![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I really think we should be indenting. It's not in fact ugly, because if it needs to be clear that the text is not really part of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the template to include an indent. I know it may be stressful to the wiki, but I feel that it looks better, I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I think that it will lead to the template being more widely adopted (as it stands, many people just write out the words again themselves). - Lommer | talk 01:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, my edit has been reverted on the grounds that this template is used too frequently to be changed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this as I think it runs contrary to the whole idea of wikipedia — if something isn't good, change it to make it better. As for template usage, I agree with SEWilco and know exactly where you're coming from. I don't think people would take kindly though to us replacing article text with a template if they don't like the new look (i.e. the indenting). That said, can anyone else weigh in on the indenting debate. If I'm alone in thinking that the indenting method is better, then that's fine. Otherwise I really think we should change it.- Lommer | talk 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I hear your argument, but I still contend that it's a red herring - if the new style is better, it should be adopted. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to past formatting styles just because it's easier. On another note, I just notice the {{seemain|}} template. It's quite clear to me that I'm not the only one to have confused the two, as most usages of {{main}} are incorrect. Also, I'd like to apologize for putting the indent in - I didn't realize that a similar edit had just been reverted (I didn't check the history) and I agree that contentious edits should be resolved here before being implemented so that the template changes minimally. - Lommer | talk 22:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a little HTML comment ("main") at the end of the template, so when "subst:" is used there is a marker of the source of the text. This will help bots (and other editors aware of this) to identify the line is associated with Template:main. ( SEWilco 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC))
You cited that the Main template is only used in the top of the article, but in fact, it isn't. It is used like the template Seemain, in the sections of the article. So what's the use of two templates? 500LL 09:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your new templates MarSch, and I find it great. But I think that you should "advertise" it a little (maybe in the Village pump). And another thing, the Template:subarticleof isn't too visible and maybe annoying in the top of the page? maybe it's better to be put on another place. 500LL 19:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept of the "Main" and "Subarticleof", not only because I find it annoying in the top of the page, but it's also confusing. eg: Hip Hop music is a sub-article of Hip hop, but also of Music genre and History of music. We just can't put them all in the top of the article. Neverless, I think wether it's History of Esperanto or Causes of World War I, it's pretty clear for the reader that the first article is a sub of Esperanto and the second of World War I, in addition there's always a link in a sub-article introduction to the main article. So what really is the purpose of the template "Main" and "Subarticleof"? 500LL 18:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I hope everyone agrees with having a line return after main, so that the text that follows it isn't on the same line as Main article: History of Turkmenistan -- Berkut 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Redirecting this template is not without debate. Until the issue is resolved using proper channels I have changed it back. This impacts 100s of articles and people, changes the asthetics and layout of many articles, including major ones. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Templates_for_deletion#Template:Subarticleof
The idea of making Wikipedia a heirarchal network is disturbing. "Main article" does not imply a heirarchy, it is simply a rhetorical device. Please voice your opionion at the above link. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
I have placed {{ main}} and {{ seemain}} on WP:TFD for the purpose of determining whether they should be kept or redirected as MarSch's desires. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:SEWilco)
Hi, I am trying to fix things, but to do that I have to break them, so someone notices them. I cannot do this in another way. Once spotted things can usually be easily fixed, although some people insist on "fixing" this template, instead of choosing a local fix. -- MarSch 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
MarSch: There is nothing to "fix". Your creating a problem where none exists. Leave the Main/Seemail templates alone, people have voluntarily used them because they like the wording and how they look, it was a shortcut to typing it out, it presented a standard appearance. These templates are voluntary, they are not required. When someone comes along and keeps changing the template, it's a violation of trust and goodwill for over 600 articles, many featured, and thousands of editors. I am moving away from the use of these templates, quickly.
Also your attempting to impose a hierarchal system on Wikipedia, as if thats how things work. Thats not how Wikipedia works, it is not hierarchal, "Main" is used rhetorically, as a word of convienence, there is no actual "Main-Sub" system on Wikipedia, you dont seem to understand that. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
I've added < br / > to the template to force a break after the text. PS I won't be monitoring this page for comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I believe indented See main article looks more professional than un-indented Main article. Comments, please. — Cantus… ☎ 04:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've unindented the template and added bold to make it stand out. Comments? -- Neutrality talk 18:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The original author of this template has altered [3] the definition in Wikipedia:Template messages/Links of this {{ Main}} ( t/ l) template's usage from "Articles top" to "Top of article sections". The description in this page has been altered to include both article top and section top usage. [4] ( SEWilco 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
As the new summary of Main specifies sectional use, is it OK for the articles which formerly used Main to be changed back from {{ See details}} ( t/ l) to {{ Main}} ( t/ l)?
It has been discovered that use of {{ seemain}} since it was redirected to {{ main}} can apparently be identified. Although seemain was invoked in those articles, apparently use of main is acceptable. Should those articles which recently invoked seemain be converted to use main?
If you could demonstrate where/how the comment makes any difference in the rendering. I looked at a page both with and without the comment and it seemed to make no difference. Stbalbach 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I hate this template. It blends with the rest of the article, it needs to stand out. It is also boring as hell. It needs to have bold added to it. This template is just incredably annoying.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 13:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I bold the link portion of the template. Some boremonger will probably revert it and I'll have to change it again. I'm so tired of boremongers trying everything in their power to make Wikipedia like every other encyclopedia in the world: the most boring thing on Earth. --
Hurricane Eric -
my dropsonde -
archive
00:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I propose this
It's from Italian Wikipedia. I think it's nice. Let me know. Attilios
This template currently looks like this:
However, this is too easily overlooked by users. Therefore, I propose to make it more obvious, either like this:
or by adding color to it, like this:
I'd like to hear what people think of this, and of course other proposals are welcome. If people agree, then this change would also apply to similar templates, such as (insert list here)
Bit better, ne? I have to say, though, that the Christmas-themed template is enormously tempting. That's what Wikipedia needs more of: holiday cheer and festivity!!! - Silence 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The template now supports multi-articles. Any problems/concerns please discuss. Note that the template substitution guideline is a new guidelines, as of November-- has there been discussion about why main should be exempt from substitution? -- Stbalbach 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
see Template talk:See also, I think thise templates are so simlar that they should look the same. AzaToth talk 22:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
{{User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3}}
commented out until sub-template fixed —
Phil |
Talk
09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Be very careful, you're straying into the realms of WP:AUM and you might have noticed that certain people tend to get excited in a not very happy way when that happens. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A user copied a lot of data from this discussion page into the main template article/space -- I have a couple questions/concerns. 1) Isnt this what talk pages are for? Turning the main template space into a free-form article seems like a risky venture. Cant we just tell people to read the talk page for usage information? Thats been done for years. 2) What assurances do we have this does not have a negative impact on server performance? This is one of the most commonly called templates on Wikipedia and its size recently has increased 10x -- Stbalbach 03:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of finding a balance between utility and resource usage, Ive reduced the new multi-main down to 5 articles from the previous 20. While wikipedia does have seemingly endless disk and bandwidth, it is constrained by CPU and memory -- empty variables are still allocated memory and require some processing with each instance of the template. Since %99.99 of the time it will be either one or two articles, allocating memory (even a pointer) for 20 with each call is a rich use of resources, for this very popular template. As well, it's hard to imagine a need for more than 5 main articles in a section that isnt a bigger problem with the article design. For those special cases that may justify it, I would suggest they be hard-coded, in the interest of streamlining the template, or create a new special template "main-huge" or somthing. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
See Template talk:If#New if, and pleas comment. Personally I think the new one is better for the server, because there is no meta calls from it as the current one have. → Aza Toth 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to expand it for Hindu Nationalism which requires 7. I'll expand to 10 to be on the safe side. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi-- I'm not a template coder, but we need some additional code for this template, when there are greater-than five variables it displays a message saying that the template only supports up to five variables, so that it doesnt "break" when someone exceeds the variable limit. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Could we please get rid of the ampersand and restore the good ol' "and" which made us look like an encyclopedia rather than a magazine title? Or simply replace it with a tried-and-true comma? At the very least, I think "Main article: X & Y" should be changed to "Main article: X, Y", to be consistent with all the other templates—See2, Seealso2, etc. Come on, I can't be alone here. An isolated and unwelcome minority, sure, but not alone. - Silence 09:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For example:
→ Aza Toth 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you add eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa, fr:Modèle:Détails, pl:Szablon:Main? This should be added with noinclude tag: <noinclude>[[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]] [[fr:Modèle:Détails]] [[pl:Szablon:Main]]</noinclude>. Thanks, Googlpl 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Need help with editing the template, to move this section of the template:
noinclude {esoteric} /noinclude
..into this section:
noinclude [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa] [fr:Modèle:Détails] [pl:Szablon:Main] /noinclude
..so that it looks like:
noinclude {esoteric} [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa] [fr:Modèle:Détails] [pl:Szablon:Main] /noinclude
There only needs to be a single "noinclude" section, not two. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see
User talk:Freakofnurture/Main, where my proposed version is demonstrated. It would require no changes to the manner in which the template is called from the article, and it would also properly use serial commas and the word "and". As for the category presently invoked when the parameters exceed five, I've found no way to retain it with hiddenStructure
code, however I find this to be a moot point, because:
If nobody objects to this replacement within a day or two I'm going to go ahead and change the code myself. I assure you, the majority of readers will not notice the difference. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 04:29, Jan. 8, 2006
Well I went ahead and did it. Meta-templates are no longer an issue here, it's merely a high-use template (2,336). Due to technical limitations {{ main}} longer conditionally references the Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters, which was empty at the time I made the change to the template (and should be sent to CFD). Also, the new version uses "and" instead of & and makes proper use of the serial comma ("A, B, and C" and not "A, B & C" as before). Other than that, the song remains the same. Have a nice day. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:01, Jan. 8, 2006
Now there appears to be an extra white in all the articles that it's in, such as Madagascar. Any way to fix it? -- Khoikhoi 20:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The template appearance, specifically the indentation, has changed slightly:
It also appears (per the above "What happened" thread) there is some extra white space inserted above (below?) the new template that was not there before. Not sure why that happened.
Relevant discussions why this is being done are User_talk:Freakofnurture#pet_peeve, User_talk:Netoholic#indenting and User_talk:Stbalbach#Re: Indentation.
-- Stbalbach 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Main articles: Nauru, and [[{{{2}}}]], and [[{{{3}}}]], and [[{{{4}}}]], and [[{{{5}}}]]
smart
(Special Main Article Reference Template) could do this without affecting old pages.
Omniplex
08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Please restore the ":" indentation. Main template has had an indentation from the day it was created, and thousands of Wikipedia editors have chosen to use this template based on that appearance. No one was consulted about an appearance change. In brief, this template has a long history of looking a certain way, and before it changes, consensus needs to be reached. No such consensus has been reached. -- Stbalbach 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a full stop at the end of sentence, like:
Main articles: Article.
Visor 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As a non admin, I would like to request modification of the template as shown in this ( diff). Intention: throw less {{{}}} stuff onto clients (look at the html source of Dune (computer game) for an example). -- Adrian Buehlmann 10:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting strange output from the {{main}} template. For example, in the plot section of the article Les Misérables, the wikicode {{main|Plot of Les Misérables||||}} produces "Main articles: Plot of Les Misérables, and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]]".
I'm using jaws for windows 5.1 and Internet Explorer 6.0, with no control of CSS on the screen reader's end. What is going on, and how can it be fixed? Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yuck. How about breaking this template into 2, Template:Main article and Template:Main articles. You would call the singular version thus:
and the plural version thus:
One benefit is that you'd be able to use more than 5 main articles (a limitation of the current template). Also, the resulting two templates would display correctly in browsers that don't support CSS, such as lynx.
I think the case of multiple main articles is rare enough that it should have its own separate template. (Hopefully, if others support this idea, a bot could update the few pages that use the plural version.) dbenbenn | talk 22:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely how the template should have been changed to a long time ago. One parameter is all that we need. People can put any number of wikilinks into it, and they can specify alt wikitext for the displayed link. -- Netoholic @ 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Something like 4500 pages use this template. Presumably a bot could be coded to change all instances of
to
User:Silence pointed out that "Multiple main articles is extremely common", but fortunately it doesn't really matter if you have a bot to do it. Once that's done, we can change Template:Main to only accept 1 parameter. (Note that I've made a similar proposal at Template:See also.) dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to provide some status... I ran a bot through all the articles using "Main" and switched any that reference more than one article to Template:Main articles (plural). Dbenbenn then changed this template to accept only one parameter. I guess now the next step is how to resolve the distinction between Template:Main and Template:Main article (singular), which is very similar, but doesn't insert the [[]]'s (useful for section linking or changing how the text is displayed. Should we move all to Template:Main article, use Template:Main exclusively, or allow the choice. My preference is to move everything to Template:Main article, for simplicity and usability, since I don't think we need both. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose reverting this article back to the version which utilized meta-templates (for discussion, see WP:AUM). The CSS hack used, while good intentioned, results in poor output over non-CSS aware browsers and accessibility issues for the disabled. (See also: Template talk:Taxobox). — Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Avoid all of this, and just read the suggestion in the section immediately above ( #Two separate templates). -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the 'hiddenStructure' version of this template has been found to display incorrectly on non CSS browsers and cause problems for blind users (see #Strange output above) it should certainly be changed back to the format which works. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 01:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This request is no longer necessary, as the template now accepts only one parameter and contains no esoteric code at all. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If template is now changed from {{main|article}} to {{main|[[article]]}}. -- Paul foord 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Would propose to put the topic in bold letters (no italics) - much better visibility. e.g. >>> Main article: Bla bla bla <<< Try it out! :) -- Neoneo13 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Chính]]
Thanks.
– Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As I commented on Template talk:Main articles, there is a difference in indention between {{ main}} and {{ main articles}}, causing an inconsistent look in articles that use both. Bloodshedder 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am confused by the description given under Comparison with related templates. Suppose we have an article Mona Lisa with a brief section Mona Lisa#Her smile, and a long and detailed article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile. If I take the given description literally, we should
The first use looks identical to the use of Template:Details as described in the documentation of its talk page, which is different from the use described here under Comparison with related templates.
Lambiam Talk 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Does an administrator want to replace
with
Usgnus 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to use {{subst:main|RollerGames}} today in the roller derby article, and the resulting substitution was this mess:
- :''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[RollerGames]]{{#if:{{{2| }}}
- |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}
- |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
- |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}
- |, and [[{{{5}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}|  (too many parameters in
- {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}
Somehow, it renders OK, but something is obviously wrong. What's going on?— mjb 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I really think we should be indenting. It's not in fact ugly, because if it needs to be clear that the text is not really part of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the template to include an indent. I know it may be stressful to the wiki, but I feel that it looks better, I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I think that it will lead to the template being more widely adopted (as it stands, many people just write out the words again themselves). - Lommer | talk 01:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, my edit has been reverted on the grounds that this template is used too frequently to be changed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this as I think it runs contrary to the whole idea of wikipedia — if something isn't good, change it to make it better. As for template usage, I agree with SEWilco and know exactly where you're coming from. I don't think people would take kindly though to us replacing article text with a template if they don't like the new look (i.e. the indenting). That said, can anyone else weigh in on the indenting debate. If I'm alone in thinking that the indenting method is better, then that's fine. Otherwise I really think we should change it.- Lommer | talk 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I hear your argument, but I still contend that it's a red herring - if the new style is better, it should be adopted. Wikipedia should not be held hostage to past formatting styles just because it's easier. On another note, I just notice the {{seemain|}} template. It's quite clear to me that I'm not the only one to have confused the two, as most usages of {{main}} are incorrect. Also, I'd like to apologize for putting the indent in - I didn't realize that a similar edit had just been reverted (I didn't check the history) and I agree that contentious edits should be resolved here before being implemented so that the template changes minimally. - Lommer | talk 22:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a little HTML comment ("main") at the end of the template, so when "subst:" is used there is a marker of the source of the text. This will help bots (and other editors aware of this) to identify the line is associated with Template:main. ( SEWilco 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC))
You cited that the Main template is only used in the top of the article, but in fact, it isn't. It is used like the template Seemain, in the sections of the article. So what's the use of two templates? 500LL 09:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your new templates MarSch, and I find it great. But I think that you should "advertise" it a little (maybe in the Village pump). And another thing, the Template:subarticleof isn't too visible and maybe annoying in the top of the page? maybe it's better to be put on another place. 500LL 19:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept of the "Main" and "Subarticleof", not only because I find it annoying in the top of the page, but it's also confusing. eg: Hip Hop music is a sub-article of Hip hop, but also of Music genre and History of music. We just can't put them all in the top of the article. Neverless, I think wether it's History of Esperanto or Causes of World War I, it's pretty clear for the reader that the first article is a sub of Esperanto and the second of World War I, in addition there's always a link in a sub-article introduction to the main article. So what really is the purpose of the template "Main" and "Subarticleof"? 500LL 18:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I hope everyone agrees with having a line return after main, so that the text that follows it isn't on the same line as Main article: History of Turkmenistan -- Berkut 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Redirecting this template is not without debate. Until the issue is resolved using proper channels I have changed it back. This impacts 100s of articles and people, changes the asthetics and layout of many articles, including major ones. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Templates_for_deletion#Template:Subarticleof
The idea of making Wikipedia a heirarchal network is disturbing. "Main article" does not imply a heirarchy, it is simply a rhetorical device. Please voice your opionion at the above link. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
I have placed {{ main}} and {{ seemain}} on WP:TFD for the purpose of determining whether they should be kept or redirected as MarSch's desires. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:SEWilco)
Hi, I am trying to fix things, but to do that I have to break them, so someone notices them. I cannot do this in another way. Once spotted things can usually be easily fixed, although some people insist on "fixing" this template, instead of choosing a local fix. -- MarSch 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
MarSch: There is nothing to "fix". Your creating a problem where none exists. Leave the Main/Seemail templates alone, people have voluntarily used them because they like the wording and how they look, it was a shortcut to typing it out, it presented a standard appearance. These templates are voluntary, they are not required. When someone comes along and keeps changing the template, it's a violation of trust and goodwill for over 600 articles, many featured, and thousands of editors. I am moving away from the use of these templates, quickly.
Also your attempting to impose a hierarchal system on Wikipedia, as if thats how things work. Thats not how Wikipedia works, it is not hierarchal, "Main" is used rhetorically, as a word of convienence, there is no actual "Main-Sub" system on Wikipedia, you dont seem to understand that. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
I've added < br / > to the template to force a break after the text. PS I won't be monitoring this page for comments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I believe indented See main article looks more professional than un-indented Main article. Comments, please. — Cantus… ☎ 04:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've unindented the template and added bold to make it stand out. Comments? -- Neutrality talk 18:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The original author of this template has altered [3] the definition in Wikipedia:Template messages/Links of this {{ Main}} ( t/ l) template's usage from "Articles top" to "Top of article sections". The description in this page has been altered to include both article top and section top usage. [4] ( SEWilco 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
As the new summary of Main specifies sectional use, is it OK for the articles which formerly used Main to be changed back from {{ See details}} ( t/ l) to {{ Main}} ( t/ l)?
It has been discovered that use of {{ seemain}} since it was redirected to {{ main}} can apparently be identified. Although seemain was invoked in those articles, apparently use of main is acceptable. Should those articles which recently invoked seemain be converted to use main?
If you could demonstrate where/how the comment makes any difference in the rendering. I looked at a page both with and without the comment and it seemed to make no difference. Stbalbach 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I hate this template. It blends with the rest of the article, it needs to stand out. It is also boring as hell. It needs to have bold added to it. This template is just incredably annoying.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 13:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I bold the link portion of the template. Some boremonger will probably revert it and I'll have to change it again. I'm so tired of boremongers trying everything in their power to make Wikipedia like every other encyclopedia in the world: the most boring thing on Earth. --
Hurricane Eric -
my dropsonde -
archive
00:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I propose this
It's from Italian Wikipedia. I think it's nice. Let me know. Attilios
This template currently looks like this:
However, this is too easily overlooked by users. Therefore, I propose to make it more obvious, either like this:
or by adding color to it, like this:
I'd like to hear what people think of this, and of course other proposals are welcome. If people agree, then this change would also apply to similar templates, such as (insert list here)
Bit better, ne? I have to say, though, that the Christmas-themed template is enormously tempting. That's what Wikipedia needs more of: holiday cheer and festivity!!! - Silence 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The template now supports multi-articles. Any problems/concerns please discuss. Note that the template substitution guideline is a new guidelines, as of November-- has there been discussion about why main should be exempt from substitution? -- Stbalbach 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
see Template talk:See also, I think thise templates are so simlar that they should look the same. AzaToth talk 22:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
{{User:AzaToth/Main|1|2|3}}
commented out until sub-template fixed —
Phil |
Talk
09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Be very careful, you're straying into the realms of WP:AUM and you might have noticed that certain people tend to get excited in a not very happy way when that happens. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A user copied a lot of data from this discussion page into the main template article/space -- I have a couple questions/concerns. 1) Isnt this what talk pages are for? Turning the main template space into a free-form article seems like a risky venture. Cant we just tell people to read the talk page for usage information? Thats been done for years. 2) What assurances do we have this does not have a negative impact on server performance? This is one of the most commonly called templates on Wikipedia and its size recently has increased 10x -- Stbalbach 03:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of finding a balance between utility and resource usage, Ive reduced the new multi-main down to 5 articles from the previous 20. While wikipedia does have seemingly endless disk and bandwidth, it is constrained by CPU and memory -- empty variables are still allocated memory and require some processing with each instance of the template. Since %99.99 of the time it will be either one or two articles, allocating memory (even a pointer) for 20 with each call is a rich use of resources, for this very popular template. As well, it's hard to imagine a need for more than 5 main articles in a section that isnt a bigger problem with the article design. For those special cases that may justify it, I would suggest they be hard-coded, in the interest of streamlining the template, or create a new special template "main-huge" or somthing. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
See Template talk:If#New if, and pleas comment. Personally I think the new one is better for the server, because there is no meta calls from it as the current one have. → Aza Toth 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to expand it for Hindu Nationalism which requires 7. I'll expand to 10 to be on the safe side. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi-- I'm not a template coder, but we need some additional code for this template, when there are greater-than five variables it displays a message saying that the template only supports up to five variables, so that it doesnt "break" when someone exceeds the variable limit. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Could we please get rid of the ampersand and restore the good ol' "and" which made us look like an encyclopedia rather than a magazine title? Or simply replace it with a tried-and-true comma? At the very least, I think "Main article: X & Y" should be changed to "Main article: X, Y", to be consistent with all the other templates—See2, Seealso2, etc. Come on, I can't be alone here. An isolated and unwelcome minority, sure, but not alone. - Silence 09:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
For example:
→ Aza Toth 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you add eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa, fr:Modèle:Détails, pl:Szablon:Main? This should be added with noinclude tag: <noinclude>[[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]] [[fr:Modèle:Détails]] [[pl:Szablon:Main]]</noinclude>. Thanks, Googlpl 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Need help with editing the template, to move this section of the template:
noinclude {esoteric} /noinclude
..into this section:
noinclude [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa] [fr:Modèle:Détails] [pl:Szablon:Main] /noinclude
..so that it looks like:
noinclude {esoteric} [eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa] [fr:Modèle:Détails] [pl:Szablon:Main] /noinclude
There only needs to be a single "noinclude" section, not two. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 05:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see
User talk:Freakofnurture/Main, where my proposed version is demonstrated. It would require no changes to the manner in which the template is called from the article, and it would also properly use serial commas and the word "and". As for the category presently invoked when the parameters exceed five, I've found no way to retain it with hiddenStructure
code, however I find this to be a moot point, because:
If nobody objects to this replacement within a day or two I'm going to go ahead and change the code myself. I assure you, the majority of readers will not notice the difference. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 04:29, Jan. 8, 2006
Well I went ahead and did it. Meta-templates are no longer an issue here, it's merely a high-use template (2,336). Due to technical limitations {{ main}} longer conditionally references the Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters, which was empty at the time I made the change to the template (and should be sent to CFD). Also, the new version uses "and" instead of & and makes proper use of the serial comma ("A, B, and C" and not "A, B & C" as before). Other than that, the song remains the same. Have a nice day. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:01, Jan. 8, 2006
Now there appears to be an extra white in all the articles that it's in, such as Madagascar. Any way to fix it? -- Khoikhoi 20:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The template appearance, specifically the indentation, has changed slightly:
It also appears (per the above "What happened" thread) there is some extra white space inserted above (below?) the new template that was not there before. Not sure why that happened.
Relevant discussions why this is being done are User_talk:Freakofnurture#pet_peeve, User_talk:Netoholic#indenting and User_talk:Stbalbach#Re: Indentation.
-- Stbalbach 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Main articles: Nauru, and [[{{{2}}}]], and [[{{{3}}}]], and [[{{{4}}}]], and [[{{{5}}}]]
smart
(Special Main Article Reference Template) could do this without affecting old pages.
Omniplex
08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Please restore the ":" indentation. Main template has had an indentation from the day it was created, and thousands of Wikipedia editors have chosen to use this template based on that appearance. No one was consulted about an appearance change. In brief, this template has a long history of looking a certain way, and before it changes, consensus needs to be reached. No such consensus has been reached. -- Stbalbach 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a full stop at the end of sentence, like:
Main articles: Article.
Visor 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As a non admin, I would like to request modification of the template as shown in this ( diff). Intention: throw less {{{}}} stuff onto clients (look at the html source of Dune (computer game) for an example). -- Adrian Buehlmann 10:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting strange output from the {{main}} template. For example, in the plot section of the article Les Misérables, the wikicode {{main|Plot of Les Misérables||||}} produces "Main articles: Plot of Les Misérables, and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]]".
I'm using jaws for windows 5.1 and Internet Explorer 6.0, with no control of CSS on the screen reader's end. What is going on, and how can it be fixed? Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yuck. How about breaking this template into 2, Template:Main article and Template:Main articles. You would call the singular version thus:
and the plural version thus:
One benefit is that you'd be able to use more than 5 main articles (a limitation of the current template). Also, the resulting two templates would display correctly in browsers that don't support CSS, such as lynx.
I think the case of multiple main articles is rare enough that it should have its own separate template. (Hopefully, if others support this idea, a bot could update the few pages that use the plural version.) dbenbenn | talk 22:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely how the template should have been changed to a long time ago. One parameter is all that we need. People can put any number of wikilinks into it, and they can specify alt wikitext for the displayed link. -- Netoholic @ 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Something like 4500 pages use this template. Presumably a bot could be coded to change all instances of
to
User:Silence pointed out that "Multiple main articles is extremely common", but fortunately it doesn't really matter if you have a bot to do it. Once that's done, we can change Template:Main to only accept 1 parameter. (Note that I've made a similar proposal at Template:See also.) dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to provide some status... I ran a bot through all the articles using "Main" and switched any that reference more than one article to Template:Main articles (plural). Dbenbenn then changed this template to accept only one parameter. I guess now the next step is how to resolve the distinction between Template:Main and Template:Main article (singular), which is very similar, but doesn't insert the [[]]'s (useful for section linking or changing how the text is displayed. Should we move all to Template:Main article, use Template:Main exclusively, or allow the choice. My preference is to move everything to Template:Main article, for simplicity and usability, since I don't think we need both. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose reverting this article back to the version which utilized meta-templates (for discussion, see WP:AUM). The CSS hack used, while good intentioned, results in poor output over non-CSS aware browsers and accessibility issues for the disabled. (See also: Template talk:Taxobox). — Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Avoid all of this, and just read the suggestion in the section immediately above ( #Two separate templates). -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the 'hiddenStructure' version of this template has been found to display incorrectly on non CSS browsers and cause problems for blind users (see #Strange output above) it should certainly be changed back to the format which works. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 01:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This request is no longer necessary, as the template now accepts only one parameter and contains no esoteric code at all. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If template is now changed from {{main|article}} to {{main|[[article]]}}. -- Paul foord 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Would propose to put the topic in bold letters (no italics) - much better visibility. e.g. >>> Main article: Bla bla bla <<< Try it out! :) -- Neoneo13 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Chính]]
Thanks.
– Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As I commented on Template talk:Main articles, there is a difference in indention between {{ main}} and {{ main articles}}, causing an inconsistent look in articles that use both. Bloodshedder 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am confused by the description given under Comparison with related templates. Suppose we have an article Mona Lisa with a brief section Mona Lisa#Her smile, and a long and detailed article The mystery of Mona Lisa's smile. If I take the given description literally, we should
The first use looks identical to the use of Template:Details as described in the documentation of its talk page, which is different from the use described here under Comparison with related templates.
Lambiam Talk 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Does an administrator want to replace
with
Usgnus 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to use {{subst:main|RollerGames}} today in the roller derby article, and the resulting substitution was this mess:
- :''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[RollerGames]]{{#if:{{{2| }}}
- |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}
- |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
- |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}
- |, and [[{{{5}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}|  (too many parameters in
- {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}
Somehow, it renders OK, but something is obviously wrong. What's going on?— mjb 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)