Template talk:Template link/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Did the move operation just break this template across wikipedia?

I'm seeing usages across various project pages being interrupted by massive redirect banners suddenly. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlackholeWA: This is because Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) renamed the template but didn't fix consequent double redirects. I've fixed them now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Redrose64 and BlackholeWA: Thanks, sorry. I will remember what to do next time. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Template link has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Tlu}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the TfM link extremely distracting. This template is used in more than 6 million pages while {{Tlu}} in 11K. (See?) Please change |type=tiny to |type=disabled. Nardog (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous it cracks me up:

Nardog (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: This is extremely distracting. Mind removing the TfM template and acting in consequence, maybe suggesting an RfC instead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian, that's not how this works. Disabling the notice, sure. Why the heck would we ignore every procedure we have and have a month-long discussion (i.e. RFC) when TFD works perfectly fine? That is a rhetorical question and does not need answering, but I would please ask that you strike your pointless opposition at the TFD itself. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just echoing the suggestion of somebody else at that discussion. Anyway now resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks! Can you also remove the space between |text=yes}}}} and {{? It puts the line in <pre>...</pre> if used at the beginning of a line. Nardog (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nowiki stopped working

Moved to Template talk:Template link general#Nowiki stopped working. Primefac (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 March 2022

removed protection from Template:Template link [edit=all] (indefinite) [move=all] (Low Traffic Page) Hatta2 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 11 December 2022

Regarding some text in the /doc subpage:

I believe based on the grammar and spacing that it should be "<something> and <something> are not interchangeable"; as is it's very strange. Maybe the entire text following and including the colon should just be deleted?

Diff:

−

This is not true for all such visually confusing templates containing a possible 1/l mix-up: and are not interchangeable.

+

This is not true for all such visually confusing templates containing a possible 1/l mix-up.

CharredShorthand (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

First off, you could have edited the /doc yourself, as it is not fully-protected. Second, I have not done what you suggested, but rather reworded to a possible 1/l mix-up as they are not interchangeable because it makes explicit that you can't just sub in a 1 for an l in templates. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: facepalm you're right, I could have edited the doc. Whoops. Sorry! (And thanks for the fix.) CharredShorthand (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries; you aren't the first and likely will not be the last ;-) Primefac (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2023

Wrap the template's code within the "includeonly" tag. Grufo (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Only because not wrapping the code around <includeonly> makes the documentation page ugly. --Grufo (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The documentation is absolutely fine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose64. There's no good reason to do this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This totally sounds like arguing without arguments. Could you guys explain how having

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

displayed above the documentation page helps the readability? The <includeonly> tag was invented for a reason. As it is it just looks like a broken page. --Grufo (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It shows the output of the template. That is typical for template pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past. Honestly, if I can see in a tenth of a second what the code is supposed to look like by seeing the raw info above the doc, I will take it. There is no reason to hide template output. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: It shows the output of the template: It doesn't. This is the output of the template:

{{Example template}}

This, instead, is not the output of the template, is its source code (with the usage of HTML entities hidden):

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

@Primefac: I seem to recall you have made this complaint in the past: If I did I honestly don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised. There is no reason to hide template output. Again, that is not the output, it is the source code. The fact that you appreciate the feeling of reconstructing in your mind how a template would look like by looking at its source code might not be a shared feeling among everyday users of this template. I, for example, on top of a documentation page prefer to see how a template looks like instead of seeing its source code. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the top of the page shows the actual output of the template when |1= is not specified. That is often done on template pages. Maybe I misunderstand the objection. If you want examples, the documentation is the place to look for those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The top of the page shows the actual output of the template when |1= is not specified: Is that a possible case? From what I read in the TemplateData the |1= parameter is required. So what you call “output” is technically undefined behavior, which today manifests as the partial source code, tomorrow might manifest as an error message, or whatever. But since we live in the present, what we see today is the template's partial source code on top of its documentation page.

That is often done on template pages: Years ago, probably. Today we have <includeonly>...</includeonly>, and more and more template documentations have the wisdom of showing as early as possible (possibly on top) the template at work – not the template during undefined behavior.

To convince you once and for all. Imagine we decided to output an error message when |1= is missing (which would be totally legit, since it is a required parameter): would you still be happy to have “Error: Template name is missing” on top of the documentation page? What information would that give you, given that at that stage you won't even know what parameter you will have to use to provide a template name? Will that be |1=? Or will that be |tp= or |template= instead?

If even this did not work. I will delegate my reasons to Wikipedia's future wisdom. --Grufo (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

See for example Template:Rfc which has a big red error message, but we certainly don't want that suppressed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Old habits die hard. --Grufo (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)