Template talk:Refer

To subst or not to subst

I would recommend not substing this template, as it allows for changes in style across dab pages without wholesale edits. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

IMO, the template should be substituted as its use makes the already rather arcane style of disambiguation pages even more difficult for the uninitiated. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it simpler to add additional elements if it's not subst'd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

I agree with Rich Farmbrough's assertions. Not substituting this template facilitates better consistency across disambiguation pages. I don't see any benefits to substitution in this case. There aren't any previous consensus-achieving discussions on this talk page determining that this template should be substituted, so recommend that the relevant statement be removed from the template. Neelix (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Bkonrad. Transcluding the template just makes the learning curve steeper for new editors, and it doesn't provide any real benefit in terms of formatting, categorization, etc. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't agree with Bkonrad, and I don't believe a consensus existed for a change in the standard, so I am reverting it until a consensus actually does emerge. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider consensus, Anomalocaris? All three editors who have commented on this thread this year have agreed that substing should not be necessary, and the relevant template was removed accordingly. Also, you have not presented any reasons against this position, so I see no way of achieving consensus stronger than that already reached. Neelix (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

older ≠ wiser favors subst, as do I. The Refer template is not very useful, and it is probably not used much, and I see no reason why we need to add it to every Wikipedian's learning curve. If it is substituted, it disappears, and nobody else is forced to deal with it. If it remains on a disambiguation page, then every editor of that page has to learn about it. Why should we waste the time of all those editors to learn about another template? With subst it disappears and nobody has to waste brain cycles on it. At any given time the population of non-subst'ed uses of this template in article space is very low. This implies a consensus in Wikipedia that this template should not be left lying around. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two editors this year who have supported subst (me and Anomalocaris). There are also two this year who favor transclusion (Rich F. and Neelix). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, R'n'B; I misunderstood the whole agree with Bkonrad, don't agree with Bkonrad thing. I don't see why including this template on articles forces editors to learn about the template; no one is forcing them to use it. Even if such learning were required, I think the learning curve trivially small. Lack of non-subst'ed uses of this template does not indicate consensus to me; I have never heard of consensus being established in that way, and surely an individual editor or small group of editors could easily unsubst each template in order to manipulate that statistic. I am under the impression that this is exactly what has been happening. I don't see the benefit of this template existing at all if it has to be subst'd. "x may refer to:" is only five characters longer than "{{subst:refer}}", plus the copy-and-paste of the title of the page. We aren't saving people's time with this template if we require subst'ing. Since all the other contributors to this discussion have been called back in, do you have anything further to add Rich? Neelix (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that one user systematically subst:ed all occurrences, citing this page as justification. Therefore lack of transclusions doe not indicate consensus.
An additional reason to keep the template untrascluded it that it makes translation easier.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

As far as I'm concerned the single overriding good reason to always transclude this is that it makes the pages significantly less intelligible to novice editors. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that such is the case. I have never heard that argument for any of the other templates that we don't transclude. Neelix (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Be nice if the template removed "(disambiguaiton)" from the parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Now it does. Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please revert, you broken subst:. 69.248.62.131 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Places

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

|place = may refer to several places

Add the above option for use when {{geodis}} is used, similar to |type=name with {{hndis}}. — Dispenser 16:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Per WP:TESTCASES, may you put your suggestion into Template:Refer/sandbox, and update the testcases if appropriate for your suggestion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about it some more; doesn't appear controversial. Updated the sandbox and testcases, and synced. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated Dabfix to use this. — Dispenser 22:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove (disambiguation)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest we change {{{{{|safesubst:}}}PAGENAME}} to {{{{{|safesubst:}}}PAGENAMEBASE}}} so DaBs ending with (disambiguation) is correctly handled. — Dispenser 22:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 02:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

|name = is the name of

to

|name = is a given name. Notable people with the given name include

and add

|surname = is a surname. Notable people with the surname include

Reason: Both lead structures have become a standard for their respective SIAs. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Testcase jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change existing patterns. |name= is used with {{Human name disambiguation}}. — Dispenser 13:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Maybe use the phrase for a possible |given-name= parameter then? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292:

Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening request because I'd like to request in |given-name= to remove the second "given". See this edit. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292:

Done -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]