Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Changing a bunch of protected templates

I'm trying to figure out what to do about this thread at VPT. The solution seems to be replacing {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (and all its variations) in numerous unblock-related templates with {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (modified to fit the variations). I wasn't keen on making protected edit requests on about 100+ different template talk pages, and it was suggested at the Help Desk that posting here might be a one-size-fits-all solution. Worth a try. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is a desired change, then all that is needed is a list of the affected templates and someone with AWB to enact the change. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I can try to come up with a complete list. I'll add it to this post in collapsed form when I've finished.

(One training montage later) I'm not entirely sure how this works - I think some/many/most of these will change when the first few are changed, since others seem to call those. Template documentation is still quite confusing to me.

The template-linked versions would be replaced with either:

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (including all the code and nowiki tags)

or

{{unblock-un|user=new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} (including all the code and nowiki tags)

as appropriate.199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The testcase versions are the results of the output of the templates, and therefore dont need correction. The sandboxes do, so including those are fine. Just removing the testcases ones should mean this list is all good. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Gimme a second (or ten). Now done. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

After looking at a couple of these templates, it seem the majority (or maybe even all) use the main uw-block template. Changing just that should clear out at least the majority of the pages here. Just submit an edit request for it. Meanwhile, I'll see if there are any odd ones out in the list and fix them if possible. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I got redirected to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. I guess I'll put the request there, then. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed a couple of the odd ones out (Template:Unblock-softer, Template:Block-reason, Template:Anonblock hard [In-waiting edit request], Template:OversightBlock [In-waiting edit request], Template:SockBlock [In-waiting edit request]) which has also fixed Template:Uw-softerblock and Template:Uw-causeblock. All the other protection ones are the result of substituting Template:uw-block, and therefore just comes down to waiting for the edit request you submitted. I'll also check on a couple of the sandbox ones and sync them to live once they get fixed. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of editors! Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit request has been implemented, so pretty much all the templates should be clear now. If there are any I've missed, just remind me, and I'll finish them off. Otherwise, I'd say this has been fixed. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Some poor blocked users will be less confused now, though the poor unblocked users working the backlog at Category:Requests for unblock may not be thrilled. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382, for dark and mysterious reasons, these still have the Blue Link of Doom:

Running out of time, can't arrange as nicely as I'd like. Will return under my secret identity for further discussion. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting above. Thanks for doing this. Matma Rex talk 23:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(Puts on mask) Thank you! I've done some further rearranging, pairing up the sandboxes and clarifying a bit. Messy formatting gone. Day saved. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Turns out they used a different template (Template:uw-pblock) as the base template. Luckily for me, the template was only semi protected, so I was able to fix it myself immediately. Unluckily for me Template:Uw-block/unblock is used in quite a few examples and im not a template editor, so I'll have to wait for the edit request on that one. I'll take a double-check through the rest and see if its all crossed off now. Aidan9382 _(talk) 04:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Ive done a final run through, fixed all the odd cases I could and submitted an edit request for the rest. I'm considering hunting the sandboxes, though I am hoping that, if someone wanted to use it, they would first check if its synced to the main version, but I may sync all the sandboxes anyways. On a seperate note: What is with the extreme amount of unblock templates and the quite evidant lack of a common system between them? It looks like one is somewhat in place, yet a ton of templates are still not using the main system, and aren't even different in consistant ways. Would it not be potentially worth asking the people who handle this (Probably the Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace)? Aidan9382 _(talk) 04:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! The sheer number of unblock templates was quite a surprise to me (I'm not sure how the admins figure out which one they're supposed to use!). I guess it's not much different from any other system that's been built piecemeal over decades, lots of nonstandard parts and deprecated bits left hanging around. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382, I noticed two more that escaped my search terms yesterday: Template:Uw-spamublock and Template:Decline spam unblock request (they use unblock-spamun). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the latter and submitted an edit request for the former. Should be all good. Aidan9382 _(talk) 14:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Heads up

There's a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_16#Template:Partisan_sources, in case of interest. Brandmeister^talk 10:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Guideline for templates with a single transclusion?

Is there a guideline to point to about templates with a single transclusion (which should probably be subst and deleted)? I've seen it referenced a lot in TFDs but I can't find any MOS or PAG about it. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been meaning to add them to WP:TFDOUTCOMES since more often than not they are deleted at TFD, but we have no specific guideline saying "don't do this" other than "Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves. (from the top of WP:TMP). Primefac (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's not quite the same but I ran across Template:Boris Johnson cabinet 5 vertical, which a fancy table that is only used in one article (actually part of a whole tree of single use templates). Is this a substantially similar situation as "storing [single use] article text"? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of editors that feel that popping a table into a template for a single use fits that description. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I'll send it to TFD. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Template List criteria

Hello template project people.... although I've been an editor for a long time, this is my first foray into the world of template development. I am here to ask for a tweak to Template:List criteria. In summary, the template assumes there has been a multi-editor discussion and consensus, but when a stand alone list is brand new, that is not the case. My goal here is to recruit changes to this template to accommodate editors who have launched new stand alone lists.

Details....

Of late I have been interested in stand alone list articles. Yesterday, while trying to write better text for existing practice in our P&G, user:Visviva pointed out [1] a short-coming with our overall conceptualization regarding list criteria. In theory, each stand-alone list article has established criteria that is articulated in two places. First in the lead, and second in a template box on the talk page via Template:List criteria. The first parameter assumes that multiple editors have formed a consensus on the criteria, and this parameter expects a wiki link to that discussion. OOPSIE DAISIE.....

As Visviva wisely points out, a brand new stand alone list article has a single author, so by definition there is no consensus.... just a single editor's common sense and wise opinion about appropriate criteria. Could one of you who know the wizardry behind the templates figure out an easy way to tweak this template, so that an editor creating a new list is guided with little effort to proper use of the template, resulting in the template rendering saying something like Because this is a new list, the criteria were decided by the original author, (user whomever). To suggest changes to the list criteria please use this talk page to establish consensus and then update this template accordingly. I could add something along these lines to the template documentation, but my hope here is that the programmers behind the magic curtain can tweak the template behavior so that it accomodates new lists (with single author criteria) or established lists (with evolved criteria following multi-editor consensus). Thanks for reading!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to make the argument that unless there has been a discussion about what to include (or not) on a particular list, then {{list criteria}} should not be used. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. For a brand new list, there must be criteria per WP:LISTCRIT and it should be articulated in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Introductory material. If we do as you suggest and just stay silent on the talk page (i.e., by not using the template) then anyone stopping by the list will be at a loss to understand the status of the list criteria. It will just be out there with no means of researching how it came to be. So the question is...... is the overall project better for having mystery process for list criteria on new lists, or better for always providing a record of how the list criteria came to be? The answer seems blindingly obvious to me, but I am open to reasons (not naked opinions) why I might be wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There is not a "mystery process" for creating new lists - WP:LISTCRITERIA gives some pretty good advice on how to create standalone lists and add content to them. It is when there is a dispute about what should or shouldn't be included in the list that a "list of criteria" is formed, at which point the template can be used. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC).

Spoken like a Wiki veteran but you're wrong. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a greenhorn wikipedia reader who stops by a list. They don't know squat from squat about Wikipedia. They merely see a list article that declares criteria in the lead. They have doubts about the criteria and get inspired to participate in the project by trying to discuss the criteria. The first thing a smart reader will do, is to try to determine how the criteria they have doubts about came to be. They will look and find nothing, and for that person it is a mystery process. It will remain a mystery until, and unless they can research version history, and forensically figure it out. But my God, why on earth would we intentionally retain a system that requires such gymnastics, when simply documenting the process by which the criteria were determined is super duper extra simple using this template? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You put too much faith in smart readers. Smart editors don't even do that. Izno (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac here. Izno (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Smart readers and editors do this; lazy ass or stubbornly pre-biased or simple jerk editors are all WP:CIR-compromised and do not, but lacking competence to contribute to Wikipedia, who cares what they think... or more accurately do NOT think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Bro, you're coming in real hot here on a topic you've already admitted that you're not an expert on. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I may know squat about evolving the template namespace, that's true. But I'm a battle scarred editor when it comes to NPOV, OR, INDISCRIMINATE and CONSENSUS generally, plus I can still put myself in the shoes of newbies, and advocate for guidelines accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac and Izno: well I note your opinions but neither of you have offered any logic-based or evidence-based reasons. I would love to hear either logic or evidence to support your opinions. Care to elaborate? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you can argue that.

In general, templates like this one shouldn't be used unless a discussion indicates they're necessary, otherwise they are simply templatecruft. If the article discusses its criteria for inclusion either implicitly or explicitly, they're certainly not necessary until such time as a discussion makes it otherwise. We don't add templates just because we can, we add templates when we evaluate that they are necessary. Izno (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well let's document what we agree on, first. Do you agree that a stand alone list article is required to articulate inclusion criteria in the lead? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Preferably but not necessarily. The title of the list can also act as inclusion criterium. The Banner talk 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Many lists' criteria are obvious from the title; many more are uncontroversial based on the title and/or lead. There's no need to force every list on Wikipedia to have an explicit discussion about its criteria, nor is there a need to enshrine implicit "OWN"ership by designating the original list creator on the talk page with a template. The List criteria template is only necessary when it's controversial. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

some of you seem to think that the title of an article can adequately articulate list criteria, obviating the need to articulate the criteria anywhere else. Well, OK. I don't like that but I can live with it....provided you can win consensus to modify both the MOS and the list guideline (here and here) so that they say titles all by themselves can be sufficient.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The addition of the requirement to document list criteria was recently added to WP:SAL by NewsAndEventsGuy. I have reverted the addition of the requirement. @Izno, Axem Titanium, and Primefac: Let's centralize the discussion about the requirement at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Documenting selection criteria and see if we can come to a consensus on whether or not to enforce this requirement. — hike395 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC) @The Banner: sorry, I forgot to ping you, also. — hike395 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but just for the record, the MOS and SAL required list criteria to be articulated in the lead for many years, I just tried to explain it more clearly. As for the template, I wasn't doing GAMING, I assumed - stupidly I suppose - that because the templates were approved they were expected to be used. I will see anyone who cares over there to figure out the bet way forward. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Expand section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Expand section#Wording, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Problem with default values in {{#expr:

I'm trying to create a logarithmic bar graph at {{bar log}} for use with {{bar box}}. The problem I am running into is that {{#expr: seems to be throwing an error instead of evaluating the default values for the two parameters. I've included four examples at the template page that should all show the exact same bar graph, but only the one using explicit values for both parameters 1&4 actually works. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong here? VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I remembered that there is a screwball issue with "empty" vs. "unspecified" parameters. Using {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}|default}} solves it. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Consider {{#ifexpr:}}. Not sure if it's relevant, but that one does also exist. Izno (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to change template's text

I request assistance to change the text of Template:Leadcite comment from "No citations are required in the article lead per [[MOS:LEADCITE]], as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like {{cn}} to the lead. If necessary, {{not verified in body}} can be used, or the content removed" to "Usually, no citations are required in the article lead per [[MOS:LEADCITE]], as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like {{cn}} to the lead unless you have a reason to do so other than just wanting a citation as in the body of the article, for example if you think certain material is controversial. If necessary, the tag {{not verified in body}} can be used, the content discussed or removed." There is a relevant thread in its talk page. Hope someone is interested. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposed, unless you can clarify your reasons. Given the nuanced tone at MOS:LEADCITE, why do you think the portion about not adding {{cn}} only because you think certain material is controversial is justifiable? Reading MOS:LEADCITE, an editor thinking that certain material is controversial is exactly when you would ask for a citation in the lead. Others may disagree, but that can be talked out in the normal way; I don't see why the template should give advice that the Manual of Style does not. Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot thanks for your reply. I did state the reasons in the talk page of the template page as I indicated in my original post. The current text of the template doesn't seem to reflect the MOS:LEADCITE guideline. The template currently states that "no citations are required in the article lead", while MOS:LEADCITE states, "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Also, "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." Additionally, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." The template text is contradicting the guideline. It should be changed. Thinker78 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC

There is a discussion about this request in Template talk:Leadcite comment. Thinker78 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

IKEA ownership chart change

Hello! This is Altaf from IKEA Foundation. I'm looking for help making a clarification to Template:IKEA ownership chart. I have a conflict of interest because I work for IKEA Foundation. I've posted to the edit request queue, but thought that since this is a specialized request I'd also ask here to see if anyone is interested in taking a look? My request can be found here. Thank you! AMfromIKEA (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization § RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

For reference, archived at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 18#RfC: should templates and template categories roll up into related content categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:N/a listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:N/a to be moved to Template:N/A. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nomination for merger of Template:Uw-copying-nosource

Template:Uw-copying-nosource has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-copying. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite court and archive URL

I happened to notice a few months back that for the Template:Cite court, while it does have a URL parameter, it does not feature an archive URL, despite the template documentation noting "This presently is not displayed, which is inconsistent with other citation templates". As cite court is used more frequently in trials and procedures that have received further coverage on Wikipedia, and are cited with PDFs to access and locate direct quotes and information, I was wondering if there was any reason why the archive function was not present in this template, considering, for future reference here, that not all court documents online will remain active. I noticed this absence at the Black Widow (2021 film) article regarding a lawsuit over the film, and the court citation for it does have a working archive added. I responded to an inquiry about this at Template talk:Cite court#Adding archive url as a field?, although no response was given, so I thought I'd take my concerns here. As far as I could tell from my brief view through the citation's editing history (and for the record, I cannot edit the template to add the archives myself), and found no trace of an archive being established for it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A proposal at Uw-copyright-new might have broader implications for single-use uw templates; your feedback requested

Template:Uw-copyright-new is a "gentle" variant of {{uw-copyright}} for new users. This is one of those single-use advice/user-warning templates that has a few bullet points of text between a header and footer; there are many others of that ilk; {{uw-coi}} comes to mind.

Via happy serendipity, an enhancement has been proposed that would allow the transcluder to do some simple style enhancements of the generated text, notably, bolding one of the bullet items, and perhaps a bit more. If the proposal is adopted and gains use, this could be a paradigm for updating other uw templates in a similar manner, so getting the UX and functionality right for this initial use case could make life easier and possibly provide a consistent approach for other templates down the road. Therefore, your feedback would be very much appreciated at Template talk:Uw-copyright-new#Adding bold style to bullet items or text. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Language with name

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Language with name#Redirect from Language name, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

need a template

can someone make an enwiki version of ru:Шаблон:Внеземной летательный аппарат for me. Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, what is this template, and what does it do? Could you provide a translation of the title for those of us who don't speak Russian? Primefac (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

the template is template:extraterrestrial aircraft

it has

parameters

{{Extraterrestrial aircraft |Name = |Name translation = |Project name = |Image = |Image caption = |Type = |Planet = |Expedition = |Organization = {{Flag|}} <!-- NASA/JPL --> |Developers = <!-- AeroVironment etc. --> |Budget = |Tasks = |Basic vehicle, landing date = <!-- Perseverance etc. --> |Date and place of unloading = <!-- |Unloading coordinates =--> |Date of first flight = |Last flight date = |Date of termination of communication with the object = <!-- Total flight time --> | Flights = |Meters = |Hours = <!-- Specifications --> |Mass = |Capacity = | Fuselage dimensions = <!-- |Stand length = |Clearance = --> |Total height = |Propulsor = <!-- Vane propeller --> | Blades = <!-- Solar panel --> |Area of ​​elements = |Panel dimensions = |Connection date = <!-- Autonomous power supply --> |Batteries = |Capacity = |Power = |Charging time = <!-- Flight characteristics --> | Flight duration = | Flight range = | Flight altitude = |Flight speed = | Climb = |Descent rate = <!-- Performance characteristics --> |Prop speed = |Location Slope = |Deletion limit by link = |Chassis resource = |Critical temperature = <!-- Optical instruments --> |Review Camera = |Navi camera = <!-- Inertial navigation aids --> |Inclinometer = |Rangefinder = |Altimeter = <!-- Identifiers --> |ICAO code = <!-- Footer --> |Mission logo = |Site = |Category at Wikimedia Commons = }}

this is the translation @Primefac Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for {{Infobox spaceflight}}. I also made some formatting changes to your post, but no content changes. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

i know {{Infobox spaceflight}} and {{Infobox individual space vehicle}}, buts they not worth my needs. this template is for Ingenuity (helicopter) and not all parameters i want to keep are available in both the templates. so i want a new template that is to be an english copy of that ru wiki template. it will be used in another page of mine in construction Draft:Mars Sample Retrieval Helicopter. its a in-process translation of ru:Марсианский грузовой вертолёт. (sorry for my long post @Primefac) Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the need for a brand-new infobox for a single use case (or even two); would it not make more sense to simply add in those missing parameters and/or add in a |module= so that you could pull things from something like {{Infobox aircraft type}}? Primefac (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's see Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to improve uw-userpage template

I've shamelessly stolen some text another user uses (unfortunately I forget who it was) to educate people who misuse the user page, as I find the current warning to be vague. The changes are at [2]. Comments? Should I edit the uw-userpage template to be this? With my changes, it shows up as:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia; as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

• an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
• a workspace for a draft article
• a personal website, blog, or social media site
• a space for self-promotion or other advertising
• a CV/resumé
• a lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should be held at the talk page for the relevant template, i.e. Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Moving this discussion there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox template issue

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Uniforms & current season in CFL team infoboxes that could use eyes from members of this project. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

discussion at Template talk:High-use

Please see Template talk:High-use § Different wording?.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Math symbols templates

I came across Category:Mathematics symbols templates recently, and I'm genuinely not sure what to do about them. They're from Rod calculus, and there are a lot more of them, but most of the uses I see are folks just calling the images directly. Should these templates be merged into one primary template (e.g. {{counting rods}} with the parameter defining the image) or just replaced directly with the images? Looking for thoughts here to see if TFD is the next venue or if just boldly changing things would work. (note: if kept as-is, I plan on moving each template to something more obvious, e.g. {{H-6}} → {{counting rod h-6}}) Primefac (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Merging them would make the most sense. I would merge them to {{Counting rod}}, with the first unnamed parameter, 0 through 9 or -1 through -9, and the second unnamed parameter "v" or "h", determining which of the 28 images to show from the first table at Counting rods#Rod numerals. I don't love unnamed parameters, though, so if you want to do it a different way, I wouldn't object. If people want to add features like color or different types, it should be easy to add those on later. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't love unnamed parameters, though - I do :-p Primefac (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Newseum template should be historical now

The Template:Newseum front page is broken because the Newseum website is defunct. It should be updated accordingly, maybe make it a historical Wikipedia page. Thinker78 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They appear to have moved here. The template probably needs to be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

ideas for template formatting

i have some ideas for new ways to format navboxes. is anyone here interested in that topical area? just wanted to inquire initially, if that's ok. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sm8900, what do you mean by 'format'? Izno (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

New ATA for TFD

Tired of continual "we want the final template ready now arguments at TFD, I have created a section of ATA, WP:NOPROTOTYPE. It could probably use feedback and potentially some copyediting, but I thought folks here would like to know it's available for use. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Help adding a reference section to navboxes

Greetings and felicitations. I have just come across the second (horizontal) navbox in my experience which features an inline citation, Template:Stellantis, the first one being Template:Largest cities of Jordan, though I removed the ref tags from that one, as I intended to come back and fix it.

As these are navboxes, they are intended to reside in articles below the References sections, which puts their citations right above the categories. How do I add a reference section to each of them so that their citations are listed within in the box, please? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that templates ought to contain references. Perhaps just link to Jordan#Largest_cities, where there is a link to the source, and leave the Stellantis red link as just a red link: there are plenty of them in templates. PamD 15:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: The problem with that is then the source is divorced from the material it is supporting, and thus liable to deletion or or corruption. (I can't find the policy to cite—I'd appreciate if someone would provide it, as it's applicable to another project I have waiting in the wings—but I know that sources are supposed to be included with the material that they are supporting.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't. It is not appropriate to put references in navboxes.

If you would like to ensure that the content of a navbox is cited for whatever reason, you may do so in the portion of the template page which is <noinclude>d, or in <!--comments-->. Izno (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be including references in navboxes. If a reference is required it needs to be in the article, not the navbox. Nigej (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Note also that WP:NAVBOX says that "external links should not be included in navigation templates.", so the one in eg "{{Largest cities of Jordan}} needs to be removed (assuming that it is a navbox, which I think it is). Remember that a navbox is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Linking to external sites is not appropriate. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed {{Stellantis}} per Izno. {{Largest cities of Jordan}} is not a navbox, but a content template. — hike395 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that the reference in {{Stellantis}} was on a red link, which I removed per WP:EXISTING, rendering the issue moot. — hike395 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

However {{Largest cities of Jordan}} has only one transclusion so I'm wondering why we need it at all. Why not simply put it in the article? I've no idea what a "content template" is. I always thought that article content shouldn't be in templates. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We could just subst {{Largest cities of Jordan}} and delete. I've seen templates like {{Seattle weatherbox}} that generate a table for more than one article. I call those "content templates" (maybe they have a more widely-known name). Those kind of templates reduce the maintenance burden of articles, but increase the risk of undetected vandalism. — hike395 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Seattle template is better handled as a mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion. Nigej (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Single-use templates should be submitted to WP:TFD. Low-use templates can be sent there as well. Izno (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Following all of the above. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox boxing match - crosspost

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template:Infobox boxing match --- Tbf69 P • T 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Standardization of image sizes in discussion templates

Have a look at Template:Done/See also. There are tons of different images sizes for different templates and it all looks kind of trash. The same can be said for any talk page where many differently sized templates are used. The question then is what size should be the standard? The images I've found have all been somewhere between 11px and 30px which is quite a span. I do however think we can limit the range up for discussion significantly more. The default text size in Vector is 14px, smaller than that and it looks weird and doesn't work nearly as well at attracting attention. If you have too large an image like this you will get one line that is taller than the others which looks real bad. That gives a range of 14 to 19px as reasonable values that look nice in vector, the values for mobile are slightly more generous. Personally I think having the image larger than the text looks better, which is what almost all templates do already and in that case having it at least 2px larger looks nicer since being almost but not quite text size has a tendency to look like you want it text sized but messed up in my eyes. Using 19px is also probably suboptimal since many images are not quite perfectly square and using 19px horisontally may easily push the vertical size which is what matters for line height over the 20px limit causing weird spacing. The most common value seems to be 18px, used by templates like  Done and  Fixed, but the slightly smaller 16px is also a common choice, especially at SPI with templates like  Likely and  Blocked and tagged. My vote would go to 18px, but I would love to hear what others think, including if this whole thing is stupid and we shouldn't bother.

Also worth, noting that some templates, such as  1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny intentionally use an overly large image and those won't be touched. Same goes for the unicode ones that probably should stay at text size. --Trialpears (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a likelihood that Vector 22 will bump up its font size soon. I imagine they're looking in the 16px range. Timeless is already in that range, and I think Minerva is too. Izno (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Re Izno's comment: See T245146 and T254055. Based on the chatter there, I would guess that standardizing on 18px would be better than 16px. Would it be overly fussy to use a template to provide the default icon size so that changing it across a wide variety of templates, and setting up new templates, would be easier? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I did something 4 days ago.. {{Respond}} Terasail II ^[✉️] 07:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If we standardize, perhaps we should use sizes specified in em or ch? That would make such decisions future-proof. — hike395 (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If we standardize, we should have one centralised template, and turn every template in Template:Done/See also into a wrapper of that centralised template. That would guarantee that everything would be in lock-step. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well currently the templates at T:D/SA under the following sections use {{Respond}}: Neutral sign, Purple turn-right, Simple clock, Minus sign and some individual templates in other sections. I stopped since I wasn't sure if it was the best way to do things and was thinking it over before converting all the templates. Terasail^[✉️] 10:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I like WP:SILENCE just as much as the next editor ;-) Carry on! Primefac (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Images cannot take relative widths. Izno (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Help needed adding subgroup to template group.

Hello, WP Templates. I am new to templates and have recently created Template:Education in Lamar County, Texas. I was trying to add a subgroup to the Districts group to point out districts partially serving the county better. I was able to add a Defunct subgroup for a shut down district, but had very poor results when trying to make a subgroup for the Partial subgroup, as the template kept breaking. I only managed to slightly highlight the partial districts, but am still seeking to make them a distinct subgroup amongst the Districts group. Any help or advice would be appreciated. BurgeoningContracting 16:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You mismatched your group/list numbers, which is why the header didn't show. I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it okay with you if I return it to this version? I don't mean to undermine your work, but this is how many education templates generally look like Template:Education in Montgomery County, Texas, Template:Education_in_El_Paso County,_Texas Template:Education in Travis County, Texas Template:Education_in_Fort_Bend_County,_Texas, Template:Education in Tarrant County, Texas Template: Education in Harris County, Texas BurgeoningContracting 01:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Those others really shouldn't do that. Izno (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit: What is the policy on templates of that sort? BurgeoningContracting 03:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

{{Education in Montgomery County, Texas}} is the first time I recall seeing list parameters in navboxes abused to make pseudoheadings. They randomly have white or grey backgrounds depending on their location in the navbox. I doubt we have a policy which specifically mentions it but Template:Navbox#Cells seems clear that list parameters are for lists. They add list classes to the HTML and I suspect it can give confusing results in screen readers and maybe other situations to use them for headings. {{Education in Travis County, Texas}} uses another system and looks more legitimate to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, marginally better, but all it does is lengthen the navbox without necessity for a single word or two and extend how much HTML is emitted, both of which why I said it shouldn't before. Izno (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda template task forces not being added

I have been working on Template:WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda, and while the first five task forces I have added to the template have been working fine, the last two are not showing up in the required categories needed section, and when I add those two task forces to a page, those two task forces do show up in the parameters, but to not add a category to the page, and do not show the task force label on the template. (Hooks have been used in this template.) CROIX (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@CROIX: Taskforces and Workgroups are meant to be collaborative spaces to interact with fellow editors in same topic area to allow for more systematic improvement of that topic. However, I do not see that there are enough participants to warrant creation of so many taskforces, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Setting up a task force structure. You would spend time and effort on maintenance of the taskforce. But there is no point in having a taskforce with a single person because there is no one else to collaborate with in the first place. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom While you are correct, the question was relating more to the template issues. If you advise against it, considering the task forces are already there, it would be best for the issue to be resolved now so it is not a problem in the future. CROIX (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is limited to 5, because Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage is limited to 5 taskforces. If you intend to edit it, you should first consult MSGJ (who has been the leading editor of that template for years) about potential issues arising before proceeding to edit. Alternatively, @CROIX you can have a look at Template:WikiProject India and use similar code for your case, which shall fix it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom I had used similar code to WikiProject India, like it’s usage of hooks (you can see the similarities in code). Is there something different in the code between the two templates that I have not noticed? it's all fading away^talk 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1147959540. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Squatting in the United States improvements

Hi! Kinda new to tinkering with templates so want to run this by the community, does anybody have objections to making the subsections of this template closed by default (by moving it from Template:Sidebar to Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists)? How it would look is at Template talk:Squatting in the United States#Template improvement suggestion TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Romani diaspora

Hello! Could someone please check and modify accordingly the template {{Romani diaspora}}? It is orange, but other navigation templates are blue. This may confer a certain stigma, particularly as certain ethnic groups in whose articles it is used refuse to be associated with the Roma. See e.g. its usage in Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians and this article's edit history. I have also left a comment at Talk:Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians#Association with the Roma . --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TadejM, you would need to remove the two occurrences of |basestyle= to do this. I'm not involved in the article/topic, so I don't want to make the change myself and am just providing technical guidance. CRwikiCA talk 13:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

CRwikiCA, thank you for the guidance. I will first try to get some community input as these ethnic templates certainly follow a certain color scheme and I don't want just {{Romani diaspora}} to have another color. It should probably be implemented only in this article if at all. Do you know how to implement this in a single article? --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TadejM, it would be on all articles, I don't think you want to make a template colour like this dependent on the article. CRwikiCA talk 18:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

CRwikiCA I'm think of whether there is a parameter in the template that can be used to style the template transclusion in the article differently if required. If it is not, perhaps it should be added. Anyway, I would understand if it is not for preventive reasons. --TadejM ^{my talk} 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've tried using |titlestyle= but it has no effect. Anyway, I've had a look at other templates such as {{French diaspora}} and {{Portuguese diaspora}} and they all feature a purple title background. I'm going to change this for {{Romani diaspora}} too pending further discussion. --TadejM ^{my talk} 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I have implemented that.[3] The orange background was chosen by the template's original author, who has been inactive since 2009. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ashkali and the Balkan Egyptians have nothing to do with the Roma. They speak Albanian, and never Romani, not even in the past. Both are recognized minorities in Kosovo and have nothing to do with any Roma associations. The Ashkaelia as well as the Balkan Egyptians have their own associations and represent their own political interests. the Ashkaelia and Balkan Egyptians have their own flags. It doesnt matters if they are also brown colored like roma. They are own Folks.

example: http://www.egjiptianet.de/ Ashkali-Balkan Egypt (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for a template

See Template_talk:Wikisource_author#Please_add_the_language_parameter_so_we_can_link_to_authors_on_other_languages/Template_talk:Wikisourcelang#Request_for_a_template_to_link_authors_in_other_languages.

Should be pretty easy, just a merger of those two templates. TIA, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What is being requested here? A parametric option to use the word works instead of text? Or is there more to it than that? If so, what? Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot Some way for the template to say "Foo language wikisource has works by author X". Right now we can say "English Wikisource has works by author X" or "Foo Wikisource has content related to the topic X" but not something that combines those. Which is needed for articles about authors who have works on non-English Wikisource but nothing (or little) on English one. Take a look at Zygmunt_Krasiński#External_links. The first wikisource template there is clear, the other is wrong but I am not aware of any workaround. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to wrap my head around a half-dozen other things, but yes, it should be relatively straight-forward to add some sort of lang parameter into {{Wikisource author}} to allow it to link directly to a non-English wikisource. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac That probably would be easiest compared to creating a new template. Perhaps copying the code from {{wikisourcelang}} would be enough? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, ping me mid-June if no one has done it by then. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Piotrus, there is now a |lang= parameter that will point towards the proper language WikiSource. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Great! Now I need to figure out how to get a list of all articles for writers who wrote not in English, where the old template is used and review them... guess I'll go bother some folks on Wikidata for a query :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have specific authors in mind (even a list of them) you should be able to do that with a google query containing two site: terms, one of them negated with the minus operator. Mathglot (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean... Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikisourcelang would probably be easier... Primefac (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this, I see a lot of biographies all in need of having that new parameter added. I wonder if we could just generate a list of biographies here using Wikidata property and then have a bot fix stuff? Starting with "Greek Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Ἀριστοτέλης". Fixing this manually does not seem like a smart idea (I could a bit under ~2,500 instances of use, and I think more than half are in need of the fix). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can get me a list of pages that need this update, I am happy to put in a bot request for it. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for help on wikidata regarding a relevant query, hopefully we will get a list within ~24h and I'll post an update here when this happens. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac We got a query: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=24903497 Is this something you can work with? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Should do. Just to confirm, we're changing {{Wikisourcelang|<lang>|otherstuff}} into a {{Wikisource author|lang=<lang>|otherstuff}} call, yes? Primefac (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding, like what you did here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Just wondering if the bot can deal with extra parameters. For example, at Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay, Viscount of Taunay, the code is {{Wikisourcelang|pt|Autor:Visconde de Taunay|Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay (original works in Portuguese)}}

In Krasiński, the author part was redirected (on wikisource, Zygmunt Krasiński->Autor:Zygmunt Krasiński). So that's not an issue, I hope. But I hope the bot won't be confused by the occasional other paramter after the last pipe (in the example above, "|Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay (original works in Portuguese"). This will need to be deleted (I fear the bot could treat the string "Autor:Visconde de Taunay|Alfredo d'Escragnolle Taunay (original works in Portuguese)" as article name, instead of just "Autor:Visconde de Taunay"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that {{wikisource author}} takes two unnamed parameters. I will need to remove the extra Author: prefix but otherwise there would be no huge change needed (as you can see in Special:Diff/1116636547/1154284608). Primefac (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Troubleshooting request

Hi. In Template:Nuttall, I read this in the lead, {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). I don't know if that should be there. If someone can check and fix any potential issue, that would be great. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I bodged in a fix for it. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Troubleshooting request for date

Hello. In the rendering in Template:OldStyleDate, it shows like this, " {{{1}}} [O.S. {{{3}}}] ". I don't know if that should be there like that. If someone can check and fix any potential issue, that would be great. Regards,--Thinker78 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That rendering does not indicate a problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

To further expand on Jonesey95's reply - the raw template code is shown on the template page itself, which means that there will often be "empty" parameters such as {{{1}}} or {{{title}}} that get shown. Unless there is a good reason to hide it, like in the request above this one, we tend to not really worry about such things. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It's possible to add example values on the template page itself but we usually prefer to show the raw output because it shows parameter names in the position they will appear when the template is called. It helps users who know how templates work. Sometimes they don't have to read documentation or examples but can just guess the functionality from the raw output. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In case you don't know, {{{1}}} and {{{3}}} means the first and third unnamed parameter will appear there. And the template code doesn't have to add anything to produce this automatic "documentation". It happens automatically and you have to add something to avoid it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. But I can tell you guys that it didn't help me understand how the template works or anything at all. LOL. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why most templates have documentation. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Assistance with relatively minor change at Template:SfnRef

I have requested an uncontroversial and relatively minor change to this template. Can someone better with templates than me take a look? Many thanks. Ergo Sum 02:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Images in templates

I've noticed a series of templates that either use or once used an image in place of a typographic symbol:

• Template:Hash-tag
• Template:Section-sign
• Template:Double-dagger
• Template:Dagger
• Template:Up-arrow
• Template:Down-arrow
• (The similar {{Number sign}} and {{Asterisk}} templates don't appear to have used image files.)

It seems a bad idea for several reasons to use images. I tested updates to the dagger and double-dagger templates based on hash-tag which uses the unicode symbol with role="img" for aria. This allows it to continue working exactly like an image with alt text for screen readers but makes the hash-tag template render as regular text that can be searched, copied, zoomed, and so on just like other text.

I notice now that the other templates have been updated to only display the Unicode character, and the documentation pages advise substitution only (no transclusion). I have several questions. Since these templates link to each other in their documentation, I thought it would be more appropriate to post here than on individual talk pages.

1. Should any of these templates still link to each other?
2. Should all or some of these templates be substitution only?
3. Should they allow alt text? If they don't allow alt text, should attempts to put alt text into the template show up in a maintenance category?
4. Should the templates use images (probably not), unicode, or html entities?
5. And once this is resolved, could a template editor or admin update Dagger and Double-dagger?

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

1. These links are typical ("see also" and navboxes are routinely employed in template space), though a category of the sort would not be remiss if one does not exist yet.
2. Yes, they probably should be subst-only. Making them subst-only will probably require forcing AnomieBot to process their current transclusions.
3. The replacement for use should probably be <abbr>...</abbr> when there is "alt" text specified (probably using {{abbr}}) and nothing besides the character when it is not, or perhaps error when it is not. There may be valid uses such as in a key where the dagger has text immediately after identifying its meaning, so I tend away from erroring.
4. At this point these should probably be Unicode as I doubt any-but-the-most-obscure fonts will have issue with these fairly old Unicode characters.
5. Sure, just make the edit request if/when this discussion resolves. I might suggest advertising this discussion on those templates' talk pages.

Izno (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with using abbr, in my mind these are convenience templates at best, which is why I converted a few of them into subst templates (i.e. use them to make things easy to type but then they go away). Primefac (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hard over for it, treating them as pure simple subst conveniences is fine also. Abbr just preserves the function they might be serving. Izno (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing a bunch of these Primefac. I am 100% fine to leave all the subst templates as they are. For dagger, hashtag, and double-dagger we could make them subst templates as well or do something like this:

{{#if:{{{alt|}}}|<abbr role="img" aria-label="{{{alt|}}}">‡</abbr>|‡}}

Here is the code above from the sandbox "‡" compared to the current template "‡". In neither version does the alt text do anything without a screen reader. Rjjiii (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reply Izno. I've posted messages at the templates' talk pages and found a few more:

• Template:Asterism
• Template:Mars symbol
• Template:Venus symbol
• Template:Star of David

As these are fixed, I can add them into [ [ Category:Character templates ] ], which I guess initially did not apply since they were adding images and not characters. Rjjiii (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

[[:Category:...]] (see leading colon).

I do remember one issue that showed up with using the Unicode for some of these and that's that some of them have been co-opted by the emoji ecosystem into pretty symbols rather than our plain image renderings. The ones that are problematic should probably be documented as such. Izno (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Tested and this turns out to be true of Venus, Mars, and Star of David. I've updated their documentation and there is likely nothing else to do for those.

Looked into this more and these (I think) were created because of this policy: MOS:NOSYMBOLS and the most recent discussion seems to be here: [4]. The templates are meant to create accessible characters.

2014 status of screen readers and typography:

https://www.deque.com/blog/dont-screen-readers-read-whats-screen-part-1-punctuation-typographic-symbols/

And the 2023 (recent!) update: https://www.elevenways.be/en/articles/screenreaders-special-characters

According to their big chart and personal testing, I think {{hashtag}} (pronounced "number" by default), {{therefore}} (not pronounced), and {{asterism}} (not pronounced) make sense to retain alt text, but can both be made via unicode character, abbr tag, and aria. I made demos in the sandboxes. {{Section-sign}} could have alt text as it does not seem to be pronounced. Both dagger templates could retain the alt text in case someone was stretching the template for a strange purpose, but also seem like they could just be substituted (decent support, † is read variously as "dagger" or "single dagger", the default settings in Windows 10's Narrator seem to ignore both but it seems like nobody uses this when NVDA is free??). Template:Cards seems to get by just using Unicode and the card suits have comparable support to the daggers. Rjjiii (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, @Rjjiii! As your saw, I've commented previously about how images are a poor choice, and I look forward to the improvements here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on responses here, testing, archived threads in en-wiki, a couple of conversations at LSD/VI, articles on screen readers, and posting to the NVDA mailing list, I think the best way to handle these are:

1. Continue to use images with alt text if mobile devices are rendering the Unicode characters as emoji,
2. Use the Unicode character with an img aria role for dagger, double-dagger, and other templates that are currently being used for notes in tables or lists, and
3. Substitute the characters when there are no issues with Unicode rendering or existing template usage.

Something brought up on the NVDA mailing list is that these characters are used on Wikipedia to emulate print media when the articles could use one of our many linked footnote methods. The Manual of Style should likely recommend that path rather than alt text for unlinked notes. Thanks for the input, Rjjiii (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for the explanations here and for updating {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}. Using title= in addition to role="img" aria-label= is fine, but I don't think it makes sense to use the title only.

• The title attribute will create a tooltip for sighted desktop users.
• The aria-label will be read aloud for images and interactive elements.

I didn't change the sandbox to a character substitution template because the Manual of Style (MOS:NOSYMBOLS) recommends using templates like this to make table colors accessible. If you check out the test cases with a screenreader, the template's alt text is only used by the sandbox version (Template:Double-dagger/testcases and Template:Dagger/testcases). Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

An image role is strictly inappropriate here because these are not images nor are they intended to be images (and the latter is more important for assigning a role). (I actually struggle to think of a valid use of role=image, but that's a digression. See also that roles should be avoided in the general case.)

<abbr> is strictly correct for the intent of these items, and its use of title is as expected for the variety of user agents (note, this is not the HTML global attribute title but a specialization of that attribute for that element, see the specification). If accessibility-minded user agents aren't reading out the title of an <abbr> or offering the option of doing so, that's a bug in those agents and should be filed upstream. From memory of what a particular editor (who is blind) has said, they basically do one of those two things. (Incidentally, memory also says that he thought it would get tiresome if every abbreviation were read out in full, which is why most are optional.)

aria-label also has a particular use, and it's not "give things noise", it's "something that should be noisy isn't and so you need to hack around it". I think the quote at MDN is a good comment on the point:

Note: aria-label is intended for use on interactive elements, or elements made to be interactive via other ARIA declarations, when there is no appropriate text visible in the DOM that could be referenced as a label

Izno (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

An image role is strictly inappropriate here because these are not images nor are they intended to be images [...] Izno, do you understand what I'm saying about the manual of style?

If accessibility-minded user agents aren't reading out the title of an <abbr> or offering the option of doing so, that's a bug in those agents [...] Is it? https://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/labelling/acronym-abbr-title/ Rjjiii (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, accessibility agents failing to use HTML as intended is a bug. But even if it weren't, the readouts at your provided test are absolutely fine to me.

JAWS has an 'Expand Abbreviations' setting which does read `abbr title`, but this is turned off by default and these tests use default AT settings. was alluded to above. If random website producers are going to use defaults when non-defaults are available, that's on the test makers, not the tested software. I would absolutely expect this to be one of those things that some users would prefer to have read out and others prefer to hear whatever the abbreviation is.

a character substitution template I don't think you understand what we meant by subst above? I don't see the point of this comment otherwise. Izno (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The change appears to have generated a dotted underline for the templates, which I don't think is what users of them will be seeking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That can be changed with style="text-decoration: none" which I have no strong opinion about. Izno (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think I realize why my responses may sound strange. What screen reader are you testing with? I don't have access to JAWS. Perhaps I should have been more clear about what I'm using. I have tested with the built-in VoiceOver software on an iPad (not sure which version), NVDA (2023.1, up to date), and the Windows 10 Narrator (2020? version, up to date).

• On the iPad and NVDA, I hear "dagger" regardless of the title generated from the |alt= parameter.
• With the Windows Narrator, I hear nothing. (This may not be a huge deal, as it seems people on Windows use mostly JAWS or NVDA.)

Apple and NVDA don't offer a setting like JAWS ( https://openinclusion.com/blog/presenting-abbreviations-acronyms-for-screen-reader-users/ ). So, when I'm testing with these readers, there is no audible difference between † and <abbr title="deceased">†</abbr>. Rjjiii (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And by a character substitution template I meant a template that would create a single character, and that could be used primarily or only via substitution rather than transclusion. As I said about some of the templates like {{section-sign}} in my initial post: I notice now that the other templates have been updated to only display the Unicode character, and the documentation pages advise substitution only (no transclusion). Rjjiii (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Izno, Primefac, and Sdkb, let me get your input before I make changes and put in requests.

The templates do not currently generate audible content from the |alt= parameter on most screen reader setups. NVDA, Apple's VoiceOver, and the Windows Narrator don't appear to read the title attribute of the abbr tag. JAWS, by default, will not read it. Instead, the parameter will generate a tooltip only available to sighted desktop users with a pointing device.

The Manual of Style advises using templates like this to create accessible glyphs in tables (MOS:NOSYMBOLS). Users with color blindness, poor vision, or no vision would still be able to perceive the glyph, even if they could not perceive meaningful colors. I think the recent updates are still an improvement over the use of inline images sized by pixels, but I don't think it makes sense to use the alt parameter this way. Here are the two good options from my perspective:

1. Make the templates each only provide a single Unicode character or html entity. Primefac has already updated some of the templates to do this. Later, I can work on updating the Manual of Style to allow typographic symbols that have gained widespread support since the policies were originally written. (Many pages already use *, †, or ‡, and most screen readers will read those characters as "star", "dagger"/"single-dagger", and "double dagger".)
2. Use an aria-label and role="img" to make screen readers treat the typographic glyphs as images with alt text. {{Hash-tag}} has worked like this since this edit from GreenComputer: [5]. This could be used alongside the tooltip recently introduced as in the current sandbox for that template (Template:Hash-tag/testcases).

Based on the posts above, I expect the consensus to be on the first option but wanted to make clear why these templates worked so differently from something like {{asterisk}} which has always just generated the HTML entity to make safe wikitext. Appreciate you guys looking into this, Rjjiii (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can understand having alternate options for weird or little-used unicode, but # is well-known as hash/pound and has been on keyboards and in use for decades. {{hash-tag}} seems more like a safe-wikitext template like {{asterisk}} rather than a "typing aid" template like {{left arrow}} or a possible unicode fix like {{section-sign}}. My thought is that if it's in the bottom of the source editor (i.e. all of the listed templates) and screen readers don't have issue with them, treat them as convenience templates and make them all subst-only single characters. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with making subst only single characters. Izno (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested at proposal to enhance Module:Excerpt

A proposal is under discussion to enhance transparency and navigability of Module:Excerpt. Your feedback would be appreciated at Module talk:Excerpt#Proposal: pre-load a helpful preview editintro notice on clicking 'edit' in hatnote. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is a discussion at Template talk:R from fictional character that may concern this WikiProject. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Map data

Is there any reason, technical or otherwise, that Wikipedia:Map data and its sub-pages are in the project namespace and not in the template one? Looking at a page like Wikipedia:Map data/10th Ward of New Orleans shows that it is transcluded in articles similar to other data templates. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Map data}} doesn't (currently) exist, so I would have no issue with moving the template family. Granted, I have no idea why it was created in the WP space and the creator is on another extended absence. Primefac (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed minor change to Module:Hatnote list

I proposed a minor change some months ago at Module talk:Hatnote list about how Module:Hatnote list handles "italicized" text with final punctuation. Module:Hatnote list is used by templates like {{About}}. No discussion happened when I posted it there, but I still think it should be implemented. Some eyes on it are appreciated. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is a move discussion at Template talk:NoteTag that may be of interest to this wikiproject. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Input requested about DEFAULTSORT

Hello. There is opposition to linking to {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word/template that I'm not understanding, at Help talk:Category#Wikilink to Template:DEFAULTSORT. If you have the time or interest to help explain things that would be appreciated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Template:R from deadname, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This discussion may lead to the creation of a new rcat template, so I’m notifying WP:WPTEMP in case any members of this WikiProject wish to join the discussion. (Apologies if this notification is unnecessary or inappropriate.) All the best, ^{— user:}A smart kitten_meow 18:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Template not working

If you go to my userpage and you click on the first DYK and fourth GA icon, they dont work but the others do. Why is that? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Addressed. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wingwatchers, thank you for working on DYK and good articles. I'm glad that your issue got addressed at Help talk:Template#Template not working. In the future, please avoid making multiple copies of the same post on different pages, which leads to WP:TALKFORK. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Bug in Module:Infobox

Please join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox § Bug with Template:Plainlist. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Interlanguage link, red links display

The usual Template:Ill for David Alpert looks like this: David J. Alpert ({{ill|David J. Alpert|de|David Alpert}}) but would it be possible to add an extra argument to the template so that no red link appears for the English Wikipedia link. Something like {{ill|David J. Alpert|de|David Alpert|redlink=none}} so that it looks kind of like "David J. Alpert ." (without the period). I came up with this need after a debate we are having at WP:WikiProject Physics. ReyHahn (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

First, this isn't the place to discuss the matter (the template talk is that place). Second, it has been often-debated, and the consensus has always been to show the redlink. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Posted at Template talk:Ill.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Templates pages

The discussion about modules made me realize that there is no Category:WikiProject Templates pages to add to the watchlist, if one wants to track what's going on with templates/modules "used in maintaining or documenting other templates". Should such a category be created? Is anyone else interested in it? —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Review a novice's draft

• Template: User:BillHPike/children's book
• Docpage: User:BillHPike/children's book/doc

I'm creating a template to tag potentially unreliable citations to children's books. This is my first time creating an inline cleanup template and I want to avoid introducing any serious issues into article space.

Could an experienced template editor review my draft templates? (feel free to directly edit the drafts in my userspace) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Introducing serious issues, no. However, I do not think this is a particularly useful template; an unreliable source is an unreliable source, regardless of what type. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see this getting widespread use. Primefac (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree that there's no real reason for this. Mathglot (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

About ~180 articles cite Osprey Publishing's Essential History series. My thought was that this template would be a good way to highlight these citations. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing the sentences being cited and/or removing the citation and tagging for {{citation needed}} does the work as well. Izno (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the problem with those citations? The books come from a reputable publisher (isn't it? It's an imprint of Bloomsbury) so presumably they don't publish rubbish. The blurb about the "Essential History" series describes them as "an important reference resource for students, teachers, academics, history enthusiasts and hobbyists.", so why not cite them? PamD 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox § How can I use the English Wikipedia "infobox template" for another Wikipedia project (in the Incubator)?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox § How can I use the English Wikipedia "infobox template" for another Wikipedia project (in the Incubator)?. Anaxicrates (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Add game info to 10TeamBracket template

Is there a way to add text on top of box scores in Template:10TeamBracket, like you can do on Template:12TeamBracket-Info? The latter lets you enter the line "RD1-text1 = Text", which will display the desired text above the corresponding box score. This is typically used to add the date and venue of individual games, which I'd like to do. Thanks in advance. Redacwiki (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Module namespace?

I just noticed that {{WikiProject Templates}} says This template should only be transcluded in the Wikipedia talk, Help talk, or Category talk namespace(s).

Is there a reason not to tag Module talk pages with this? --Joy (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Because all modules and all templates are implicitly covered by the WikiProject. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks and unlinked text in navboxes.

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#Problem with redlinks per WP:EXISTING. --woodensuperman 13:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Footballdatabase.eu

Since Footballdatabase is not considered a reliable source by the community (user-generated), I'm requesting the deletion of this template. Thank you. Frenchl (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)