![]() |
Template:Main is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2018 July 25. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
I used Chrome on Android earlier to view Sean Penn. The "Filmography" section was shown completely blank. Obviously what I would expect to see is a link to the relevant filmography article - but none was shown. I then checked List of tunnels by location. Exactly the same thing occurs there (for example, the "Australia" section is empty). The same problem occurs on the default Android browser. However, when I look at the 'mobile view' on a PC browser, I do see the expected text and link given by this template.
So, what's going on?
I presume this template is being hidden for certain mobile browsers - but this is bad as it's a template which provides very important links to related pages, and the user is currently given no clue there's actually any content at all. Is there a way to ensure that it is shown on all mobile browsers? Or is this an issue related to a specific set of browsers or platforms? -- David Edgar ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
.hatnote,#filetoc,.editsection,.mw-editsection
{display:none}
@media all and (min-width:768px)
{.hatnote
{display:block}
}
.hatnote {
display: block;
}
.hatnote {
display: block !important;
}
.hatnote
class. They can take up quite some space. But the "See also" notes are generally short. So we could also make a 'sub' class for section hatnotes that are always visible. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)This is the combined result of gerrit:180028 and gerrit:189927 — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.hatnote
, as used, conflates two quite different kinds of notice:
Bug report filed and I submitted a patch. I don't see why these things should be hidden. If mobile team wants to create a better interface for them, they are welcome, but the links are there for a reason. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Hello, I do not know if it is appropiate to use this old section, but this same problem is happening again with the Wikipedia App. It appears that all links to "Main article" are gone. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 15:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Suppose a reader prints a 20-page article. It will then be useful if the print includes pointers to "Main articles", "See also" articles and "More information" articles linked to by use of Template:Main and similar. Since hatnotes are not printed, I therefore suggest there be added a "nohatnoteclass" or similar option to make the template use a "rellink" or similar class instead, so that titles of articles with more information are printed. Iceblock ( talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{ main}} link is the article itself, which is not useful."? -- Obsuser ( talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article." doesn’t make much sense. It should be rather "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its general meaning." -- Obsuser ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Main article currently redirects to Template:Main. I suggest that "Template:Main article" would be better as it is more descriptive and clearer. ("Template:Main" would remain as a redirect.) Any objections to this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main article has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please rename this template back to "Template:Main". I think it was a major change that was done rashly. I think it was a bad move because it goes against practice. Please make a hasty review whether this can be undone as hastily as it was done. If not, leave it as-is, awaiting a hoped-for [real] discussion as suggested above. (If there is no dissent, I will move this template back myself. I should do it now, on BRD (with a real explanation, not "BRD"). Oh, wait, I can't. How fair is that?) - A876 ( talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Izno (
talk)
20:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
: "... and consensus should be obtained before [this] template is added." But I argued that there was no consensus for the original move.
Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests: Is an edit request necessary? (Yes.) Is the request specific? (Yes.) Is the request sensible? (I thought so.) Is the request controversial? (I thought not.) "... Administrators can only [act on] requests which are either uncontroversial improvements ... or are already supported by a consensus of editors, ... ." (I kind of had that, 101:1.)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)If I can keep using main I'll put up with the change, if other people's hearts are set on it but amending main to main article seems a waste of time and effort. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Editing just to change {Main} to {Main article} is unacceptable. Any user or bot who does that should be stopped. I mistakenly changed a few (incidental to real editing), thinking I had missed a sensible standard or a consensus change (best to ingrain correct examples), but then I thought better of it. And then I discovered that this template was recently renamed on a "consensus" of two, quite swiftly, as if someone had casually brought Wikipedia to enlightenment after it groped around in the dark for 15 years. If I happen to notice {Main article} on any page, I will (incidental to real editing) change it to {Main}.
This move has provoked lots of changes from {Main} to {Main article}. Since 7 June 2016, the number of direct uses of {Main article} has gone from 2,000 to 43,0000 (of 222,000). Did those 43,000 changes just happen, or did someone go push for them, possibly to entrench the rename? I think approximately none of these changes were manual; bots must acted on the template rename, in order for this meritless, contested change to propagate so rapidly. Those 43,000 changes are a lot of crap, brought on by the failure to revert this unfounded move ASAP.
I contest the move. On the grounds that it had no real consensus, I demand that it be undone first, pending a real consensus. I demand that it be undone, on MY RIGHT TO EDIT. I demand to apply BRD (bold-revert-DISCUSS) to this move! But this template is protected, the cabal made this move, and the game now is "status quo wins", and objections can't matter. Someone said let's do it; someone said okay; before anyone could blink, it has been done, so now it's set in stone just because not enough people who wander in (remember, no canvassing!) say it should be moved back??? Only the exact opposite is acceptable. This move MUST be reverted. After the legitimate revert is accomplished; after the name is put back to what it was, let's see whether enough people wander in and say that it should be moved as-suggested.
Apathy works both ways. You're now exploiting it to retain an unjustified change. There's no way you should be allowed to move (rename) a template and then refuse to revert saying there's no consensus for "moving" it back. A move-and-move-back calls attention and provokes real discussion (remember BRD?). But the Revert is unfairly blocked, gumming that whole process. That just is not right. To let this Bold move go unReverted is to say that Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia.
My reasons for what-the-title-should-ultimately-be hardly matter at all, but: this move was beyond unnecessary. Every article is an article. We don't go naming them "article". {Main}, {Main list}, {Main section}, {Cat main}, {See also}, {Other uses}, etc. all link articles – "article" is implicit, and the default "space". {Main category} links a category. - A876 ( talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main article has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Module:Main has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just performed this edit because, while the template recognizes the namespace of normal shortcuts that prefix WP: (and so say "Main page:" rather than "Main article:"), the template does not recognize those to MOS sections that use the shortcut "MOS:". I tried piping the link through the full name but that had no affect either. Can someone add a namespace detect for MOS? Thanks -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Where is the actual source of {{#invoke:main|main}} ? Hddty. ( talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
this template was forked to create template:main section which is now being discussed at TfD here. the primary objection to using this template for sections is that it says "main article" when pointing to a section like this
are there any objections to having it say "main section" instead in the case that it's a section link?
or, having an option to trigger the more verbose, "the main section for this topic is on the page foo, in the section bar"? Frietjes ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
C sharp{{!}}C#
", not a section link) and then changes the label accordingly—it's such a small distinction that it's not worth it. Third, even if implemented it'd leave mixed lists (e.g. {{
main|PAGE1|PAGE2#SECTION}}
) inconsistent—it'd say "main articles" while listing one or more section links. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}}
22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC){{
Main section}}
is deleted is custom hatnotes, which I don't like to use.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=section
, which would allow the wording to be changed on a case-by-case basis. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=
parameter in the current {{
Main article/sandbox}}
revision is added to {{
Main article}}
.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Unsolicited comment: Main section seems unnecessary and somewhat confusing to me. It seems to imply the main section (whatever that means) of the current article not a link to another article. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
When you include more than one entry it provides: Main articles: Article1, Article2, and Article3. Can someone please make an option to remove the oxford comma? This may clash with an article's grammar style. I am not asking for it to be removed as a default, but for say a parameter like |Oxford=no.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Re: {{
Main|Article1|Article2}}
The Custom labels are not working for me:
When I try them in Article namespace. I was trying them on the article
Breast to create a Main template pointing to Female brest development and Male breast development, using their root article names. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Main →
Template:Main article – Lot of discussion above, let's see what an RM produces - do not condone changing instances already there, but it's clearer to have the title of the template be {{
Main article}}. Know what is the main of, and matches the text of the template.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Despite the instruction in this template's documentation to use {{ Cat main}} in the Category namespace, {{ Main}} is transcluded on 8,000+ categories. To address this issue going forward, I am proposing two changes:
Any thoughts or concerns? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Black Falcon, Izno, and Pppery: I've been looking at things to do in the realm of hatnote templates, and the {{ main}}/{{ Cat main}} discrepancy has been bothering me for, well, years. I'd like to continue this. To restart this discussion, I've written some code in the module sandbox that just separates the category-namespace-related code to its own function, and has the function invoked in the template choose between them based on namespace. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, it should be compatible for dropping into the live module without breaking anything—not that I'm suggesting that; it's intended primarily to be illustrative! I currently think that it's probably slightly better to have separate templates; I agree with Izno that they're at least somewhat semantically distinct … but there's still significant overlap, and I think we need to question whether their purpose is identical. If their purpose is identical, they probably ought to be a single template with a single wording. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 22:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Pppery started a TFD on Template:Cat main. -- Izno ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolute bs to be reverted asap. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 08:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Also some wonderman just changed character infoboxes into shit. Wtf is going on? SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 08:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This template is currently not working in the mobile version (at least in the app), which is kind of disruptive since several lists and articles on major topics include a link to a main article only in some sections, with no text at all (this happens with several lists of fictional characters or the links to discographies and videographies in music artists' articles, for example). -- LoЯd ۞pεth 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I have the same problem (using Android). Disambiguation and "main article" links are not visible in the app on English Wikipedia, though they are visible on Swedish Wikipedia (using the app), and on the mobile website (in either language). Jacob Lundberg ( talk) 12:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Suggest include a align=
option, that can be selected to center (i.e. another template under it shows a message in the center of the page).
![]() | This
edit request to
Module:Main has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change (lines 54 to 58)
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this
category are %s'
or
'The main %s for this
category is %s'
to
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this
category are %s.'
or
'The main %s for this
category is %s.'
and, alter the hidden comment fragment at line 6 from
-- main article for this category is xxx". Otherwise, it produces
to
-- main article for this category is xxx." Otherwise, it produces
because sentences need full stops. Regards!
Usedtobecool
☎️
03:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed a bug in this template: when there are two main articles, and the first one has a section link, it inappropriately includes a comma. Example:
Could this be fixed? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Set the conjunction, apply Oxford comma, and force a comma if #1 has "§"
local conjunction = s .. options.conjunction .. s
if #list == 2 and searchDisp(list1], "§") or #list > 2 then
conjunction = separator .. conjunction
end
I happened upon {{ main}} in the section Bogotá#Ethnic Groups which links to Race and ethnicity in Bogotá, presently an aliased redlink (alias is Human biological diversity and ethnicity in Bogotá). I checked that there is not some deleted article which used to be there.
I expected there would be a usage note or similar on the template which said "The linked article must exist", otherwise how could the section be a summation or excerpt of it? — EncMstr ( talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The present italic "main" stylization is meaningless because it doesn't properly denote the "page". Most italic, in Wikipedia implements within article in literature, books, plays, films, pieces, singles... Meanwhile, italicization is meaningless if we implement in all project pages. It is better to restore the previous unitalicized one. The Supermind ( talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This template, {{ main}}, includes functionality redundant to {{ cat main}}, which provides functionality for the main page related to some category. We could simplify {{ main}} by removing the category functionality and always using only {{ cat main}} in category-space; notably, this would let us use the simple Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main.
If no one objects within a week or so, then I'll take these steps, over a few days:
I'm purposely not going through the TfD process here because that looks confusing, as if we intend to delete a major template rather than "renovate" it, which, as far as I can tell, was the only reason the previous TfD failed for the module.
Pinging in these users, who have all previously commented on the TfD or here on this topic: @ Pppery, Andy Dingley, Matthiaspaul, and Black Falcon:
Thanks for your interest in this cleanup. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
In this plan, nothing, for two reasons.
First, use of {{ main}} in category space isn't necessarily misuse—rather, the problem we're avoiding is a template doing something it isn't supposed to do or not doing something it is supposed to do. This discussion establishes that it's simpler to have each template not overlap, so that {{main}} doesn't have to do double-duty with different behaviours across namespaces. In turn, an endorsement of this proposal would establish a consensus that {{main}} should not have the category behaviour, and the simplest way to maintain pages without leaving the behaviour in {{main}} is to replace instances in category-space with {{ cat main}}.
Second, extra code defeats much of the purpose of making this simplification, so we should seek evidence of how much "misuse" is likely before we establish measures to correct it. If it's at most a couple of uses over a month, some manual correction can handle it. If we get, say, ten instances, perhaps introducing an error message is worthwhile. As such, my thought would be to wait and see before adding such functionality. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
2 modules, because Module:Main gets deleted (given the level of drama here, I would strongly recommend not G6-ing it and instead properly listing it at TfD) and {{ main}} uses Module:Labelled list hatnote instead. In fact, what (re)started this whole discussion was MJL wondering why {{ main}} needed to use its own module at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hatnote modules.
For what it's worth, I still support the much broader restructure I proposed in 2018, in which hatnote templates don't, as a general rule, have their own module, but I recognized that that idea doesn't have consensus and stopped pushing for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Gonnym:The starting problem was that {{ main}} was awkward and did double-duty across two namespaces, with the double-duty being redundant to {{ cat main}}. As Pppery said, they could either be merged or split; I'm working on "split" because I see the two cases as semantically different. The plan would eventually move to {{main}} using Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main, so the answer to your question is "yes". Before that can happen, though, Module:Labelled list hatnote will need some minor enhancement to be able to match Module:Main's functionality of using "pages" instead of "articles" if targets are outside the article namespace, but that should be reasonably straightforward to add. In the meantime, my (reverted) edit removed the category-space functionality and introduced an error when used in category-space, to help those still using {{main}} to learn to switch.
The status quo is that there are three modules: a generalist Module:Labelled list hatnote, Module:Main for {{ main}}, and Module:Cat main for {{ cat main}}. My goal results in going to two, moving {{main}} to use Module:Labelled list hatnote, with no prejudice towards what happens to Module:Cat main except that there shouldn't be any awkward overlap.
I agree with Pppery that if there's any dispute remaining over the status of Module:Main we'll go and do a proper TfD. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many Wikipedia editors wrongfully assume that they need to keep the underscores in section links. I suggest that the respective example in this documentation should use a section title with spaces; currently it has a single word only:
{{Main|Article#Section}}
→ {{Main|Article#Section title}}
→ {{Main|Article#Section_title}}
→ —
Christoph
Päper
07:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Is there any option to exclude footnotes? Currently, List of Indigenous peoples uses this template which includes the first paragraph of Indigenous peoples, which uses an {{ efn}}. The problem is, the former article uses {{ NoteTag}}s and so does not include the respective {{ notelist}} template required for {{ efn}}. And as such, there's a citation error in it. It would be nice if footnotes could be removed in this template. Does that currently exist? And if not, is there anything that can be done to address this issue? Satricious ( talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
|templates=-efn
and no such templates would show up). Would be helpful if this existed for this template too.
Satricious (
talk)
03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)I recently attempted to add {{
Main|Operation Entebbe}}
to
Israel–Uganda relations § Entebbe hijacking. This seemed like fairly standard usage to me, but
Glenford Burrell and then
Gilabrand reverted me, asserting that the link was redundant.
I'd like some clarification, which we could potentially add to the documentation, about consensus on whether or not this template should be used in situations like this. My view is that it should be, since it improves scanability — i.e. if a reader is skimming through the article, as most readers do, it'll be easier for them to notice that a section has its own article if this is present than if they have to start reading the section. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to use different text with this template in Slovene Wikipedia for 1 item (glavni članek), for 2 items (glavna članka), and for 3 or more items (glavni članki). The template is located at sl:Predloga:Glavni članek (please see the source). Could you please advise me on how to tweak the relevant module? Thank you. -- TadejM my talk 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that, there should be a way to exclude interwikis that are not Wikipedia article. Example:
Here, the hatnote says that it is an article, while the page on mediawiki.org isn't. I am wondering which template or module does the magic works, and to fix it?
Toadette (
Happy holiday!)
19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Delete Broader may be appropriate in this case. from the lead section, as the template Broader is also meant be used in sections 83.168.137.1 ( talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This feels like a silly question but having a {{Main|xxx}} template in a section of an article does not obviate the need for citations in that section, correct?
For example, in the War on terror page, the "11 September attacks" section still needs citations even though most all of the claims likely have citations in the "September 11 attacks" page.
It's just that I feel I see it all too commonly that certain sections w/ the main template just have zero citations. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:Main is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2018 July 25. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
I used Chrome on Android earlier to view Sean Penn. The "Filmography" section was shown completely blank. Obviously what I would expect to see is a link to the relevant filmography article - but none was shown. I then checked List of tunnels by location. Exactly the same thing occurs there (for example, the "Australia" section is empty). The same problem occurs on the default Android browser. However, when I look at the 'mobile view' on a PC browser, I do see the expected text and link given by this template.
So, what's going on?
I presume this template is being hidden for certain mobile browsers - but this is bad as it's a template which provides very important links to related pages, and the user is currently given no clue there's actually any content at all. Is there a way to ensure that it is shown on all mobile browsers? Or is this an issue related to a specific set of browsers or platforms? -- David Edgar ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
.hatnote,#filetoc,.editsection,.mw-editsection
{display:none}
@media all and (min-width:768px)
{.hatnote
{display:block}
}
.hatnote {
display: block;
}
.hatnote {
display: block !important;
}
.hatnote
class. They can take up quite some space. But the "See also" notes are generally short. So we could also make a 'sub' class for section hatnotes that are always visible. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)This is the combined result of gerrit:180028 and gerrit:189927 — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.hatnote
, as used, conflates two quite different kinds of notice:
Bug report filed and I submitted a patch. I don't see why these things should be hidden. If mobile team wants to create a better interface for them, they are welcome, but the links are there for a reason. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Hello, I do not know if it is appropiate to use this old section, but this same problem is happening again with the Wikipedia App. It appears that all links to "Main article" are gone. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 15:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Suppose a reader prints a 20-page article. It will then be useful if the print includes pointers to "Main articles", "See also" articles and "More information" articles linked to by use of Template:Main and similar. Since hatnotes are not printed, I therefore suggest there be added a "nohatnoteclass" or similar option to make the template use a "rellink" or similar class instead, so that titles of articles with more information are printed. Iceblock ( talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is it written "This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{ main}} link is the article itself, which is not useful."? -- Obsuser ( talk) 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article." doesn’t make much sense. It should be rather "The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its general meaning." -- Obsuser ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Main article currently redirects to Template:Main. I suggest that "Template:Main article" would be better as it is more descriptive and clearer. ("Template:Main" would remain as a redirect.) Any objections to this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main article has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please rename this template back to "Template:Main". I think it was a major change that was done rashly. I think it was a bad move because it goes against practice. Please make a hasty review whether this can be undone as hastily as it was done. If not, leave it as-is, awaiting a hoped-for [real] discussion as suggested above. (If there is no dissent, I will move this template back myself. I should do it now, on BRD (with a real explanation, not "BRD"). Oh, wait, I can't. How fair is that?) - A876 ( talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Izno (
talk)
20:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
: "... and consensus should be obtained before [this] template is added." But I argued that there was no consensus for the original move.
Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests: Is an edit request necessary? (Yes.) Is the request specific? (Yes.) Is the request sensible? (I thought so.) Is the request controversial? (I thought not.) "... Administrators can only [act on] requests which are either uncontroversial improvements ... or are already supported by a consensus of editors, ... ." (I kind of had that, 101:1.)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)If I can keep using main I'll put up with the change, if other people's hearts are set on it but amending main to main article seems a waste of time and effort. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Editing just to change {Main} to {Main article} is unacceptable. Any user or bot who does that should be stopped. I mistakenly changed a few (incidental to real editing), thinking I had missed a sensible standard or a consensus change (best to ingrain correct examples), but then I thought better of it. And then I discovered that this template was recently renamed on a "consensus" of two, quite swiftly, as if someone had casually brought Wikipedia to enlightenment after it groped around in the dark for 15 years. If I happen to notice {Main article} on any page, I will (incidental to real editing) change it to {Main}.
This move has provoked lots of changes from {Main} to {Main article}. Since 7 June 2016, the number of direct uses of {Main article} has gone from 2,000 to 43,0000 (of 222,000). Did those 43,000 changes just happen, or did someone go push for them, possibly to entrench the rename? I think approximately none of these changes were manual; bots must acted on the template rename, in order for this meritless, contested change to propagate so rapidly. Those 43,000 changes are a lot of crap, brought on by the failure to revert this unfounded move ASAP.
I contest the move. On the grounds that it had no real consensus, I demand that it be undone first, pending a real consensus. I demand that it be undone, on MY RIGHT TO EDIT. I demand to apply BRD (bold-revert-DISCUSS) to this move! But this template is protected, the cabal made this move, and the game now is "status quo wins", and objections can't matter. Someone said let's do it; someone said okay; before anyone could blink, it has been done, so now it's set in stone just because not enough people who wander in (remember, no canvassing!) say it should be moved back??? Only the exact opposite is acceptable. This move MUST be reverted. After the legitimate revert is accomplished; after the name is put back to what it was, let's see whether enough people wander in and say that it should be moved as-suggested.
Apathy works both ways. You're now exploiting it to retain an unjustified change. There's no way you should be allowed to move (rename) a template and then refuse to revert saying there's no consensus for "moving" it back. A move-and-move-back calls attention and provokes real discussion (remember BRD?). But the Revert is unfairly blocked, gumming that whole process. That just is not right. To let this Bold move go unReverted is to say that Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia.
My reasons for what-the-title-should-ultimately-be hardly matter at all, but: this move was beyond unnecessary. Every article is an article. We don't go naming them "article". {Main}, {Main list}, {Main section}, {Cat main}, {See also}, {Other uses}, etc. all link articles – "article" is implicit, and the default "space". {Main category} links a category. - A876 ( talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main article has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Module:Main has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just performed this edit because, while the template recognizes the namespace of normal shortcuts that prefix WP: (and so say "Main page:" rather than "Main article:"), the template does not recognize those to MOS sections that use the shortcut "MOS:". I tried piping the link through the full name but that had no affect either. Can someone add a namespace detect for MOS? Thanks -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Where is the actual source of {{#invoke:main|main}} ? Hddty. ( talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
this template was forked to create template:main section which is now being discussed at TfD here. the primary objection to using this template for sections is that it says "main article" when pointing to a section like this
are there any objections to having it say "main section" instead in the case that it's a section link?
or, having an option to trigger the more verbose, "the main section for this topic is on the page foo, in the section bar"? Frietjes ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
C sharp{{!}}C#
", not a section link) and then changes the label accordingly—it's such a small distinction that it's not worth it. Third, even if implemented it'd leave mixed lists (e.g. {{
main|PAGE1|PAGE2#SECTION}}
) inconsistent—it'd say "main articles" while listing one or more section links. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}}
22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC){{
Main section}}
is deleted is custom hatnotes, which I don't like to use.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
22:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=section
, which would allow the wording to be changed on a case-by-case basis. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
|type=
parameter in the current {{
Main article/sandbox}}
revision is added to {{
Main article}}
.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Unsolicited comment: Main section seems unnecessary and somewhat confusing to me. It seems to imply the main section (whatever that means) of the current article not a link to another article. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
When you include more than one entry it provides: Main articles: Article1, Article2, and Article3. Can someone please make an option to remove the oxford comma? This may clash with an article's grammar style. I am not asking for it to be removed as a default, but for say a parameter like |Oxford=no.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Re: {{
Main|Article1|Article2}}
The Custom labels are not working for me:
When I try them in Article namespace. I was trying them on the article
Breast to create a Main template pointing to Female brest development and Male breast development, using their root article names. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Main →
Template:Main article – Lot of discussion above, let's see what an RM produces - do not condone changing instances already there, but it's clearer to have the title of the template be {{
Main article}}. Know what is the main of, and matches the text of the template.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Despite the instruction in this template's documentation to use {{ Cat main}} in the Category namespace, {{ Main}} is transcluded on 8,000+ categories. To address this issue going forward, I am proposing two changes:
Any thoughts or concerns? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Black Falcon, Izno, and Pppery: I've been looking at things to do in the realm of hatnote templates, and the {{ main}}/{{ Cat main}} discrepancy has been bothering me for, well, years. I'd like to continue this. To restart this discussion, I've written some code in the module sandbox that just separates the category-namespace-related code to its own function, and has the function invoked in the template choose between them based on namespace. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, it should be compatible for dropping into the live module without breaking anything—not that I'm suggesting that; it's intended primarily to be illustrative! I currently think that it's probably slightly better to have separate templates; I agree with Izno that they're at least somewhat semantically distinct … but there's still significant overlap, and I think we need to question whether their purpose is identical. If their purpose is identical, they probably ought to be a single template with a single wording. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 22:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Pppery started a TFD on Template:Cat main. -- Izno ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolute bs to be reverted asap. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 08:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Also some wonderman just changed character infoboxes into shit. Wtf is going on? SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 08:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This template is currently not working in the mobile version (at least in the app), which is kind of disruptive since several lists and articles on major topics include a link to a main article only in some sections, with no text at all (this happens with several lists of fictional characters or the links to discographies and videographies in music artists' articles, for example). -- LoЯd ۞pεth 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I have the same problem (using Android). Disambiguation and "main article" links are not visible in the app on English Wikipedia, though they are visible on Swedish Wikipedia (using the app), and on the mobile website (in either language). Jacob Lundberg ( talk) 12:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Suggest include a align=
option, that can be selected to center (i.e. another template under it shows a message in the center of the page).
![]() | This
edit request to
Module:Main has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change (lines 54 to 58)
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this
category are %s'
or
'The main %s for this
category is %s'
to
if (curNs == 14) or (curNs == 15) then --category/talk namespaces
mainForm = isPlural and
'The main %ss for this
category are %s.'
or
'The main %s for this
category is %s.'
and, alter the hidden comment fragment at line 6 from
-- main article for this category is xxx". Otherwise, it produces
to
-- main article for this category is xxx." Otherwise, it produces
because sentences need full stops. Regards!
Usedtobecool
☎️
03:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed a bug in this template: when there are two main articles, and the first one has a section link, it inappropriately includes a comma. Example:
Could this be fixed? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Set the conjunction, apply Oxford comma, and force a comma if #1 has "§"
local conjunction = s .. options.conjunction .. s
if #list == 2 and searchDisp(list1], "§") or #list > 2 then
conjunction = separator .. conjunction
end
I happened upon {{ main}} in the section Bogotá#Ethnic Groups which links to Race and ethnicity in Bogotá, presently an aliased redlink (alias is Human biological diversity and ethnicity in Bogotá). I checked that there is not some deleted article which used to be there.
I expected there would be a usage note or similar on the template which said "The linked article must exist", otherwise how could the section be a summation or excerpt of it? — EncMstr ( talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The present italic "main" stylization is meaningless because it doesn't properly denote the "page". Most italic, in Wikipedia implements within article in literature, books, plays, films, pieces, singles... Meanwhile, italicization is meaningless if we implement in all project pages. It is better to restore the previous unitalicized one. The Supermind ( talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This template, {{ main}}, includes functionality redundant to {{ cat main}}, which provides functionality for the main page related to some category. We could simplify {{ main}} by removing the category functionality and always using only {{ cat main}} in category-space; notably, this would let us use the simple Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main.
If no one objects within a week or so, then I'll take these steps, over a few days:
I'm purposely not going through the TfD process here because that looks confusing, as if we intend to delete a major template rather than "renovate" it, which, as far as I can tell, was the only reason the previous TfD failed for the module.
Pinging in these users, who have all previously commented on the TfD or here on this topic: @ Pppery, Andy Dingley, Matthiaspaul, and Black Falcon:
Thanks for your interest in this cleanup. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
In this plan, nothing, for two reasons.
First, use of {{ main}} in category space isn't necessarily misuse—rather, the problem we're avoiding is a template doing something it isn't supposed to do or not doing something it is supposed to do. This discussion establishes that it's simpler to have each template not overlap, so that {{main}} doesn't have to do double-duty with different behaviours across namespaces. In turn, an endorsement of this proposal would establish a consensus that {{main}} should not have the category behaviour, and the simplest way to maintain pages without leaving the behaviour in {{main}} is to replace instances in category-space with {{ cat main}}.
Second, extra code defeats much of the purpose of making this simplification, so we should seek evidence of how much "misuse" is likely before we establish measures to correct it. If it's at most a couple of uses over a month, some manual correction can handle it. If we get, say, ten instances, perhaps introducing an error message is worthwhile. As such, my thought would be to wait and see before adding such functionality. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
2 modules, because Module:Main gets deleted (given the level of drama here, I would strongly recommend not G6-ing it and instead properly listing it at TfD) and {{ main}} uses Module:Labelled list hatnote instead. In fact, what (re)started this whole discussion was MJL wondering why {{ main}} needed to use its own module at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Hatnote modules.
For what it's worth, I still support the much broader restructure I proposed in 2018, in which hatnote templates don't, as a general rule, have their own module, but I recognized that that idea doesn't have consensus and stopped pushing for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Gonnym:The starting problem was that {{ main}} was awkward and did double-duty across two namespaces, with the double-duty being redundant to {{ cat main}}. As Pppery said, they could either be merged or split; I'm working on "split" because I see the two cases as semantically different. The plan would eventually move to {{main}} using Module:Labelled list hatnote instead of Module:Main, so the answer to your question is "yes". Before that can happen, though, Module:Labelled list hatnote will need some minor enhancement to be able to match Module:Main's functionality of using "pages" instead of "articles" if targets are outside the article namespace, but that should be reasonably straightforward to add. In the meantime, my (reverted) edit removed the category-space functionality and introduced an error when used in category-space, to help those still using {{main}} to learn to switch.
The status quo is that there are three modules: a generalist Module:Labelled list hatnote, Module:Main for {{ main}}, and Module:Cat main for {{ cat main}}. My goal results in going to two, moving {{main}} to use Module:Labelled list hatnote, with no prejudice towards what happens to Module:Cat main except that there shouldn't be any awkward overlap.
I agree with Pppery that if there's any dispute remaining over the status of Module:Main we'll go and do a proper TfD. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Main/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many Wikipedia editors wrongfully assume that they need to keep the underscores in section links. I suggest that the respective example in this documentation should use a section title with spaces; currently it has a single word only:
{{Main|Article#Section}}
→ {{Main|Article#Section title}}
→ {{Main|Article#Section_title}}
→ —
Christoph
Päper
07:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Is there any option to exclude footnotes? Currently, List of Indigenous peoples uses this template which includes the first paragraph of Indigenous peoples, which uses an {{ efn}}. The problem is, the former article uses {{ NoteTag}}s and so does not include the respective {{ notelist}} template required for {{ efn}}. And as such, there's a citation error in it. It would be nice if footnotes could be removed in this template. Does that currently exist? And if not, is there anything that can be done to address this issue? Satricious ( talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
|templates=-efn
and no such templates would show up). Would be helpful if this existed for this template too.
Satricious (
talk)
03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)I recently attempted to add {{
Main|Operation Entebbe}}
to
Israel–Uganda relations § Entebbe hijacking. This seemed like fairly standard usage to me, but
Glenford Burrell and then
Gilabrand reverted me, asserting that the link was redundant.
I'd like some clarification, which we could potentially add to the documentation, about consensus on whether or not this template should be used in situations like this. My view is that it should be, since it improves scanability — i.e. if a reader is skimming through the article, as most readers do, it'll be easier for them to notice that a section has its own article if this is present than if they have to start reading the section. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to use different text with this template in Slovene Wikipedia for 1 item (glavni članek), for 2 items (glavna članka), and for 3 or more items (glavni članki). The template is located at sl:Predloga:Glavni članek (please see the source). Could you please advise me on how to tweak the relevant module? Thank you. -- TadejM my talk 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that, there should be a way to exclude interwikis that are not Wikipedia article. Example:
Here, the hatnote says that it is an article, while the page on mediawiki.org isn't. I am wondering which template or module does the magic works, and to fix it?
Toadette (
Happy holiday!)
19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Delete Broader may be appropriate in this case. from the lead section, as the template Broader is also meant be used in sections 83.168.137.1 ( talk) 06:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This feels like a silly question but having a {{Main|xxx}} template in a section of an article does not obviate the need for citations in that section, correct?
For example, in the War on terror page, the "11 September attacks" section still needs citations even though most all of the claims likely have citations in the "September 11 attacks" page.
It's just that I feel I see it all too commonly that certain sections w/ the main template just have zero citations. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)