![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This template has a development branch at Template:Main/dev. This can be used for change proposals.
I'm not sure of all the uses this template has undergone, so I won't deprecate it completely, but in the simple case a better way is, and I've been doing it since I found someone write a synonym for Magnetoencephalography. Make the headings into a link. Make them underlined (and blue). Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There are 2 sample images at the top of the article. What are they doing there? Am I missing something? At first I thought I'd come to the wrong page because I couldn't figure out what those images had to do with the main article template.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I removed the gallery tag that contained the sample images and sample captions. I don't know how they got in there, but I'm 99% sure they didn't belong. If for some unfathomable reason they were necessary, then I apologize, and you can revert my edit to Template:Main/doc.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not just write :''Main article: [[article name]]''? This template seems to be totally useless and overcomplicated. / Grillo 14:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Should a noprint class be applied to this template? It would make it truely pertinent then to use it instead of formatted text (noprinting is a reason to favor hatnotes over formatted text). besides, knowing there is a subarticle is useless on a printed form. Also, very few subarticles actually USE the template at the top. A link is usually present within the first few lines anyway, so maybe the use guideline should be rewrote to take that into account.
Updated interwikilinks of other wikis, but this is semi-protected and therefor still needs updating. And no, I won't ever create an account if anonymous editing in general is possible, b/c it's a good idea in general :) 129.35.204.162 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please correct sl: to sl:Predloga:Glavni. Thanks. -- Eleassar my talk 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please add Template:SubArticle to the see also section. -- Ephilei 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Now there are photos available of this particular specimen. The photos were published by Eduardo Ecchenique, New York Times.
See Wikipedia:About#Making the best use of Wikipedia for 2 examples on one screen. -- Quiddity·( talk) 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The article's name should not be in italics. It looks unprofessional. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that section from the "Documentation", as I couldn't make heads or tails of it (are the first and third bullets talking about the same thing?). The difference between this and Template:Details certainly needs to be illustrated, especially as Wikipedia:Summary style seems to treat them as synonymous. -- zenohockey 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The following two are meant to be used in connection with each other:
Error: no page names specified ( help).
Error: no page names specified ( help).
Note: The {{ main}} template lacks two ending apostrophes before </div>.
I have two "main articles" one general, another specific. I would like to say at the top:
Main article: general - generalities
Main article: specific - specifics
but if I add text after the template, the comments (e.g. "generalities") winds up on the line below. Is there a way to do this, or could the template be accomodated to include an optional modifying phrase just after the main article title that would display on the same line? PAR 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that most people are using this template incorrectly, and should be using the "details" template instead. (the further template is inconsistent, and doesn't add the [[ ]] around the paramenter.).
Should this be fixed? Is using "main" instead of "details" appropriate? Am I just being too picky?
-- TomXP411 [Talk] 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments? 100110100 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add the following interlanguage link: [[bg:Шаблон:Основна]] -- Daggerstab 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be many, but why do they not show up when viewing the wiki source? I want to copy them over to the template at the Wikimedia Commons. -- Pmsyyz 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of template documentation. You have to look
here.
Circeus
22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I use have the text appear differently in the template than what the link is? For example, I want what I would normally type as [[Persian language#Nomenclature|Persian language]], however within the main template it's not formating it correctly. I've tried with and without brackets – doesn't work correctly either way. Thanks. – jonsafari 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How about: {{main|Persian language#Nomenclature|l1=Nomenclature section of Persian language}}
(John User:Jwy talk) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the documentation should discourage the use of this "link appearance" feature anywhere but for #-containing targets where "link appearance" text is unsuitable for making it a redirect ("Nomenclature section of Persian language" is a good example of). Such use as [1] may confuse future editors and cause them to choose an incorrect target for a link, say, via copying and pasting (possibly into another article) the visible text of such "Main article" note. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed this template (and possibly all templates) have an issue with indentation on lines with an image on the left. That is, the link is no farther indented than the rest of the text ( example). I have a pretty good idea of why this is, but none on how to fix it. Is this a known and accepted technical issue already? Vicarious 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
G'day! At Brain tumour under the heading primary tumors, the template leaves a too many parameters error. Looking at the markup I have noticed that the number of links included is 11, whereas the template allows for 10. Could a further one be included so as to remedy the situation? There could be more cases like this, albeit this is probably very rare. Cheers, Ouro ( blah blah) 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As above. Cheers, Ouro ( blah blah) 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to recommend that this template be copied to allow for the inclusion of "Associated main 'article' as opposed to just main article which implies that the referenced article has a higher status which is often not the case. UkraineToday 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please add 'instead, Template:Summary in can be placed at the top of the talk page' after the instructions not to add this template to the top of the main page. Richard001 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If nobody objects in the next few hours, I will add a CSS class to the div, making it <div class="noprint mainarticle">. This will enable styling of this particular element, and increase machine-readability. — David Remahl ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with this template when used in articles, in so far as viewing on a PDA or similar device: the template is not seen. Other, similar templates, such as {{further}} and {{see also}} work fine though. I don't know how to fix it, so hopefully someone who does, will. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I often see this used incorrectly. Basically, the section in question should be a summary, or something very close to one, of the target article. If it only discusses certain aspects of that article, {{ details}} or {{ further}} should be used instead (and I think we should merge them as they seem to have the same function). Here in the documentation it suggests this should only be used for articles that have been split off, but many articles are 'daughter articles' without ever having been split off from their 'parent'. In fact, some parents may be created after the daughter article is already in existence. For example, I created religion in New Zealand late last year, but its 'daughters', including say Christianity in New Zealand, were already in existence.
Another issue, which is why I came here, is that it is often used without providing any summary at all. There is a heading, then simply a 'main article' template, and that's it. Should it be used like this? Personally I think it's wrong to say 'main article' when we aren't providing even a small summary of the article; it seems misleading and it is almost never appropriate not to provide a summary. Richard001 ( talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lead section of the doc. Hope that is useful. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a non-parser function version of this template? TJ Spyke 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at renewable resource for an example of this. If we use {{ main}} to link to an article, should we be repeating it again in subsections of that very section? For example in this case should we be linking to solar power as a main article when we have already linked to the renewable energy article as a broader main article (which itself will in turn surely link to these articles again using summary style)?
Just in case it's not clear, here's what I mean:
^ Should we be using this here?
Richard001 ( talk) 07:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone please edit the page so it doesn't say "When [[Wikipedia:What is cock" at the top. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Nillerdk ( talk) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking that maybe "Main article" should be switched to the more neutral "Main page" as not all the pages this template is used for are articles. But then again it may get confused with Main Page. Simply south ( talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
EditProtected}}
The opening should read: "A Wikipedia Article" or "Wikipedia Articles" (without the A).
Dannyza1981 (
talk)
12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
See Evolutionary_biology#Notable_evolutionary_biologists. If one tries to link to a category without a preceding colon, the article gets put in the category and the field is left blank. -- ⟳ausa کui × 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This template currently produces HTML markup like this:
<dl>
<dd>
<div class="noprint relarticle mainarticle">...</div>
</dd>
</dl>
According to the markup, this is a "definition list" (the dl element) with a "definition" inside it (the dd element). The definition term (dt) is missing. The purpose of this markup, I believe, is to indent the text inside the div element. CSS provides a better way to do this. For example, this code will indent the div element without the need for dl/dd elements around it:
.mainarticle { margin: 1em }
By using CSS instead of HTML, fewer and more semantic tags are produced. I therefore propose to remove the initial ':' of this template and replace it with a simple CSS rule.
Howcome ( talk) 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic". Main article is ambiguous and I can see why people continue to make this mistake. It is not illogical to think that the parent article would be the "main" article. I propose that the wording of the template be changed. How about Subtopic or Further detail? -- Jameboy ( talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that some editors use this template for linking to pages that don't exist. Given that this template is intended to provide useful links, I think it would be a good idea if it only linked to existing pages. I'm pretty sure this could be done with wikicode. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We're missing, placing {{Template:Summary in}} in the talk page of linked to article, do we need it - there's also a Template:Summarize for when subarticle is pointed to but no specific summary, but I don't get that one ! L∴V 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's some CSS nicety that's missed in IE6 (don't ask - I have no control over my situation at work), but I don't see any in-page difference in the text that differentiates Main and Seealso instances from the article text. If the problem is present in other browsers, may I ask: Why aren't these templates coded in a way that italicizes and offsets like {{ Otheruses}}? If not, may I ask why we don't just borrow that syntax for standardization and simplification's sake? MrZaius talk 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I don't think it is correct to add a "noprint" class. It is useful to see the reference to the main article, even in print, especially when a {{
main}} is the only thing in a section (see
Commonwealth of Nations#Commonwealth_War_Graves_Commission, for example). Please just remove the "noprint" class from this template. TIA. —
Ms2ger (
talk)
18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
What should be changed in this template to make it visible in print?
Thanks for creating this thread, Ms2ger and David Levy!
I agree that this template will be more useful if it is shown in print because the reader then will know that there are more information available.
The template does not show in print now. The "noprint" class is not present. This is the code added by the template: <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/info/en/?search=Test" title="Test" class="mw-disambig">Test</a></div>
I thought of making a editprotected request, but as I'm not sure what should be changed and what it should be changed to, I make a helpme request instead. Iceblock ( talk) 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please add more syntax so we can have more than just 10 main articles. 174.3.111.148 ( talk) 03:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the italics? It's impossible to tell these apart from the article text now. I know this was a result of converting to rellink, but it needs the italics.
Primate #101 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This template contains the spam "www.shawsounds.com". It is protected so I cannot remove the spam. David spector ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition to 'See also' and 'external links', I would very much like for articles to be able to have a section called 'backlinks' (or something more appropriate). It would list all articles that link to the given page using Template:main. With that in mind would it be possible to modify this template so that {{main|article A}} automatically adds a link to the hidden category [[category:pages that link to article A using Template:main]]? The editor of article A could easily create a 'backlinks' section simply be going to the resulting category page and copying the links. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to copy this template's source for use in another wiki. However, this template in turn uses many other templates, far too many sources to copy in turn. Which of those templates do I need to use on another wiki to make it work? I need to be able to create a link under a section in an article linking to the main article more detailed than the section in former article could provide. Thanks. -- Legion ( talk) 10:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
When I tried using the format
{{main |Article }}
in an article, I saw garbage in the preview.
When I changed it to
{{Main|Article}}
It worked. The main article section I edited was this one. David Spector 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, following
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 11, I've created a modified version of this template at
Template:Main/sandbox, which will change the template to say "The main article for this
category is
" when used on a category page. Unless there's any opposition to this change, I'll add this to
Template:Main. Cheers, -
Kingpin
13 (
talk)
13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Done -
Kingpin
13 (
talk)
16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The template's "l1" syntax appears to be "11" due to letterform similarity, which has led me to believe that special-title links are just not supported. A note needs to be included on this. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
At Concorde#Popular culture, this template is in use to refer to just a tiny section of another very long page. That "Main" page does not actually deal with just the issue referred, but is a page about a subject in its own right. I question whether there is a better template. The other referral templates I have found are for use when there is other information in the section and involve the word "also": the section in question has no other content.
I am going to delete the section that uses only the template and move the reference to the other See alsos, but any comments in case this doesn't stick, or comes up again? Trev M ~ 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Not hugely important, but the number of inclusions at the top of the page is outdated. The current figure is 112k. As it is, 90k seems oddly specific. Could we update the number to "over 100,000" instead of 110k, and leave it at that? Thanks Jess talk| edits 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Add this code at the end, it marks non-existing pages.
{{#ifexist:{{{1}}}|| (doesn't exist)}}
I know that the link is already red, just a tip for new users.
SWF
lash
19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is an incosistency here with the handling of MOS pages:
Both of the above returns Main page but if MOS is used:
Then Main article is returned (instead of Main page). This is not such a problem with MOS, but it does affect redirects placed at the top of other guidelines such as MOS:FOREIGN:
-- PBS ( talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The docs Template:Main/doc and Template:Hatnote templates documentation contradict each other. The latter uses the straightforward idea that Main should link the main article from within the details article, and Details should link the details article from within the main article.
The former countenances probably thousands of users who have used Main to link the details article from within the main article. This happens probably because the details article is the "main" article for its subtopic. But if we use Main to link the details article, what do we use to link the main article from the head of the details article? If we use Main in both cases, it's ambiguous.
I propose that Main/doc should be edited to deprecate the ambiguous case and to indicate primary usage should be only within details articles. There are a couple other uses that should be deprecated as well (use of Main instead of See also, use of either Main or Details as the only item in its textless section, etc.). The fact that there is much ambiguity out there is best handled by deprecation and slow migration. JJB 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"This template is a talk header template. When Template:Main is used on an article to add a link to a more specific article (or spinout article), this template should be placed on the spinout article's talk page. Examples of where this template may be used include:
- "List of" articles, which may be too long or appear out-of-place in main articles, or where the list has to be split over several pages.
- Episode, character, or other primarily in-universe articles, such that real world context can be established by referring the user to the main article."
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is {{ Cat main}}. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a " see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described above."
"When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading. You can use the {{ Main}} template to generate a Main article; link.
- If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the {{ Main}} template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section. You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:
If this is the case, then (1) Template:Hatnote templates documentation should be changed to indicate Details is deprecated for this purpose, (2) there should be sitewide attempts at disambiguation between the "main article" written in summary style and the "Main article" for a subtopic (incidentally, WP:SS has long been contradictory on this point as well, I just chose one of the two resolutions of the contradiction), and (3) there should be a clear mainspace way to link a details article back to its main article, as templates do not clearly imply the structure, and the Subarticle template is for talkspace. JJB 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see that people have condemned this usage, but can I ask what specific harm this supposedly causes? GliderMaven ( talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the documentation states that the Main template should not be used in the lead. How should articles such as List of books banned by governments be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 19:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The {{ main}} template documentation doesn't explicitly say whether the case (upper/lower) of the article title should be preserved. It seems obvious to me that it should be preserved, but another editor disagrees, saying the article title generally should start with a lower case letter when used in this template.
Thanks Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My understanding is that this template can be used in articles leads when an article is not the "main" article for it's subject. When there are multiple articles, distinct enough to warrant separate articles, but not enough to really be separate subjects. One to be the main article describing the topic, and the others avoiding unnecessary duplication of the main article. I suppose a good example would be geography articles where two terms have somewhat different meanings or "contexts", but refer to pretty much the same geographic area, e.g. Balkans and Southeast Europe. The Balkans article is the main article, the Southeast Europe article doesn't try to be a duplicate of the Balkans article by having much info on History, natural resources, etc, it leaves that to the Balkans article. I guess sort of a halfway point between having fully separate articles, and heaving a redirect.
The documentation doesn't mention this use, it just mentions the summary style use, and says that it shouldn't be used for anything else. Is the documentation incorrect or is my understanding incorrect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is {{ Cat main}}. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a " see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described hereinbefore.
I was also surprised to see this #2 use getting "official" approval in the documentation. I think it's redunant clutter at the top of the article when one can simply link the main article name in [con]text. I'll update the docs to at least say this use is controversial, per discussion here. Honestly, from the above, it appears the consensus is mostly against using it like this... I'm going to open an RfC though. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I should add that WP:SS was not modified when this documentation change was made here. (Or if it was, that was reverted, because there's nothing there now.) Someone not using his real name ( talk) 04:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin [2]) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere? Actually looking at #Main and Details one section before the most recent dispute, there problems are deeper. I see several solutions.
For other variants, write your own proposal... There's also {{ further}} to consider, which is more or less another clone of {{ details}}. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
Update: Midway through this RfC (as of following sig timestamp) User:Wbm1058 has made a proposal that has gained some support, namely to create a new {{ parent}} template to (sparingly) use on top of articles (instead of using main there). Someone not using his real name ( talk) 08:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember having ever seen the "details" template, and I've been around for years. I think that it's useless, since the "main" template has the same meaning.
I disagree that the article "Geography of Italy" should have a "main" template pointing to Italy. The link should be added in the first line: " Italy is a country located in Southern Europe..." -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Replace with templates saying For details about XXX see and for general article about YYY see DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Who thinks this template should (or shouldn't) be more noticeable when used? (Let's see if we have consensus on that, before we discuss how to make it more noticable.)
I bet it's common for readers to skip over the template entirely, so what often happens is that a topic is important enough that it split off to be its own article, but then people reading the article using the template that points to this topic often end up skipping the important topic entirely, instead of reading the linked-to main article.
It could be made more noticeable using <flash> (just kidding), <em>, <big>, foreground or background color, font or something similar, but let's not discuss that for now.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Come on, you couldn't say it in a less friendly or more formal way if you tried. "Hereinbefore"? Sheesh... 90.229.34.175 ( talk) 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add some kind of inline notice for the RfC/TfD started above. This template is used very widely, but most editors who might have an opinion probably don't watch this page, or TfD, or VPP. Alas, since this is fully protected I don't know what wikicode would have been generated for the inline notice by Twinkle for a TfD, but it shouldn't be too hard to change the link in that type of code to point to the RfC above. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Template code
|
---|
<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">‹ The [[Help:Template|template]] below (''[[Template:Main|Main]]'') is currently the subject of [[Template talk:Main#RfC|an RfC]].›</div> |
I've created a Lua version of this template at Module:Main. It is mostly the same as this template, but has the benefits that an unlimited number of links are allowed, category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:Main/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggest noting in the documentation text (ie state the obvious) that the "non-main" section should be a
Prof.Haddock ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Could the 2nd paragraph of the template documentation please be rewritten in standard English. Putting it into sentences would be a good start (the 2nd and 3rd "sentences" are just phrases at present, making it difficult to follow). Nurg ( talk) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This template has a development branch at Template:Main/dev. This can be used for change proposals.
I'm not sure of all the uses this template has undergone, so I won't deprecate it completely, but in the simple case a better way is, and I've been doing it since I found someone write a synonym for Magnetoencephalography. Make the headings into a link. Make them underlined (and blue). Brewhaha@edmc.net 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There are 2 sample images at the top of the article. What are they doing there? Am I missing something? At first I thought I'd come to the wrong page because I couldn't figure out what those images had to do with the main article template.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I removed the gallery tag that contained the sample images and sample captions. I don't know how they got in there, but I'm 99% sure they didn't belong. If for some unfathomable reason they were necessary, then I apologize, and you can revert my edit to Template:Main/doc.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not just write :''Main article: [[article name]]''? This template seems to be totally useless and overcomplicated. / Grillo 14:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Should a noprint class be applied to this template? It would make it truely pertinent then to use it instead of formatted text (noprinting is a reason to favor hatnotes over formatted text). besides, knowing there is a subarticle is useless on a printed form. Also, very few subarticles actually USE the template at the top. A link is usually present within the first few lines anyway, so maybe the use guideline should be rewrote to take that into account.
Updated interwikilinks of other wikis, but this is semi-protected and therefor still needs updating. And no, I won't ever create an account if anonymous editing in general is possible, b/c it's a good idea in general :) 129.35.204.162 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please correct sl: to sl:Predloga:Glavni. Thanks. -- Eleassar my talk 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please add Template:SubArticle to the see also section. -- Ephilei 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Now there are photos available of this particular specimen. The photos were published by Eduardo Ecchenique, New York Times.
See Wikipedia:About#Making the best use of Wikipedia for 2 examples on one screen. -- Quiddity·( talk) 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The article's name should not be in italics. It looks unprofessional. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that section from the "Documentation", as I couldn't make heads or tails of it (are the first and third bullets talking about the same thing?). The difference between this and Template:Details certainly needs to be illustrated, especially as Wikipedia:Summary style seems to treat them as synonymous. -- zenohockey 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The following two are meant to be used in connection with each other:
Error: no page names specified ( help).
Error: no page names specified ( help).
Note: The {{ main}} template lacks two ending apostrophes before </div>.
I have two "main articles" one general, another specific. I would like to say at the top:
Main article: general - generalities
Main article: specific - specifics
but if I add text after the template, the comments (e.g. "generalities") winds up on the line below. Is there a way to do this, or could the template be accomodated to include an optional modifying phrase just after the main article title that would display on the same line? PAR 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that most people are using this template incorrectly, and should be using the "details" template instead. (the further template is inconsistent, and doesn't add the [[ ]] around the paramenter.).
Should this be fixed? Is using "main" instead of "details" appropriate? Am I just being too picky?
-- TomXP411 [Talk] 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we change this template so it can have infinite arguments? 100110100 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please add the following interlanguage link: [[bg:Шаблон:Основна]] -- Daggerstab 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be many, but why do they not show up when viewing the wiki source? I want to copy them over to the template at the Wikimedia Commons. -- Pmsyyz 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of template documentation. You have to look
here.
Circeus
22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I use have the text appear differently in the template than what the link is? For example, I want what I would normally type as [[Persian language#Nomenclature|Persian language]], however within the main template it's not formating it correctly. I've tried with and without brackets – doesn't work correctly either way. Thanks. – jonsafari 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How about: {{main|Persian language#Nomenclature|l1=Nomenclature section of Persian language}}
(John User:Jwy talk) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the documentation should discourage the use of this "link appearance" feature anywhere but for #-containing targets where "link appearance" text is unsuitable for making it a redirect ("Nomenclature section of Persian language" is a good example of). Such use as [1] may confuse future editors and cause them to choose an incorrect target for a link, say, via copying and pasting (possibly into another article) the visible text of such "Main article" note. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed this template (and possibly all templates) have an issue with indentation on lines with an image on the left. That is, the link is no farther indented than the rest of the text ( example). I have a pretty good idea of why this is, but none on how to fix it. Is this a known and accepted technical issue already? Vicarious 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
G'day! At Brain tumour under the heading primary tumors, the template leaves a too many parameters error. Looking at the markup I have noticed that the number of links included is 11, whereas the template allows for 10. Could a further one be included so as to remedy the situation? There could be more cases like this, albeit this is probably very rare. Cheers, Ouro ( blah blah) 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As above. Cheers, Ouro ( blah blah) 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to recommend that this template be copied to allow for the inclusion of "Associated main 'article' as opposed to just main article which implies that the referenced article has a higher status which is often not the case. UkraineToday 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please add 'instead, Template:Summary in can be placed at the top of the talk page' after the instructions not to add this template to the top of the main page. Richard001 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If nobody objects in the next few hours, I will add a CSS class to the div, making it <div class="noprint mainarticle">. This will enable styling of this particular element, and increase machine-readability. — David Remahl ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with this template when used in articles, in so far as viewing on a PDA or similar device: the template is not seen. Other, similar templates, such as {{further}} and {{see also}} work fine though. I don't know how to fix it, so hopefully someone who does, will. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I often see this used incorrectly. Basically, the section in question should be a summary, or something very close to one, of the target article. If it only discusses certain aspects of that article, {{ details}} or {{ further}} should be used instead (and I think we should merge them as they seem to have the same function). Here in the documentation it suggests this should only be used for articles that have been split off, but many articles are 'daughter articles' without ever having been split off from their 'parent'. In fact, some parents may be created after the daughter article is already in existence. For example, I created religion in New Zealand late last year, but its 'daughters', including say Christianity in New Zealand, were already in existence.
Another issue, which is why I came here, is that it is often used without providing any summary at all. There is a heading, then simply a 'main article' template, and that's it. Should it be used like this? Personally I think it's wrong to say 'main article' when we aren't providing even a small summary of the article; it seems misleading and it is almost never appropriate not to provide a summary. Richard001 ( talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lead section of the doc. Hope that is useful. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a non-parser function version of this template? TJ Spyke 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at renewable resource for an example of this. If we use {{ main}} to link to an article, should we be repeating it again in subsections of that very section? For example in this case should we be linking to solar power as a main article when we have already linked to the renewable energy article as a broader main article (which itself will in turn surely link to these articles again using summary style)?
Just in case it's not clear, here's what I mean:
^ Should we be using this here?
Richard001 ( talk) 07:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone please edit the page so it doesn't say "When [[Wikipedia:What is cock" at the top. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Nillerdk ( talk) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking that maybe "Main article" should be switched to the more neutral "Main page" as not all the pages this template is used for are articles. But then again it may get confused with Main Page. Simply south ( talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
EditProtected}}
The opening should read: "A Wikipedia Article" or "Wikipedia Articles" (without the A).
Dannyza1981 (
talk)
12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
See Evolutionary_biology#Notable_evolutionary_biologists. If one tries to link to a category without a preceding colon, the article gets put in the category and the field is left blank. -- ⟳ausa کui × 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This template currently produces HTML markup like this:
<dl>
<dd>
<div class="noprint relarticle mainarticle">...</div>
</dd>
</dl>
According to the markup, this is a "definition list" (the dl element) with a "definition" inside it (the dd element). The definition term (dt) is missing. The purpose of this markup, I believe, is to indent the text inside the div element. CSS provides a better way to do this. For example, this code will indent the div element without the need for dl/dd elements around it:
.mainarticle { margin: 1em }
By using CSS instead of HTML, fewer and more semantic tags are produced. I therefore propose to remove the initial ':' of this template and replace it with a simple CSS rule.
Howcome ( talk) 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic". Main article is ambiguous and I can see why people continue to make this mistake. It is not illogical to think that the parent article would be the "main" article. I propose that the wording of the template be changed. How about Subtopic or Further detail? -- Jameboy ( talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that some editors use this template for linking to pages that don't exist. Given that this template is intended to provide useful links, I think it would be a good idea if it only linked to existing pages. I'm pretty sure this could be done with wikicode. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We're missing, placing {{Template:Summary in}} in the talk page of linked to article, do we need it - there's also a Template:Summarize for when subarticle is pointed to but no specific summary, but I don't get that one ! L∴V 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's some CSS nicety that's missed in IE6 (don't ask - I have no control over my situation at work), but I don't see any in-page difference in the text that differentiates Main and Seealso instances from the article text. If the problem is present in other browsers, may I ask: Why aren't these templates coded in a way that italicizes and offsets like {{ Otheruses}}? If not, may I ask why we don't just borrow that syntax for standardization and simplification's sake? MrZaius talk 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I don't think it is correct to add a "noprint" class. It is useful to see the reference to the main article, even in print, especially when a {{
main}} is the only thing in a section (see
Commonwealth of Nations#Commonwealth_War_Graves_Commission, for example). Please just remove the "noprint" class from this template. TIA. —
Ms2ger (
talk)
18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
What should be changed in this template to make it visible in print?
Thanks for creating this thread, Ms2ger and David Levy!
I agree that this template will be more useful if it is shown in print because the reader then will know that there are more information available.
The template does not show in print now. The "noprint" class is not present. This is the code added by the template: <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/info/en/?search=Test" title="Test" class="mw-disambig">Test</a></div>
I thought of making a editprotected request, but as I'm not sure what should be changed and what it should be changed to, I make a helpme request instead. Iceblock ( talk) 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please add more syntax so we can have more than just 10 main articles. 174.3.111.148 ( talk) 03:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the italics? It's impossible to tell these apart from the article text now. I know this was a result of converting to rellink, but it needs the italics.
Primate #101 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This template contains the spam "www.shawsounds.com". It is protected so I cannot remove the spam. David spector ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition to 'See also' and 'external links', I would very much like for articles to be able to have a section called 'backlinks' (or something more appropriate). It would list all articles that link to the given page using Template:main. With that in mind would it be possible to modify this template so that {{main|article A}} automatically adds a link to the hidden category [[category:pages that link to article A using Template:main]]? The editor of article A could easily create a 'backlinks' section simply be going to the resulting category page and copying the links. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to copy this template's source for use in another wiki. However, this template in turn uses many other templates, far too many sources to copy in turn. Which of those templates do I need to use on another wiki to make it work? I need to be able to create a link under a section in an article linking to the main article more detailed than the section in former article could provide. Thanks. -- Legion ( talk) 10:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
When I tried using the format
{{main |Article }}
in an article, I saw garbage in the preview.
When I changed it to
{{Main|Article}}
It worked. The main article section I edited was this one. David Spector 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, following
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 11, I've created a modified version of this template at
Template:Main/sandbox, which will change the template to say "The main article for this
category is
" when used on a category page. Unless there's any opposition to this change, I'll add this to
Template:Main. Cheers, -
Kingpin
13 (
talk)
13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Done -
Kingpin
13 (
talk)
16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The template's "l1" syntax appears to be "11" due to letterform similarity, which has led me to believe that special-title links are just not supported. A note needs to be included on this. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
At Concorde#Popular culture, this template is in use to refer to just a tiny section of another very long page. That "Main" page does not actually deal with just the issue referred, but is a page about a subject in its own right. I question whether there is a better template. The other referral templates I have found are for use when there is other information in the section and involve the word "also": the section in question has no other content.
I am going to delete the section that uses only the template and move the reference to the other See alsos, but any comments in case this doesn't stick, or comes up again? Trev M ~ 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Not hugely important, but the number of inclusions at the top of the page is outdated. The current figure is 112k. As it is, 90k seems oddly specific. Could we update the number to "over 100,000" instead of 110k, and leave it at that? Thanks Jess talk| edits 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Add this code at the end, it marks non-existing pages.
{{#ifexist:{{{1}}}|| (doesn't exist)}}
I know that the link is already red, just a tip for new users.
SWF
lash
19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is an incosistency here with the handling of MOS pages:
Both of the above returns Main page but if MOS is used:
Then Main article is returned (instead of Main page). This is not such a problem with MOS, but it does affect redirects placed at the top of other guidelines such as MOS:FOREIGN:
-- PBS ( talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The docs Template:Main/doc and Template:Hatnote templates documentation contradict each other. The latter uses the straightforward idea that Main should link the main article from within the details article, and Details should link the details article from within the main article.
The former countenances probably thousands of users who have used Main to link the details article from within the main article. This happens probably because the details article is the "main" article for its subtopic. But if we use Main to link the details article, what do we use to link the main article from the head of the details article? If we use Main in both cases, it's ambiguous.
I propose that Main/doc should be edited to deprecate the ambiguous case and to indicate primary usage should be only within details articles. There are a couple other uses that should be deprecated as well (use of Main instead of See also, use of either Main or Details as the only item in its textless section, etc.). The fact that there is much ambiguity out there is best handled by deprecation and slow migration. JJB 21:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"This template is a talk header template. When Template:Main is used on an article to add a link to a more specific article (or spinout article), this template should be placed on the spinout article's talk page. Examples of where this template may be used include:
- "List of" articles, which may be too long or appear out-of-place in main articles, or where the list has to be split over several pages.
- Episode, character, or other primarily in-universe articles, such that real world context can be established by referring the user to the main article."
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is {{ Cat main}}. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a " see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described above."
"When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading. You can use the {{ Main}} template to generate a Main article; link.
- If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the {{ Main}} template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section. You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:
If this is the case, then (1) Template:Hatnote templates documentation should be changed to indicate Details is deprecated for this purpose, (2) there should be sitewide attempts at disambiguation between the "main article" written in summary style and the "Main article" for a subtopic (incidentally, WP:SS has long been contradictory on this point as well, I just chose one of the two resolutions of the contradiction), and (3) there should be a clear mainspace way to link a details article back to its main article, as templates do not clearly imply the structure, and the Subarticle template is for talkspace. JJB 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see that people have condemned this usage, but can I ask what specific harm this supposedly causes? GliderMaven ( talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the documentation states that the Main template should not be used in the lead. How should articles such as List of books banned by governments be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 19:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The {{ main}} template documentation doesn't explicitly say whether the case (upper/lower) of the article title should be preserved. It seems obvious to me that it should be preserved, but another editor disagrees, saying the article title generally should start with a lower case letter when used in this template.
Thanks Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My understanding is that this template can be used in articles leads when an article is not the "main" article for it's subject. When there are multiple articles, distinct enough to warrant separate articles, but not enough to really be separate subjects. One to be the main article describing the topic, and the others avoiding unnecessary duplication of the main article. I suppose a good example would be geography articles where two terms have somewhat different meanings or "contexts", but refer to pretty much the same geographic area, e.g. Balkans and Southeast Europe. The Balkans article is the main article, the Southeast Europe article doesn't try to be a duplicate of the Balkans article by having much info on History, natural resources, etc, it leaves that to the Balkans article. I guess sort of a halfway point between having fully separate articles, and heaving a redirect.
The documentation doesn't mention this use, it just mentions the summary style use, and says that it shouldn't be used for anything else. Is the documentation incorrect or is my understanding incorrect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. This template can also be used in the Category namespace, but the preferred template for categories is {{ Cat main}}. This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a " see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described hereinbefore.
I was also surprised to see this #2 use getting "official" approval in the documentation. I think it's redunant clutter at the top of the article when one can simply link the main article name in [con]text. I'll update the docs to at least say this use is controversial, per discussion here. Honestly, from the above, it appears the consensus is mostly against using it like this... I'm going to open an RfC though. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I should add that WP:SS was not modified when this documentation change was made here. (Or if it was, that was reverted, because there's nothing there now.) Someone not using his real name ( talk) 04:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin [2]) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere? Actually looking at #Main and Details one section before the most recent dispute, there problems are deeper. I see several solutions.
For other variants, write your own proposal... There's also {{ further}} to consider, which is more or less another clone of {{ details}}. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
Update: Midway through this RfC (as of following sig timestamp) User:Wbm1058 has made a proposal that has gained some support, namely to create a new {{ parent}} template to (sparingly) use on top of articles (instead of using main there). Someone not using his real name ( talk) 08:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember having ever seen the "details" template, and I've been around for years. I think that it's useless, since the "main" template has the same meaning.
I disagree that the article "Geography of Italy" should have a "main" template pointing to Italy. The link should be added in the first line: " Italy is a country located in Southern Europe..." -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Replace with templates saying For details about XXX see and for general article about YYY see DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Who thinks this template should (or shouldn't) be more noticeable when used? (Let's see if we have consensus on that, before we discuss how to make it more noticable.)
I bet it's common for readers to skip over the template entirely, so what often happens is that a topic is important enough that it split off to be its own article, but then people reading the article using the template that points to this topic often end up skipping the important topic entirely, instead of reading the linked-to main article.
It could be made more noticeable using <flash> (just kidding), <em>, <big>, foreground or background color, font or something similar, but let's not discuss that for now.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Come on, you couldn't say it in a less friendly or more formal way if you tried. "Hereinbefore"? Sheesh... 90.229.34.175 ( talk) 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add some kind of inline notice for the RfC/TfD started above. This template is used very widely, but most editors who might have an opinion probably don't watch this page, or TfD, or VPP. Alas, since this is fully protected I don't know what wikicode would have been generated for the inline notice by Twinkle for a TfD, but it shouldn't be too hard to change the link in that type of code to point to the RfC above. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Template code
|
---|
<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">‹ The [[Help:Template|template]] below (''[[Template:Main|Main]]'') is currently the subject of [[Template talk:Main#RfC|an RfC]].›</div> |
I've created a Lua version of this template at Module:Main. It is mostly the same as this template, but has the benefits that an unlimited number of links are allowed, category and file links are automatically escaped with the colon trick, and links to sections are formatted as page § section, rather than the MediaWiki default of page#section. You can see some test cases at Template:Main/testcases. Would anyone object to me making the change? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggest noting in the documentation text (ie state the obvious) that the "non-main" section should be a
Prof.Haddock ( talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Could the 2nd paragraph of the template documentation please be rewritten in standard English. Putting it into sentences would be a good start (the 2nd and 3rd "sentences" are just phrases at present, making it difficult to follow). Nurg ( talk) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)