Template talk:Documentation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Interwikis in Template:Documentation/docname

{{editprotected|Template:Documentation/docname}}

Could the following interwikis be added to the protected template {{Documentation/docname}}?

[[ceb:Plantilya:Dokumentasyon/pangalansadok]]
[[en:Template:Documentation/docname]]
[[fr:Modèle:Documentation/docname]]
[[ja:Template:Documentation/docname]]
[[pnb:Template:Documentation/docname]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Documentação/nomedoc]]
[[zh:Template:Documentation/docname]]

It could be better to create a /doc page and move them there. Opraco (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I can't see the point of adding interwiki links to subtemplates. The main link to the main template should be sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone may need to use this template in another wiki and it could be troublesome to find them there or identify if they even exist. The English Wikipedia stands as a central place for placing and finding iw links and, as it is done in other templates, I don't see why they couldn't be here. Opraco (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It just seems that having doc subpages for every subtemplate is excessive. It's easy enough to find them using Special:PrefixIndex and anyone who needs to find one should be sufficiently familiar with the code to be able to do that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. I think you know how it works here better than I do. Sorry for all that. – Opraco (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just my opinion! We'll see what others think about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 7, 12 April 2010

{{editprotected}} The "subpages of this template" and "subpages of this page" in the core documentation templates does not work... not sure when the break happened but it appears to be because of the trailing slash "/".

Request to change file Template:Documentation/core from:

   -->{{#switch: {{SUBJECTSPACE}}
      | {{ns:File}} =   <!--Don't show it-->
      | {{ns:Template}} =  [[Special:PrefixIndex/{{{template page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}/|Subpages of this template]].
      | #default =  [[Special:PrefixIndex/{{{template page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}/|Subpages of this page]].
      }}

to this (two trailing slashes removed after FULLPAGENAME):

   -->{{#switch: {{SUBJECTSPACE}}
      | {{ns:File}} =   <!--Don't show it-->
      | {{ns:Template}} =  [[Special:PrefixIndex/{{{template page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|Subpages of this template]].
      | #default =  [[Special:PrefixIndex/{{{template page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|Subpages of this page]].
      }}

Hoping an admin can help clear it up. Thanks.  7  06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Where are you experiencing the breakage ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I found it here: Template:Uw-notenglish but it seems to happen everywhere - the link at the bottom takes you to here but the ending slash breaks the PrefixIndex. However this one works. Thanks.  7  09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Those latter are not subpages though. Only pages with the same prefix. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops - my mistake. I knew there was a difference, but when I saw that appearing on pages with no actual subpages it seemed like it was a grammatical mistake. Thought I was being clever too.  7  10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Use h2 instead of a span?

Hi!!

I was wondering if isn't better (semantically) to use the h2 tag instead of a span for "Template documentation" (at /core), since the span currently is being used as a header, with style "font-weight: bold; font-size: 125%". Helder (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea; and would resolve the H2/H3issue discussed above. OTOH, is that line really necessary at all? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the problem with this that it's editsection button generation was unpredictable, and that it would show up in the toc ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, that appears to be the root of all the accessibility problems here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a decision on this, one way or the other? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

TheDJ, what do you mean by "it's editsection button generation was unpredictable"?

Would it be possible to put the [edit] button out of the <h2> tag so that it doesn't show up in the TOC? Helder (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, H2s get edit section buttons automatically. I believe the problem used to be that at times the edit button wouldn't work properly when transcluding from another page. Not sure how that is these days. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Weirdness at {{Abuse cases}}

For some time {{Documentation}} has worked well, transcluding the /doc subpage. Today at that page I see the Abuse Cases template itself, and below I see:

documentation

This links to something entirely different! I am confused, and could so with an expert eye to be run over it, please Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because the template is too complicated (the template is now a member of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded). Removing some parts of it or splitting it should fix it. And I personally think that it is too big and something should be done about it even if the problem is resolved some other way. Svick (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So I fixed it by replacing {{Navbox subgroup long}} with {{Navbox subgroup}} (that particular subgroup has 19 lists, so the long variant is not necessary), but I still think the navbox is too big. (And of course, if it continues to grow, this problem will eventually appear again.) Svick (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

yes I spotted this weirdness and checking through the history I noticed it started after I corrected your numbering error when you added a new list. It looks like there is now another reason to support my existing view (discussed on the abuse cases talk page) that the template should be split into 2 (catholic and non-catholic)--Penbat (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A link compare template sandbox

So with the execution of scripts via the &withJS= and the ability to diff different pages by using their revision ids, can we add a link to the documentation template to compare the difference from the template to the sandbox? — Dispenser 06:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be very useful, if it's possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could write such a script. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like this: diff ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty good start. The inital landing page needs to be set to something to explain to users about what's going on and for our reusers what to copy. The parameter names should be change from page1/page2 to diff1/diff2, diffleft/diffright, left/right, yellow/green, prevpage/nextpage, oldpage/newpage or similar to the API as a single pipe separated titles=. The code should be executed as soon as it finished loading and not with the addOnloadHook() as this adds a few seconds of delay. Initally, I had thought we'd use {{REVISIONID}} but it doesn't show work on preview. — Dispenser 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, mostly taken care of. There is one catch, the order of the diff is determined by the ID of the page. This usually works, because most sandboxes are created AFTER the original templates, but it isn't foolproof. I'm too lazy to fix that at the moment. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Added —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and added the link to Template:Template sandbox notice. Does anyone want to add instruction for copying the script to Wikipedia:Pagediff? — Dispenser 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Now replaced with the new Special:ComparePages. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Error report

It seems to fail on Template:Class mask. (It compares it to Template:Class instead?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Repaired, though not really as I want it. I see no way however to properly use urlencode in mediawiki. I guess I could let core2 pass along the encoded string together with the original pagenames, but this hack to replace + with _ works as well for now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on fixing this properly btw: bugzilla:23621. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Code Fix

{{editprotected}} Could a templatey administrator change this:

| sandbox = 
  {{{docspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{template page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}/sandbox
| testcases = 
  {{{docspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{template page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}/testcases

to this:

| sandbox = 
  {{#if: {{{1|}}}
  | {{#rel2abs:../sandbox|{{{1|}}}}}   <!--Other docname fed-->
  | {{{docspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{template page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}/sandbox
  }}
| testcases = 
  {{#if: {{{1|}}}
  | {{#rel2abs:../testcases|{{{1|}}}}}   <!--Other docname fed-->
  | {{{docspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{template page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}/testcases
  }}

on Template:Documentation/core2? Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 281° 23' 0" NET 18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this. I think that even if a specified documentation page is being used, you would still want the /sandbox and /testcases in the standard place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you do have a point. Probably best left as it is. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 252° 15' 15" NET 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouting template

WHY IS THIS TEMPLATE SHOUTING AT ME? It even says "please" in allcaps. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the preload template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Couldn't find it first. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to changing to lowercase. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Spreading non-silence?

iF I GET IT RIGHT, THIS IS TEMPLATE FROM WHERE EVERYONE IS SHOUTING. cOULD SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THAT? THANK YOU. -depiep (talk) 02:03, 11 february 2011 (utc)

Sorry, could you explain? I don't get it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw the thread up above. I will look into it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Documentation/preload isn't protected, so edit away if you want to change the ALL CAPS. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So I changed the comments into lowercase. I think it's  done -DePiep (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Code Update

{{editprotected}} Could a templatey administrator copy the code over from

1. . Template:Documentation/core/sandbox to Template:Documentation/core
2. . Template:Documentation/core2/sandbox to Template:Documentation/core2
3. . Template:Documentation/sandbox to Template:Documentation

The result can be seen at Template:Documentation/testcases. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 280° 50' 0" NET 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've only copied over the preload changes and not the other differences. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with transclusion depth

Unfortunately, this template is not working well with the {{convert}} template. Basically, you combine the transclusion depth of this template with the transclusion depth of {{convert}}, and red errors are the result. Here is a concrete example, have a look at

1. This page using this template to create the documentation here, which has red error warnings in the transcluded calls to {{convert}}
2. This page using just the "core" part of the template here, which has no red error warnings.

It would be great if we could figure out a way to refactor this template to reduce this depth. It might be enough to merge "core" with "core2". I would rather not fork it to create a simplified version which works with convert. This is a common problem, if you just have a look at Category:ParserFunction errors, and look for the errors coming from templates. If can find some time, I will see if I can come up with a solution, but it would be great if someone else has some ideas. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell's bells, {{convert}} has 3300 sub-templates!

at any rate, the place I'd start with this, I think, is by merging Template:Documentation/core2 into Template:Documentation/core it looks like someone created the core2 template as an easy way to add some features to the core template without rewriting it (all core2 does is call core with some conditionals and defaults). that should save a layer of transclusion. I can play with the merger if you like, but I can't implement it because the page is locked. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it 3 times now, and I still haven't really grasped the problem. Can someone try to explain it one more time ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay here is the problem, Wikipedia has a limit on the transclusion depth. This template adds three to the depth of anything on the documentation page, since {{documentation}} calls {{documentation/core2}} which calls {{documentation/core}} which transcludes the documentation page. Now suppose you add a convert template being transcluded by an infobox template which transcludes {{infobox}}. Now you have officially hit the depth limit. The solution is to reduce the depth. As Ludwigs pointed out, we could easily reduce the depth of this template by one, by eliminating {{documentation/core2}}, but will this be enough? It could be, but I would have to check. I do know that if this template had a depth of only 1, it would be enough, as is evidenced by my test where I replaced {{documentation}} by {{documentation/core}}. The other solution is to reduce the complexity of {{convert}}, which is really the bigger issue, but that is an entirely different story. Reducing the depth of this template would be far easier. I hope this explains the problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that rewriting 'convert' would probably be the better choice, but let me reiterate - the damned thing has 3300 sub-templates! I don't think I can personally afford the quantity of aspirin that would require. now I'll take a look at the template and see if I can figure out the structure and suggest a simplification, but any revision there is probably going to require AWB or some bot interaction. however, a question - is the only place this where this is a problem on the template doc page? of so, we might just want to restructure the doc page to eliminate direct examples. easier by far. --Ludwigs2 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Simplification of both templates would probably help. I just checked, and it looks like we would have to reduce the depth of this template down to one-level to fix the problem, without changing anything else. In other words, just removing {{documentation/core2}} doesn't fix it :( However, replacing {{documentation}} with {{documentation/core}} does fix it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; this bug was arising before /core2 existed (see Template talk:Documentation/Archive 3#Bug for example) and was never fixed. I would support merging /core2 into /core as it wouldn't do any harm. But sorting out {{convert}} is probably going to be necessary at some stage! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

One level only ... wow. (Making two when transcluded into a subject Template page). How deep is {{convert}} then? I understand depth can be 20 levels maximum before problem occurs. That means, convert is eating most of the pie. (btw, {{edt}} tests template-depth). -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have refactored the template in the safest way I could imagine, but still fix the transclusion depth issue. As far as I can tell, this fixes most of the problems, but please revert and let me know if there are unintended consequences. Basically, the way the template worked before was that "documentation" called "documentation/core2" which called "documentation/core" which then transcluded the doc page. What I did was split "core2" into "box start2" and "box end2", putting the parts before the transclusion of the doc page into "box start2" and the parts after the transclusion of the doc page into "box end2". Then, I did the exact same thing for "core". For the middle section, I temporarily created "mid" and "mid2", then repeatedly substituted them to bring them up to the top level. This caused a bit of unnecessary repetition, since things were expanded. So, I reduced this repetition by creating two new subtemplates "doc page" and "docspace", which were common patterns in the code. Note that there still is some repetition, and the code is still a bit more complex than it needs to be, but at least this fixes the main problem and optimization can occur at a later date. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's happening here

If you look at a transclusion of {{LIRR lines}}, it is noticed that there is an extra break after the template. However, when the noinclude tags are placed right after the final closing bracket of the parserfunction in the template, the transcluded /doc page does not have a green background. If I put a break in there, it may not be visible in the code, but it's visible in the tranclusions. What's going on? Other templates don't seem to have this problem. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the {{documentation}} template is in this case? I checked that template and it isn't using documentation. Sorry if this is obvious. I did recently refactor this template, so I would like to correct any unintended features. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked your edit history, and I think you may be talking about {{LIRR links}}? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved the newline to within the noinclude, which is how I usually see the documentation template placed. This appears to have resolved the problem? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks!— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Preload....

I definitely don't get preloaded text when I click on the link to a /doc page that doesn't exist. But the documentation of {{documentation}} says I should. What's up with this? --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the "create" button does do the preload, but the redlink "/doc" at the bottom doesn't. I suppose we could make both do the preload. Is that what you want? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if that's not too much of a hassle. According to WP:Documentation as well as the /doc of this page say that if the /doc redlink should do a preload. Thanks! --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis in different subtemplates

Hi! I want to bring your attention to next template: Template:Hidden begin. This template uses different pages to include documentation and interwikis. I think that is not clear in the first time that interwikis should be placed on the Template:Hidden begin/doc instead of Template:Hidden begin-end/doc. That is why we have interwikis in both places. Is there more suitable solution when few templates share same documentation? --DixonD (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to do this is the way it is done at for the Harv citation series (e.g., Template:Harvcol/doc). Basically you still have individual doc pages with the categories and interwikis, but the main core part is on a single page (or in a single template). Does this address your question? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good but still not perfect, because you should do extra actions to edit actual documentation. Still it is better because you at least know where are interwikis. But could it be good idea to provide two edit links on top of documentation - one for starting editing actual documentation and another one for just categories and interwikis? --DixonD (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek interwiki

Please add el:Πρότυπο:Τεκμηρίωση προτύπου as the greek interwiki. Cheers! --JimmyX (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead, just edit Template:Documentation/doc. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox preload

I would like to change the template so that when creating the sandbox version, instead of using Template:Documentation/preload-sandbox (which I don't find very useful) it will preload the contents of the current live template. Does anyone have a problem with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Basic source code in it would be OK, but I do like that {{template sandbox notice}} that is in it now, and I don't like the {{documentation}} in the sandbox. Come to think of it, I'd prefer more links, e.g. all those that are present in the lowest box of regular /documentation (to have more Template control from the sandbox). Even better: there could be a button added in /doc, that does refresh the /sandbox with original code: like Sandbox (create/edit|view|reset-to-original code). -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you like documentation on the sandbox copy? For one, it automatically includes Template:Template sandbox notice at the top. Secondly it has all the useful links (e.g. to testcases and subtemplates) at the bottom. Thirdly, it can actually be useful to have the documentation in front of you when experimenting with a template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's drop my personal habits in sandboxes (pictures erased, especially those me peeing in b/w, please ;-)). Btw, I have developed templates with multiple subtemplates seriously (using sandboxes & testpages, but dropping /doc asap).

- Basic proposal 1.0: copy T:code unchanged into the sandbox (either at creation or by linked process). Good.

- Effects, undesired: -include- tag effects (e.g., original /doc in category intended for T:).

- Effects, desired: complete picture of the template. Control and access to this Template's environment (pages)

- To be checked: what about /sandbox/doc, and such likes? No invisible spaghetti relations please.

(I have tried some examples, loosely. Not to a true checking question to prove something)

The unintended and hard -include- effects look serious to me, and should be handled beforehand. -

-DePiep (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Example of unintended, undesired effect. Using {{Germanic name}}. Created its Template:Germanic name/sandbox, with full 100% T:source code. Now the main T:/doc shows up in the T:'s category: Category:Hatnote templates for names. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• After looking at the code (amazing how compicated it is for such a basic thing) it seems that, per /template page, separate documentation for /sandbox is not possible. It will always display the main documentation, unless you specifically direct it to use /sandbox/doc via the {{{1}}} parameter.

Actually what code is "how complicated", if relevant at all? -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are quite right that dupicating categories and interwikis is an unintended side effect of displaying the documentation on the template sandbox. I don't think there is any way around this, except by using a {{#ifeq:{{{FULLPAGENAME}}}|... construction on the doc page, which is quite clumsy. But I wonder if this is actually a problem, i.e. does it really matter that Template:Germanic name/sandbox appears in Category:Hatnote templates for names? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Template /doc and such should not appear in content category pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose "Template:tlsandbox"

Why not create template "tlsandbox" (tl=template link, as in other template linking). It could be a box (not inline), and contain:

• Links to: Template:X, Template:X/doc, Template:X/sandbox, Template:X/testcases, Template:X/subpages.
• Including essence of current: Template:Template sandbox notice, Template:Template test cases notice.

All with controlled page and -include- effects. "create" and "purge" options where relevant. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add these links to Template:Template sandbox notice and use this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, could do done: Template:tlsandbox. And renamed for naming pattern. Just don't know what will happen with the -include- effects. And the magic words. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this new template {{tlsandbox}}? Why not use the existing {{Template sandbox notice}} and/or {{Template test cases notice}} and improve them if needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am targeting: a single template that has all the links together, the links now used on three different templates. If it works, we have a single control template for working with (and on) /sandbox and /testpages (e.g. in the sandbox we can open spacial page All subpages). Of course the current version is just a first step; the templates used have different buildups (uses of namespace, pagenames &tc). -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Implement proposal 1.0

As you don't oppose my original suggestion, are you happy if I implement this diff on Template:Documentation/end box? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW you can test it here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Do I understand the change:

a) does not address the problem of /sandbox-appears-in-category then? (Earlier example {{Germanic name}} in Category:Hatnote templates for names, by full page copy.)

b) does not add the {{template sandbox notice}} to the created page. Test says: Solved.

I think a) is preventing the change, innit. We don't want sandboxes in content categories. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC) (b)solved -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The test shows that a) still exists see Category:Uttar Pradesh templates. Although, Category:Uttar Pradesh templates might not count as a "content category" exactly. Somehow I think the sandbox should not be there. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess we disagree about how much of a problem this is. Personally I don't see that this matters, and would be outweighed by the advantage of convenience. In any case you could always remove {{doc}} from the bottom if you wished. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple: the sandbox doesn't belong there. It's not content space, but it is editor's trove. All editors' that is, not just template-editing editors. And also: I don't think it is impossible or difficult to make that distinction in {{documentation}} or so. -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that is your opinion. I can imagine that some others would agree with you. But I can also imagine some editors arguing the opposite view: one possible advantage is that Special:RecentChangesLinked on the category would show work in progress on /sandbox templates as well as the main template. Personally I don't care either way, but I'm suggesting that, whichever view you take, it is more convenient to start from a copy of the live template in the sandbox even if you then go and remove {{doc}} from the bottom. That is all I am proposing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not change {{documentation}} so that it does not reproduce categories when in page /sandbox? (btw, it is not 'just my opinion' of preference not having /doc there). You really mean to have the sandbox show up in {{template category}} for every new /sandbox page? -15:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I said it is your opinion, which is the case. I also said above that I don't really care about whether /sandbox belongs to the same category or not. I am discussing the issue of the preload template. And no, I don't think there is any way for this template to automatically exclude categories on /sandbox versions because that would mean partially transcluding the contents of /doc which is not possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have reached somewhat of an impasse. It may be helpful to get comments from other editors on the benefits or otherwise of applying this diff, without perhaps getting sucked in wider issues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Category for documentation pages

I propose to alter the category in which documentation pages are placed from Category:Template documentation to Category:Template documentation pages. This will allow the former (which is currently swamped) to be retained as a super-category for pages and templates about template documentation, i.e.

• this template
• Wikipedia:Template documentation
• Template:Documentation subpage, etc.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response so I am going to boldly make this change. It doesn't seem to be controversial to me, but if anyone disagrees I can revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems like a good idea. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit button not working

When I click on the edit button, I am not being taken to a template's documentation subpage. Rather I wind up landing on a Mediawiki API page which shows this error at the top of the page:

<error code="badurl" info="The URL to redirect to must be domain-relative, i.e. start with a /" xml:space="preserve">

It started doing this late last night / early this morning. Hope you can help because I have to use the "all pages with prefix:" page to get to the doc page otherwise. Ashanda (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to work for me. Maybe it was temporary? If it still doesn't work for you, with what template does this problem occur? Svick (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been similar reports at WP:VPT. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar problem until I went into my user preferences and checked the box next to "Exclude me from feature experiments". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Heading fix redux

There's an outstanding accessibity issue with header levels in this templates; see Template talk:Documentation/Archive 4#Heading fix, which still needs attention. Earlier discussion, with one dissenting voice, is at Template talk:Documentation/Archive 2#Heading fix. It seems to me that the opponents of this template have to provided any evidence to back up their claims that the proposed change will cause any harm. I have requested some extra eyeballs on the matter, with comments here, on VPT and the accessibility project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this really does need to get fixed. It makes it look like Wikipedians are idiots who can't understand the most basic concepts of HTML and Web design since the early 1990s. It's quite embarrassing. I and various others manually fix this template's malformed output every time we come across it, but this gets very tedious. After correcting the bad markup in hundreds cases of extant and new templates, I can only remember one person ever reverting the change (and not fighting me on the matter after I put it back with an explanation). This strongly suggests to me that a) the average editor does not care at all, and is happy to leave technical [X]HTML matters to experts; b) HTML well-formedness/validity, cross-browser compatibility and of course accessibility rationales are in fact sensible and persuasive; and c) there is no broad support at all for this template abusing markup the way it does. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've again reverted another change to Template:Documentation/preload which resulted in using level 2 headings rather than level 3. If I correctly recall, there was no consensus for this change in the earlier discussions linked to by Pigsonthewing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There was opposition from one editor, who never explained why he thought the current heading levels are correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's a moot point anyway, really, as the "burden of proof" is bassackwards on this one. There's no consensus, and given WikiMedia Foundation's general stance on standards compliance, and the project's continual march towards conformity with Web specifications of all kinds, there arguably cannot be a valid consensus, to violate the [X]HTML specifications, here by abusing heading markup by forcing a level-3 heading in absence of an enclosing level 2. Anyone following markup issues at the MediaWiki Bugzilla will be aware that the entire parser is being rewritten to finally excise the remaining cases misuse of HTML elements. Meanwhile editors have been increasingly ensuring proper HTML, XHTML and XML markup in infoboxes and other template) and implementing beyond-HTML metadata and microformat standards. This is 2011, right in the thick of "Web 2.0". The entire project, from top to bottom, is behind this stuff, and against 1995-style Web coding like what is happening in this template. Anyone who does not fully understand semantic HTML and separation of content and presentation needs to just get out of the way. Web pages != word processor documents or powerpoint presentations subject to random aesthetic whims; Wikipedia layout decisions have semantic meanings and consequences, in a tightly-defined, machine-parseable structure. If someone really, really, really hates the default size and/or other appearance of level-2 headings as they appear in this template, that is a CSS issue, not an HTML issue. For 15 years now (well, 14 and 11 months, since CSS Level 1, December 1996) this has been a CSS issue. Please stop dumbing down our code to mess around with fonts, please.

Speaking of which, I'd like to see actual consensus that there's anything wrong with the default <h2> appearance. It seems to me that with the sole exception of this template, it is used 100% consistently across the entire site. That suggests a 99.999% or so consensus against altering its appearance in this template to satisfy what appears to be a single editors' visual preference. Try gaining consensus for this odd-ball variation at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Good luck.

I've put the <h2> (==) code back. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't recently read all the past discussion on this, but I recall that the argument was that the "Documentation" heading was the h2 heading and so the subsections of that should be h3. Is this not the case? If you are making the subsections h2 then surely the "documentation" should be h1? But then we will be introducing inconsistency with all the existing pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Which "Documentation" heading? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And the page title is H1, on all MediaWiki pages. Try actually looking at the rendered code. Whatever; I've already fixed this, and anyone who isn't going to do the basic homework to know what's going on with MediaWiki and heading levels is certainly not in a good position from which to argue, much less to revert, when it comes to heading-level code! We all have better things to do, and should just consider this resolved. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A H3 header appearing on a page without a preceding H2 header... After reading the discussion, that seems to be the core of the problem. If that is correct, then... Is this a joke? Can anyone cite any situation where the information might be misinterpreted or malformed, or otherwise has some horrible side effects, just becuase there is a H2 missing? Is there a W3C recommendation that explicitely says that there can be no H3 without a H2?

The text reading "Template documentation" should then ideally be a H2, but that runs into practical problem, like an unwanted [edit] link. And (underlined) H2s running throught the entire documentaion is an eyesore. These practical problems need to be adressed before even attempting to discuss semantics. — Edokter (talk) — 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, Edokter, at least twice on other semantic markup and standards compliance issues that you've stonewalled on, you really need to do a lot of reading in topics like separation of presentation and content, semantic HTML, Web 2.0, the semantic web, and other related concepts, and no it isn't "a joke", before trying to take a stand on issues like this. If something's "an eyesore", and others come to consensus with you on that, then we'll fix it with CSS. If you don't want to see "[edit]" links, then use your monobook.css to hide them. Other editors like me depend on them; they're part of the basic functionality of MediaWiki for a reason. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said I didn't want to see an edit link... I meant that an automatically-generated edit link was undesirable. And no, using CSS to hide any changes in semantics makes even less sense; that would obsfucate the correct semantics to noone but the seeing. I am kinda sick of this argument where semantics are put above presentation, especially when you consider that presentation is an unseperable part of semantics. If you remove the relationship between the two, then semantics have no purpose to begin with. — Edokter (talk) — 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like nobody knows what anyone is talking about. Wait a sec, and get back to the basics.

Basically, the text "Template documentation" at the top looks like a small header, but it is only make-up! In reality, it's nothing but a span tag that has no semantic value. Since it is virtually impossible to make it a proper H2 header without breaking aesthetics values of Wikipedians, let's forget about this issue.

The second issue was that the template preload for generating doc subpages contained H3 headers instead of H2 headers. Which means that on a standard doc page we had this order of headers:

1. H1 Template:Fifa world cup (for example)
   1. H2 Table of contents
      1. H3 Usage
      2. H3 More info about this template
      3. H3 More bla bla
      4. H3 See also

This looks definitely wrong, as the content under the "usage" header is not part of the table of contents! Oh boy!

Now this second issue has already been manually fixed by Wikipedians on about half of the existing doc pages. All according to the MOS guidelines. Thus SMcCandlish decided to help with that and changed the preload page. Everything has been fixed, you can all go home and have a nice drink. Thanks! Dodoïste (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain "the content under the usage header is not part of the table of contents" or give me an example so I can understand what you mean? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for asking, it's tricky indeed. Normally, the table of contents is only a bunch of links, a short section in the page. In the second issue explained above, the whole page seems to be a part of the table of contents. Because the "table of contents" is H2 and every following header is H3, the whole page is about "table of contents". Was my clarification of any help? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: There was also this thread: Template_talk:Documentation/Archive_7#Use h2 instead of a span?. Helder 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think everyone but one user knew what everyone else was talking about, but that's a good explanation anyway. Thanks. As noted before, if someone finds something about the styling to be ugly that's what CSS is for. And, yes, the "Template documentation" text is basically just decor. It could actually be made into a heading, with some CSS tweaks, but there's really no reason to do that; we all already know it is template documentation (this is of course proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by the fact that templates were used and edited and documented just fine before the creation of Template:Documentation and is cutesy pseudo-heading; QED), so it's basically just a fancy "picture frame". If someone wants to go to the trouble to make it a heading, I have no hardcore objection to that, but it seems like a waste of time just to get "Usage" and "See also" to be H3-level. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: I've also yet to see any rationale for why the heading shouldn't have an [edit] link like, well, all headings here do. Myself and other hardcore template editors on Wikipedia make frequent use of these. It's a massive pain in the butt to have to manually go to the /doc subpage to edit something near the top of the documentation. I reiterate that someone who wants to do something weird and non-standard with headings on Wikipedia needs to make a case for it and get consensus for it, not just assume that their unusual personal preference is okay with everyone (I'm here talking about styling the headings weirdly, not reverting back to the wrong heading level; that's just not acceptable at all). This is a protracted instance of WP:BRD at work. The heading documentation was boldly made to do something weird by someone more concerned with their own sense of aethetics than more important matters like code portability and semantic markup. This decision was, in the view of several other editors, less than optimal and it has been reverted, several times over several years by several parties, with plenty of discussion, multiple times and in multiple places, as to why. Someone wanting to restore that mis-functionality has a long way to go to justify doing so. Then again, there are surely more productive things to do. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

PPS: MSGJ said in an edit summary, "we have been using level 3 forever and this will create inconsistency", but that's not really applicable (even beyond the "I've been shoplifting forever, so it must be okay" fallacy inherent in that line of reasoning). What really happened is that this was flagged as problematic forever ago, by several tech-savvy editors, but a dug-in editor or two WP:FILIBUSTERed the preload being fixed. This has led to a large number of editors - enough to fix nearly half of all deployed instances (and that's thousands and thousands of templates!) according to Dodoïste, above - simply correcting the bad code in situ every time they encountered it. I.e., it's already been inconsistent for years, with a strong trend to consistency being manually enforced away from the preload's code by correcting the code in every instance. Frankly, we're tired of doing that, and the time has come to fix the pre-load, which I've done. It was just getting blindingly obvious that it needed to be fixed, and that if there had ever been any kind of quasi-consensus to use the wrong heading level in the preload to begin with, it has long since changed as evidenced by actual practice. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

*applause!* Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the only sane man here after reading SMcCandlish's stream of consciousness. It's not an actual <H2> element because MediaWiki inserts the TOC at the first one unless __TOC__ is used elsewhere. Now MW has two different H2 elements == Example == and <H2>Example</H2>, the latter does not produce section edit links (useful since they'd be pointing to {{documentation}} and not /doc), other misconceptions I might attribute to m:NewPP. Possibly a bug should be opened to prevent this behavior or to create a built-in template documentation system.

The template is certainly more than window dressing which the many iterations attest to. Considering the system is styled as two pages glued together, perhaps "Template documentation" should be a level one heading (or at least styled to look like one)? — Dispenser 05:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular goal in mind? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/core2

What does Template:Documentation/core2 actually do? It doesn't have any transclusions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing these days. This template was redesigned by Plastikspork in 2010. I've removed the protection. We could just redirect it to /core. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Or simply delete it. — Edokter (talk) — 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mirror" link in footer is broken

The sandbox "mirror" link in the template footer is broken. It strips all includeonly tags, and all noinclude tags and the sections they enclose. It should probably be removed, as I can't see a way of fixing it. (It is a victim of the behaviour of MediaWiki preload.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/end box, for those who hadn't twigged. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this was me. Having noinclude tags respected by preload had advantages and disadvantages. One advantage was that it resolves the concerns that User:DePiep had about sandbox templates being categorised (discussion). The main disadvantage is that it will omit other parts of the code, as noted by TTATO. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012

In addition to the [edit] and [purge] links, can you add one for [history]? (Pref. between the 2 existing links.) I noticed this viewing a template on the Russian Wikipedia.

Hgrosser (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, ru:Шаблон:Abbr. Top right corner of the blue box (the Russians use blue where we have green), there are four links: the first views the doc page, the second edits it, the third is the doc page's history, the fourth is the purge function for the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody else wishes to comment then. Specifically, this is Template:Documentation/start box, where we have the following line:

| [[{{fullurl:{{{docpage|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}}|action=edit}} edit]] [{{purge|purge}}]

I believe that all that is needed is to alter this to:

| [[{{fullurl:{{{docpage|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}}|action=edit}} edit]] [[{{fullurl:{{{docpage|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}}|action=history}} history]] [{{purge|purge}}]

which will appear as follows:

I support the proposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Already any template has "view-talk-edit" links on every article page. Nice for an experienced editor -- and a horror for everybody else, including a WP reader. Why start EDIT from another page at all? The "edit" link here does the job, and allows every further action. Good. On top of this: this is about the /documentation pag, which is inexplicably separated from the main Template page. Realy, a "history" link would be clear? -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Documentation}} is not used on article pages [1] - it's intended for people going to the template pages to find out about particular templates. So people who only read Wikipedia shouldn't usually see the link being proposed. The reason templates often have a separate page for documentation is to allow the documentation to be edited freely if the main template has to be protected for some reason. Tra (Talk) 07:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I am corrected. btw, one could have [view] [purge] buttons only. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but I'd say it looks like people are generally happy with the original proposal so I've implemented that. Tra (Talk) 08:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

The following line (line 4)

| <div style="clear: both;"></div>{{template sandbox notice}}

should be replaced with

| <div style="clear: both;"></div>{{template sandbox notice|{{{sandbox|}}}}}

so that the first parameter of Template:Template sandbox notice can be used. -- SLV100 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Where was this proposed and discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit above should be done so that the first parameter of Template:Template sandbox notice can be used. If there are any concerns please state them below. -- SLV100 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is merely a reposting of the previous thread, and as such does not constitute WP:CONSENSUS. Where was this discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I reposted the message so that the change could be discussed in this section (that's why I also added "If there are any concerns please state them below."). -- SLV100 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR is policy and its interpretative guideline WP:BOLD might as well be. Establishing prior WP:CONSENSUS is not needed for changes that aren't likely to be controversial in any way, and WP:SILENCE=consensus generally. Please do not stymie blatantly obvious bug fixes like this with "discuss first to gain consensus" demands on pages that are unlikely to generate much if any discussion, from many if any editors, about tweaks few if any could possibly GaF about. :-) If you do not understand whether the change requested is trivial or not, it's best to just move on and let another admin handle the editprotected request, instead of disabling it, much less disabling it twice in a row, which ends up looking personal and WP:POINTy. If I had this much trouble getting routine template EP requests fulfilled, I'd be inclined to cough up my own skull in frustration. <Aaauuugh!> <clack!> Nothing personal; this kind of "process is more important than anything" filibustering is seeming more and more common to me as WP ages, and it's getting to be problematic (happened to me yesterday with a single admin twice denying a {{db-move}} on similar grounds, until another admin who noted that the move was obvious non-controversial maintenance honored the third request). I even believe more strongly than the vast majority of editors, I feel, that WP:PROCESS is important, but "do not touch" attitudes towards very basic template edits, just like toward page moves over edited redirects, is excessive. This is a wiki. We're supposed to edit it, it's hard to break, and if something does break it can be reverted in seconds. We're not bulls and this isn't a china shop. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't disable it twice in a row. I disabled it once, and just a day or two earlier I had been pulled up for not disabling at all for an unrelated edit request - there is clearly a lack of consistency around here.

It doesn't look like "a blatantly obvious bug fix" when no bug is apparent. If there is a bug, it hasn't been mentioned on this page, so logically it should have been mentioned somewhere else, which is why I'd like to know where. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what |sandbox= in this context is going to accomplish. Has this been tested in the template sandbox? Should the other parameters be passed? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right about the lack of consistency! I normally disable the template if further information is needed, or occasionally I might leave it up if for various different reasons. Then there are some requests (the ones looking complicated/time consuming/controversial/etc) that I just don't want to handle because they take time to go through and have the possibility of people complaining about it afterwards (which is always a pain to deal with). So they end up waiting in the queue for days. And looking at that discussion you were talking about, I never bother with {{EP}} - I always go for {{done}}, {{not done}}, or some other response. As long as I get the message across that's what's important.

Personally, I do agree that uncontroversial changes (even if they're not bug fixes) shouldn't need a consensus. As for this particular request, I don't immediately see why we would need the extra feature but at least one person does want it or they wouldn't have requested it. So, I'd class this as low priority but ok to go through at some point after the details have been sorted out. Tra (Talk) 14:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The first parameter of Template:Template sandbox notice is used to indicate what is the template's name is if the basepage isn't the actual template. -- SLV100 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but I changed the parameter name to |livepage= because it specifies the name of the live template rather than the sandbox. Tra (Talk) 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be documented itself. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Image link

On the side there's a link to the file (the one that looks like "{{i}}"), should this link to some other page or stay as it is? I'm just not a big fan of images on templates linking to their file page. It does reduce annoyance, though. |Randomno| 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The image File:Template-info.svg is not PD so the link must be present for attribution purposes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Or we could find or make a similar image, that is PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for replying. 92.15.173.17 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to log in. :| |Randomno| 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded File:Template-info.png, which I made myself using Microsoft Word 2010. This could be used instead, I think. |Randomno| 09:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your image license also requires attribution, so it would still need to be linked. Only public domain images do not require attribution. — Edokter (talk) — 12:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Relicense it as {{self|cc-zero}} rather than {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} and it will then be fine to use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to get too complicated... I think I know what to do. |Randomno| WP 07:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. |Randomno| WP 07:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you. We now need an admin to apply it, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. |Randomno| WP 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflict between content parameter and existing doc subpage

From the "Usage" section:

When the |content= parameter is used, the doc box normally does not show the [edit] [purge] links in the top right corner. Note that if the /doc page exists a link to it is still shown in the link box below the doc box.

So if the |content= parameter is used and there is a competing doc subpage, then the parameter text is used as the documentation text, but the link box below the doc box falsely states "The above documentation is transcluded from Template:.../doc". For an example, see Template:WikiProject College Basketball. This needs to be fixed. Set theorist (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have two sets of documentation, only one of which is displayed? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't necessary and should not happen. The question is what to do when such a conflict exists. Whoever who wrote the sentences I quoted above was aware of the possibility of this conflict, but the template addresses the conflict in a non-intuitive way. There should be some sort of warning for readers and potential editors in this case, saying that conflicting sets of documentation exist and need to be resolved by merging. Set theorist (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2012

I request that we put up a {{confused}} template for Template:Documentation subpage. Anyone agree?

--Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Anomie⚔ 02:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose a modification

I suggest add a link in the template. The link would be to see the documentation subpage. The link will go in [see] [edit] [history] [purge]. In the Spanish Wikipedia already have it added es:Plantilla:Documentación.--Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already present, in the end box, third link "The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Foo/doc.".

That said, immediately after that we have "edit" and "history" links, which are also present in the start box; the "history" link was added less than a year ago (see above). But I would recommend that the new link, if added to the start box, should be titled "view", for consistency with templates like {{navbar}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems logical that be titled "view". I am Spanish speaker and don't know much English and I don't familiarize with the vocabulary of English Wikipedia. But do you add this link? I think that this bottom don't bother anyone. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 12:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we need to change two lines. The edit required would be exactly like this except that it would be to the page Template:Documentation/start box. But I would like a general consensus before plunging in. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks you.--Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been no complaints in almost 4 weeks, so  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)