Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 70 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Modules in namespace

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 10#Template:UTF-16 the question of direct invocations of modules in mainspace came up. I've seen the question before and I feel like it would be a good idea to write it down. I feel like it's a best practice to not systematically use direct module invocations ({{#invoke:Example}}) in the mainspace. Instead a template wrapper should be created and be used in the documentation. This is to make it as simple as possible to use the module without forcing non-technical editors to learn about the invoke magic word, the difference between the template and module namespace and prevent syntax confusion. This shouldn't be a hard rule but rather something to point to when the question comes up. My suggestion would be adding a modules section under the "Suggested practices" heading. It could read something like:

Lua modules are sometimes used instead of templates to store reusable material. Reasons includes usage of module exclusive features such as loops or complicated features being easier to maintain in the shape of a module. If a module is easily implementable in a template it generally should be since there are more users with experience editing templates. If a module is intended to be used in articles a template wrapper should generally be created to simplify usage without requiring the invoke parser function. This syntax should also be used in the documentation.

What do you think? The very simple module clause seems to be quite standard practice, but isn't particularly important to document if someone object. I've also notified WT:WPT. --Trialpears (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. The argument (used in the discussion in question, which I've appended to your link above) that having a template be a wrapper is some sort of kitten-killing server-waste is just nonsense, because with very small exception (also listed in said discussion) we just don't do it. It's never been written down because no one has ever really discussed the matter, but if there are concerns starting to arise we might as well codify current practices. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if someone's mentioned it, but if a large amount of wikitext is involved, a wrapper template may be very costly as it doubles the include size which significantly slows down previews/saves of an edit, and might prevent the page working if the 2MB limit is hit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, such as the current uses for things like big sports tables, where the module is just as much for formatting as it is for data storage. I don't know if If a module is easily implementable in a template... is enough to convey that, but it does essentially give that sort of exemption. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever wording is accepted, there should definitely be an exemption for technical needs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my suggested wording below I said that any "convoluted" template would be better as Lua which should be a suitable catch-all for technical difficulties etc – and obviously mere guidance can't tell you to do something technically impossible. User:GKFX^talk 11:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a bit, I have a couple of thoughts and questions: What is the argument for limiting the preference for template wrappers to those used in mainspace? If it's about the ease of use for editors, should we be concerned about that policy impacting the learning curve when it comes to editors starting to experiment with working on templates, categories, help, etc.?

If there is a legitimate reason to distinguish between namespaces, I would definitely suggest that talk pages would go with articles, so the second sentence would be "If a module is intended to be used in articles or talk pages, a template wrapper should generally..."

Also, the TfD that prompted this discussion seems to center on the converse of this proposal: should template wrappers for modules be limited to those useful for transcluding in mainspace, with a preference for deleting those wrappers when they are primarily used outside of articles? Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 00:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it was not my intention to make a "server kittens" argument against templates. My point is more like this: if I see the code {{wrapper template|arg1|arg2...}} and I wonder what it means/why it's not working, I have to go to Template:Wrapper template and Module:Whatever to figure it out. If Module:Whatever had been used directly, I'd only have to look in one place.

As for the word {{#invoke:}} being scary or raising a learning curve, it's not much different in appearence to parserfunctions etc which are widely used in templates.

There seem to be two seperate pieces of guidance in Trialpears's suggestion above. I've split them giving my opinion below. To answer the TfD question, the second implies that wrapper templates not intended for use in mainspace have no use so would be deleted.

Straightforward templates are prefered to modules, and modules are prefered to convoluted templates. This means you should generally use Lua when you want one of its features like loops, arrays, or complex logic.
Avoid calling {{#invoke:}} in articles or their talk pages (except when discussing wikimarkup). Use a wrapper template in those cases; in template code call modules directly if possible.

User:GKFX^talk 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a module section. It is based on the text suggested above but modified based on comments here. Shouldn't be anything too controversial in there but feel free to edit/remove/discuss. --Trialpears (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut T: for Template: ?

Is it possible to have this, as we do with H: for Help: and others? Facts707 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facts707 we kind of do as can be seen at Category:Redirects to template namespace, but there are some problems with the practice in that they technically are in the article namespace meaning they show up in search results when they shouldn't. You can also not use them like you would expect for transcluding a template with a normal redirect in template space being better for that. --Trialpears (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the issue has been discussed in the past and consensus is that introducing more abbreviations would be confusing and undesirable. Use {{tl}} if appropriate, otherwise write "Template" if that is what is meant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a side comment to John's post, but I don't understand why everyone insists on using {{tl}} when {{t}} is a character shorter and points to the same template. Also, this gets you essentially the same number of characters, as your hypothetical [[T:Example]] becomes {{t|Example}} (plus you don't need to worry about piping the "T"). Primefac (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of redirects were effectively deprecated in in 2014 for the reasons that Trialpears has laid out. The problems could be resolved if the T: shortcuts got hard-coded into the wiki software (the way WP: and WT: are), but this seems unlikely to happen. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few redirects of this type. But T:MP is not a template, nor are T: The New York Times Style Magazine and t:kort. Except for the DYK related ones, there is very little reason to type them in and to ever use a shortcut. {{:T:ILL}} is longer than {{ill}}, so why would you want a T: shortcut that makes you type more when you transclude it? —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of such a shortcut would not be in transcluding templates or in referring to them in discussions like this one, but in edit summaries and search boxes. But because T:, unlike C: and D:, is already used widely for other purposes, that's not going to happen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are the best use case. Your C: and D: links go to Commons and Wikidata. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the searchbox when searching for the documentation of, say, {{Wikisourcelang-inline}}, would also be simpler with T: . The point of showing those links (C:, D:) was indeed to demonstrate how some single-letter "shortcuts" have been implemented; M: and S: are others, but the train for T: has left the station. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article text-storing templates

The templates {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{MC film}} have been nominated for deletion for storing article text, per WP:TMPG. The discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Review aggregator prose templates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline about storing text

WP:TMPG states at the beginning, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." A recently-closed TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Review aggregator prose templates keeping such a template by default indicates that this guideline is no longer applicable. Templates storing article text are created in good faith, to centralize content, in spite of the presented difficulty in editing it. If there are no examples of templates being deleted under this guideline, then the guideline should not exist any longer. It can be left to the community to determine a consensus or lack thereof to use such templates on a case-by-case basis. Editors are welcome to comment about this point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it indicates that in one specific case enough people who are not regularly involved with templates moaned enough that the rule wasn't enforced. If you do a search for "article text" in TfD archives, then you can see that the rule is generally enforced. One discussion that goes against an established consensus does not nullify the future applicability of that consensus in other discussions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions are always limited to a handful of already-involved editors, and this particular template had extraordinarily high visibility. The lack of deletion validates this kind of template in spite of the guideline. The next article text-storing template (especially in regard to film and television) can point to the preceding one on the same grounds, and so forth. There's no reason to keep a law on the books, so to speak, if it is irrelevant in the face of large-scale use across popularly-trafficked articles. The guideline simply did not apply for an ideal example that warrants it in the first place. It's time to simply remove it and let templates' existence be determined by the community for each template. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not time to delete common-sense rules. A few exceptions for any rule can always be found. Further, "no consensus" is hardly a ringing endorsement and the text involved is short and a good argument for consistency can be made. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The review aggregator prose templates and others like {{Year article header}} that I don't anticipate will be challenged anytime soon indicate that there's at least some level of support for prose templates in some circumstances where text format can be highly regularized. The current guideline acknowledges that with normally; I might weaken that slightly, but I don't see a huge issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this outcome (which defaults to keep, which is the actual outcome) sets a precedent that ultimately contradicts the guideline. This is what will happen. This high-visibility template will appear on more and more film articles (which are some of the most highly trafficked on Wikipedia) because certain editors are obsessive with proliferating shiny new features. The above editor and others like them will come up with more kinds of article text-storing templates. I can see them being empowered to create such templates for CinemaScore, Box Office Mojo, etc. where any related TFD attempted will have WP:TPMG be irrelevant because the Rotten Tomatoes template already exists. Why would any of these be truly deleted (not kept, not "no consensus") if RT survived and continued to be used? When these templates became more and more prevalent, this part of the guideline will become more and more obsolete and unquotable. It didn't apply when it was most relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template titles

This page states that Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. Is this still community consensus? I recently opened a RM at {{efn}}, citing that sentence. The vibe I got from that discussion was that this may not be in line with current community consensus. Is this the case? Courtesy pings for everyone who participated in the discussion: @Jonesey95, Graham, Redrose64, BarrelProof, AlphaBeta135, and Uanfala: House Blaster^talk 20:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Templates should follow the convention we use in every other namespace: host the page at the full title (with few exceptions, such as NATO), but have redirects from abbreviations to assist in everyday usage (e.g., WP:NPOV for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Just because the template has a long title does not mean that people will use the long title, and it is okay if the full title is not what people type. When was the last time you saw someone write out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? We can have the best of both worlds: short redirects so that wikitext is not clogged full of {{Template link with subst|Houston Texans roster navbox}}, and longer titles so that template function is intuitive from the name. House Blaster^talk 20:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the quoted passage is still the general consensus, but the linked nomination was a complex one, not a simple one. There was no consensus about the best way to rename this set of templates, so the status quo remained. If there was only one template called {{efn}}, I think the move would have been accepted with no trouble. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentenacne si very reasonable still and whole dhave agreed with you in the move request. Immeedietöy seeing what the template does is important and should be generally followed. --Trialpears (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment in that prior discussion was basically supportive of that statement, although I may not have been perfectly clear about it. I said "I suspect a lot of people don't know what 'Efn' stands for." I think it is desirable to use template names that people understand. I suspect the {{efn}} template would be used more if it had a name that was easier to understand and remember. But alas, that RM is now closed, and that view did not win the day this time. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That bit in the guideline is applicable to the vast majority of templates, but not to all, and certainly not unconditionally. What matters most is that a template's function should be clear from its name in the wikitext where the template is used. How the title appears in other contexts (e.g. the template page where immediately following the template title the reader will see the template's documentation, or in a category listing where that template will be surrounded by other similar templates) is much less important.
The crucial consideration is that in the wikitext where a template is used, there may occasionally be other factors at play. For the very small number of frequently used in-line templates (especially ones that are prone to appear several times within a single paragraph of article text), this competing factor is the need to keep the wikitext neat and readable. This leads to a preference for concise template names, even if that is at the cost of clarity. That's the reason {{sfn}} and {{efn}} are titled the way they are. Of course, my assumption here is that the tile of the template should be the form that's going to be recommended for use in wikitext (i.e. we don't have the template at one title but all its examples in the documentation using an alias); otherwise, things would be more complex, not easier for users to understand, and there would be much less point discussing the title of the template (because it wouldn't matter much after all).
This is also the reason why the analogy with the WP shortcuts isn't helpful. Something like WP:V is there only as a typing aid. You're not going to see these shortcuts used in any properly written projectspace text; good practice is to write out the full Wikipedia:Verifiability, even inside a piped link. Something like {{sfn}}, on the other hand, isn't just a typing aid, it's the form best suited for use in wikitext. You're not going to see {{shortened footnote|Smith|2009}} in any thoughtfully written piece of wikitext.
However, these principles don't appear to have been applied universally (for example, {{harv}} is actually at {{Harvard citation}}), and as evident from this, and other, RMs, there is a subset of the community who disagree with them (or rather, don't seem to acknowledge they exist). – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate -- probably some other user *named* Graham but with a different user name. Graham (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was Graham11 who signs themself Graham. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With redirects, there is no technical reason not to follow the guideline. No change to the wording of that line is necessary. Far more template discussions have closed following this guideline than have not, and those are usually due to an abundance of misunderstanding and inertia like seen in that efn RM. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite changing hundreds of template names over the years to follow this sentiment, there are some people are incredibly set in their ways. Maybe four years has changed the opinions of the people in this discussion but I am not going to hold my breath that people attending these sorts of RMs will actually come around to the opinion that cryptic template names are not helpful. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article tables?

Templates should not normally be used to store article text. However, article tables (especially with detailed data) seem to be a common use for templates. See, for example, Template:Low melting point alloys and Category:Materials science templates. I'd like to propose clarifying the template guidelines with respect to stand-alone tables, please. Either permitting this particular use or making it explicit they are also discouraged. Just like any other type of article content, it's still difficult to edit content segregated in templates. (BTW, couldn't this issue be ameliorated with a standard template header/footer with View, Edit, Talk links?). If the banning of templates for article tables is ratified, should this updated guideline be pro-actively enforced on all current cases (with nominations for deletion or merging)? fgnievinski (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose § RfC: Should this and similar templates be substonly?. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on line breaks

The article says:

"Some templates may accidentally cause extra line breaks in the rendered articles."

but it does not explain how to avoid them. I believe comments avoid line breaks. I will add this to the page. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The line breaks the section is referring to are at the beginning or end, for example if someone puts

<infobox code>
}}

{{main other|<tracking categories>}}
<noinclude>

Since the tracking categories aren't actually "shown" on the page it introduces extra spaces. This can be avoided simply be not having the extra line breaks in the code. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the issue of spaces and line breaks to be very mysterious. The discussion in the article was very disappointing. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Help:Line-break handling, then improving that page would be a discussion for its talk page. Primefac (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually meant in the context of templates. Previously section in this article on line breaks ended with a link Help:Line-break handling but that is not at all helpful because the linked page is not about templates. Your new version is very much better, thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the section to explain "what this section is referring to". Johnjbarton (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add some additional clarification. Primefac (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]