Template talk:Template link

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)

Edit request 4 January 2024

Description of suggested change: Please add a nocat value, especially when adding this template adds the page into unintended categories. I couldn't give examples. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This template does not add any categories to any page. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)