Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.
There's a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a shot:
|
I am proposing that tp:
be added as an alias to the Template:
namespace per
this discussion.
Note: Though previous aliases were already
listed on perennial proposals, it proposed t:
, which would have conflicted with some article titles, or be confused with the Talk:
namespace. Tp:
, on the other hand, wouldn't, and would make it way quicker to look up a template in the search bar.
Edit (during rfc): tp:
was not fully supported due to it being confused with "Talk Page", however other options were proposed, like hard coding {{
being replaced by Template:
in the search bar, or other aliases like tmp:
.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
wp:
for Wikipedia:
, which is 10 characters, while Template:
is 9 characters.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. Even if that is true it is not a reason for us not to do so. Wikipedia is big enough to be making fashions rather than following them. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
{{tld}}
for talk pages, but it would be much cleaner and simpler to have a standard abbrev. and this is technically easy to implement. TP: or T: it doesn't matter they both are fine. I prefer T: --
Green
C 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)TP:
prefix was proposed in 2015, in a discussion which was closed as no consensus -
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pagesSee Nirvana fallacy. — Frostly ( talk) 06:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
to Template:
, a namespace shortcut (tp:
) would help in edit summaries and customised browser search boxes. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 23:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Template:Convert
is easy and helpful to someone reading my comment. Writing Tp:Convert
is unnecessary jargon that saves under a second of typing at the cost of head-scratching for readers. tp
would be "talk page" for many.
Johnuniq (
talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC){{
→Template:
into the search box's autocomplete natively rather than using my script as a hack, but I agree that the widespread use of links like
TP:Example are an unnecessary layer of obfuscation/jargon. With the WP
prefix, at least the shortcut links are mostly self explanatory, but it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer what, for example,
tp:birds is, or why it's not an article. --
Ahecht (
TALKtp:
wasn't the best as others have pointed out. I'll continue gathering some ideas and then conduct a sub-RfC to see what option would be best, as long as the consensus doesn't seem to be oppose.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)t:
will add an another level of obfuscation. The current method of making
interwiki link is already obscure and complicated, specially for newbies, instead a simple alias to the template namespace will be easy and handy in researches. --
Zand
Dev 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
in the search bar would be sufficient to support the use case of issue. But beside that, I agree with oppose comments above.
Izno (
talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC){{|}}
. There are two points, though: (i) it's counterintuitive and annoying that the whole word is needed, in contrast to wp: etc.; and (ii) beyond three characters, it stops really being a shortcut because it's only a bit shorter. Part of the annoyance is in having to remember that there isn't a 2-letter prefix to use.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC){{
(if technically possible): no ambiguity and concise. Typing {{Rfc
should take you to
Template:Rfc and so should {{Rfc}}
. I'm neutral on aliasing TP
as the ambiguity may be balanced out by utility. I like T
better despite previous community rejection. —
Bilorv (
talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
to be implemented, and there already is
code for it if you want to try it out.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC){{
is less preferable to me because a shortcut would also allow shortening template links in edit summaries, where {{
tl}} is unavailable. The particular shortcut used doesn't matter to me, just that I won't have to type "Template:" every time.
Nickps (
talk) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
for Search (alongside a regular shortcut) as long as we take measures to make sure that people don't end up on the wrong page. That is, if e.g. {{foo}} exists we should add a {{
technical reasons}} hatnote to
Template:foo/doc.
Nickps (
talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
infobox person}}
(I'm looking to read the doc, not edit it, so the transclusion on the "main template page" is all I need). So I'm typing into the search box, and typing nine characters before I even get to the template name. I would dislike three characters (tm:
) one-third (3⁄9) as much. My question is: Why NOT do this? Where's the significant downside? ―
Mandruss
☎ 19:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
wp:
because typing "wikipedia:consensus" is tedious. And I can't spell template—I misspell it tempalte all the time—so an alias would be very nice. Anything four characters or shorter would be fine by me; I especially like the {{
idea. And to those who think that creating an alias will cause confusion—really? Is wp:sectionlink
any more confusing than tm:sectionlink
or something similar? You'll be lost for all of two seconds, if that.
Cessaune
[talk] 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me we might have wide enough support for this to pass as a general concept. But I think a closer would be unable to decide on the specific alias to use, so we'd be looking at another RfC to decide that (ugh). Therefore a separate survey is in order. Eliminating tp:
, I see at least tentative support for t:
,
, tl:tm:
, tmp:
, and tpl:
(am I missing any?). I don't think this needs ranked voting—the specific choice isn't that critical—so it would be great if editors could just specify their one favorite. ―
Mandruss
☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is not for opposition to the general concept; see my reply to Anomie's Oppose, below. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of all participants to date, regardless of the nature of participation; you commented, you get notified. @ Aaron Liu, Ahecht, Alexcalamaro, Anomie, ARandomName123, A smart kitten, Bilorv, Buidhe, CactiStaccingCrane, Chipmunkdavis, Cocobb8, Cremastra, Draken Bowser, Fastily, Frostly, Goldsztajn, GreenC, Isaacl, Izno, Jlwoodwa, JML1148, Johnuniq, Mach61, Michael Bednarek, Mir Novov, Musiconeologist, Nickps, Phil Bridger, Pppery, Redrose64, Schazjmd, Slacker13, Usedtobecool, Wjemather, Xaosflux, and ZandDev: ― Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
{{
is my first choice and t is my second choice (and I don't understand why I have to say it twice). —
Bilorv (
talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
{{:
would pose a problem for many existing tools and scripts that parse wikitext, including syntax highlighting tools.
isaacl (
talk) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:
to emphasize that the proposal is for a namespace alias, and not to suggest that there would be a colon in the namespace alias. Yes, the point of my comment was that not only might there be a need for changes to MediaWiki software, but to many existing tools and scripts, including syntax highlighting tools.
isaacl (
talk) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
tmp:
and tpl:
.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 14:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC){{
|
t:
is the existing psudeo-namespace for templates, as seen at
T:CN and
T:DYK? That doesn't mean you HAVE to support it, but it makes the arguments that it would be "confusing" stange, as it is already in use.
Mach61 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I do not know about the rest, but on chrome, using the search engine shortcut feature worked perfectly.
That's it. After that, just type out your shortcut, followed by title, separated by a space/tab, on the address bar and hit enter. Everyone can pick whatever shortcut they like, for all namespaces and even page prefixes of their choice. You can add one for /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%s to go to RFAs by just typing out usernames, for example. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
tp:
would make it easier regardless of the platform people use to contribute.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)TP:
and {{
in the Wikipedia search box with Template:
. --
Ahecht (
TALKThe 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.
While redirects from page moves are commonly kept, there are reasons why they should not be kept as seen at WP:PMRC. For example, moving an article to draft space or to reverse page moves vandalism. This is common even for those without special tools (such as page mover or admin). This is so that normal users do not have to tag the page to request deletion and saves times for the admins (and users with the page mover tool) to do the work. Obviously this will not be an option for unregistered or new users, or for pages that are already move protected. The 'leave a redirect' button (or something along those lines) will be on by default and users who need to remove the redirect will have to manually press a button to turn it off. JuniperChill ( talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Post closure comment - Looks like I should have said ECP users, but it looks like the proposal will still not survive regardless. I counted 0/10 support for AC users and 3 for EC users (excluding the proposer). I made this proposal because of the amount of times its useful to not leave a redirect, as stated above but other than that, keep it. Maybe at least from main to draftspace, redirects would be deleted regardless. I didn't think that by this way, non admins could effectively delete the page when it was actually moved elsewhere
(not sure if this is the right place to put post closure comments as it is just below the discussion, just no more support/oppose votes) JuniperChill ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians § Split proposal that may be of interest to editors. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 11:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Copied from the edit request at Template talk:Para#Add nowrap for para, which was rejected as "consensus required". April 2023 attempt to seek said consensus received no response. That system leaves a lot to be desired.
I used {{
para}}
and got a line break after the pipe character. This looked ridiculous and makes little sense. I assume other line breaks would be possible, such as after a hyphen in the parameter name. Adding {{
nowrap}}
or equivalent would make far more sense than requiring editors to code, e.g., {{nowrap|{{para|archive-url}}}}
. While Note 2 below the table at "General-purpose formatting" speaks of nowrap options, I'm at a loss to see how they help my situation. In any event, I don't see how automatic, unconditional nowrap for all uses of {{
para}}
could be the slightest bit controversial. At the very least, an option could be added to suppress the default of nowrap for cases where horizontal space is limited, such as in tables.
See also
Template talk:Para#no line-breaks in output, where a request for this was ignored (or never seen) 13 months ago. As to If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.
, well, we've seen how effective that was. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
should all be on one line, not wrapped, because "archive-url" is a single concept (the parameter name) and should not be split in any way, despite the hyphen. I do not find broader ideological opposition to nowrap persuasive if it is applied reflexively to this circumstance without considering the particular situation here. I would find examples of instances in which parameters should be wrapped much more persuasive.
Sdkb
talk 02:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
for instance is ok.it just requires more thought by those writing the uses. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
param=part sounds reasonable. Sdkb talk 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Should English Wikipedia enable the Suggested Links newcomer task?. Sdkb talk 21:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.
There's a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a shot:
|
I am proposing that tp:
be added as an alias to the Template:
namespace per
this discussion.
Note: Though previous aliases were already
listed on perennial proposals, it proposed t:
, which would have conflicted with some article titles, or be confused with the Talk:
namespace. Tp:
, on the other hand, wouldn't, and would make it way quicker to look up a template in the search bar.
Edit (during rfc): tp:
was not fully supported due to it being confused with "Talk Page", however other options were proposed, like hard coding {{
being replaced by Template:
in the search bar, or other aliases like tmp:
.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
wp:
for Wikipedia:
, which is 10 characters, while Template:
is 9 characters.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. Even if that is true it is not a reason for us not to do so. Wikipedia is big enough to be making fashions rather than following them. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
{{tld}}
for talk pages, but it would be much cleaner and simpler to have a standard abbrev. and this is technically easy to implement. TP: or T: it doesn't matter they both are fine. I prefer T: --
Green
C 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)TP:
prefix was proposed in 2015, in a discussion which was closed as no consensus -
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pagesSee Nirvana fallacy. — Frostly ( talk) 06:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
to Template:
, a namespace shortcut (tp:
) would help in edit summaries and customised browser search boxes. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 23:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Template:Convert
is easy and helpful to someone reading my comment. Writing Tp:Convert
is unnecessary jargon that saves under a second of typing at the cost of head-scratching for readers. tp
would be "talk page" for many.
Johnuniq (
talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC){{
→Template:
into the search box's autocomplete natively rather than using my script as a hack, but I agree that the widespread use of links like
TP:Example are an unnecessary layer of obfuscation/jargon. With the WP
prefix, at least the shortcut links are mostly self explanatory, but it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer what, for example,
tp:birds is, or why it's not an article. --
Ahecht (
TALKtp:
wasn't the best as others have pointed out. I'll continue gathering some ideas and then conduct a sub-RfC to see what option would be best, as long as the consensus doesn't seem to be oppose.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)t:
will add an another level of obfuscation. The current method of making
interwiki link is already obscure and complicated, specially for newbies, instead a simple alias to the template namespace will be easy and handy in researches. --
Zand
Dev 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
in the search bar would be sufficient to support the use case of issue. But beside that, I agree with oppose comments above.
Izno (
talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC){{|}}
. There are two points, though: (i) it's counterintuitive and annoying that the whole word is needed, in contrast to wp: etc.; and (ii) beyond three characters, it stops really being a shortcut because it's only a bit shorter. Part of the annoyance is in having to remember that there isn't a 2-letter prefix to use.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC){{
(if technically possible): no ambiguity and concise. Typing {{Rfc
should take you to
Template:Rfc and so should {{Rfc}}
. I'm neutral on aliasing TP
as the ambiguity may be balanced out by utility. I like T
better despite previous community rejection. —
Bilorv (
talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
to be implemented, and there already is
code for it if you want to try it out.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC){{
is less preferable to me because a shortcut would also allow shortening template links in edit summaries, where {{
tl}} is unavailable. The particular shortcut used doesn't matter to me, just that I won't have to type "Template:" every time.
Nickps (
talk) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
for Search (alongside a regular shortcut) as long as we take measures to make sure that people don't end up on the wrong page. That is, if e.g. {{foo}} exists we should add a {{
technical reasons}} hatnote to
Template:foo/doc.
Nickps (
talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
infobox person}}
(I'm looking to read the doc, not edit it, so the transclusion on the "main template page" is all I need). So I'm typing into the search box, and typing nine characters before I even get to the template name. I would dislike three characters (tm:
) one-third (3⁄9) as much. My question is: Why NOT do this? Where's the significant downside? ―
Mandruss
☎ 19:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
wp:
because typing "wikipedia:consensus" is tedious. And I can't spell template—I misspell it tempalte all the time—so an alias would be very nice. Anything four characters or shorter would be fine by me; I especially like the {{
idea. And to those who think that creating an alias will cause confusion—really? Is wp:sectionlink
any more confusing than tm:sectionlink
or something similar? You'll be lost for all of two seconds, if that.
Cessaune
[talk] 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me we might have wide enough support for this to pass as a general concept. But I think a closer would be unable to decide on the specific alias to use, so we'd be looking at another RfC to decide that (ugh). Therefore a separate survey is in order. Eliminating tp:
, I see at least tentative support for t:
,
, tl:tm:
, tmp:
, and tpl:
(am I missing any?). I don't think this needs ranked voting—the specific choice isn't that critical—so it would be great if editors could just specify their one favorite. ―
Mandruss
☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is not for opposition to the general concept; see my reply to Anomie's Oppose, below. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of all participants to date, regardless of the nature of participation; you commented, you get notified. @ Aaron Liu, Ahecht, Alexcalamaro, Anomie, ARandomName123, A smart kitten, Bilorv, Buidhe, CactiStaccingCrane, Chipmunkdavis, Cocobb8, Cremastra, Draken Bowser, Fastily, Frostly, Goldsztajn, GreenC, Isaacl, Izno, Jlwoodwa, JML1148, Johnuniq, Mach61, Michael Bednarek, Mir Novov, Musiconeologist, Nickps, Phil Bridger, Pppery, Redrose64, Schazjmd, Slacker13, Usedtobecool, Wjemather, Xaosflux, and ZandDev: ― Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
{{
is my first choice and t is my second choice (and I don't understand why I have to say it twice). —
Bilorv (
talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
{{:
would pose a problem for many existing tools and scripts that parse wikitext, including syntax highlighting tools.
isaacl (
talk) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:
to emphasize that the proposal is for a namespace alias, and not to suggest that there would be a colon in the namespace alias. Yes, the point of my comment was that not only might there be a need for changes to MediaWiki software, but to many existing tools and scripts, including syntax highlighting tools.
isaacl (
talk) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
tmp:
and tpl:
.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 14:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC){{
|
t:
is the existing psudeo-namespace for templates, as seen at
T:CN and
T:DYK? That doesn't mean you HAVE to support it, but it makes the arguments that it would be "confusing" stange, as it is already in use.
Mach61 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I do not know about the rest, but on chrome, using the search engine shortcut feature worked perfectly.
That's it. After that, just type out your shortcut, followed by title, separated by a space/tab, on the address bar and hit enter. Everyone can pick whatever shortcut they like, for all namespaces and even page prefixes of their choice. You can add one for /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%s to go to RFAs by just typing out usernames, for example. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
tp:
would make it easier regardless of the platform people use to contribute.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)TP:
and {{
in the Wikipedia search box with Template:
. --
Ahecht (
TALKThe 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.
While redirects from page moves are commonly kept, there are reasons why they should not be kept as seen at WP:PMRC. For example, moving an article to draft space or to reverse page moves vandalism. This is common even for those without special tools (such as page mover or admin). This is so that normal users do not have to tag the page to request deletion and saves times for the admins (and users with the page mover tool) to do the work. Obviously this will not be an option for unregistered or new users, or for pages that are already move protected. The 'leave a redirect' button (or something along those lines) will be on by default and users who need to remove the redirect will have to manually press a button to turn it off. JuniperChill ( talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Post closure comment - Looks like I should have said ECP users, but it looks like the proposal will still not survive regardless. I counted 0/10 support for AC users and 3 for EC users (excluding the proposer). I made this proposal because of the amount of times its useful to not leave a redirect, as stated above but other than that, keep it. Maybe at least from main to draftspace, redirects would be deleted regardless. I didn't think that by this way, non admins could effectively delete the page when it was actually moved elsewhere
(not sure if this is the right place to put post closure comments as it is just below the discussion, just no more support/oppose votes) JuniperChill ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians § Split proposal that may be of interest to editors. All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 11:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Copied from the edit request at Template talk:Para#Add nowrap for para, which was rejected as "consensus required". April 2023 attempt to seek said consensus received no response. That system leaves a lot to be desired.
I used {{
para}}
and got a line break after the pipe character. This looked ridiculous and makes little sense. I assume other line breaks would be possible, such as after a hyphen in the parameter name. Adding {{
nowrap}}
or equivalent would make far more sense than requiring editors to code, e.g., {{nowrap|{{para|archive-url}}}}
. While Note 2 below the table at "General-purpose formatting" speaks of nowrap options, I'm at a loss to see how they help my situation. In any event, I don't see how automatic, unconditional nowrap for all uses of {{
para}}
could be the slightest bit controversial. At the very least, an option could be added to suppress the default of nowrap for cases where horizontal space is limited, such as in tables.
See also
Template talk:Para#no line-breaks in output, where a request for this was ignored (or never seen) 13 months ago. As to If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.
, well, we've seen how effective that was. ―
Mandruss
☎ 21:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
should all be on one line, not wrapped, because "archive-url" is a single concept (the parameter name) and should not be split in any way, despite the hyphen. I do not find broader ideological opposition to nowrap persuasive if it is applied reflexively to this circumstance without considering the particular situation here. I would find examples of instances in which parameters should be wrapped much more persuasive.
Sdkb
talk 02:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
for instance is ok.it just requires more thought by those writing the uses. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
param=part sounds reasonable. Sdkb talk 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Should English Wikipedia enable the Suggested Links newcomer task?. Sdkb talk 21:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)