![]() | 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 |
This template is being overused. Looking through the "what links here" I found it being used helpfully on WP:SOCK but it was sitting there and being totally useless on WP:NPA and WP:NOT. Don't use this when the article will not benefit from a one-line summary. Ashibaka tock 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I alter the template so the text is aligned to center? I think it looks especially wrong when the description is very short. - Drrngrvy 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I should probably ask this some place else, but... what do people actually think of all the nutshells? One might argue they cause laziness and incomplete comprehension of policy, since in effect most policy pages cannot really be reduced to a single line. >Radiant< 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I just said this on a particular page discussing the use of the template there but should have made the comment here because the criticism applies to all the "nutshell" templates.
The "policy in a nutshell" idea seemed like a good idea at the time but now that we've got more experience with it, I think they just clutter up the pages for little purpose. The best "policy in a nutshell" is the policy title. No original research is a good example. It's clear, succinct and tells me exactly what to expect from the rest of the page. The next level of detail should be in the opening paragraph. In most cases, the "nutshell" sentences were actually pulled from older versions of the opening paragraph. This infobox tries to fill a middle ground between the two. Because of that, it's inevitably vague and general. I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of the page.
Frankly, I doubt that most people even read them. When they're laid out on the page, they just blur into the generic "this is official policy" infoboxes and get discounted as administrivia. With very few exceptions, I think the pages would be easier to read and understand if the "nutshell" statement were merged back into the opening paragraph of the policy. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I encourage anyone new to this debate to also review Template talk:Guideline one liner where this practice was first discussed. In my opinion, the initial objections have never been satisfactorily addressed. I'm ready to call this a failed experiment. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that with Rossami and Radiant that the nutshellisms are (a) a source of visual clutter, (b) in general are poor summaries, and (c) are prone to being gamed. I also believe that where the content of the nutshellism is valuable, it should be used as the opening sentence or two of the policy page. There is no need to set it apart visually. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure is this is the right place for this discussion, but let me add my 2 cents. I personally find nutshells very useful and visually appealing. When I first started learning policies, not that long ago, the nuts were very helpful to me to get a quick grasp of the highlights of each policy/guideline, and to some extent I still find them useful. I think we would lose this benefit if we forfeit this important tool. Crum375 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the nutshells. When I see one on a Wikipedia guideline page, I feel like the page is telling me: "This guideline isn't written well enough to be clear, so here's what the guideline is trying to say." Plus, the infobox that the nutshell is in pushes the rest of the page down, making it an even greater distance from the top of the page to any actual meaningful content. In my opinion, nutshells should be done away with, and the "nutshell" itself should be made the first sentence of the guideline. - Brian Kendig 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your goals, but I still don't like the nutshells. In my opinion they make Wikipedia more intimidating, by adding more ugly infobox clutter to the top of the guideline page, and by implicitly suggesting that the guideline is too confusing to present its main idea concisely on its own. The opening paragraph of the guideline is supposed to provide a summary of its scope and key concepts, and if the opening paragraph doesn't do a good enough job of this, then it should be rewritten. Conversely: is there any situation in which the very first sentence of a guideline should not be the same exact thing as in the nutshell? - Brian Kendig 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The topic is unfortunately spread out over a number of threads here, plus various archived Talk pages, so there is redundancy and overlap. The bottom line is that there are at least 2 schools of thought: those who think that the nut is an important asset (like myself), and those who don't. I suggest you read all the related threads here, as they cover the pros and cons fairly well. Like anything else on WP, this issue, which applies to all policies and guidelines, should be decided by consensus. Crum375 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"The purpose of the nut is to allow ... a quick understanding of the essence of a complex policy or guideline." That's also the purpose of the opening paragraph. "A new user coming to a new complex page does not trust the intro to really encompass all the crucial points." Even if I did agree with this statement, and even if it were our responsibility to second-guess what a reader might "trust" or "believe" about a guideline, a nutshell does not "encompass all the crucial points" - it's a nutshell. I still hold that rather than expecting that the opening paragraph will be insufficient and expecting editors to put together a good nutshell, it's far better to simply expect editors to put together a good opening paragraph. Nutshells add unsightly clutter to a page and make it look more complicated; we should be making the guidelines as straightforward as possible. Why don't regular Wikipedia articles have nutshells? How long will it be before people start creating mini-nutshells to summarize a particularly confusing nutshell? - Brian Kendig 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking over some guideline pages, and in some cases, I actually like the nutshells. Wikipedia:Editing policy - "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect." Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - "Avoid 'some people say' statements without sources." Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages - "If in doubt, fix it." Other pages, however, have nutshells which look more like first sentences. Wikipedia:External links - "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Wikipedia:No original research - "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." In trying to be all-encompassing, these nutshells end up failing as nutshells. I would be comfortable with nutshells if a requirement were added that they be pithy. If a nutshell reads like the first sentence of a guideline, then it should instead be the first sentence of the guideline. - Brian Kendig 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting case is WP:NAME. I cut down the nut, and it grew right back. Dhaluza 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it ought to be made clear that nutshells are merely summaries of the policy, and are not binding. Otherwise, their use may create loopholes which allow circumvention of the policies themselves. -- EngineerScotty 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The point of the nutshells is that any policy or guideline that can't be summed up in a clear sentence or two is probably ill-constructed. They should be useful both as an intro to new users and as a mnemonic to current users. A good nutshell is one you can read and not go too far wrong on acting on. This requires some remarkable feats of clear writing, but we have good writers.
People looking for loopholes will find them wherever they can. No rule can protect against stupidity and no rule can protect against malice. Trying will not work and will only make confusion for the clueful of good faith.
And I strongly question whether the talk page of the nutshell template is itself any place to determine a meaningful 'consensus' on them being a bad idea - David Gerard 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't the hurried user read the first couple of sentences of the introduction? — Centrx→ talk • 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of nutshells on policy (and other Wikipedia) documents, but some of the arguments against their use are also persuasive. Essentially though, Wikipedia policy is (or should be) mostly common sense. Most of the time I think about what I would do if there were no guidelines. Then I check the guidelines. 99% of the time, my common sense agrees with the masses and masses of policy pages out there. But what about those people genuinely seeking guidance. Do the nutshells help them? I think they do, and I think nutshells should stay. Also, a massive reorgansiation and summarising of the policy and guideline pages is still long overdue. That is more important than debating nutshells! Carcharoth 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, "nutshells" are necessary devices for conveying to a new person the 1) decisions and 2) conceptual material treated in the individual modules of any complex system.
Likewise, a well-written "nutshell" for the WP:NPOV page could be useful in conveying to new editors the 1) decisions and 2) conceptual material treated in the detailed text of the WP:NPOV page. However, the policy text of the WP:NPOV page is murky, ambiguous, and self-contradictory. And to remove the "nutshell" from the WP:NPOV page only makes the situation much worse.
In any rational approach to problem-solving, the "nutshell" is both a 1) design tool to make sure the policy text under it is self-consistent and a 2) " mnemonic formula" against which the reader can make sense of the detail. May I quote a sage: "A good nutshell can help refocus a project page and be the guide in rewriting it."
I give you an example of the use of "nutshells" to make clear the 1) decision points and 2) conceptual material of the detailed text that follows. Robert Boyd & Joan B. Silk (2003), in their How Humans Evolved, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., use a "nutshell" on almost every page. Here is an example from page 176.
And of course in the following page and a half of text, the authors explain that they are not talking about individual "males"; they are talking about the behavior of the median male in a population consisting of males and females, where the population has evolved over millennia under stable resource conditions. But that "nutshell" serves to 1) focus the questions and challenges of the reader accurately and to 2) provide a quality control device to make sure that the following text is self-consistent.
For all of the above reasons, this template should be retained and filled with clear and concise text. The Wikipedia community refuses to do the necessary work to make its policy pages clear and self-consistent. And removal of this template is just another work avoidance. What do you think we should do to rectify the murky, ambiguous, and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV, just for starters? -- Rednblu 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is an excellent example of why these templates cause more harm than good. Users look at the "nutshell" and incorrectly assume that they know everything about the policy page. They make it far too easy for users to ignore the nuance and the qualifications which the policy page describes. Worse, they make it too easy for those lazy users to attempt to bludgeon other users rather than engaging in rational discourse.
(Note: If the section-link doesn't work, you might have to look in the page history to see the discussion. DRVs are traditionally blanked when the discussion is complete.) Rossami (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of this template, I'd like to make the following comments:
With all the modifications to the template, adding a text alignment parameter no longer works. Was this a by-product of formatting the caption for the template? If so, please restore the ability to specify how the text quoted in the template is aligned. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not well-versed in templates.) Thanks.— Chidom talk 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There was also an issue with this on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it continues to be centered, it is not going to be used on that page. I also don't see why centering is necessary for every other page. Please explain; this was in fact left-aligned until a few weeks ago. — Centrx→ talk • 07:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I created a new Nutshell2 template with the image on the left for compatibility with template:style-guideline. I added it to WP:CONTEXT and I think it improves readability (compare to previous version). Dhaluza 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the valid objections raised here is the difference or lack thereof between the nutshell and the intro paragraph. And I've noted a few pages where there is no difference, making the nutshell redundant and useless. Repetition is a useful learning tool, but redundancy is not. I think they should convey information differently, like the difference between Microsoft Word and PowerPoint (sorry for the brand reference, but you get the point).
So to start the ball rolling again, I have regenerated the {{ Nutshell2}} template as bulleted list, and applied it to WP:CONTEXT again. To address the clutter issue, I have hard coded it to a maximum of three bullets. Have a look, and post your observations here. I know there are some people who will not be happy with anything we create, but their concerns are still valid and should be addressed. Dhaluza 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Would y'all please weigh in on the nutshell for WP:NPOV, as being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view? I believe this case is important in setting precedent for future guidelines - Brian Kendig 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a bit concerned. At first I didn't like nutshells, because I saw them as excuses for a poor opening paragraph. Then I saw some good nutshells such as WP:BOLD - "If in doubt, fix it." So I've been trying to tweak other nutshells to be succinct, and people have been reverting my changes. Two examples:
There seems to be an opinion that changes to nutshells are changes to policy, and must gain approval on the Talk page before they can be made. There also seems to be an opinion that a nutshell must be comprehensive - even when I tried to remove "and other encyclopedic content" from the NPOV nutshell, I got pushback. So, let me ask you this: am I wrong in feeling that a nutshell should be a friendly-sounding "gist" of the general purpose of the article? Should a nutshell really try to cover all bases? - Brian Kendig 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reply makes a good point, and makes me think that perhaps some guidelines for nutshells are a good idea to have. It would be a good thing to have some rules of thumb so that nutshells can be consistent in tone and in level of detail. - Brian Kendig 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
More reason why I feel we really need to agree on a policy: The nutshell for WP:NAME was an exact copy of the article's fifth sentence. I changed it to "Have a general audience in mind when naming Wikipedia articles" - not the best nutshell, I admit, but more approachable than the original, IMHO. It was reverted with this comment: "General audience" of what? Those who know nothing about the subject? The experts? Rockhopper penguins? I believe that this is a dangerous justification to use. If nutshells are required to qualify themselves, then they cease being nutshells at all, and are merely repetitions of some part of the guideline below them. So, what should nutshells be? Friendly and succinct? Or specific and detailed? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the depreciated usages from the main page. While I was there, I added a very brief summary of some of the pearls of wisdom gleaned from the discussion page as guidance to others using the template. Dhaluza 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel somewhat strongly in favor of "The nutshell should not simply repeat text from the main article." In my opinion, if the nutshell repeats the first sentence of the guideline, then it's redundant and kind of silly-looking. If it repeats some line further down in the guideline, then that means that the main idea of the guideline is buried and should be brought up to the first sentence, and that again makes the nutshell redundant. IMHO, the nutshell should paraphrase the guideline in a way that values brevity over covering all bases. I've seen the value of nutshells, and I really like them in a few cases, but I really do not like the trend of making nutshells that try to contain the whole nut. - Brian Kendig 15:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't the place to get into specific examples. But just have a look over the 'What Links Here' list for Template:Nutshell, and read several of the Wikipedia:* nutshells, and you'll notice two distinct kinds of nutshells in use: ones that cleverly and simply sum up the purpose of the article, and ones that try to encapsulate the article itself by covering all bases and leaving no ambiguity. There are people who believe that the latter is the proper purpose of nutshells; I disagree, and I'd like to see a clear statement either way. I'd also like to see a clear guideline on whether nutshells are part of a policy and require consensus before they're edited, or whether they're a summary of a policy and can be tweaked for wording without an approval process. - Brian Kendig 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see the lively discussion. Yes, although these items have been discussed before, no consensus was documented. So now we have something taking shape on the main page. I did some more housekeeping chores, making the template follow convention with a location section, and stating the obvious there. I moved one bullet up (and reworked it slightly) then added the excellent point about making WP inviting to new users from Crum375. Dhaluza 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
David, nice job on the merge! I was just thinking it was time to suggest completing this, since the Nutshell2 bulleted list usage was stable. You beat me to the punch. Thanks for being WP:BOLD. Dhaluza 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Before I changed the mistake, the template read "This page in a nushell". Well I fixed it and put "This page is in a nutshell.-- Angel David 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the image to an svg version. It's not identical but it gets the point across quite clearly...and it's vector graphics (yay). Aar☢n Bruce Talk/ Contribs 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Nut shells seem to be what summaries should be. If the nutshell is the solution to long summaries, those summaries should be shortened per wikipedia guidelines. This nutshell business is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone else really like the svg version better? The png looks like a brain to me...
Aar☢n Bruce
Talk/
Contribs
06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the PNG looks like more like a brain. Besides that, if a vector image is available, it should be used over the raster version (for obvious reasons), and thus this template should utilize the SVG, IMHO.-- Opertinicy ( talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new in using wiki and opened my own one. I would like to copy this template, but I have no frickin clue what part of the many brackets the template is…could some one add a simple box at the bottom with the code for the template?? If it depends on something, a small list?? This would be, btw., a general request. More and more dummies like me are trying to get something run and we do not get the complete logic behind the code… Thank you!-- Jorgusch ( talk) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
![]() | This page in a nutshell: {{{1}}} |
![]() | This page in a nutshell: {{{1}}} |
{{mbox |image=[[Image:Walnut.svg|40px]] |text='''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' {{#if:{{{2|}}}|*{{{1}}} *{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| *{{{3}}}}}|{{{1}}}}} }}
yes, we're using walnut.svg too. ViperSnake151 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove de and nl interwiki links, those pages do not exist (any more). -- Kam Solusar ( talk) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin update the image from Nutshell.png to Walnut.svg at the same resolution? 99.239.58.44 ( talk) 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this template allowed to be used for any page other than policy or guidelines?. Mythdon ( talk) 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've reworked the sandbox to bring the template styling into line with the general mbox defaults. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I really like the nutshell idea, and only realized recently that it is limited to wikipedia policy pages. Wouldn't it be an interesting suggestion to use them in any kind of article ? XApple 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} I have noticed the wiki tag "{{{1}}}" on the template. Please let me change the text from "{{{1}}}" to "{{{text}}}" (if you can). Thank you. -- ヒウビ 私に話しかけて! User:Hiuby/Templates/HiubyTime
{{
editprotected}}
For
WP:ACCESSIBILITY to visually-impaired readers,
WP:ALT #When to specify suggests omitting links from purely-decorative icons, so that
screen readers don't burden the visually-impaired users with useless verbiage. I created
a patch into the sandbox that does this by adding "|link=
" in the obvious place. Please install this into the main version. For licensing reasons it has been argued that icons used in this way must not have licenses that require attribution; I don't agree with this argument, but to forestall any objections on these grounds the patch substitutes a public-domain icon. Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|link=
with that image, but it's fine with me to leave it just as it is. Perhaps, if someone objects, we can ask them to come up with an image that they'd prefer.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
As a result of a recent change to MediaWiki we must now say both "|link=
|alt=
" to mark the nutshell as purely decorative; "|link=
" by itself no longer suffices. This is documented in
WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Please install
this obvious sandbox patch to do this. Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the above. The image currently being used is licensed as CC-BY-SA-1.0, which requires attribution, which we provide by linking the image to the file description page. Anomie ⚔ 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you put multiple shortcuts on the template? 71.146.26.8 ( talk) 01:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I request that where it says "nutshell" we should make a link to Wikipedia:Nutshell. It just seemed like something that wouldm't hurt anybody and I always thought would make sense.
-- Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 23:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I request that where it says "nutshell" we should make a link to Wikipedia:Nutshell. It just seemed like something that wouldm't hurt anybody and I always thought would make sense.
-- Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 23:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
How to reduce the width of the template and float it to right? Why there is no parameter for that specified in the documentation? Aravind V R ( talk) 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Please can we increase the image size to 40px, in line with other message boxes. That way the text lines up better when using multiple mboxes. No need to reply (I'm not going to watch this page), just make the change or don't. It's only a small matter. nagualdesign ( talk) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Img replace to File:Walnut.svg .thx -- Olli ( talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was trying to list more than one shortcut in this template on a page utilizing this template, and was trying to figure out what it was not working. And then I realized why; this template looks like it is built to only allow 1 shortcut to be listed in it. In order to allow more than one shortcut to be listed in this template, without breaking the shortcuts already utilizing this template, could this line:
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|}}} | {{Ombox/Shortcut|{{{shortcut}}} }} }}
... be replaced with this:
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
...If so, please inform me of the changes, and I will be more than willing to update Template:Nutshell/doc accordingly. Thanks in advance! Steel1943 ( talk) 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nest the template, please. Like this:
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Not only is your broken example a perfectly valid reason why this shouldn't be done, but common sense (which I have little of) demands it won't be done without a consensus to do so. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Having created a bit of a wall of text at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Easier_access_to_biography_articles_via_subject_surname.3F, I decided to add a "Nutshell" - but the only way to make it refer to a section was to subst and edit, which I've done. It would be useful, for talk pages, if there was a "Section" parameter to add to create this text? Any thoughts? Pam D 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|title=
parameter to replace the "This page" text, if that's what you're referring to: {{Nutshell|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet|title=This section}}
→ ![]() | This section in a nutshell: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet |
The {{
unordered list}} template is used in the {{
nutshell}} template; however, the {{
unordered list}} template is merely a redirect to the {{
bulleted list}} template. Whilst it mayn’t be a very significant change, I think that the template should be changed to {{
bulleted list}} in this template.
―
PapíDimmi (
talk |
contribs)
18:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |alt=Nutshell icon
or a similar phrase per
MOS:ACCESS#Images. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
"This page..." is a bit a tedious intro for something that's intended to be a friendly summary. How about making the default intro just "In a nutshell"?
![]() | In a nutshell: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. |
Atón ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the line break and the 90% font-size per this discussion.
In other words, change
{{mbox
to
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
| text = '''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' {{#if:{{{2|}}}
| {{unordered list|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}}}
| {{{1}}}
}}
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
}}
{{mbox
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨)
05:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
| text = '''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' <br><div style="font-size:90%">{{#if:{{{2|}}}
| {{unordered list|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}}}
| {{{1}}}
}}</div>
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
}}
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the file to the SVG version not the PNG version. UnLeashedWolfie ( talk) 08:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding a nutshell
CSS class to the template, like this:
{{mbox
| class = nutshell
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
This would have semantic benefits, such as facilitating selecting it using a custom CSS browser add-on. 79.249.159.246 ( talk) 08:38, 27 September 2020 (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 |
This template is being overused. Looking through the "what links here" I found it being used helpfully on WP:SOCK but it was sitting there and being totally useless on WP:NPA and WP:NOT. Don't use this when the article will not benefit from a one-line summary. Ashibaka tock 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I alter the template so the text is aligned to center? I think it looks especially wrong when the description is very short. - Drrngrvy 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I should probably ask this some place else, but... what do people actually think of all the nutshells? One might argue they cause laziness and incomplete comprehension of policy, since in effect most policy pages cannot really be reduced to a single line. >Radiant< 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I just said this on a particular page discussing the use of the template there but should have made the comment here because the criticism applies to all the "nutshell" templates.
The "policy in a nutshell" idea seemed like a good idea at the time but now that we've got more experience with it, I think they just clutter up the pages for little purpose. The best "policy in a nutshell" is the policy title. No original research is a good example. It's clear, succinct and tells me exactly what to expect from the rest of the page. The next level of detail should be in the opening paragraph. In most cases, the "nutshell" sentences were actually pulled from older versions of the opening paragraph. This infobox tries to fill a middle ground between the two. Because of that, it's inevitably vague and general. I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of the page.
Frankly, I doubt that most people even read them. When they're laid out on the page, they just blur into the generic "this is official policy" infoboxes and get discounted as administrivia. With very few exceptions, I think the pages would be easier to read and understand if the "nutshell" statement were merged back into the opening paragraph of the policy. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I encourage anyone new to this debate to also review Template talk:Guideline one liner where this practice was first discussed. In my opinion, the initial objections have never been satisfactorily addressed. I'm ready to call this a failed experiment. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that with Rossami and Radiant that the nutshellisms are (a) a source of visual clutter, (b) in general are poor summaries, and (c) are prone to being gamed. I also believe that where the content of the nutshellism is valuable, it should be used as the opening sentence or two of the policy page. There is no need to set it apart visually. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure is this is the right place for this discussion, but let me add my 2 cents. I personally find nutshells very useful and visually appealing. When I first started learning policies, not that long ago, the nuts were very helpful to me to get a quick grasp of the highlights of each policy/guideline, and to some extent I still find them useful. I think we would lose this benefit if we forfeit this important tool. Crum375 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the nutshells. When I see one on a Wikipedia guideline page, I feel like the page is telling me: "This guideline isn't written well enough to be clear, so here's what the guideline is trying to say." Plus, the infobox that the nutshell is in pushes the rest of the page down, making it an even greater distance from the top of the page to any actual meaningful content. In my opinion, nutshells should be done away with, and the "nutshell" itself should be made the first sentence of the guideline. - Brian Kendig 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your goals, but I still don't like the nutshells. In my opinion they make Wikipedia more intimidating, by adding more ugly infobox clutter to the top of the guideline page, and by implicitly suggesting that the guideline is too confusing to present its main idea concisely on its own. The opening paragraph of the guideline is supposed to provide a summary of its scope and key concepts, and if the opening paragraph doesn't do a good enough job of this, then it should be rewritten. Conversely: is there any situation in which the very first sentence of a guideline should not be the same exact thing as in the nutshell? - Brian Kendig 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The topic is unfortunately spread out over a number of threads here, plus various archived Talk pages, so there is redundancy and overlap. The bottom line is that there are at least 2 schools of thought: those who think that the nut is an important asset (like myself), and those who don't. I suggest you read all the related threads here, as they cover the pros and cons fairly well. Like anything else on WP, this issue, which applies to all policies and guidelines, should be decided by consensus. Crum375 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"The purpose of the nut is to allow ... a quick understanding of the essence of a complex policy or guideline." That's also the purpose of the opening paragraph. "A new user coming to a new complex page does not trust the intro to really encompass all the crucial points." Even if I did agree with this statement, and even if it were our responsibility to second-guess what a reader might "trust" or "believe" about a guideline, a nutshell does not "encompass all the crucial points" - it's a nutshell. I still hold that rather than expecting that the opening paragraph will be insufficient and expecting editors to put together a good nutshell, it's far better to simply expect editors to put together a good opening paragraph. Nutshells add unsightly clutter to a page and make it look more complicated; we should be making the guidelines as straightforward as possible. Why don't regular Wikipedia articles have nutshells? How long will it be before people start creating mini-nutshells to summarize a particularly confusing nutshell? - Brian Kendig 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking over some guideline pages, and in some cases, I actually like the nutshells. Wikipedia:Editing policy - "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect." Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - "Avoid 'some people say' statements without sources." Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages - "If in doubt, fix it." Other pages, however, have nutshells which look more like first sentences. Wikipedia:External links - "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Wikipedia:No original research - "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." In trying to be all-encompassing, these nutshells end up failing as nutshells. I would be comfortable with nutshells if a requirement were added that they be pithy. If a nutshell reads like the first sentence of a guideline, then it should instead be the first sentence of the guideline. - Brian Kendig 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting case is WP:NAME. I cut down the nut, and it grew right back. Dhaluza 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it ought to be made clear that nutshells are merely summaries of the policy, and are not binding. Otherwise, their use may create loopholes which allow circumvention of the policies themselves. -- EngineerScotty 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The point of the nutshells is that any policy or guideline that can't be summed up in a clear sentence or two is probably ill-constructed. They should be useful both as an intro to new users and as a mnemonic to current users. A good nutshell is one you can read and not go too far wrong on acting on. This requires some remarkable feats of clear writing, but we have good writers.
People looking for loopholes will find them wherever they can. No rule can protect against stupidity and no rule can protect against malice. Trying will not work and will only make confusion for the clueful of good faith.
And I strongly question whether the talk page of the nutshell template is itself any place to determine a meaningful 'consensus' on them being a bad idea - David Gerard 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't the hurried user read the first couple of sentences of the introduction? — Centrx→ talk • 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of nutshells on policy (and other Wikipedia) documents, but some of the arguments against their use are also persuasive. Essentially though, Wikipedia policy is (or should be) mostly common sense. Most of the time I think about what I would do if there were no guidelines. Then I check the guidelines. 99% of the time, my common sense agrees with the masses and masses of policy pages out there. But what about those people genuinely seeking guidance. Do the nutshells help them? I think they do, and I think nutshells should stay. Also, a massive reorgansiation and summarising of the policy and guideline pages is still long overdue. That is more important than debating nutshells! Carcharoth 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, "nutshells" are necessary devices for conveying to a new person the 1) decisions and 2) conceptual material treated in the individual modules of any complex system.
Likewise, a well-written "nutshell" for the WP:NPOV page could be useful in conveying to new editors the 1) decisions and 2) conceptual material treated in the detailed text of the WP:NPOV page. However, the policy text of the WP:NPOV page is murky, ambiguous, and self-contradictory. And to remove the "nutshell" from the WP:NPOV page only makes the situation much worse.
In any rational approach to problem-solving, the "nutshell" is both a 1) design tool to make sure the policy text under it is self-consistent and a 2) " mnemonic formula" against which the reader can make sense of the detail. May I quote a sage: "A good nutshell can help refocus a project page and be the guide in rewriting it."
I give you an example of the use of "nutshells" to make clear the 1) decision points and 2) conceptual material of the detailed text that follows. Robert Boyd & Joan B. Silk (2003), in their How Humans Evolved, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., use a "nutshell" on almost every page. Here is an example from page 176.
And of course in the following page and a half of text, the authors explain that they are not talking about individual "males"; they are talking about the behavior of the median male in a population consisting of males and females, where the population has evolved over millennia under stable resource conditions. But that "nutshell" serves to 1) focus the questions and challenges of the reader accurately and to 2) provide a quality control device to make sure that the following text is self-consistent.
For all of the above reasons, this template should be retained and filled with clear and concise text. The Wikipedia community refuses to do the necessary work to make its policy pages clear and self-consistent. And removal of this template is just another work avoidance. What do you think we should do to rectify the murky, ambiguous, and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV, just for starters? -- Rednblu 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is an excellent example of why these templates cause more harm than good. Users look at the "nutshell" and incorrectly assume that they know everything about the policy page. They make it far too easy for users to ignore the nuance and the qualifications which the policy page describes. Worse, they make it too easy for those lazy users to attempt to bludgeon other users rather than engaging in rational discourse.
(Note: If the section-link doesn't work, you might have to look in the page history to see the discussion. DRVs are traditionally blanked when the discussion is complete.) Rossami (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of this template, I'd like to make the following comments:
With all the modifications to the template, adding a text alignment parameter no longer works. Was this a by-product of formatting the caption for the template? If so, please restore the ability to specify how the text quoted in the template is aligned. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not well-versed in templates.) Thanks.— Chidom talk 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There was also an issue with this on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it continues to be centered, it is not going to be used on that page. I also don't see why centering is necessary for every other page. Please explain; this was in fact left-aligned until a few weeks ago. — Centrx→ talk • 07:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I created a new Nutshell2 template with the image on the left for compatibility with template:style-guideline. I added it to WP:CONTEXT and I think it improves readability (compare to previous version). Dhaluza 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the valid objections raised here is the difference or lack thereof between the nutshell and the intro paragraph. And I've noted a few pages where there is no difference, making the nutshell redundant and useless. Repetition is a useful learning tool, but redundancy is not. I think they should convey information differently, like the difference between Microsoft Word and PowerPoint (sorry for the brand reference, but you get the point).
So to start the ball rolling again, I have regenerated the {{ Nutshell2}} template as bulleted list, and applied it to WP:CONTEXT again. To address the clutter issue, I have hard coded it to a maximum of three bullets. Have a look, and post your observations here. I know there are some people who will not be happy with anything we create, but their concerns are still valid and should be addressed. Dhaluza 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Would y'all please weigh in on the nutshell for WP:NPOV, as being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view? I believe this case is important in setting precedent for future guidelines - Brian Kendig 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a bit concerned. At first I didn't like nutshells, because I saw them as excuses for a poor opening paragraph. Then I saw some good nutshells such as WP:BOLD - "If in doubt, fix it." So I've been trying to tweak other nutshells to be succinct, and people have been reverting my changes. Two examples:
There seems to be an opinion that changes to nutshells are changes to policy, and must gain approval on the Talk page before they can be made. There also seems to be an opinion that a nutshell must be comprehensive - even when I tried to remove "and other encyclopedic content" from the NPOV nutshell, I got pushback. So, let me ask you this: am I wrong in feeling that a nutshell should be a friendly-sounding "gist" of the general purpose of the article? Should a nutshell really try to cover all bases? - Brian Kendig 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reply makes a good point, and makes me think that perhaps some guidelines for nutshells are a good idea to have. It would be a good thing to have some rules of thumb so that nutshells can be consistent in tone and in level of detail. - Brian Kendig 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
More reason why I feel we really need to agree on a policy: The nutshell for WP:NAME was an exact copy of the article's fifth sentence. I changed it to "Have a general audience in mind when naming Wikipedia articles" - not the best nutshell, I admit, but more approachable than the original, IMHO. It was reverted with this comment: "General audience" of what? Those who know nothing about the subject? The experts? Rockhopper penguins? I believe that this is a dangerous justification to use. If nutshells are required to qualify themselves, then they cease being nutshells at all, and are merely repetitions of some part of the guideline below them. So, what should nutshells be? Friendly and succinct? Or specific and detailed? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the depreciated usages from the main page. While I was there, I added a very brief summary of some of the pearls of wisdom gleaned from the discussion page as guidance to others using the template. Dhaluza 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel somewhat strongly in favor of "The nutshell should not simply repeat text from the main article." In my opinion, if the nutshell repeats the first sentence of the guideline, then it's redundant and kind of silly-looking. If it repeats some line further down in the guideline, then that means that the main idea of the guideline is buried and should be brought up to the first sentence, and that again makes the nutshell redundant. IMHO, the nutshell should paraphrase the guideline in a way that values brevity over covering all bases. I've seen the value of nutshells, and I really like them in a few cases, but I really do not like the trend of making nutshells that try to contain the whole nut. - Brian Kendig 15:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't the place to get into specific examples. But just have a look over the 'What Links Here' list for Template:Nutshell, and read several of the Wikipedia:* nutshells, and you'll notice two distinct kinds of nutshells in use: ones that cleverly and simply sum up the purpose of the article, and ones that try to encapsulate the article itself by covering all bases and leaving no ambiguity. There are people who believe that the latter is the proper purpose of nutshells; I disagree, and I'd like to see a clear statement either way. I'd also like to see a clear guideline on whether nutshells are part of a policy and require consensus before they're edited, or whether they're a summary of a policy and can be tweaked for wording without an approval process. - Brian Kendig 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see the lively discussion. Yes, although these items have been discussed before, no consensus was documented. So now we have something taking shape on the main page. I did some more housekeeping chores, making the template follow convention with a location section, and stating the obvious there. I moved one bullet up (and reworked it slightly) then added the excellent point about making WP inviting to new users from Crum375. Dhaluza 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
David, nice job on the merge! I was just thinking it was time to suggest completing this, since the Nutshell2 bulleted list usage was stable. You beat me to the punch. Thanks for being WP:BOLD. Dhaluza 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Before I changed the mistake, the template read "This page in a nushell". Well I fixed it and put "This page is in a nutshell.-- Angel David 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the image to an svg version. It's not identical but it gets the point across quite clearly...and it's vector graphics (yay). Aar☢n Bruce Talk/ Contribs 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Nut shells seem to be what summaries should be. If the nutshell is the solution to long summaries, those summaries should be shortened per wikipedia guidelines. This nutshell business is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone else really like the svg version better? The png looks like a brain to me...
Aar☢n Bruce
Talk/
Contribs
06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the PNG looks like more like a brain. Besides that, if a vector image is available, it should be used over the raster version (for obvious reasons), and thus this template should utilize the SVG, IMHO.-- Opertinicy ( talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am new in using wiki and opened my own one. I would like to copy this template, but I have no frickin clue what part of the many brackets the template is…could some one add a simple box at the bottom with the code for the template?? If it depends on something, a small list?? This would be, btw., a general request. More and more dummies like me are trying to get something run and we do not get the complete logic behind the code… Thank you!-- Jorgusch ( talk) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
![]() | This page in a nutshell: {{{1}}} |
![]() | This page in a nutshell: {{{1}}} |
{{mbox |image=[[Image:Walnut.svg|40px]] |text='''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' {{#if:{{{2|}}}|*{{{1}}} *{{{2}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}| *{{{3}}}}}|{{{1}}}}} }}
yes, we're using walnut.svg too. ViperSnake151 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove de and nl interwiki links, those pages do not exist (any more). -- Kam Solusar ( talk) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin update the image from Nutshell.png to Walnut.svg at the same resolution? 99.239.58.44 ( talk) 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this template allowed to be used for any page other than policy or guidelines?. Mythdon ( talk) 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've reworked the sandbox to bring the template styling into line with the general mbox defaults. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I really like the nutshell idea, and only realized recently that it is limited to wikipedia policy pages. Wouldn't it be an interesting suggestion to use them in any kind of article ? XApple 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} I have noticed the wiki tag "{{{1}}}" on the template. Please let me change the text from "{{{1}}}" to "{{{text}}}" (if you can). Thank you. -- ヒウビ 私に話しかけて! User:Hiuby/Templates/HiubyTime
{{
editprotected}}
For
WP:ACCESSIBILITY to visually-impaired readers,
WP:ALT #When to specify suggests omitting links from purely-decorative icons, so that
screen readers don't burden the visually-impaired users with useless verbiage. I created
a patch into the sandbox that does this by adding "|link=
" in the obvious place. Please install this into the main version. For licensing reasons it has been argued that icons used in this way must not have licenses that require attribution; I don't agree with this argument, but to forestall any objections on these grounds the patch substitutes a public-domain icon. Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|link=
with that image, but it's fine with me to leave it just as it is. Perhaps, if someone objects, we can ask them to come up with an image that they'd prefer.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
As a result of a recent change to MediaWiki we must now say both "|link=
|alt=
" to mark the nutshell as purely decorative; "|link=
" by itself no longer suffices. This is documented in
WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Please install
this obvious sandbox patch to do this. Thanks.
Eubulides (
talk)
04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the above. The image currently being used is licensed as CC-BY-SA-1.0, which requires attribution, which we provide by linking the image to the file description page. Anomie ⚔ 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you put multiple shortcuts on the template? 71.146.26.8 ( talk) 01:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I request that where it says "nutshell" we should make a link to Wikipedia:Nutshell. It just seemed like something that wouldm't hurt anybody and I always thought would make sense.
-- Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 23:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I request that where it says "nutshell" we should make a link to Wikipedia:Nutshell. It just seemed like something that wouldm't hurt anybody and I always thought would make sense.
-- Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 23:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
How to reduce the width of the template and float it to right? Why there is no parameter for that specified in the documentation? Aravind V R ( talk) 07:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Please can we increase the image size to 40px, in line with other message boxes. That way the text lines up better when using multiple mboxes. No need to reply (I'm not going to watch this page), just make the change or don't. It's only a small matter. nagualdesign ( talk) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Img replace to File:Walnut.svg .thx -- Olli ( talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was trying to list more than one shortcut in this template on a page utilizing this template, and was trying to figure out what it was not working. And then I realized why; this template looks like it is built to only allow 1 shortcut to be listed in it. In order to allow more than one shortcut to be listed in this template, without breaking the shortcuts already utilizing this template, could this line:
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|}}} | {{Ombox/Shortcut|{{{shortcut}}} }} }}
... be replaced with this:
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
...If so, please inform me of the changes, and I will be more than willing to update Template:Nutshell/doc accordingly. Thanks in advance! Steel1943 ( talk) 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nest the template, please. Like this:
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Not only is your broken example a perfectly valid reason why this shouldn't be done, but common sense (which I have little of) demands it won't be done without a consensus to do so. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Having created a bit of a wall of text at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Easier_access_to_biography_articles_via_subject_surname.3F, I decided to add a "Nutshell" - but the only way to make it refer to a section was to subst and edit, which I've done. It would be useful, for talk pages, if there was a "Section" parameter to add to create this text? Any thoughts? Pam D 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|title=
parameter to replace the "This page" text, if that's what you're referring to: {{Nutshell|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet|title=This section}}
→ ![]() | This section in a nutshell: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet |
The {{
unordered list}} template is used in the {{
nutshell}} template; however, the {{
unordered list}} template is merely a redirect to the {{
bulleted list}} template. Whilst it mayn’t be a very significant change, I think that the template should be changed to {{
bulleted list}} in this template.
―
PapíDimmi (
talk |
contribs)
18:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |alt=Nutshell icon
or a similar phrase per
MOS:ACCESS#Images. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
"This page..." is a bit a tedious intro for something that's intended to be a friendly summary. How about making the default intro just "In a nutshell"?
![]() | In a nutshell: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. |
Atón ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the line break and the 90% font-size per this discussion.
In other words, change
{{mbox
to
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
| text = '''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' {{#if:{{{2|}}}
| {{unordered list|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}}}
| {{{1}}}
}}
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
}}
{{mbox
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨)
05:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
| text = '''{{{title|This page}}} in a nutshell:''' <br><div style="font-size:90%">{{#if:{{{2|}}}
| {{unordered list|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}}}
| {{{1}}}
}}</div>
| imageright = {{#if:{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}} | {{Ombox/shortcut|{{{shortcut|{{{shortcut1|}}}}}}|{{{shortcut2|}}}|{{{shortcut3|}}}|{{{shortcut4|}}}|{{{shortcut5|}}} }} }}
}}
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the file to the SVG version not the PNG version. UnLeashedWolfie ( talk) 08:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Nutshell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding a nutshell
CSS class to the template, like this:
{{mbox
| class = nutshell
| image = [[File:Walnut.png|30px|link=|alt=]]
This would have semantic benefits, such as facilitating selecting it using a custom CSS browser add-on. 79.249.159.246 ( talk) 08:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)