This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Template link. 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.
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)
DoneRandomCanadian, 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)
@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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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: andarenotinterchangeable.
+
This is not true for all such visually confusing templates containing a possible 1/l mix-up.
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)
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)
(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:
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?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Wrap the opening and closing brace pairs in {{nowrap}}. I have seen line-breaks between the two closing braces in the wild. This should probably be done to the other template link templates as well. Nickps (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Line breaks exist for a reason. Some people have narrow text areas, especially with the new Vector 2022 skin. What is the actual harm in having a line break in a template link? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought this was uncontroversial enough to skip that step. Anyway, my main problem with the line breaks is that {{ and }} are conceptually supposed to be one thing, so having a line break between them is jarring. I can't be the only one who thinks something like {{nowrap}
I missed the part where you said that there was a break between the braces, which should not happen. Where are you seeing two braces with a line break between them? I have never seen that. A screen shot may help. [ETA: never mind, I see now that the braces are made using HTML entities. I have suggested code in the sandbox: diff here.]– Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I had never seen this until the attached screenshot. Was it really worth making a change to cater for an extremely rare occurrence? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I had never seen it either, but it was an easy fix, and it makes the crappy mobile experience just slightly better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree with Rose's criticism in favour of adding explicit consistency checks in a protocol ... even if they impose implementation overhead. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
My proposal would benefit editors, by removing the need for them to remember the preferred format, enabling them to more easily paste the contents of a clipboard containing the full template page name, and removing the need for a second edit after making an edit arbitrarily considered "incorrect". What are the benefits of the status quo? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
The preferred format for every link template is to not include the namespace, be it {{ld}}, {{lw}} or {{tl}}; learning the syntax is trivially easy because of this (i.e. "don't include the namespace" is standard). Folks should be using the preview option (even though we don't always, and I include myself in that camp) but even it's not a huge burden to make a minor edit to fix things. I've said my piece, and I'm not convinced the change should be made, but I am only one voice so I will wait for others to give their opinions. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Done Primefac (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2021 (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)
Question: Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: This template does not add any categories to any page. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Done Primefac (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
