikipedia data (page links, formatting) is what templates are for. -- Netoholic @  19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re variations in formatting: Your argument that it does not allow variations in formatting, while true, is a non-starter. As is very explicitly stated in a banner notice at the top of template:cite doi, format variations are not intended to be provided. The user is explicitly told that they should not use the template in articles where citations are not formatted in the manner described.  I see no reason that this should be a consideration. It is always the responsibility of the editor making an addition/change to an article to be compliant with WP guidelines. This template, like any template, is a tool.  It is not intended to perform all of the duties of editing a page.&mdash; Makyen (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the TfD mentioned above this is also being discussed here, and at Bot owners' noticeboard. Please don't split discussion like that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion is about a bot exceeding its mandate (which drew attention to the problem of people using templates to store external data). This is a discussion about what policy guidelines might be necessary to prevent that. -- Netoholic @  17:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Information: This thread contains some statements which imply a misunderstanding as to how Cite doi works. Cite doi was created in 2008 as a method of having reusable citations with bot-filled information when the editor supplies only a DOI. It is a generic method of obtaining a complete citation from only a DOI. A new template is created in a sub-page of template:Cite doi if and only if an editor enters a cite doi into a page with a doi containing a DOI for which a individual template does not already exist. Sometime after such a new DOI is entered a new template is created which contains the bot-filled data for that DOI. The cite doi then transcludes that new template wherever it is used with a doi containing that DOI. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since May 2008, 49k such templates have been created.
 * There is no danger of 67 million templates being created, contrary to what is implied in both the first and second post in this thread.
 * One minor tweak to the statement above by my esteemed colleague Makyen: a net of 49K cite doi templates have been created. A non-trivial number (hundreds, at least, maybe a thousand or more) have been speedy-deleted because they were created in error and/or are not linked from or transcluded in any articles. I routinely mark new cite doi templates with the CSD-G6 tag (or fill them in manually, if the DOI is valid but not linked to dx.doi.org yet) after being directed to them by the CS1 citation error categories. I do not routinely delete well-formed but orphaned cite doi templates, figuring that they are not hurting anyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about setting a guideline to dissuade people from using the template space for storing data, it is not a referendum on how work - that template is used as an example of a system which can grow indefinitely without a policy to guide it. --Netoholic @  01:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking, how many do you think you're planning on creating? As of April 2014, there were approximately 454k non-redirect templates. As such, the doi template constitute more than 10% of all templates at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is it actually doesn't matter what percentage of templates are doi templates. They are useful both individually and as a group.  Even if (which I am not suggesting for a moment) we created all 67 million doi templates the impact on the servers would be negligible, the impact on maintenance would be negligible, the impact on namespace conservation would be negligible.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC).


 * More straw men, hooray! I have probably marked more cite doi templates for speedy deletion than I have created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Subproposal: some criteria for citation templates that call on subtemplates
Assume that the main proposal is rejected, can we formulate some rules on subtemplates then? In comparison, Template:Cite CAstat works by having the parameters in the template and pulls only the quotation from the subpage. Each doi is unique so there are a number of calls (although the main template doesn't seem to go into the subtemplate parameters). At the least, CAstat could have the url being stored in the subpage so that the URLs can be distinguishable per subpage. Template:RussiaAdmMunRef (about 1400 subtemplates) also has the subtemplates in a separate category. I think I would prefer that the subtemplates be placed in a separate category and maybe have some structure behind it in case someone else wants to create a different citation format for the subtemplates. I could imagine a use where someone wants to cite a particular doi template but only the year and date (for a parenthetical citation format) or even some weirdness where people want to pull two doi templates or other combinations, it's a wiki, it'll come up somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These are prime examples of why we have Lua and Wikidata. The Template namespace is the wrong place for this sort of complex external data scheme. Its highly inefficient, hard to watch over, and hard to maintain when the creators of these schemes go on wikibreaks. Its why rather than try to think of other equally complex solutions, like endorsing sub-templates, we instead go for the real problem of moving external data out of the namespace. --Netoholic @ 01:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: we do nothing twice
I think everything that's done at least twice should be stored in case people want to use it again. Why make more work for us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea, what exactly are you referring to ?  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 14:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Templates for editors only: allowed in more places than just Talkspace.
About guideline "[...] Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page."

I think this should say something like "do not belong in content space". As it is written now, we can not use an editors-aimed template in subject spaces like WP:, Help: and Template: (documentation). -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call, I'll clarifiy it. Thanks. --Netoholic @ 22:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx. BTW, I still don't know what "content space" exactly envelopes (Lua seems to have it listed). Check this: is a template home page content space (like template:periodic table)? Its /doc included then? -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles are "content space", everything is is in non-content space. Messages directed solely at editors should not be visible on articles. -- Netoholic @  00:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (OT from here) Are you sure? Categories can't be content? -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Check . It promises, but it is the worst documentation area in wikiworld ever. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Categories are a navigational aid and aren't primarily article content. As far as that Scribunto/Lua item - I think that is a general function. A wiki could define more than one "content space" - on english Wikipedia we only have one (the articles), but other wikis might have several. The template guidelines on this page are just for english Wikipedia, they aren't technical restrictions, but rather instructions for our use. --Netoholic @  01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs: you write "primarily article content". 'primarily' is an escape. But all right: if you will consider my OP, everything is fine. -DePiep (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that categories aren't a primary source for content - you wouldn't add a category to an article unless the main content of the article supported that category. --Netoholic @ 01:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)