This is an archive of past discussions about Web template. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Relationships and dependencies with another articles

Web template is not a isolated article, it is very correlated and "depends on" the article Web template system, and we can adopt:

the web template system article as "umbrella article".
Web template and Template engine are complementar articles.
Specific complements: Web template hook styles and Web template system (formalism).
Other very correlated articles: preprocessor (referential to not-web template engines), XSLT (main article about XML specific templates), Template (word processing) and Style sheet as referential to template original concepts (from Desktop publishing).

To Do List

... please update here ...

All of these sections (to me anyway) have good content and comprise essential sections of the article series. The only one that seems a little shaky to me (in general) is the Template reuse and repositories, only because that seems to have been a source of spam-magnet in the historical legacy of this article. One big issue (for me anyway) is still the question how do we organize material, participation and workflow on these articles? I think this is important because some aspects are still quite difficult. I will send you some proposals soon for you to review to see what you think. dr.ef.tymac 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Template languages section

See Web_template#Template_languages.

It will bigger... To decide: copy/paste to a complementar article.

History section

See Web_template#History. Need review.

Sub-template use strategies section

See Web_template#Sub-template_use_strategies. Need review.

Template reuse and repositories

See Web_template#Template_reuse_and_repositories. Need review for site examples -- many spans was here (!), but we need cite them for exemplify... or find articles about them on wikipedia.

Terms need change (not very used in english)

"outputted" is ok?
- I think this is generally considered "grammatically correct", but not "favored usage" ... more favorable examples might include: (as a noun) "X does Y by sending output to Z"; "X sends generated output to Y"; "X produces Y, which is then output to Z"; "X succeeds only if it obtained the output from Y"; (as a verb) "the signal was output to the measuring unit" "the signal is output continuously at a rate of" ... probably the reason that "outputted" is disfavored is because the combining form "putted", when used by itself, is not grammatically correct ^{[citation needed]}. dr.ef.tymac 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: (example) "Nancy putted the box on the shelf." (not grammatically correct, therefore [my speculation is] native english speakers subconciously avoid this kind of usage). dr.ef.tymac 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

diagramation and "page arranging" (page structure?)
For others, User:CmdrObot/robot do a lot to work for us: Condictions→Conditions, Controlable→Controllable, a informal→an informal, a input→an input, aplications→applications, complementar→complementary, condiction→condition, formated→formatted, growed→grew.

Termonology and style

Terms with optional ortography

Programable or Programmable? Used PrograMMable, more used (Google say) on wikipedia, and like on Programmable logic device.
Parametrized or Parameterized? for "Parametr. reference" and "Parametr. declaration". Used "parametErized" like on Parameterized macro.

Jargon options

General programming language jargon: sugestion to use functional programming jargon and concepts, instead Imperative (or procedural) programming ones. But need to use (and contrast) also macro and preprocessor jargon...
Transformations model and concepts: sugestion to adaptate text to the "informal part" (and not XML dependent) of the XQuery/XSLT/XPath concepts and vocabulary.
NOT USE commercial synonymous concepts like Database Publishing.
NOT use the term data model to substitute the terms Content and Content resource:
1. It is Web, and W3C and others prefer to use the term Content, about "content on documents" (not "data on documents").
2. A data model need Structure. Integrity, Manipulation, Querying... is more simple say that a set of variables are Content than Data model.
3. This article was here since October 2005 with the term Content: it is stable and many other linkted articles use the term.
4. Is better say "input data" (for process) than say "input model" (it is like to say "input model information")... Example: a "vCard DTD" have the data model information, a "vCard data" have the specific vCard information.

Big Review/Revert/Adapt = please comment

Adapted Intro to changes. -- Krauss 24 November 2006
Reverted picture: the new was only a copy (spam?) from Template processor, not adapted to: 1) The basic concepts fixed here; 2) Another illustrations (see architectures), they are compatible. 3) The picture have 2 outputs to show what it does, for didactic -- Krauss 24 November 2006

The article as a whole seems a bit messy to me; like the patch-work it really is. Maybe someone who knows what they're doing (I don't.) could take a look? --Ceriel Nosforit 10:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Theres is very little references on this page, especially when it comes to the separation into different types of template languages. More references would really help. The singel reference there is seems referenced when it comes to the template languager hierarchy, but it doesn't seem to mention the types of templates in that hierarchy. In fact, it all smells like original research... --Regebro 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Types and Styles of Templates

Hi,

I have written this new article on Web templates that also describes the styles and types of templates. It is totally unqiue and fresh article that really enhances the understanding of this article. I had added this but it got deleted right after 2 minutes. Here is a link to the article http://templatesfactory.net/blog/2007/01/what_is_a_web_template.html

Please let me know your thoughts on this

Best Regards Hasan Saleem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hassansaleem (talk • contribs) 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Saleem, I looked at the article you referenced. I am not the one who deleted your contribution, and I don't know who did, but I do know a lot of what you referenced in the link is either already discussed to some extent in the article, or arguably outside the scope of the article. I say "arguably" because this article series (and even these discussion pages) have had some challenging structural issues and complications. IMHO what this article needs more than anything is *cites* and refactoring/verification of the existing content, moreso than piling on of new content that is already there with slightly different terminology.

Anyway, in answer to your question, here are some initial thoughts after a quick read of your article.

       Content Management System (CMS) Templates ;; try the article on CMS
       Blogging Templates                        ;; try the article on Blogging
       Flash Templates                           ;; less likely this article, more like RIA article
       Flash Intros                              ;; flash article
       Logo Templates                            ;; Web_graphic_design article

The rest of what your article talks about is covered to some extent here already. If what you did was a simple cut-and-paste of the article, without coordinating it into the existing text or article structure, then I am not surprised it got deleted. Note also there is a Template disambiguation page where you could put some of your article content. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up Hi Saleem, I may have misunderstood, but if you were talking about the external link to http://templatesfactory.net/, then I am probably the one who deleted it, and in fact, I deleted it again just recently. The rationale for the deletion is in WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#MIRROR. You are free to add content *directly to the article* but it should not be promotional stuff, and it should not be duplicative of what's already in the article (either by a link or by direct cut and paste). HTH! dr.ef.tymac 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)